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
• 
Thank you for posting that, Mr. David! Just found your site and I now have finally found the courage to post my first comment. Bravo for this post. The only unfortunate thing is that the people it should really be reaching to make them think are too far brainwashed by the RAM (nice name!) that it will fall on deaf ears. I’m wondering if Canada should just post their application for citizenship online now to speed things up come November, in case things go badly for us (ie: Bush winning). Anyway, just my 12 cents worth. Thanks for the site and for such well-thought-out, intelligent posts.
Iraq is a troubling issue. I was against getting into for precisely this reason. It’s a can of worms, and we (the US) has neither the stomach, or the right, to make the country the way we want it to be. I’ve been reading the phrase “preemptive” war a lot, but let’s call it what it was, an unprovoked attack. An I know there are a lot of people out there who think we were amply provoked by Saddam’s threats and attitude — which I think is nonsense.
Pearl Harbor is a provocation. The Holocaust is (or should have been) a provocation. Sept. 11 is a provocation (and we know — at least anyone with half a brain knows — that Saddam had nothing to do with that). Shaking your fist and make threats is NOT a sufficient provocation for war. I liked Barack Obama’s speech about the war (sadly gone from his website now as he moves toward the middle) where he took issue with the phrase “War is Not An Option.” War IS an option, when necessary. The Civil War was necessary, as was WWII. This was was not. It was self-serving, pointless and destructive.
But (there’s always a but, isn’t there?), we DID attack Iraq. We did topple their government. If we DON’T clean up the mess we’ve made, we’re just going to create bigger problems for ourselves down the line.
I don’t know how to do that, but I know that nothing I’ve heard so far from W. (or, sadly, from Kerry) has me convinced that THEY know how to fix it either.
I know we can’t simply throw up our hands and walk away. Nor can we keep hitting them until they agree with us.
I applaud Moore for rubbing people’s noses in the war. People (especially Americans) are complacent. We NEED to have out noses rubbed in sh*t once in a while to remind us that it stinks, and to encourage us to do something about it. I hope that’s what the movie does, to encourage us to find a way out of this war that really DOES leave Iraq better than we found it.
As a Canadian, I’ve been waiting for you guys to come and stomp on us for years. I mean, we have nuclear capabilities, a leader who mindlessly spends billions of dollars and doesn’t account for them and millions of people who are oppressed and exiled to the North, forced to chop trees and dig for oil day after day.
When will someone set us free? When will the madness end?
As an avid watcher of CNN (your news is far more “entertaining” than ours), I am constantly amazed at the war, your election process and the millions it wastes and just the overall extreme attitude of your people. There is clearly no love between your two political sides. Up here, there’s more parties than we know what to do with and while I can’t say that our system is better, it certainly is quicker and cheaper to elect a PM in Canada than a Pres. in the US.
And, if I’m not mistaken, your election is still over 3 months away!
And Mussolini had the trains come in on time.
Good CHRIST!
Everytime you post this kind of stuff I must desperatly reach for a copy of your work to remind myself I am a fan of your fantastic writing.
I read this today about Moore on another site.
“Moore is the real life Ellsworth Toohey (villain in the novel The Fountainhead). Toohey’s chief weapons for seizing power were mockery and ridicule: “Don’t set out to raze all shrines, you’ll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity and the shrines are razed … Kill by laughter. Laughter is an instrument of human joy. Learn to use it as a weapon of destruction. Turn it into a sneer. It is simple. Tell them to laugh at virtue.”
Michael Moore is a liar. So says Dave Kopel, who outlines the 59 lies he found in Fahrenheit 9/11
For more info please see: http://www.davekopel.com
jjbar, unless we get a bigger import from you than codeine Tylonol I think you guys up North are pretty safe from us. 🙂
I agree with PAD. I loved F9/11, and think the Bush Administration is afraid of it. I don’t know of 1 person (personally) that plans on voting for Bush INC. He’s been a disaster for this country.
My only issue with Michael Moore is the same issue I have with all celebrities….I am tired of people using their status as a way to change the vote. And of course its not really these people I blame, as much as it is the stupid uneducated masses who will turn and say: Well If Barbara Streisand/Michael Moore/Ashley Judd is for/against this, so am I.
I know Michael Moore is far from Hollywood elite. And he has a right to express his opinions. But it makes me quite sick (and I mean this for when both sides do it)…that anyone in these fields, whether entertainment, sports, or whatever it may be…uses their status to change something.
Cause guess what? There are some truths in F9/11. There are also some blatant lies. But alot of idiots who have no idea will go to that movie, say: Hey its a movie, and if this movie is telling me this is so, and Michael Moore is telling me this is so, then it must be so. (Which, amazingly, works out in the same way he criticized Britney Spears in the movie for blindly trusting the president.)
Mike
Well, according to a recent report by the GAO, Iraqis are worse off in several key areas since the US Army came in.
* Knight Ridder article
* GAO report (pdf)
And once again, the defense is simply, “the other guy did it first/worse!”
