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
• 
>…anytime the President is “out of place” the
>Vice President makes decisions, especially
>during a crisis.
Um, no. The Vice-President is *not* in the chain of command. S/he has three duties; to preside over the Senate, to break ties in the Senate, and to take over for the President, either temporarily or permanently, if the President is incapacitated. Incapacitated does *not* include “unable to come to the phone right now”; if the President is not actually killed, either the President must sign over their position [again, either temporarily, such as when one President [I’m thinking Reagan, but am not sure] underwent surgery for about 8 hours, or permanently] or the Cabinet must vote to declare the President unable to hold office (again, either temporarily or permanently).
Now, I don’t doubt that in the current adminstration, Chaney has a *lot* of power. And Gore had a surprising amount in the Clinton administration. But these are very much the exceptions. Ever hear the Tom Lehrer song “Whatever Happened to Hubert?” about how previously prominent politician Hubert Humphrey basically vanished when he became Johnson’s Veep? Truman didn’t even know about the project to develop the atomic bomb until FDR’s death. Etc.
Ever hear the Tom Lehrer song “Whatever Happened to Hubert?”
“Second fiddle’s a hard part, I know
When they don’t even give you a bow…”
TWL
A few points of interest:
1. A comprehensive list of Bill Clinton’s anti-terrorism activities can be found here. Needless to say, it’s a helluva lot more than what Bush has been doing before — or after — 9/11.
2. Folks who say Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a documentary because it isn’t objective are in error — documentaries are all about supporting a particular view, and every documentary ever produced has an opinion of some sort. See Roger Ebert’s explaination here.
3. Folks who haven’t seen the film can see Bush’s “seven minutes of inactivity” here, which starts after Andrew Card tells George W. Bush, “A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.”
JW: And what exactly did Clinton do? He lobed a few cruise missles, but refused Bin Laden when he was virtually handed him on a silver platter (sp?) — and that was after the FIRST attack on the Twin Towers.
Luigi Novi: Can you elaborate on this point?
———————————
I think he’s probably talking about Sean Hannitys claim that the government of Sudan offered to turn Osama Bin Laden over to the US around ’95ish.
Of course, like most things Sean Hannity says, its complete BS. The offer came from a man that national security adviser Sandy Berger determined was an unreliable freelancer. The kind of which the US does not do official business.
When the Sudan government was contacted, no such offer existed.
People like to call this film propaganda, but at worst, its counter propaganda. A necessary evil in which tofight the hate monger Hannitys, Limbaughs and Coulters.
Kingbobb: Yet national security was of so low a profile to our sitting President that, after hearing that a fully loaded jetliner had crashed into the World Trade Center
Let’s remember that Bush was told of the first plane hitting the WTC when he first reached the elementary school photo-op. According to Bush personal assistant Blake Gottesman, Andrew Card told Bush, “By the way, an aircraft flew into the World Trade Center” (see Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon). When Bush was walking into the classroom, he already knew that an unprecedented incident was occurring in NYC.
And Andrew Card’s words to Bush when the second plane hit were, “A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.” This has been corroborated in numerous news reports.
And personally, anyone who hears that two airplanes hitting both towers of the WTC and doesn’t conclude there’s an enemy action involved has to be denser than lead.
I must disagree. We have not ignored Bin Laden. It is a valid question whether we could have done more to get Bin Laden. But I am certain Bush has a strong desire to get Bin Laden.
The Bush Administration said, about the time we targetted Saddam, that bin Laden was “no longer a priority”.
Then, in the last few months, they have presumably stepped up efforts again to get him. And the only reason such efforts have been stepped up again is because Bush could use it in the election.
All in all, the fact that we went after Saddam before getting bin Laden, when Saddam was not an immediate threat, shows that Bush doesn’t know what the hëll he’s doing.
“All in all, the fact that we went after Saddam before getting bin Laden, when Saddam was not an immediate threat, shows that Bush doesn’t know what the hëll he’s doing.”
Oh, Bush knows perfectly well what the hëll he’s doing… it just has nothing to do with the well-being of the nation, and everything to do with making him and his croneys rich(er).
Hi, Mitch, this is MindyP51. I didn’t take your comment as an insult at all. And I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THE SAD POLARIZATION OF THIS COUNTRY and the loss of unity that occurred so rapidly in the weeks after September 11th….of course, being a cynic, I wasn’t surprised by it at all…Americans are NOTORIOUS for their short attention span and I applaud Michael Moore for being the gadfly this country needed to start paying more attention for a longer period than your average TV commercial. Well, hopefull, anyway! 🙂
BTW, Mitch, I loved Moore’s THE AWFUL TRUTH, and I found his book, STUPID WHITE MEN, to be very interesting. I just don’t think the situation(s) portrayed in FARENHEIT 9/11 is(are) as black and white as he has portrayed them.
John Kerry is on Larry King right now (along with Mrs. Kerry), so it’s a good chance to hear him. (It’s 9:33 P.M., July 8, here in the NYC area.)
No worries, mate!!!
Best,
Mindy
By the way, I know Election Day is November 2nd…I didn’t even realize I wrote November 11th until my husband (John Higgins, for you comics geeks out there 🙂 ) pointed it out to me.
So get and vote on November 2nd, everyone!
And Novembe 11th, I believe, is Veteran’s Day.
Mindy
James Lileks slaps Moore silly:
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0704/070804.html
Good for a chuckle, though you hardcore Moorephiles should give it a skip.
Interesting link, Bill; thanks. I’ve not seen F9/11 yet (nor any Moore film to date, actually, due more to lack of time than lack of interest), so I’m hardly a hardcore Moorephile. Lileks, however, seems entirely too smug by half for my tastes. The fact that international poll after international poll shows American standing abroad completely and utterly in the çráppër (positives – negatives only reaching positive numbers in about 5-15% of countries surveyed) is, according to Lileks, the fault of the French.
Right.
