Yes, Fahrenhiet 9/11 is ‘patriotic art’ in the same way Leni Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will” was patriotic art… and both take a similar relativist view regarding the role of reality in film making
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayAugust 20th, 2004 |
 44 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Which is pretty much a perfect definition of what does or does not make a movie that claims to be about reality a propaganda movie or not.
Just in case anyone hasn’t read it, I think Christopher Hitchens makes the best case against the film.
linki
Samizdata gets more and more ridiculous by the day. Now you’re comparing Michael Moore with Leni Riefenstahl. For God’s sake listen to yourselves!
Yes, comparing Michael Moore to Leni Riefenstahl is a serious insult to her. In the political context of the time she produced a work that is still a lesson in film-making. And before you all pile on with name-calling, please watch the actual film rather than spouting the propaganda about it.
The comparison to Leni Riefenstahl is only ridiculous to someone who doesn’t WANT to see the truth. Michael Moore is merely a propagandist with a marginal talent for film making.
Both made propaganda movies that were economical with the truth and purported to be ‘patriotic’… so how is that not a fair comparison?
But yeah, it is true that Riefenstahl was vastly more talented than the Stupid White Man (not to mention in her younger days she was rather easy on the eyes, unlike a certain tub of lard…)
I dunno Perry. Mike Moore is easy on the eyes… just looking at him makes my orbs feel quite well greased.
On the other side of the coin – have you ever noticed the fat chick / hot chick pairings that a lot of women seem to have for friends – one really great looking girl, one kind of, um, Rubenesque girl with, um, modest looks?
If Michael Moore was a chick, can you imagine how hot his gal pal would be? We’re talking something like a combination of Salma Hayek, and Marilyn Monroe. She’d be hot enough to melt glass just by looking through it.
Yep, ol’ Mikey… I don’t think he’d make it in Gattaca…
A rather nice slice by slice disection of the Christopher “I’m such a pathetic fucking drunk I’ve shat myself… again” Hitchens bloviation on F9/11.
And what fascist regime does Michael Moore serve?
And Hitchins is a drunk who filflops more than Bush or Kerry. His ideology seems to match whoever he writes for. Would anyone on this site have quoted him when he still had the big government ideology that he had when he wrote for the Nation?
Hitchins is still mad because Michael Moore made him look like an ass when he debated him.
How pathetic. Have any of you actually SEEN Leni Riefenstah’l’s Triumph of the Will? You can’t say it was “economical” with the truth, because it didn’t really say anything. It was just uncommented film footage of Hitler’s Nuremberg rally with lots of visual impact — like a Vegas floor show with swastikas. Lots of eager and sincere blond faces gazing adoringly at Hitler while he spouts off his usual patriotic “we’re better than the rest of the world” crap, which Riefenstahl didn’t write or have anything to do with.
Michael Moore’s film, though, is mostly commentary, by Moore himself, about things he doesn’t like about this administration.
There’s going to be a book version of the film out very soon. Will that be propaganda too? If so, then there are quite a few conservative commentators with books out that you would have to call propaganda as well.
And, finally, Moore’s film was very accurate. What makes you so uncomfortable is that it doesn’t fit your convenient FOX NEWS view of things.
Moore makes documentaries with a very specific point-of-view. He doesn’t claim to be neutral, nor does he make any offers to entertain other viewpoints. It took several viewings of Bowling for Columbine before I figured out the actual message.
I finally figured out the best way to obtain the message or theme in BfC was to listen to the movie with the monitor off. I suspect when I get the DVD of F9/11 that the message will come through best with the sound off.
It’s quite simple actually, as a Libertarian I applaud and support anyone who, through their own initiative and efforts, makes a buck or two. If those who have a different opinion so desire, there are plenty of studios, distributors and theaters looking to make a buck or two as well.
Read the transcript of F9/11 if you’d rather not pay for the film. It’s very interesting to strip away the cinematic manipulation.