Sorry if everyone doesn’t swallow Moore’s opinions with the proper level of humble supplication. When the movie first came out many supporters siad stuff like “Everyone should see it, even if they don’t agree with it.” but evidently they are now upset that so many actually DO disagree with it.
As for the Iraqi people, they will have the opportunity to put Saddam back in power if they wish. There was a demonstration today calling for his execution so it may be difficult to find a compromise that will please everyone. Maybe make him secretary of transportation.
“And one thing led to another, and then we didn’t like him” (Saddam)…
I wonder what that one thing leading to another was? Hummmm…..
Could it have been the invasion of another country and after having his army defeated? Then he accepts terms for a cease fire, and fails to live up to those terms time and time again? Just little things like the near daily aggressive actions towards the UN forces enforcing the no fly zones by firing antiaircraft weapons. Preventing the UN weapons inspectors from having full access to labs. Not abiding by the UN resolutions HE agreed to to end the fighting of the first Gulf War. Just little things like that.
My problem with Michael Moore’s work isn’t that he’s against Bush. But, much like PAD’s statement above, it may be factally correct, he doesn’t tell the entire story.
Now it will be interesting to see how the Democrat Attack Machine Naysayers (ÐÃMN) reacts to the firing of Whoopi Goldberg by Slim-Fast after her remarks about Bush. Not disagreement with his policies, but remarks about his name.
Fascinating, isn’t it, how many people feel compelled to attack a “silly little movie.” It’s as if the slightest possibility of questioning the rush to war is un-American.
By the way, I don’t think RAM is all that good an identifier. I mean, a ram is…well, sexually endowed, and that seems to be appealing to a lot of right-wing people. (Especially now that we’re hearing reports of videos where children held by Americans in Iraq’s prisons were sexually molested…while their mothers were forced to watch. See the link at:
http://stream.realimpact.net/?file=clients/aclu/conf2004/20040707_aclu_AmericaAtACrossroads_300.rm
and go in on the RealMedia stream at about 1:30:00 to see the appropriate part of the speech. And people claim Bete Noire is fiction.)
Instead of RAM, I prefer the old traditional BFEE – Bush Family Evil Empire. A reminder that the current Bush is not the only one associated with nasty stuff. It also doesn’t insult all Republicans, some of whom disagree with this administration’s nonsense.
Sometimes I wish things were a lot simpler than they are now, at least as far as the issues are concerned. Once upon a time you really could tell the good guys from the villains.
Just imagine a little down home wisdom from Sheriff Andy Taylor: “Since this whole mess is nothing but a giant can of worms to begin with, how about we call a truce and settle everything peace-ably down round the ol’ fishing hole?”
Back in reality though, I’ve got my crash helmet, and other safety gear on. My insurance premiums are up to date, and as soon as I post this, I’m going to hide in my bomb shelter until it’s all over.
Take care everyone.
With tongue firmly in cheek… 😉
Lee.
Everyone howls about inaccuracy? Here’s an inaccuracy that no one really wants to cop to:
“Iraq is better off now than it was.”
I honestly can’t remember a single person saying that Iraqi is better off now than it was. That’s a straw man argument you’re putting up there.
Certain aspects of Iraqi life has improved, yes. Likewise, certain aspects of Iraqi life has become worse. Overall, things are probably still the same. We’ve taken away the state-sponsored terrorism, and it’s been replaced with independent terrorism. Innocent Iraqi civilians are still being killed, which sucks.
However …
At least Iraqi has a *chance*! Under Saddam, they never did. And they didn’t even have the luxury of simply waiting until Saddam died and replacing him, as he had those two murderous goons he called his sons waiting in the wings to ensure that the Hussein machine kept on rolling. Had we left Iraqi alone, 50 years later Iraqi would still be a place where people are murdered, tortured, or mulitated simply for disagreeing with the government.
At least, right now, there’s the chance that 50 years later Iraqi can end up like Germany or Japan. Will it happen? Who knows? There’s no guarantee. But there’s the *chance*! And that’s better than no chance at all.
That’s enough for me.
I agree with PAD. I loved F9/11, and think the Bush Administration is afraid of it.
So afraid that I have yet to see one single member of the Bush Administration mention the movie. At all. (Although I’m open to being proven wrong. Got a link to a member of the Bush Admin badmouthing F9/11? Feel free to post it here.)
I think some people overestimate the impact that the movie will have. I don’t think anybody in the Bush camp is losing sleep regarding F9/11. They’re more concerned about Kerry and Edwards.
“It’s as if the slightest possibility of questioning the rush to war is un-American.”
Actually, it’s as if being at all critical of the movie is equal to tagging one’s opponents as un-American.
Jeeze! Thin-skinned much?
Starving Writer: “(Although I’m open to being proven wrong. Got a link to a member of the Bush Admin badmouthing F9/11? Feel free to post it here.)”