Again, I’m actually fairly willing to believe that Moore can way overstate his case and shoot himself in the foot in the process: lots of polemicists do that, on any side of any issue you’d care to name.
So far as I can tell, though, Lileks is in that same boat sittin’ right next to him and poking holes in the bottom.
TWL
In a related vein…
Just when you thought George W. Bush can’t get more manipulative, it’s now revealed that he’s pressuring the Pakistanis to find or kill Osama Bin Laden and other top Al Qaeda members in time to disrupt the Democratic National Convention later this month:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040719&s=aaj071904
That’s right, folks — forget national security, forget apprehending the folks responsible for the 9/11 attacks, all Bush cares about is making a big news splash that’ll soak his political opponents…
Robert, I heard that news about the Pakistanis being pressured last night on CNN during a break at work. What I found utterly amazing is that it’s only been a few months since a top Iranian official claimed that the US already has bin Laden and is simply waiting to announce his “capture” until mid-to-late October, and apparently, this revelation about Pakistan being pressured seemed to come as something of a shock by the CNN newscaster.
Of course, administration officials are denying this report about Pakistan, just as they denied the Iranian claim. (I just hope that if bin Laden is captured before Election Day, that the media and the public will demand an investigation into the timing of the capture. It’s really hard to imagine that someone who requires dialysis treatment can successfully elude capture for nearly 3 years yet could be captured within the next 3 months without there being some chicanery involved.)
Tim,
Lileks is worth reading–give him a try for a few weeks to get used to the “voice”, if you will. I find him entertaining even when I disagree with him.
Robert:
Interesting article…but since it relies strictly on sources that “insisted on remaining anonymous” how are we to judge its worth? At least the claims that Sudan tried to hand over Bin Laden to Clinton have actual real names involved–doesn’t make them TRUE but at least one can evaluate them with SOME level of reality.
Joseph
“Of course, administration officials are denying this report about Pakistan, just as they denied the Iranian claim.”
You do realize that at least ONE of these claims has to be 100% untrue, right? I mean, one says that we are pressuring the Pakistanis to capture Bin Laden and the other says that we have ALREADY captured Bin Laden.
So if Bin Laden is captured…Ha! It was a Bush dirty trick! If Bin Laden isn’t captured…Ha! Bush dropped the ball on the war with terror! The Democrats have managed to Calvinball the game so that ANY eventuality will be proof of their worldview. Not bad.
Speaking of Iraq, has anyone else seen the CNN article about one of Saddam Hussein’s lawyers making an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on his behalf?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/09/saddam.lawyer.ap/index.html
While I agree that everyone, even Saddam Hussein, should get a fair trial, I find one of the statement’s his lawyer made puzzling. He said actions the U.S. government has taken are a violation of Hussein’s fifth amendment rights.
Um… did I miss the big announcement that Saddam Hussein was a U.S citizen, and thus protected by the United States Constitution? No? I didn’t think so. He doesn’t HAVE any fifth amendment rights. What’s more, his trial won’t be in a U.S. courtroom, but in either an Iraqi courtroom or before the war crimes tribunal at the Hague (or both). Whatever rights he has would apply to the laws of Iraq and/or the Hague.
Rick
I’d say that no one of voting age “should” see this movie.
For šhìŧ’s sake, this film’s creator has a justified reputation for being disingenuous.
Bias or no bias the films and books in the past have made false presentations and distorted and even muddied his supposed evidence.
Given his own behavior regarding the marketing of the film and his “rebuttals” of responses to “Bowling For Columbine” I have no reason to assume that this film will have anything of worth to me (regardless of how I may or may not enjoy the movie).
Why should a liar be countenanced because his effects “bring up thought” or “make us think”? I don’t care for the answer. I don’t care how people answer or what words they use to answer.
Why must I be required to see a film to combat its points or its effects? Why must I contribute to this rich jerk’s already-heavy purse simple to gain credibility in whatever argument?
It is incredibly, amazingly, uncannily STUPID that I have to pay $7.50 or more, plus spend two hours in order to earn credibility for/in my dissension? Why must I contribute to the wealth of this man whom I do not agree with or respect in order to combat the man’s opinions? Given that Christopher Hitchens and others have sketched out and listed several relevant details from the piece there is no reason that I have to pay precious money or spend precious time to listen to Moore’s voice describing the exact same notions, just to earn the supposed right to have my opinions and ideas appreciated by some of the people ANYWHERE (but including here) who happen to either agree with Moore or just happen to think the movie should be discussed.
To be honest, it’s an awful forum where knowledge is valueless in the face of experience, if the contents and fruits of both knowledge gained second-hand and first-hand is identical.
I discourage anyone and everyone of voting age to contribute to Michael Moore’s ever-growing financial wealth if they can get the same so-called benefits from another source entirely.
I’m not encouraging a boycott. I’m discouraging the disparagement of interested parties who haven’t invested and aren’t willing to invest just to play an odd game of political theory.
I’m against the promotion of the film as a kind of “must-see”. I’m certainly in favor of people going to see the film if they want to.
CJA
Why should a liar be countenanced because his effects “bring up thought” or “make us think”?
I don’t know — why IS Bush in office?
TWL (and don’t forget to tip your server…)
Just when you thought George W. Bush can’t get more manipulative, it’s now revealed that he’s pressuring the Pakistanis to find or kill Osama Bin Laden and other top Al Qaeda members in time to disrupt the Democratic National Convention later this month:
The US Government is trying to kill bin Laden? Those dirty bášŧárdš. When did we make that a policy objective?
BTW, is anyone else having trouble getting the “preview” feature to work?
I think a better question is whether anyone has actually GOTTEN said “preview” feature to work at this point. I haven’t had any luck since the switch to TypeKey.
I figure Glenn’s got his hands full at the moment, but maybe sometime he can see what’s up with it.
TWL
Yeah, the Preview doesn’t work for me either, Tim.