The fact that MM’s film has made so much bank kinda fucks up the whole market-driven bullshit you supply-siders in sheep’s clothing roll around in on a daily basis.
I mean, if the truth is market-driven, like W seems to proclaim (in his market of votes and campaign contributions), then Moore is right, and his film is truth.
Godwin’s law came up right off the bat, with you douchebags comparing someone who’s spent his life fighting for working people to a Nazi propagandist. You started off at the bottom of the barrel and sunk lower. The thing is, you never make a difference in your heads between a person who’s concerned with American jobs and welfare, and someone who’s spent their lives being indoctrinated into an extremist ideology. So you’re class warriors by association. Good job!
Douchebags.
No, the market is market-driven; truth can take care of itself. You seem to have mistaken me for someone who gives a damn about a lying protectionist regulatory spendthrift right-statist like George Bush just because I also dislike a barefaced socialist liar like Michael Moore.
It is just that unlike the sad spit-on-their-screens commenters for whom what Moore says is a religious article of faith and to demur is heresy, I know propaganda when I see it on both left and right.
Just as Riefenstahl was trying to appeal to emotion rather than truth (she was not conveying in her film ‘this regime actually intends to regulate your life and plunge the world into a genocidal war’ but rather ‘Hilter is your messiah, so just feel good and don’t think to much’). Similarly Moore’s film making is one great series of Dowdifications, a sort of mindless extended two minute hate directed at Bush the way Triumph of the Will was a mindless lovefest for Hitler… things are presented out of context and in a way to misrepresent, like all propaganda movies.
Oh sure, there is no shortage of ways to criticize the weird and wacky George Bush, but to hold up a liar like Moore as the cheerleader for that effort reduces the process to a farce akin to two hobos arguing over which of them is smellier. Try to step outside you tribal attachments and hatreds and see Moore for what he is regardless of what you think of Dubya Bush.
comparing someone who’s spent his life fighting for working people to a Nazi propagandist
Setting aside the differences in style of the two filmmakers, the substance of MM and Riefenstahl is very similar, and you say so yourself. MM ‘fights for the working people’. And you buy this? When has MM attacked directly and thoroughly anyone from the Democratic side of the fence? Where was MM during the Clinton administration? Where was all his film making prowess when the US (et al) was in eastern Europe? Am I to believe that the Federal gov’t gave a bigger damn about the masses when Clinton was in office? Puh-leeze. I guess he was too busy going after guns to worry about the working class.
MM is a populist in Statists’ clothing. Just as the Nazi’s provided a home for the great unwashed masses, and then proceeded to use the machinery for their own deluded ends, so too does MM pander to the masses from his secluded ivory towers and private schools. He wants to mobilize the masses behind him, not for their own good, but for HIS agenda. That is precisely what Riefenstahl did as well. MM is a Statist who will delude those who will follow him that he is looking out for them when he merely wants to manipulate them.
So at the end of the day, a Statist is a Statist. Both MM and R use the power of the media to condition and manipulate the masses to fall in line with an agenda that is never fully revealed and is rank with bias in that it all trends in one political direction.
Now pulling out the comparison of the two works, which is more biased, a commentary laden screed launched at W for acting on information many a Democrat believed as well, or a images of fanatical crowds adoring Hitler without any commentary? Perhaps the comparison is unfair to Riefenstahl. The most she can be accused of is giving the already mobilized crowd more of what they want.
Please look at MM’s stuff again. It’s not what he says, which certainly may be substantially truthful, it’s what he doesn’t say that makes all the difference. Excellent propaganda uses parts of the truth, but never the whole truth. What does he leave out and why? I may agree with some of what he says, but it is what he editorializes out that leaves him on the ‘other side’. He is a leftist and a Statist. That’s why he leaves out facts that ruin his argument. Simply noting this doesn’t mean I approve the same trash from rightist.
Did Hitler sit with the kiddies and read “Meine Haustierziege” during the fall of Berlin?
Your point, molehill?