White House Communications Chief Dan Bartlett said the film was
“outrageously false” after it received the Palme d’Or at the Cannes
Film Festival, and last Friday he was on the morning TV show circuit
denouncing the film as “filled with lies.”
Moore responded, “Typical White House response. Say the film is full
of lies but you haven’t seen it. I mean, just how stupid are these
people. This is embarrassing. This is a good county and the people
leading our country should be the smartest — the best and the
brightest. Thank him for his review, I guess, is what I should do, and
send him a Christmas card.”
http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/gallagher170.html
Well said, Peter.
I could respect both Moore and the Republicans a lot more if only the both of them would be a bit more truthful with their material, and left the lies, the ad hominem, hypocrisy and other manipulative tactics they used behind. I think political discourse in this country would a lot more tolerable if it weren
I wish there were more people that represented the middle ground like myself rather than the extreme left or extreme right. Both tend to overpostulate and misuse information. To say that Iraq is not better off without the Husseins is ridiculous. Reports I’ve read from the AP say that countrywide Iraq has more electricity than before the war. Wouldn’t you rather have Baghdad go without for the hours necessary and support the rest of the country for that same time if need be unlike what was done prior?
Was there enough reason to go to war? Not from what we know now but any country harboring terrorists from the Achille Lauro or 1993 WTC bombing should have the same happen to them. That’s an overly simplistic statement but as much as the media writes about not finding WMD, they should write about the tortures that the Husseins inflicted on the Iraqi people and the terrorists that were found in Iraq after the coalition invaded.
I did not want the war to happen but I’m also being overly optimistic to think that Saddam had nothing to with any terrorists when they were harbored for years and had no WMD aspirations when he avoided UN inspections for years. I do think we should have kept the inspections in there for a much longer time and not jump the gun like we did.
I’d love to read a report similar to the Kopel report on F911 and make an informed opinion based on the FACTS. Michael Moore’s movie is not fact and unfortunately is his edited version of the truth. I would find much more credence in his film and message if it wasn’t edited the way it was. I would respect him much more if he just put the facts out there and not his opinion first and facts later. Sadly, I guess I have to research each item footnote by footnote and form my own opinion as I am not getting it from the media.
Peter, you are liberal to a fault, and God Bless You. I am a Democrat who is voting that way this year but still do not agree with your views and MM’s fictional editing.
And also lets compare Abu Gharib accounts to Saddam’s torture accounts and see which disgusts you more. No excuse for the former but do not excuse the latter which is exactly what the media has done.
C’mon PAD,
F9/11 has only one point, Vote Bush out of the White House.
If it hadn’t been for the war, Moore would have been shouting the Cynthia McKinney line “Bush knew and did nothing”.
Wars are easy to scapegoat. No one wants to see people dying and places blown up. Nothing ever works right afterwards.
Is Iraq better off? I’d say yes. Of course, there were people who said slaves were better off before the civil war than after. Same thing happened there that’s happening in Iraq today. A bunch of hooded men lynching slaves and trying to scare them back into the old system of doing things. Of course that didn’t last too long. The KKK only existed up until… well they still exist, don’t they? I can tell you for a fact that it’s been about thirty years ago that a town near Raleigh, NC where I live, and home of that GOOD OL’ BOY, John Edwards, finally took down a sign that had a KKK member welcoming people to the town of Smithfield.
Wonder how Moore would have documented the Civil War? Wonder what position many of the liberals in this forum would have taken on that war?
Starving Writer: So afraid that I have yet to see one single member of the Bush Administration mention the movie. At all.
Luigi Novi: It
Wonder how Moore would have documented the Civil War? Wonder what position many of the liberals in this forum would have taken on that war?
Hang around for another decade or two; I’ve a nasty feeling we may all find out.
Sequels do seem to be in vogue these days…
TWL
I’m sorry, but PAD, your argument is absurd. Since you want to define the word “is” let me do so here: “Is” Iraq better off now than before? Absolutely yes in the ways that matter most.
Go read the news reports of just today of the families (thousands of them) demanding Saddam’s execution. They had family member after family member dragged off and executed. Even at its supposed worse, the current prisoner scandal is NOTHING compared to the brutal executions under Saddam and his followers. To imply otherwise can only come from ignorance or from an inability to look at reality.
Yes, innocent people are dying today. The difference — and this is a HUGE difference — is that under Saddam it was done intentionally as a matter of policy by the government. They did it not even to suppress opposition, but for their own personal pleasure. Our courts understand the difference between a deliberate, premeditated murder, and between reckless manslaughter. There is NO WAY Bush is conducting a deliberate policy of premeditated murder. I don’t believe he is guilty of reckless manslaughter, but I would at least understand how someone could conceive of that charge against him. PAD’s argument fails to understand even that fundamental difference.