Um, Bill, it would definitely behoove you to read a bit more carefully. The Pakistani claim that the Administration is denying is that Pakistan is being pressured to find bin Laden *OR* some top al-Qaeda official(s). The Iranians claimed that bin Laden was already in US custody.
Both claims can be true. The Pakistanis would not necessarily have been told that bin Laden is in US custody. If the Iranian claim is true, that doesn’t make the Pakistani claim “100% untrue”. Likewise, if the Pakistani claim is true, that doesn’t make the Iranian claim “100% untrue”.
Joseph says:
“The Pakistani claim that the Administration is denying is that Pakistan is being pressured to find bin Laden *OR* some top al-Qaeda official(s).”
Granted. However, it makes little sense to believe that the administration is putting undue pressure on Pakistan to find anyone other than Bin Laden since that is the only one who could possibly sway the election. I’d say about 25 of the public could name any of the top 10 leaders of AL-Qaeda other than Bin Laden and maybe, maybe that Mullah Omar guy. Capturing someone like Zarqawi would possibly be a greater catch than Bin Laden but it would not register as a blip on the electorate.
At any rate, since when have the Iranians and Pakistani anonymous sources been altogether great sources of the truth? They probably also have a few first edition copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion you could buy.
“I don’t know — why IS Bush in office?”
It wasn’t through my godlike power of precognition but through my experience which told me that somebody would go that route and say almost those exact words. For goodness’ sake, in the past you’ve leaned so far left I’m surprised you haven’t fallen over.
Although really… you apparently haven’t noticed that whatever the President says and does, regardless of truth or audience, he’s not doing it to merely incite “discussion” or make us talk. Writing those words I never really thought they were referring to the President or could reasonably be used to allude to any President but I was certain that someone with selective reason would try to filter it that way.
No one ever said that a President was approved because he made us think.
As for why the current President is in office. Someone decided almost four years ago that according to the present set of rules and standards, the then-Governor of Texas had recieved the proper amount of votes in the certain specific places which indicated his role for the four years afterwards.
and ultimately, if the people in this country didn’t agree that he was well and properly elected, they should have started a violent uprising, for as any Machiavellian will tell you, if the general population doesn’t rise up against it, they either approve it, support it, or don’t give a dámņ. He’s President. Breathe.
dámņ. I was dragged off-topic. I don’t feel bad.
I can’t be cast as an irresponsible citizen because I didn’t pay a tax to Ralph Nader’s former favorite supporter. and a hearty “To heck/hëll/hades with you” to those who insist otherwise.
I’m not tipping any server that won’t let my sign in the first time, let alone the second time I tried with Typepad. what’s up with this thing?
CJA
It wasn’t through my godlike power of precognition but through my experience which told me that somebody would go that route and say almost those exact words.
When you open a door that wide and inviting, you can’t exactly object when someone decides to stroll through. (And I’m well aware that you didn’t lodge such an objection — it’s just the word that fit best there. So please don’t jump on that one.)
For goodness’ sake, in the past you’ve leaned so far left I’m surprised you haven’t fallen over.
Given the number of friends I have who make me look like Ayn Rand, and that I’m not even the furthest left of people here, I’m forced to conclude you don’t really know me all that well. Of course, you probably think anyone to the left of Cheney is a Marxist.
Then again, at least I sign my real name to my posts and stand by my words, unlike some pissants I could name.
Although really… you apparently haven’t noticed that whatever the President says and does, regardless of truth or audience, he’s not doing it to merely incite “discussion” or make us talk.
That I’ll readily grant, and I knew my response was a one-liner reach in the first place. This president in particular seems much more interested in squelching discussion and making us shut up.
And given that at this point they’re being surprisingly cavalier about even guaranteeing an election will HAPPEN at this point [source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040708-15.html , towards the bottom], all the evidence suggests that said interest will continue to grow.
and ultimately, if the people in this country didn’t agree that he was well and properly elected, they should have started a violent uprising, for as any Machiavellian will tell you, if the general population doesn’t rise up against it, they either approve it, support it, or don’t give a dámņ.
1) I didn’t bring up the 2000 election. You did.
2) Violent uprisings seem to be much more of a far-right action (e.g. militia groups) than the actions of the left. If nothing else, that side of the aisle certainly seems to be much better armed.
And do have a nice day.
TWL
Tim says:
“And given that at this point they’re being surprisingly cavalier about even guaranteeing an election will HAPPEN at this point [source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040708-15.html , towards the bottom], all the evidence suggests that said interest will continue to grow”
Now that you’ve given the already paranoid leftists who read this a case of hives, let me point out that what this references is the question posed by a reporter on what might happen were there a terrorist attack on election day.
Which poses an interesting question: What SHOULD we do if, and this is a major God Forbid here, a massive, crippling, terrible attack or series of attacks is launched the day before election day. Something on the order of truckloads of anthrax spores exploding in a dozen major cities, or 500 suicide bombers detonating themselves at 12 noon in fast-food establishments…the kind of thing that would make people stay home.
Does the election go forth?
To my mind, I say yes, but one might argue that it’s easy for me to say that since the people most likely to stay home would be inner city folks, as opposed to the more conservative suburban areas.
So Bush could postpone the elections–and get tarred as “Dictator Monkeyman” by his always sympathetic opposition, or go ahead with the elections and be accused of using terrorism to win the vote.
Either way, the opportunity to really screw with us just seems too good an opportunity for the bad guys to pass up. Hope I’m wrong.
Bill says,
Now that you’ve given the already paranoid leftists who read this a case of hives, let me point out that what this references is the question posed by a reporter on what might happen were there a terrorist attack on election day.
…as was obvious from the context for those who read said reference.
What’s also clear from the context is that the reporter was looking for a commitment that the election would go forward. Said commitment was not forthcoming. This is not something I consider heartening.
Your hypothetical is interesting, however:
Which poses an interesting question: What SHOULD we do if, and this is a major God Forbid here, a massive, crippling, terrible attack or series of attacks is launched the day before election day.