Garth –
Please, tell me, other than getting rich by being a professional complainer, and a skillful constructer of anger and lies, what has Michael Moore ever done to ‘fight for working people’?
He hasn’t – and you’re projecting the ‘social justice’ buzz into everything that appeals to you whether it’s there or not.
Assuming for the sake of annoying the Bush True Believers here on the Samizdata GOP LoveFest, that MM has lied in F9/11, pray tell:
How many people have died as a direct result of MM’s “lies” in F9/11 vs. the number of people who have died as a direct result of GWB’s lies?
Here is a list of some of the Americans who have died as a direct resutl of GWB’s lies.
I argued about this with a lefty friend a few weeks ago after seeing Fahrenheit. I said pretty much the same sort of thing as toolkien (it’s what is left out that counts against Moore’s truthfulness) though I’m afraid I didn’t push the point. My friend’s reaction was the usual “yeah well ‘we’ need a balance to all the capatalist propaganda that’s everywhere..” – which of course is robot-response crap.
But there are interesting points to be made about the role of truthfulness in making political films:
(1) Suppose someone makes a political film tommorow, which, obviously is told from a particular political point of view, but also (unlike Moore) has the aim of being as truthful as possible. How far can the two aims of (a) telling a story from a given political perspective, and (b) committing oneself to standards of truthfulness – how far can these be pursued together? Our film-maker may be truthful about specific facts, but these facts are selected as part of his overall political framework for his story – and how far can he afford to be truthful about this (that is how much is he willing to risk including facts which sit at odds with his political perspective)? Now without doubt, the more truthful he is about his perspective (in the sense of including awkward facts and lines of argument), the weaker and less convincing his political perspective will seem, right? That is, whatever is left standing after some decent self-criticism in the interest of pursuing truthfulness.
(2) Second point then, which is really a question, is this: which is likely to be most convincing to a public – an entirely one-sided, lowest common-denominator piece of shit like Moore’s film, or a film told (necessarily) from a particular point of view but with very high standards of truthfulness and self-criticism? For me I would guess it’d be the latter – one reason being is that it is easier for people to dismiss the first film as a piece of shit because it is so obviously selective and also so at odds with their own view, but it is much harder to really dismiss the second type of film, because many (though maybe not all) of the best criticisms have already been made.
(3) Third point concerns the idea that “truth can look after itself” regardless of the effects of the free market. What the fuck?? The easiest way (though not the only way) to make money off a documentary is to make propaganda that some people (e.g. lefties) want to hear. And sometimes people might want to hear the truth – but not as often as they want to hear their own beliefs ‘confirmed’. Hence the stupid reaction of BBC-Guardian etc etc at Lord Hutton’s report – they hadn’t complained when they saw the terms of his inquiry, just the result ‘cos it didn’t go their way. Tossers. But you need institutions (like the oath-system or professional esteem and criticism, as in science) in place to uphold the practice of sticking to the truth (else you cannot have a system of justice or progess in scientific or even historical knowledge). The market will just deliver whatever the fuck people want to hear which will only rarely be the truth.
Does reading this make anyone want to fall asleep?! If so, apologies…
I’ve been both depressed and amazed at the naivety of the comments above – does no genuinely thinking left-orientated person have any satisfactory explanation for the undeniable fact that socialism is good if you are a callow, sheltered and untested 18 year old – a confused and hormonal bubbleheaded leech, but once the late 30s and REAL responsibility kicks in, together with the inevitable rapid realisation that those unwashed and perspirational college students are the bipedal equivalent of deer ticks, whose narrowmindend and naif “views” be seen for the cr@p that they are, “right is right” becomes the mot juste! Would you ask a hallitosis-raddled spotty biology major to perform neurosurgey on your child? So why the f@@k do we even bother to listen to the plebian prattlings of the infantile sucklers on the state teat?