What is the most essential, fundamental, and without argument, valid reason Iraq is better today? I can say it in one word: Freedom. PAD is right that I cannot promise or predict that Iraq will be better off 1 year or 20 years from now. That is the very nature of freedom. At some point, we must by definition allow them to choose whether they want to return to a dictatorship. But they have one essential thing they did not have 2 years ago: they have the initial elements of being truly free.
PAD is not the only one making this false accusation. It is found in other forms all over the place. I am absolutely sick of the comparisons being made by others that imply Bush is no better than Hitler. To even suggest this demonstrates they neither understand true evil nor what is actually happening in Iraq. If Bush was Hitler, there would not be a car bomb killing 10 people because there would not have been freedom to carry out such an attack. And when it did happen and he was like Saddam, Bush would have had hundreds randomly executed to put terror in the hearts of people to keep it from happening again. You do NOT find that happening. On the contrary, we are doing MANY things that are trying to rebuild their economy and infrastructure.
Disagree with Bush. I can respect that. But to so willfully and knowingly say that in ANY WAY a country led by Saddam could be better than one led by Bush is to demonstrate a lack of any true sense of good and evil. Bush may be wrong (obviously I would argue he is in fact correct in going to war with Iraq), but Saddam is evil. The fact that PAD, Michael Moore, and others fail to acknowledge this difference is the REAL reason we could have another holocaust happen in our generation.
Jim in Iowa
White House Communications Chief Dan Bartlett said the film was “outrageously false” after it received the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival, and last Friday he was on the morning TV show circuit denouncing the film as “filled with lies.”
Moore responded, “Typical White House response. Say the film is full of lies but you haven’t seen it. I mean, just how stupid are these people. This is embarrassing. This is a good county and the people leading our country should be the smartest — the best and the brightest. Thank him for his review, I guess, is what I should do, and send him a Christmas card.”
http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/gallagher170.html
“My only issue with Michael Moore is the same issue I have with all celebrities….I am tired of people using their status as a way to change the vote. And of course its not really these people I blame, as much as it is the stupid uneducated masses who will turn and say: Well If Barbara Streisand/Michael Moore/Ashley Judd is for/against this, so am I.”
Notice that complaints about the ‘Hollywood elite’ never include names like Schwartzenegger, Fred Thompson, Heston or Reagan, among others?
“There are also some blatant lies. But alot of idiots who have no idea will go to that movie, say: Hey its a movie, and if this movie is telling me this is so, and Michael Moore is telling me this is so, then it must be so.”
And let’s not forget about the idiot masses who believe whatever the corporate media (led by Fox news) tells them. Such as the 40% who still believe that Saddam & Iraq were connected to the 9-11 attacks. Unlike Fox news & the others, at least Moore is honest enough to say that he has an agenda instead of claiming to be ‘fair & balanced’. Or neutral, which is what journalists are supposed to be.
“There was a demonstration today calling for his execution”
I haven’t seen this yet, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was another staged event for the cameras like the toppling of Saddam’s statue was
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm
http://www.google.com/custom?domains=informationclearinghouse.info&q=saddam+statue&sitesearch=informationclearinghouse.info&client=pub-5174720432180771&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A1%3B&hl=en
Y’know, from the other side of the Atlantic, it does look like this film has simply made each side more entrenched in their positions rather than started a meaningful debate or changed vast number of people’s positions.
Shame, really.
Posted by: Michael Brunner “There was a demonstration today calling for his execution” I haven’t seen this yet, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was another staged event for the cameras like the toppling of Saddam’s statue was.
——
Here is the link: http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/302724|top|07-15-2004::08:09|reuters.html
As you can read for yourself (if you take the time to), this same group also said negative things about the US. But I am sure that was part of the same conspiracy when this was staged so that stupid people like me would actually believe that the Iraqi’s understood the difference between what they had then and what they have now — freedom.
Jim in Iowa
PAD:
I think we are beyond the point to think reasonably about issues because of the hatred that is inside.
You make the statement…..”Everyone howls about inaccuracy? Here’s an inaccuracy that no one really wants to cop to:
“Iraq is better off now than it was.” “
I would assume from a previous post on Moore’s film where you said…”If you go to see it and disagree, then you disagree. But if you refuse to see it and think you are then remotely qualified to comment on it, you’re wrong.”….that you have been to Iraq and have personally witnessed the current situation of its people.
I just want to be sure we are not drowning in Hypocrisy.
dambrose51
Ok, in my haste I posted too soon. Here is what I meant to say:
But I am sure that was part of the same conspiracy when this was staged so that stupid people like me would actually believe that the Iraqi’s DON’T understood the difference between what they had then and what they have now — freedom.
Jim in Iowa
I am currently half way throught the David Kopel article mentioned above. (For more info please see: http://www.davekopel.com). I have what I think is a reasonable request:
I refuse to give Michael Moore even one red cent to be able to see his film. But I am willing to consider a well researched defense of what his film says. David Kopel tears Moore’s film — and its premise — to shreds. But if you think there is something available for free on the internet that does a better job of presenting the case that Bush has taken us into war primarily for his own personal gain and for those close to him, please post the link and I will read it. I would hope you could post a link that is as logical and well researched as the one by Kopel. If Moore is right, I am sure there is something out there. So please post a link for doubters like me.