If it were possible, I’d almost say something like: yes, in those areas not directly affected. Directly affected areas would have a postponement that’s as brief as humanly possible, and no results of any form would be made public until all sectors had voted.
I doubt that would really be possible (especially the last clause), but it seems the best of a bad lot of choices to me.
If that’s not an option, then I say yes, and use whatever infrastructure you have available to ensure that people get to the polls and can feel relatively safe in doing so. (Or, to get really out there, postpone the election but have Kerry and Bush sharing equal power until said election is held. That would substantially reduce the number of accusations that they were trying to run out the clock.
Me, I’m voting absentee, for several reasons (convenience being one of them, given the distance between the polling place and where I work), and would urge everyone to do the same. One cannot disrupt what’s already happened.
Either way, the opportunity to really screw with us just seems too good an opportunity for the bad guys to pass up. Hope I’m wrong.
I hope so too.
Of course, one could hypothesize that repeated nonspecific warnings from Tom Ridge about “planned attacks to disrupt the democratic process” might even have the effect of keeping the people most likely to stay home from going to the polls out of fear — which, as you say, probably skews in the GOP’s favor. One might observe that this would serve the administration’s electoral purposes without all that messiness of actual loss of life.
But then, I suppose, one would have to be a “paranoid leftist” to do that.
TWL
Tim
I find it a little ironic that you find it disheartening that the administration would not guarantee that election would go forth in the event of a terrorist attack when your own best solution does not guarantee that the election would go forth, at least for everybody.
“Of course, one could hypothesize that repeated nonspecific warnings from Tom Ridge about “planned attacks to disrupt the democratic process” might even have the effect of keeping the people most likely to stay home from going to the polls out of fear — which, as you say, probably skews in the GOP’s favor. One might observe that this would serve the administration’s electoral purposes without all that messiness of actual loss of life.
But then, I suppose, one would have to be a “paranoid leftist” to do that.”
Well, considering that it has become dogma to many on the left that Bush should have known about 9/11 because of that memo that said (you’d all best be seated now) “Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.,” (presumably this was from the CIA’s crack “Duh” division) one can hardly blame Ridge for erring on the side of caution. If there is another attack and it comes out that there was any–ANY–reason to suspect it might happen, Ridge will be roasted by many of the same folks who castigate him as Chicken Little.
Seriously, I read a few commentaries from people who claimed that we should have known what would happen because there were Arabs taking flying lessons but not paying attention during the landing sequence parts. Good God…talk about back seat prognosticating. Everyone’s Nostradamas the day after.
Ridge is in a can’t win position–if it happens nobody will thank him for the warnings–they’ll be busy criticizing his inability to stop it. If it doesn’t happen, he will be criticized for trying to scare people.
re your suggestions
The first is fine but, as you say, unworkable. You won’t be able to prevent exit polls and short of suppressing freedom of speech, the results will get out. If the affected areas could possibly have an effect on the election we will have both parties acting like animals to get out the vote, while the National Guard would be trying to keep order…a nightmare.
Bush and Kerry sharing power is unlikely–you can only have 1 commander in chief. At any rate, Bush is president through November and December anyway, so that gives 2 months to get the vote completed, with no power sharing required.
But I think we are thinking too big here. I doubt that they can actually pull off destroying the election but they can create an atmosphere where people have to go through metal detectors and provide ID to vote, which will provide grist for those who lose to complain “We was robbed!” In a close election this sort of manipulation will at the very least ensure that the president, whoever they may be, will enter under a cloud.
Bill,
I find it a little ironic that you find it disheartening that the administration would not guarantee that election would go forth in the event of a terrorist attack when your own best solution does not guarantee that the election would go forth, at least for everybody.
I don’t. My “best solution” has within it the possibility that the election may not quite go forward on time, but the process would clearly be moving forward. McClellan gives no indication that the election would go forward at all under those circumstances.
Let’s keep in mind that none other than Gen. Tommy Franks (who had a substantial role in the Iraq war and is generally well respected on both sides of the aisle) has gone on the record predicting that another strike inside the U.S. would result in a suspension of the Constitution and an imposition of something akin to martial law. He wasn’t happy about it, and neither am I.
And while you’re right that Ridge’s announcements could simply be nothing more than a giant CYA, and that such is even reasonably likely, I have serious doubts that the political office inside the WH isn’t well aware of every word that’s being said and planning those words carefully.
Various pundits on the right have already said that a vote for Kerry is “letting the terrorists win”, or words to that effect. Using that interpretation, it’s not much of a stretch to take Ridge’s warnings as a quiet “don’t let Kerry win.” Given how little interest this administration seems to have in playing fair (domestically or internationally), I don’t think it’s especially fair to expect me to always have the most charitable interpretation of a given action.
Bush and Kerry sharing power is unlikely–you can only have 1 commander in chief.
We’ve never tried, nor have we ever had circumstances such as the ones you’re hypothesizing.
But I think we are thinking too big here. I doubt that they can actually pull off destroying the election but they can create an atmosphere where people have to go through metal detectors and provide ID to vote, which will provide grist for those who lose to complain “We was robbed!” In a close election this sort of manipulation will at the very least ensure that the president, whoever they may be, will enter under a cloud.
Oh, I think it’s worse than that. Under those circumstances, I don’t think half the electorate will accept the outcome — and I think that would lead to some sort of armed conflict. A clear result one way or another would probably prevent that from happening for a while, but one more murky election and I think the political system is going to break down entirely.
I hope to hëll that (a) that prediction doesn’t have to be tested, and that (b) it turns out to be wrong if it is tested.
TWL
Tim Lynch: Then again, at least I sign my real name to my posts and stand by my words, unlike some pissants I could name.