Not that G W Bush is right, of course, he’s just a bloke with (according to a successful trial attorney friend of mine from SC who knows) an IQ of 90 and a family-first (Bush family, that is) agenda to pursue. Bush-relevant thought from my favourite author (Michael Innes): His intellectual gear and tackle are grossly inadequate for the pretentious philosophical voyages he attempts.
“he’s just a bloke with an IQ of 90”
Urban legend
Here is an excellent analysis of this film by someone who studies and teaches propaganda techniques for a living:
Propaganda & Fahrenheit 9/11
Hylas:
I get an error trying to open the document; Adobe claims not to be able to decrypt it. 🙁
Ted:
You may need the new adobe reader. I think they’re up to v6.0 now. I should probably upgrade it too. My old v5.1 opens it but gives a warning.
Tuscan Tony: it might take some people until they are forced with the challenges of being a 30yr old, though there are others who can see that socialism is crap on rather simple intellectual grounds long before reaching their 30s.
I don’t know. I have been a firm democratic socialist since reading Barbara Tuchman’s, “The Proud Tower” in college. Also, I had to do a research paper on Social Darwinism. It left me with a horror of “free market” (there is no free market only corporate control of markets) philiosophy. Nothing I have seen in the last 20 years has changed my mind. I suggest some of the libertarians read about Britian in the 19th century. I am sure that many parts of the world are like that today. With the safety net in America disappearing, I predict we will soon end up like that soon as well.
I thought 911 was dumb overall, but had some good points. Bush in white tie telling the elite that they were his base. The way neocons regard all Americans as cannon fodder. The use of mercanaries, Haliburton, etc. Triumph of the Will is a much better movie.
There is a big difference between a government that passes silly laws and one that actively tries to destroy the lives of its citizens. Appreciate what you have in Britian, I have never been there, but I think that it is probably one of the best places in the world to be right now.
Chris:
GWB’s “lies” actually saved lives. We were constantly told that the UN sanctions had killed anywhere from half a million to one million people. Since the sanctions were in place for 12 years, that’s just over 40,000 people a year.
As far as I can tell, no more than 25,000 people have been killed in the year and a half since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. That’s well under 20,000 people per year, which means that over 20,000 lives a year have been saved by going to war.
Ain’t statistics wonderful? 🙂
Tucker –
Thanks for that link to remind us all of the cost of Bush’s lies. We should all keep that in mind.
Just one thing, in that there are some others that need to be brought to account for lying…..
For example…
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
Ex-President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
Ex-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“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
“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.”
Senator John Edwards (D-NC), October 10, 2002
“While the distance between the United States and Iraq is great, Saddam Hussein’s ability to use his chemical and biological weapons against us is not constrained by geography – it can be accomplished in a number of different ways – which is what makes this threat so real and persuasive.”
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), October 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
“The essential facts are known. We know of the weapons in Saddam’s possession: chemical, biological, and nuclear in time. We know of his unequaled willingness to use them. We know his history. His invasions of his neighbors. His dreams of achieving hegemonic control over the Arab world. His record of anti-American rage. His willingness to terrorize, to slaughter, to suppress his own people and others. We need not stretch to imagine nightmare scenarios in which Saddam makes common cause with the terrorists who want to kill us Americans and destroy our way of life.”
Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), September 13, 2002
“Make no mistake: Saddam Hussein is a ruthless tyrant, and he must give up his weapons of mass destruction. We support the President in the course he has followed so far: working with Congress, working with the United Nations, insisting on strong and unfettered inspections. We must convince the world that Saddam Hussein is not America’s problem alone; he is the world’s problem. And we urge President Bush to stay this course for we are far stronger when we stand with other nations than when we stand alone.”
Governor Gary Locke (D-WA), January 28, 2003
Democratic Response to President Bush’s “State of the Union” address
Please note that the quote above was the OFFICIAL RESPONSE of the Democrat Party to Bush’s speech; the party line, if you will. The official position of the Democrats today is that Bush went to war with Iraq so his buddies could make money on the oil! What has changed, guys? Oh, yeah, there’s an election coming up! So what you said in January is now lies. Or are you lying today? Hmmm.