Jim in Iowa
Tim says (re civil war):
“Hang around for another decade or two; I’ve a nasty feeling we may all find out.”
Tim, you’ve written on this before, do you honestly think we are heading for any kind of armed conflict over mere politics? As noisy and passionate the debates may seem, it pales beside what was going on during the 60s. I know I’ve said this before but it bears repeating: The gloom and doom from the left is reaching the point where it may become a self defeating attribute. The partisans on both sides are set in their ways, it’s the 40% or so in the middle that will decide the election. If the left looks like wild eyed crazy people muttering about revolutions and blood in the streets it will not appeal.
(Just so I’m not misunderstood, I’m not saying that you are either wild eyed, crazy, or muttering).
Which ever side loses–and for what it’s worth I’m predicting a swing toward the Democrats, just not sure how big of one–they will simply go back and lick their wounds and get ready for round 427 or whatever it is.
Of course, I have the advantage of, if I’m right, being able to post a comment saying “Ha, Ha! No civil war, you were wrong, neener neener” while if it turns out that the worst comes to pass you will be very fortunate to have time to send out an e-mail to me before the Jackbooted Right Wing Thugs kick down your door.
“By the way, I don’t think RAM is all that good an identifier. I mean, a ram is…well, sexually endowed, and that seems to be appealing to a lot of right-wing people.”
I call them RAM because they’re bûŧŧ-hëádš.
PAD
PAD: Everyone howls about inaccuracy? Here’s an inaccuracy that no one really wants to cop to:
“Iraq is better off now than it was.”
StarvingWriter: I honestly can’t remember a single person saying that Iraqi is better off now than it was. That’s a straw man argument you’re putting up there.
…You’re kidding me, right? President Bush himself said that exact phrase a month ago at Fort Lewis:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001959698_webspeech18.html
And the very fact that they’re attacking people like Hans Blix and Nelson Rockefeller for saying Iraq isn’t better off today implies that they do think it’s better off today…
JW in Iowa:
1) I didn’t say it WAS staged, only wondered IF it was.
2) It’s great that the Iraqi’s are allowed to protest when it’s something the U.S. agrees with. As for the Iraqi’s knowing freedom, how do any of the following constitute freedom:
* 70-90% of people in prison are innocent
* anti-American protests get shut down
* anti-American newspapers get shut down
* the Government is appointed by the U.S., with no elections in sight
* the internem government is still answerable to the U.S. embassy
* Coalation soldiers & employees are immune from criminal persecution
* People continue to have their houses raided day & night by U.S. forces
So in short, the Iraqi people have no say in their government, can be arrested at any time for any reason, any anyone with the ruling bodies (government, U.S. forces, etc) will not be held accountable. so where is “the difference between what they had then and what they have now — freedom.”?
Michael,
I was very careful to state at one point to say this very sentence: ” But they have one essential thing they did not have 2 years ago: they have the initial elements of being truly free. “
At the end of World War 2, Japan and Germany did not experience full freedom. It was a process of transition. It is no different now.
Your list is very misleading as it totally ignores the transition that has already happened in the last year. Obviously we are doing a lot to try to influence the process (as we did with Japan and Germany) to avoid the very return to an even worse enemy (as many fear will happen).
I agree you did not say it “was” staged, but you implied that it was at least possible if not likely. If Bush could truly “stage” an event, I would think he would have done more of them by now. The toppling of Saddam’s statue was not a “staged” event. On the other hand, while I do not doubt some anti-American rallies are prevented, what do you expect? Give me a break! Do we want our soldiers to become even more of a target while radicals deliberately incite a riot?
* 70 to 90% of those imprisoned may not be terrorists, but many are guilty of lesser crimes.
* Coalition soldiers are immune to criminal prosecution? That is because they are MILITARY personnel, and they are subject to miliary law and court martial (as is and does happen). (Please show me a CREDIBLE source that employees are exempt from prosecution.)
* Yes, there are daily raids. You neglect to mention that there are also daily attacks, like today’s car bomb that killed many. We have really two choices. Either totally get out or defend ourselves. To defend ourselves means you go after criminals and terrorists. We have daily police raids here. That does not mean we do not have substantial freedom. Obviously in a war situation there is not the same “due process.” Mistakes will happen, and abuses can occur. But you imply that we are doing this to take away freedom. The opposite is the case. Raids occur to try to bring about peace so that we can leave and they can have freedom.
There is no such thing as total “freedom.” But look at the big picture in Iraq. There is FAR more freedom today than there has been in at least 20 years. There is FAR more freedom in Iraq today than in many other Arab countries.
I would suggest that the reason you cannot see the difference between then and now is because to do so would mean Bush has done something right — a premise I suspect is wrong by definition for you. Things are not perfect. They do not have the same freedom as we have here (as imperfect as things are here in the US). But to even imply there is not significantly more freedom now than under Saddam is without excuse.