Luigi Novi: Well, I’m not sure if there’s a specific person or connotation you’re going for here, but personally, I support anonymity for people who choose to participate in internet debates, even when they enter the realm of heated disagreement, so long as it’s maintained in a mostly sincere and good-faith manner regarding the poster’s beliefs and opinions regarding the issues, and effort is maintained to refrain from gratuitous flaming. Me, I use my real name when I post here or at http://www.nitcentral.com, but when I post on the boards at the Internet Movie Database, I use an alias because those boards tend to be less closely monitored, and feature a greater population of unenlightened children who haven
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040711/ts_nm/politics_election_terror_dc_2
See also:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek
Doubtlessly this will be seen by some on the far left as mere subterfuge to allow “another coup”. The talk of Bush somehow preventing the election is EXACTLY the same kind of talk that one was hearing from the far right Clinton haters back in 2000. They looked silly then and their soulmates on the left look silly now.
Of course, should something happen and it turn out that nobody had planned for the eventuality, the Bush team would be accused of a “lack of imagination” etc etc.
Hey, has the site been wonky for the last day? I haven’t been able to post since yesterday afternoon, forcing me to go to my alternate form of entertainment, calling up random homes and asking if they have Dinty Moore in a can.
On aliases and “anonymity”. Luigi:
Well, I’m not sure if there’s a specific person or connotation you’re going for here,
Look at who I was responding to. That should help.
but personally, I support anonymity for people who choose to participate in internet debates, even when they enter the realm of heated disagreement, so long as it’s maintained in a mostly sincere and good-faith manner regarding the poster’s beliefs and opinions regarding the issues, and effort is maintained to refrain from gratuitous flaming.
That is, of course, a reasonable position. I’d like to think mine is as well, though, and it differs from yours somewhat.
I’m a strong supporter of anonymity in those cases where it’s necessary — discussion fora on things like abuse recovery, for example, or a certain level of anonymity to provide protection for whistle-blowers. In those cases, anonymity provides a clear and present benefit.
Other than that — no. I’d never propose that people not have the right to use such anonymity, but fifteen years of experience online has taught me that being able to lob stinkbombs into the middle of a room anonymously makes it far more likely that said stinkbombs will actually be used. (And I say that as someone who actually got a phone call while at work from Richard Arnold years ago wanting to dispute something I’d said online, so I’m well aware of the drawbacks of having one’s name out in public.)
I take what I write seriously and I take my points of view seriously. If I expect others to do the same, I think that merits attaching a real name to them, not a pseudonym.
You’re right, of course, that what’s really beyond the pale is to adopt several pseudonyms and use them in a deceptive manner — but if people are using their real names anyway, the impetus to pull that kind of deception is lessened.
If Blue Spider chooses to use pseudonym, I see nothing wrong with it. I mean, what difference does it make? Sure, he could sign his posts
On the “delaying elections” question. Bill writes:
Doubtlessly this will be seen by some on the far left as mere subterfuge to allow “another coup”. The talk of Bush somehow preventing the election is EXACTLY the same kind of talk that one was hearing from the far right Clinton haters back in 2000. They looked silly then and their soulmates on the left look silly now.
I was going to include a fairly biting note here about the condescending pat-on-the-head tone you’re taking here, Bill. However, since on the whole I think you’re a fairly reasonable person I’ll set it aside. This time. As a rule, though, I really don’t do well with being condescended to and never have.
The difference between the anti-Clinton statements in 2000 and the anti-Bush statements now is that the Bush administration actually is talking about delaying the election. Clinton, so far as memory serves, never brought any such thing up, nor did anyone in his administration. If I’m wrong, I’m sure someone will pop in with evidence to that effect shortly.
Let’s look at this historically. Even at the height of the Civil War, elections were held on time. Even at the peak of Vietnam and the unrest it sparked in the US (the closest we’ve come to a civil war since 1865, IMO … at least until now), elections were held on time. National elections have, to the best of my memory, never been postponed in the US. (The only election I can think of that was postponed at all was the NYC mayoral election on 9/11 itself, and I think everyone sees that as justified.)
What’s more, the analogy being used is flawed. The officials discussing this keep drawing parallels to Spain, saying that the Madrid bombings have made them more aware that something might need to be done.
But the Madrid bombings did not delay the elections in Spain, and the bombings took place in the capital a mere three days before said elections.
What the Madrid bombings may have done is influence the outcome, but that’s democracy.
So is Spain really a good model to use here for a reason to change a fundamental right of the American people? Or is the fact that the incumbent in Spain was ousted reason enough that the elections need to be delayed?
Remember, one of the Bush team’s campaign themes has been that we shouldn’t change horses in midstream, which when combined with the fact that several officials have said the “war on terror” will take decades leads to some deeply unsettling conclusions.
So while the tone here may sound as silly to you as the anti-Clinton rhetoric in 2000, the substance is rather significantly different. As writer Teresa Nielsen Hayden wrote recently, “I deeply resent the way this administration makes me feel like a nutbar conspiracy theorist.” (In the interest of giving credit where it’s due, I first saw this quote on Lis Riba’s blog when a friend linked to it.)
Of course, should something happen and it turn out that nobody had planned for the eventuality, the Bush team would be accused of a “lack of imagination” etc etc.
But “planning for the eventuality” should mean very public statements that (a) elections will go forward on time unless it’s absolutely impossible to do so, and (b) any delays would be as short as humanly possible. Those statements have not occurred.
Quick question, Bill, since you seem to think expressing many concerns makes one “look silly”: are there any circumstances under which you’d think the Bush administration is NOT doing a good job? And what exactly would a group in power — any group, on either side of the aisle — have to do in order to make you think they ARE subverting the Constitution?
TWL
The big point to be considered is not whether we should have a plan in place in case of an attack, it’s the fact that the ONLY plan the Bush Admin has in mind is, if we get attacked, delay the election.
I’ll be honest – I’m dámņëd surprised we haven’t been attacked again since 9/11. Hëll, I was convinced we would be.
But that wouldn’t keep me from voting should an attack occur just before the election.