It is interesting that several of these quotes are from some of the Dwarfs running for the Democratic nomination, the same Dwarfs who scream out vicious attacks against the President to reporters foolish enough to listen to them. They savage George Bush daily for taking exactly the action they called for.
Potential Dwarf Hillary’s current hobby includes making the same kind of attacks on Bush for taking action against Iraq. She has stated in several speeches that there is no justification for the war, that there were never any biological weapons, and that there is no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. She obviously believes that we are too stupid to dig up her prior statements that are precisely opposite of her current stance. And of course she can depend on her buddies in the liberal media not to bring up such embarrassing discrepancies.
Former Dwarf Al Gore’s comments are particularly amusing. “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” And, “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” You’re sure singing a different tune today, Al. What changed?
This is business as usual for the left. When Bubba Clinton rattled his saber in Saddam’s direction (but did nothing), they all cheered and agreed with him. When patriotic fervor was high they all jumped on the bandwagon and tried to capitalize on it by agreeing with the President loudly. Now that we are in the tough phase of the operation and some Americans are having doubts about Iraq, these traitors try to make us believe they were against it in the first place.
They really are pitiful.
NUMEROUS INTERNET LINKS VERIFYING THE ACCURACY OF THE QUOTES:
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/
http://www.senate.gov/~lieberman/speeches/02/09/2002913614.html
http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/Releases02/r-iraq10.htm
http://www.waxman.house.gov/news_files/news_statements_res_iraq_10_10_02.htm
http://levin.senate.gov/floor/091902cs1.htm
http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20021010_iraq.html
http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/transcripts/2002/dec/021208.ohara.html
http://rockefeller.senate.gov/2002/flrstmt0102002.html
http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/hyper/2003/0129/epf303.htm
http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer?pagename=spc_2003_0123
Damn liars!
Michael Moore: triumph of the shrill.
Correction to Chris Tucker: Bush has not lied on any issue. Prove it, or shut up.
On the other hand, as Andrews post above shows, The Demoprats have made an art form out of saying one thing when it suits them, and changing course and saying the opposite when it doesnt.
Bush has his faults, but he has more integrity in his little finger than the entire American Left.
I am not wildly concerned about GOP vs. Dems, all of whom all lie as a matter of course. They are political parties and so it is their nature to lie when it suits their purposes. Is this really a revelation to anyone? Again, arguing over who lied when may be interesting on occasion but once more this strikes me as the two hobos arguing over who is smellier.
The issue here is Moore and whether or not he is any more credible. And of course he too is a bare faced liar who is no more credible than the people he attacks (to put it mildly). I think he is even less credible than the dissembling GOP and that is quite an achievement.
I suspect Verity and the British here would have a lot to say about that…
TWG
Shawn:
Niger yellowcake, WMD, mobile bioweapon labs, “Mission Accomplished!”,his TANG attendence records, the “years” of flying he did in TANG, the South Carolina campaign against Sen. McCain, “I fell off my bike due to the muddy ground”, when it hadn’t rained in almost two weeks of 85-90 degree (f) heat in Crawford, etc, etc, etc.
Number of service members who have died as a direct result of MM’s “lies” in F9/11: 0
Number of service members who have died as a direct result of GWB’s lies: 962
Moore’s McDocumentaries are truly of their time; politics for the Playstation generation.
Chris Tucker wrote:
So? I just cannot get too upset that nice Mr. Saddam got to strike three and aint in power any more. I also cannot get too upset that some professional soldiers died doing the job they signed up for. Sure it sucks, but hey, thats life and what they take my taxes to pay them for.
Nascar, spoken like a TRUE neocon scumbag. Been getting them GOP talking point faxes, I see.
Actually make an arguement, do not just insult people if you wish to be able to continue to post comments here.
Wilson Lied, your credibility died.
This I’ll grant.