Jim in Iowa
JW,
There are several purported transcripts of the film on the web. here’s one to get you started:
http://www.redlinerants.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1088491633&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&
You could also download it off of kazaa or emule. Moore himself stated that he would not mind if the film were copied and distributed so you may or may not have any moral qualms about doing so.
Bill Mulligan,
I will check the transcript. I admit, however, I am biased against Moore. To be fair, I want to find an article by another person who agrees with Moore, and who has good research on the project. I have finished reading Kopel’s article (and Kopel supported Ralph Nader, so he is not exactly a right wing radical, or a member of PAD’s RAM), and it basically shows light on the many ways Moore takes things out of context (the basic fact may be true, but the way Moore uses it is misleading). I will still check out what you posted.
Jim in Iowa
you know, Depite what PAD says about not being qualified to comment on Moore’s F 9/11 because I haven’t seen it, I’m going to do so anyway, so sue me!
F 9/11: A Summary
Crap in = Crap out
Thank you.
Bill,
Tim, you’ve written on this before, do you honestly think we are heading for any kind of armed conflict over mere politics?
First, I think I disagree with the “mere”. Politics, when you come down to it, are the means by which a populace gets to affect the manner in which it is governed — I consider that something that should be pretty high on people’s lists of things to pay attention to. The actual mechanics of it can be (and nearly always is) petty, self-serving, and fairly dopey on all sides, but I’m quite confident saying that anyone who says “I don’t care about politics” hasn’t a clue about observing the world. (And no, I’m not saying that’s you. I don’t think anyone in this thread would qualify.)
On the main issue, though…
I think the country is at a significant crossroads, yes, and I think there is a significant chance that the current differences are irreconcilable short of something drastic.
Sure, things have been passionate before — but never along lines that are simultaneously this clean and this messy. Clean, in that there’s an awful lot of lock-step thinking going on (particularly on the right, IMO, thanks to a great deal of media influence so that those who listen to Rush or watch Bill O’Reilly or read Ann Coulter all get the same points pounded into their head down to the phrasing), and messy, in that there so rarely seems to be anyone willing to concede that the “other side” even has a ghost of a chance of having a decent point once a century. Hëll, the two “sides” are more often than not getting their information from entirely separate sources now — something that was not true in the ’60s. When not just the opinions, but the entire worldviews and things that shape them differ this strongly, that’s not healthy for the community at large.
And yes, I blame the gradual “churchin’ up” of politics for this, at least in part. When Bush flat-out says he’s doing God’s work and implies he’s got the tape recordings to prove it, it’s an easy leap to assume that his detractors are not only incorrect, but outright evil. I see it in the discourse quite a bit — there are any number of people out there for whom any given liberal is a traitorous baby-killing Satanist. (And yes, there are certainly analogous people on the left who refuse to admit that any conservative can ever utter an acceptable word, right down to “a” and “the.” I’d like to think I’m not one of them.)
The political debates are gradually becoming moral debates rather than “mere politics” — and once it hits that stage with enough people, it’s extraordinarily difficult to bring those moths back from their respective flames.
I’d love nothing better than to be deeply, deeply wrong in this analysis. (If nothing else, your side’s got a lot more of the guns!) That’s not the way I’m reading the situation, however.
As noisy and passionate the debates may seem, it pales beside what was going on during the 60s.
Unless you’re significantly older than I’ve come to believe (I believe you’ve said mid-to-late 40s, which would match up with a teenage daughter), I don’t think you can say this from experience.
On the other hand, I can name several people who *were* around, adult, and politically aware during the ’60s — several colleagues, my parents, etc. — who have been unanimous in saying that they haven’t gone to bed this scared since that time. And these aren’t naive people — they’re some of the smartest folks I know.
Whichever side loses–and for what it’s worth I’m predicting a swing toward the Democrats, just not sure how big of one–they will simply go back and lick their wounds and get ready for round 427 or whatever it is.
I hope you’re right. Feel free to gloat if that time comes — hëll, I’ll send you a pizza or something. I *want* to be wrong on this. I just fear I’m not that lucky, that’s all.
TWL
R.A.M. are great! remember “pushing my religion”
Tim,
If it’s any consolation, at least SOME of my side will stand beside you, shooting away. Remember that if your side send s me to a labor camp.
I remember the 60s just fine. My home and family has always been one of activepolitical discussion, which may be why I find it hard to swallow the idea that there is any armed conflict on the horizon (I have to wonder if some folks have ANY friends/loved one on the “other side”.)
By “mere politics” I mean that it is–and to my way of thinking SHOULD be–very low on the list of things that describe the quality of a person. Yes, yes, if someone espouses nazi beliefs it does tend to crowd out whatever good qualities they may have, but if one actually believes that discovering someone is a Democrat or republican is legit grounds for ending a friendship…I honestly pity them.