Tim,
I’m sorry if I came across as condescending toward you. Despite our profound political differences I have the utmost respect for your intelligence. I make it a rule not to assume mental superiority toward anyone who teaches physics.
Do keep in mind though that when I say “some on the left” I don’t automatically mean you. I read a wide variety of political blogs and such, right and left. There are those who are convinced that Bush will do anything, including assassination, military coup, whatever, to stay in office. They are the liberal twins of the folks who said much the same about Clinton.
Can’t think of anything Clinton did to bring that thought on…but since I thought that the speculation was f****** goofy I wasn’t paying much attention.
Here’s my point–yes, the Bush people are talking about potential scenarios. They should. Lest we forget, a New York City election was scheduled for September 11 or 12, I believe. It was delayed, the wise thing to do most agreed at the time. This was possible because there was a law in place.
There is no such law in place for a federal election. For that matter, what would happen if the Congress was wiped out in one massive attack? Nobody seems to be sure. We live in a world where a city can vanish into thermic mist in seconds but we have put little thought into questions of succession.
I’m not talking about you, Tim, but some–SOME–of the anti Bush crowd would no doubt regard any such thinking or planning as proof that Bush was planning on killing the congress and having them all replaced with Republicans appointed by his oil money friends so they can build a pipeline blah blah blah, the usual.
It’s a difficult position–we do need a plan but at the same time, publicizing it may invite trouble. And no matter what is done, there will be sniping from critics.
I have to say though, were it John Kerry or even Bill Clinton now dealing with these questions, I sure hope that I would be less willing to indulge in what I have to regard as wild speculation than you are. However I also recognize that your dislike and mistrust of Bush vastly outweighs anything I’ve felt toward any politician so this is, perhaps, unsurprising.
“But “planning for the eventuality” should mean very public statements that (a) elections will go forward on time unless it’s absolutely impossible to do so, and (b) any delays would be as short as humanly possible. Those statements have not occurred.”
Agreed. This is a relatively new story so I’m not surprised if the spokesman had little in the way of specifics. At any rate, won’t this take some kind of congressional action? I suspect this story will get more play in the weeks ahead (or it will be swept under the rug while we all just cross our fingers and wish the bad guys away).
“Quick question, Bill, since you seem to think expressing many concerns makes one “look silly”: are there any circumstances under which you’d think the Bush administration is NOT doing a good job?
Craig says:
“The big point to be considered is not whether we should have a plan in place in case of an attack, it’s the fact that the ONLY plan the Bush Admin has in mind is, if we get attacked, delay the election.”
I don’t know that there is ANY plan yet. Sounds to me like this is in the very early stages of planning, if that. (this should have been addressed WAY before now). At any rate, other than delay, what else can be done? We either have the elction or delay it and only the delay needs much planning.
I suppose they could plan for National Guardsman at every polling place, which would probably result in claims of intimidation.
You’re not the only one “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).
BTW, Craig, Tim, everybody, go to http://jibjab.com/thisland.html
If it’s busy keep trying. Worth it.
Bill,
I’m sorry if I came across as condescending toward you. Despite our profound political differences I have the utmost respect for your intelligence. I make it a rule not to assume mental superiority toward anyone who teaches physics.
Much appreciated.
Do keep in mind though that when I say “some on the left” I don’t automatically mean you.
I’m aware of that. In this case, since I’m the one who brought up the “delaying the election” scenario, I assumed I was being included in that category. I don’t generally assume I’m being targeted by every statement, no. 🙂
Here’s my point–yes, the Bush people are talking about potential scenarios. They should. Lest we forget, a New York City election was scheduled for September 11 or 12, I believe. It was delayed, the wise thing to do most agreed at the time.
True, as I’ve already mentioned. It wasn’t just scheduled — it was already in progress when the WTC was hit.
My point, which Craig has already echoed, is that they’re not saying something like “if another attack were to take place, we need to figure out how the election would work.” They’re saying outright that they’re looking for legal mechanisms to justify delaying the election. That is too quick a jump and too broad a statement.
This was possible because there was a law in place.
There is no such law in place for a federal election. For that matter, what would happen if the Congress was wiped out in one massive attack? Nobody seems to be sure. We live in a world where a city can vanish into thermic mist in seconds but we have put little thought into questions of succession.
First, I don’t think I agree that “little thought” has been put into it — I’ve seen various discussions about ways to ensure continuity of government in the event of such a disaster.
Second … to be blunt, if DC “vanishes into a thermic mist”, the continuity of government is not going to be my primary concern — or, I suspect, the country’s. (Among other things, almost all of my wife’s family lives in and around DC.)
I have to say though, were it John Kerry or even Bill Clinton now dealing with these questions, I sure hope that I would be less willing to indulge in what I have to regard as wild speculation than you are.
You are welcome to regard it as wild speculation. Obviously, I don’t consider it such.
And consider the statements we’ve had over the last three years, such as:
“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.”
— G. W. Bush, 12/18/00
[I’ll grant that this one may have been in jest.]
“The nice thing about being president is that I don’t have to explain myself to anyone.”
— Bush, to Bob Woodward
Authority to set aside laws is “inherent in the President.”
— administration lawyers in a 2003 memo on torture, as quoted by everyone up to and including that leftist rag the Wall Street Journal
“George Bush was not elected by a majority of the voters in the US. He was appointed by God.”
— Gen. William Boykin, June 2003
‘God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.'”
— Bush to the Palestinians, June 2003
Even leaving out the myriad ways in which Bush and I would differ on the issues (such as the always-good-for-a-laugh creationism debate), those statements form a very worrying picture.
If Clinton administration officials or Kerry administration officials projected the same contempt for accountability and mistrust of transparency, then honestly I hope you would engage in such “wild speculation.” The statement “eternal vigilance is the price of freedom” is occasionally misused, but it’s also CORRECT more often than not — and I think the public’s willingness to say “gee, these guys are in charge, so they must be right” is a slap in the face to anyone who thinks our freedom means a dámņ.