You mean it wasn’t? It sure looked like it had been accomplished, or did Saddam Hussein remain in power at that point in time?
Which lies were these?
Did these alleged “lies” kill anyone?
What does this have to do with soldiers killed from W’s “lies”?
and this?
7% of foreign investment is “a lot”?
Chris, being wrong about something does not make it a lie. None of the examples you gavce are lies. None of the ones that you actually can have any objective knowledge about are lies.
The intelligence community, not just in the US but in many other major countries around the world, overestimated Saddam’s wmd’s. That does not mean Bush lied, it means he was given poor information. But not as poor as people like you claim. The fact remains that Saddam’s ties to terrorist groups and his pursuit of wmd’s are undeniable facts. The Russian repeatedly warned the US government that they had intelligence that strongly pointed to Saddam preparing terrorist attacks through proxy groups on the US. Bush acted pre-emptivley on a possible and growing threat, and after Sept.11, I for one am glad of it.
This has nothing to do with being a “neocon”, and everything to do giving a damn about protecting the lives of US citizens. People like you would wait until the chemical, biological, or nuclear attacks that our eneimies, which included Saddam, would not have hesitated to use, had already killed thousands, even millions of people, before saying “perhaps we should act now”. Well, sorry, but that doesnt wash anymore.
I was watching TV when the 911 attacks occured. I saw the second aircraft hit the WTC live. I sat there for 24 hours rooted to the spot in horror at what happenned and at what unfolded afterwards. The fireman who died in the hundreds. The Towers collapsing. It was an experiance I will never forget, and like many Americans, it changed me and my views on many issues profoundly and permanently.
And one of those changes is that I never ever want to have a President in power again who is not prepared to act strongly, aggressively, and sometimes pre-emptively, to protect my country and its people. And quite frankly, I dont care if that means getting it wrong sometimes. Rather that than another horror like 911. And the fact remains that wmd’s or no wmd’s, there were so many good reasons for Saddam to go that Bush did the right thing.
Now you, and those like you, can call people names and repeat the “neocon, imperialist, warmonger, lies lies lies” mantra till your blue in the face for all I care. Because the reality is that your views and beliefs and ideology and sad, pathetic 60’s mentality are dead and buried along with the three thousand who died on 911, in the hole left by the WTC.
The world changed on Sept.11, but you and the Michael Moores of the world just dont get that. Its as though your ghosts, trapped by your own hate and ideological prison, endlessly repeating the mantras of the old world as though they still had meaning.
Chris:
You forgot to take into account the number of lives saved by the ending of sanctions.
The South Carolina campaign against McCain killed people?? You used the word “scumbag” in a previous post, and I think it defines McCain better than anybody here. McCain is the schmuck responsible for campaign finance deform, which is a blatant assault on the First Amendment; he’s also big on having Big Government extort money from Small Tobacco.
And don’t get me started about the allegedly anti-Catholic nature of the SC campaign. I’m Catholic, and I recognize that the media were simply using the accusation of anti-Catholicism as a convenient whip in their attempt to beat up on Bush. The media were trotting out and lionizing the same folks who, just a few months earlier, were being ridiculed in the brouhaha over the ‘Sensation’ art exhibit. (For those who don’t remember, that was the exhibit where one of the works contained a representation of the Virgin Mary festooned with elephant dung.) PC doctrine dictates that certain groups (gays and women amongst others) are allowed to make fun of Catholics, while others (evangelical Protestants) are lower in the pecking order and mustn’t make fun of anybody.
And by the way, I don’t vote Republican, either.
“Fahrenheit 9/11” makes absolutely no mention of any neocon or Zionist contribution to US foreign policy before or after the attacks.
Moore is a useful idiot for the Project for the New American Century. He distracts the multiplex sheeple’s attention with a lot of incoherent conspiracism about gentile-run Big Business and the House of Saud.
Steering clear of the “antisemitism” smear allows his work to be distributed by Harvey Weinstein’s Miramax.