My test is this–the side that believes that those who oppose them politically do so in large part out of evil intent and/or stupidity is usually the side that’s either flat out wrong or, at best, least confident in the truth of its positions. Of course, we then can argue which side best fits that description.
Gloat? I try not to be a gloater, since it tends to come around and bite you on the ášš when one is, as one will inevitably be, proven wrong on some other issue. It can be hard (like when watches the whole Joe Wilson saga implode) but at the very least it’s good form.
Bill,
If it’s any consolation, at least SOME of my side will stand beside you, shooting away.
Much appreciated.
I’ll admit that I was hoping for a somewhat more detailed response than this, but that’s probably more the writer/speechmaker/pompous ášš in me than anything else. (I do think the different sources of information are an integral piece of all this, though, and that at least is something I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on, given that you say you read an awful lot from both sides.)
Remember that if your side sends me to a labor camp.
Will do. But hey, at least it’ll likely be environmentally productive labor. 🙂
(I have to wonder if some folks have ANY friends/loved one on the “other side”.)
Friends? Not sure — certainly not close ones to the best of my knowledge, though everyone disagrees on one or another issue. (I had one friend in college during a presidential election, and we were campaigning for opposite sides. There was a little tension, but not much. Time and distance have taken sufficient toll that “friends” implies too much closeness to work now, but we’re certainly still on great terms.)
Students who I greatly respect? Yep, absolutely, with respect on both sides. I’ve no doubt you can say the same.
Loved ones? Sure — some uncles, cousins, etc. on my side of the family and a whole branch of my wife’s.
My test is this–the side that believes that those who oppose them politically do so in large part out of evil intent and/or stupidity is usually the side that’s either flat out wrong or, at best, least confident in the truth of its positions. Of course, we then can argue which side best fits that description.
I think that’s a fairly good rule of thumb. Alas, I think there are great many people on both sides who fit said description. Not sure the argument’s worth it at the moment, though — we’d wear out keyboards arguing in circles, and no doubt we both have other things to occupy our time at present.
TWL
Let me start by saying from the beginning i never got the Hard on our Pres had for Iraq.i mean they were not the immediate threat at the time as i recall North Korea and Afghanistan were.
Republican hypocrisy is pretty bad.Dont get wrong not clearing the Democrats of it ,but the RAMS are so arrogant ,with the high moral values ,integrity stuff when it comes to Clinton’s
sex life,and Kerry “flip flopping”,but Cheney and his possible wrongdoings in regard to Haliburton,
and the distortion of facts that led us into this war are acceptable because it was “the right thing to do” are acceptable??
Last time I check no one died or was injured by
Mr .Clinton ‘s indiscretions.Hundreds have died,thousands injured and billions spent for the Republicans misinformation that was presented prior to the Iraq invasion.
I work with people who are hardcore ,Bush supporters and many of the arguments for doing so are frightening!!Hannity said this ,Rush said that
I mean we all got our own opinions but get more than one view point in there,for gosh sakes.My favorite argument “hes religious and believes in what he is doing” So do the terrorists we are fighting.
My biggest hypocrisy issue is how is it okay that Saddam and Osama were good guys when they were doing what we wanted but the world’s biggest áššhølëš when they dont do what we want anymore.Bush the first and Reagan were backing these guys in the past if i recall.
I admit i am biased having been deployed and seeing many young people injured and would be dámņ shame if this all about lies and a vendetta against Saddam by our President
Tim,
“Hëll, the two “sides” are more often than not getting their information from entirely separate sources now — something that was not true in the ’60s.”
See, I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. At least, it’s good that one does not have to depend just on CBSNBCABCFOX, Michael Moore, Al Couture, Limbaugh, Air America, whatever…..the beauty of it is that by looking at several sources one is more likely to get enough of the big picture to arrive at the truth.
Limbaugh, Moore, Air America…these are primarily for entertainment and comfort. You’re not likely to get anything new or overlooked (there was NOTHING in F9/11 that I had not read on the internet. Nothing! But some folks say they were blown away by the “revelations”. Well, my wife says I spend too much time on the web so maybe in this case knowledge is not synonymous with healthy).
I still say the divisions in this country are vastly smaller than any time prior to the seventies. Hard to argue with this being true pre 1960s when we had a virtual racial apartheid going on.
I do worry a bit about SOME of my liberal friends (and I do have many–in fact most of my closest ones are far to the left of me) who have invested so much emotion into defeating Bush…if they lose it’s not going to be pretty. But I think they’ll get over it if it doesn’t work out, I don’t see all of them moving to Canada or building bombs in their basement.
One advantage of having friends on the other side of politics is that you are less likely to be astonished when your side loses…every election you find idiots walking around numbed, wailing “But I don’t know ANYONE who voted for him!” That’s the problem, of course.