Forget cultural issues. Forget our stature abroad. There is a very basic issue of accountability at issue here, and I think the people currently running the country have even less respect for said accountability than did the Nixon administration. That alone would be enough to swing my vote, even were it not for the eight gazillion other reasons I’d like to see Bush out of power.
Since you clearly don’t have the same mistrust of the administration, that either means (a) you disagree that transparency and accountability matter, or (b) you don’t think this administration has been in favor of secrecy and against accountability. I’m honestly curious as to which category you’d put yourself in.
“Quick question, Bill, since you seem to think expressing many concerns makes one “look silly”: are there any circumstances under which you’d think the Bush administration is NOT doing a good job?
Cute animation, Bill. Thanks.
TWL
“Let’s get more specific. One of the big examples of same brought up in constitutional-law discussions is Watergate. Was that an example of subverting the Constitution?”
I’d be pretty surprised if it were not considered so.
I have a pretty high standard on the “high crimes and misdemeanors” part of the impeachment process. Folks who thought that Bill Clinton should not have been impeached because he committed no high crime usually skipped over the misdemeanor part, or had some tortured logic about “high misdemeanors”…if such things exist (isn’t a misdemeanor by definition NOT a serious crime, though a crime nonetheless?). However I would argue that his crimes were not really a subversion of the constitution.
With Nixon one could hardly argue the case. Even assuming he did not know of the break in, his efforts in the cover-up were more than enough. The abuse of power was obvious and worthy of the impeachment he escaped only by resigning (had Clinton done likewise Gore would be president today, for better or worse).
“Is tampering with an election such an example? Does it depend on the way in which the tampering is done?”
Any illegal tampering is subversion of the constitution, regardless of who does it. I’m rather surprised that neither party has really tried to expose some of the abuses that go on (perhaps neither is clean in that regard). I think that a Pulitzer awaits any intrepid reporter who gets the undercover scoop on some of the shenanigans (assuming some of the anecdotal evidence has any validity to it–a big assumption).
For anyone who believes the material in Fahrenheit 9/11 was accurate (or hëll, for those who think it inaccurate), this is a must-read: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
You know, the perfect way to come up with a viable solution to the danger of terrorist influenced elections might be to create a panel of former office holders headed by Clinton, Ford and Carter. That should placate those who see it as an attempt to do a legal coup and may even produce something useful.
You know,
I’m not too sure about this and I’m hoping someone can help out. I remember a magazine a few years ago called Comic Relief. In it, they had a cartoon called “President Bill” or something like that.
Well, the time came for re-elections and Bill lost. Right before he the inaugaration of the new President-Elect, Bill declared Martial Law to hold onto power. Now, all this talk is coming up about delaying elections….
Considering that I truly believe that GWB ONLY reads the comics section in any given newspaper or magazine and has the rest of it read TO him(saves on time to have it broken down, you know),this actually seems like a really werid coincidence.
For anyone who believes the material in Fahrenheit 9/11 was accurate (or hëll, for those who think it inaccurate), this is a must-read: “>http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
Have you actually read that list? It’s an embarassing collection of straw men and misguided conclusions for the most partt, and calling it the best attempt to discredit Moore is a laughable embarassment.
On the other hand, if you want something meatier to sink your teeth into, check this out — Michael Moore presents references and citations for every fact in Fahrenheit 9/11. Be warned, it’s a very extensive list…
Bill,
“Let’s get more specific. One of the big examples of same brought up in constitutional-law discussions is Watergate. Was that an example of subverting the Constitution?”
I’d be pretty surprised if it were not considered so.
Well, since you’re the one I’m asking to consider it, I’d be equally surprised were you not the one making the final call on that.
However I would argue that [Clinton’s] crimes were not really a subversion of the constitution.
How about Oliver North? Lying under oath to Congress about an issue which circumvented Congressional oversight seems possible to me.
“Is tampering with an election such an example? Does it depend on the way in which the tampering is done?”
Any illegal tampering is subversion of the constitution, regardless of who does it.
Glad we agree on that.
I kinda wish you’d answered some of the other stuff I’d written (at least the one or two things that were direct questions for you), but we’re so far downtopic that I suppose we’re boring the six people left reading this. Perhaps another time.
TWL
“I kinda wish you’d answered some of the other stuff I’d written (at least the one or two things that were direct questions for you)”
I’ll answer if I can, not sure which ones you mean. The one about do I “(A)-you disagree that transparency and accountability matter, or (B)- you don’t think this administration has been in favor of secrecy and against accountability.”?
The trick answer is, of course, (C)- the Treaty of Fenwick. Hey, I didn’t earn those triple digit SAT scores by sitting on my ášš.
Actually I think that this administration has been in favor of both secrecy and against any more accountability than they absolutely have to. In this they follow, IMHO, the fine tradition of EVERY SINGLE ADMINISTRATION BEFORE THEM. So it neither pleases not upsets me.
And we can degenerate into a contest of “who can google the worst stuff about the adminstration of our choice” but it will probably end up with an agreement to disagree.
I’ll answer if I can, not sure which ones you mean. The one about do I “(A)-you disagree that transparency and accountability matter, or (B)- you don’t think this administration has been in favor of secrecy and against accountability.”?
That’s the one. Thanks for the response; I think it’s perhaps the answer best showing where and why our worldviews are differing so strongly.
I wasn’t expecting you to address the quotes; your response is more than a bit distressing from where I sit, but I didn’t really expect otherwise.
Time will tell. It always does.
TWL
Well, being the cynical SOB that I am…
I actually don’t doubt the good intentions of the Bush team…it’s their execution that scares me. If it’s anything like their management of post-fall Iraq…aiii-yah.
A lot of posts. Discussion seems to have moved all over the map.
Eh, I’ll just comment on PAD’s comments re: F911, and the questions that he brings up. Or more specific, what Moore does NOT bring up.