BTW, when you said that people you know go to bed scared…of what or who exactly? Terrorists, politicans, Chris Kattan’s impersonation of Paul Begala? (which scares the bejeebers out of me to the point where I am now pretty much bejeeberless)
How’s life in Iraq? Here’s one woman’s opinion:
http://afamilyinbaghdad.blogspot.com/
You’ll have to scroll down to the June 29 entry, as the last couple are about her summer vacation in Amman…
Bill,
“Hëll, the two “sides” are more often than not getting their information from entirely separate sources now — something that was not true in the ’60s.”
See, I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. At least, it’s good that one does not have to depend just on CBSNBCABCFOX, Michael Moore, Al Couture, Limbaugh, Air America, whatever…..the beauty of it is that by looking at several sources one is more likely to get enough of the big picture to arrive at the truth.
I think that’s talking a little bit past my point. I completely agree that the availability of 8.2 gazillion information sources is a positive thing, for exactly the reasons you describe.
That’s not what I’m talking about, however. I’m talking about what sources get used by what people. If everyone took the approach you suggested, that’d be fantastic — but liberals are looking at liberal sources, conservatives are looking at conservative sources, and NOBODY is looking at the “mainstream” press any more.
There was a survey recently analyzing book-buying tendencies (using Amazon info, if I recall). Generally those who bought anti-Bush books tended to buy more anti-Bush ones, and those who bought pro-Bush ones tended to buy more pro-Bush books. There was very little crossover. I know I’m guilty of that particular tendency.
That’s the concern — the choices being made and the self-segregation, not the availability. Each side has its own version of Pravda, and rarely do the two agree on much beyond the color of the sky.
That’s what I was trying to get at, anyway. Perhaps it’s not happening in your neck of the woods.
BTW, when you said that people you know go to bed scared…of what or who exactly?
Generally of the Bush administration — in particular of the messianic mindset Bush so often demonstrates in his speeches, of the “with us or against us” motif used in speeches and policies across the administration, and of what they see as huge differences in the country (e.g. the polarization I’ve been talking about here). I don’t know that I can get much more specific than that without having to claim outright that I’m speaking in their name, and I’m not arrogant enough to do that without asking them. 🙂
TWL
Tim,
“That’s not what I’m talking about, however. I’m talking about what sources get used by what people. If everyone took the approach you suggested, that’d be fantastic — but liberals are looking at liberal sources, conservatives are looking at conservative sources, and NOBODY is looking at the “mainstream” press any more.”
I think though that we need to realize that you and I and probably a good chunk of the people we hang with are not really representative of the nation as a whole.
Most people ARE still getting their stuff from the mainstream press. For lots of folks–maybe the majority–a half hour with Peter Jennings and a 20 minute glance through the paper are all the news one needs in any given day.
If a partisan book sells 1 million copies it is a huge monster success…but in a country of 300 million one can’t overstate it’s real influence.
This may be why I seriously doubt there is anything to fear in the way of civil war; the people who are most passionate about all this are not exactly the sort of people I see taking to the streets. Blasting off harshly worded e-mails, sure.
“And yes, I blame the gradual “churchin’ up” of politics for this, at least in part. “–Tim
Tim, if you honestly think that Bush is “churchin'” up politics, I don’t think you have any grasp of religion and its role in American politics.
For instance, McKinley said that he believed we gained the Phillipines because god wanted us to have it, and it was America’s job to *christianize* the filipinos.
Now when Bush uses his belief in god, he does so in the context as his own, personal beliefs and with complete tolerance for people of varying faiths.
Quite a difference, wouldn’t you say? But, again, the idea that religion never ever had a place in the public sphere is a deeply-held belief of certain liberals, too bad it’s wrong.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is one of the greatest movies ever made!!!!!!!!!!11
I think I’ll go see it sometime soon.
What the Bush administration ands their minions have mastered is the art of what John Kenneth Galbraith coined as wordfact, or as he explained it some years ago, ‘It means that to say something exists is a substitute for its existence.’ The only difference is they now refer to them as talking points.
Or, as Jon Stewart said so eloquently on The Daily Show, ‘They’re true, because they’re said a lot.’
Bill,
I think though that we need to realize that you and I and probably a good chunk of the people we hang with are not really representative of the nation as a whole.
Granted. We at least try to think and get differing viewpoints. I agree that most people don’t — but I don’t see it as a good thing, really. Good in that it probably lessens the risk of civil war, but horribly, horribly bad in terms of having a well-informed citizenry.
The media are getting more and more corporate-owned, and diversity of information (speaking strictly of the mainstream media) is getting thinner by the year.
Let’s assume Bush has pure motives. Considering how few organizations are actually in charge of determining what news does and doesn’t get presented in mainstream channels, there’s not much in the way of checks to keep someone who *does* have a wish to control the population from doing so. Make good friends with about ten media moguls and you’re done.
I think that’s a bad idea regardless of which party is in power. I forget who said it, but I saw a great quote recently:
“Of course the government lies, and of course the press lies. The key to a functioning democracy is that they’re not the SAME lies.”
TWL