I don’t expect to change PAD’s opinion. I never will. I’m just hopefully trying to bring a few facts to light so that hopefully PAD will see the bigger picture.
It’s a staggering piece of work. Even with the understanding that Moore is out to get Bush, nevertheless the most 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;
What about the disenfranchisement of those voters in the Central Time Zone in Florida. That’s an area that’s heavily Republican. And the announcement that Gore had “won” — before the polls had closed — very likely stopped those citizens from casting their votes for Bush.
Regarding the people who were tossed off the legitimate voters roll, that’s because an entire election had to be invalidated due to the fact that convicted felons were allowed to illegally vote. And not only that, DEAD people voted too! The changes were in response to that situation. Did the computers go too far in omitting the names? Probably, but those who were taken off the list had a chance to appeal the decision if they were taken off in error.
Bottom line: Florida in 2000 was a screw-up of collosal proportions. Voters were disenfranchised on BOTH sides. Republicans and Democrats both got screwed. There’s no way of knowing what would’ve happened had everybody gotten a fair chance to vote. To focus on only one side of the equation is to withhold the entire truth, which Moore loves to do.
And as an aside … that part where it says “Under all scenarios, Gore won Florida” is untrue. Multiple papers have done researchs, and Bush won Florida in all scenarios except when you counted overvotes. And Gore never asked for overvotes to be counted. Gore lost Florida.
the entanglement of Bush family business interests with bin Laden and Saudi Arabia business interests;
To be honest … so freaking what? Bush’s family are investors. The bin Laden family are also investors. They happened to invest in the same company. SHOCK! SHUDDER!
And everybody seems to be forgetting that the bin Laden family is, for the most part, pro-West. Osama was disowned by the family, remember? To point to the bin Ladens and say “look, terrorist link!” is just as false as pointing to Roger Clinton and say “look, the Clintons are involved with drugs because Bill’s brother is a druggie!” The bin Laden family and Osama shouldn’t be considered to be the same thing.
As for the Carlyle Group (the investment firm that both the Bush family [note, the Bush family, not George W. Bush himself] and the bin Laden family invested in)? Well, there’s another guy who’s invested a LOT of money into that very same company. Way more money than both the Bush family and the bin Laden family combined.
George Soros.
You might know him as the primary financer behind the website MoveOn.org. You know, that extremely left-leaning website that has hosted “ads” that compare Bush to Hitler?
So is Soros involved in this giant big conspiracy that Moore speaks of? Gotta be, he’s investing in the same investment firm that the Bushes and the bin Ladens invest in!
Oh, and P.S. that oil pipeline? Ya know, the reason why we invaded Afghanstain, according to Moore? Wasn’t even a Bush project. The oil pipeline project originated with Clinton. The company that eventually won the rights to build the pipeline is the one that Clinton proposed. The company that Bush was backing ended up having absolutely nothing to do with the Afghanstain oil pipeline project. Oops. There goes that theory.
the contradictory statements of Bush’s own people (their assurances in early 2000 that Saddam is not a threat as opposed to their later proclamations that he is);
Like Democrats have never flip-flopped?
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
“With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don’t even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?” Sen. John Kerry (D, MA), Oct 9, 2002.
the extended, agonizing, deer-in-the-headlights look on Bush’s face during seven minutes of non-action at a Florida Kindergarten;
There’s been a lot of debate up there about these seven minutes already. I won’t rehash it here, but obviously there’s more than one way of looking at it. Those who despise Bush are going to find negative things in Bush’s actions no matter what.
the children in Iraq post bombing, with arms blown off, legs blown off…a little boy screaming as medics desperately try to sew pieces of his face together. An elderly Iraqi woman screaming that God has foresaken them, that her house and all her neighbor’s houses were destroyed, that she’s been to five funerals in the previous week.
And life during the Saddam regime REALLY was idllyic! Children played with kites! Mothers beamed with pride! Happy, happy, joy, joy.
Unless, of course, you happened to speak a negative word against Saddam and his thugs. Or a Kurd. Or a Shiite. Or simply a soccer player who had a bad game while representing the Iraqi national team. Then you’re gassed, put into a meat grinder, or just simply killed. We did find all those mass graves that stored hundreds of thousands of corpses.
At least we’re giving the Iraqi citizens *freedom.* Something that they never had under Saddam. Freedom isn’t always pretty, and is oftimes bloody to get. Our founding fathers knew that, as did the Union army during the Civil War. Ditto the “Greatest Generation” who sacrificed so much to defeat the Nazis.
Bush liberated two countries.
And do I really have to pull out some Michael Moore quotes regarding his feelings on the terrorist situation? They aren’t pretty. I think that most everybody here, despite their misgivings about the reasoning behind the war, want us to win in Iraqi and to see peace, stability, and democracy brought to that troubled region. Michael Moore wants the terrorists to win.
Here’s a sample quote. Taken directly from his own website.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-04-14
“The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.”
’nuff said.
Like you, StarvingWriter, I don’t expect to change your mind here. However, there’s one particular point of fact which seriously needs correcting. (There may well be others, but this is the one I know well.)
MoveOn.org. You know, that extremely left-leaning website that has hosted “ads” that compare Bush to Hitler?
Here’s where the “bright green bûllšhìŧ” alarm goes off.
The facts: MoveOn hosted a contest called “Bush in 30 Seconds” which invited people to send in possible ads about Bush, the best of which would get professional reworkings (if need be) and actually aired on national television.
One or two of the hundreds if not thousands of ads produced used a Bush/Hitler comparison. They were not the winning ads.
Thus, to say that “MoveOn hosted ads comparing Bush to Hitler” is entirely wrong. Those ads appeared briefly on their site in order to let the membership judge them as part of the contest rules. MoveOn did not sponsor them, pay for them, or support them.
I will assume you were misinformed rather than consciously choosing to perpetuate this unfounded accusation.
TWL