Eve of Destruction

[Johann]

I've been mulling over my impressions of Fahrenheit for a few days now and I've come to some conclusions.
(I don't need to see it again).

-This film should affect the election in November, but will it? Will Americans "buy a flag and re-claim their country" as some guy on the imdb said? Will they send a strong message to that jackass cowboy-cum-psychopath who is in the White House? (RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK)

-I got the distinct feeling that this is just the tip of the iceberg. What Moore kindly lets us know is that the corruption is so deep-rooted, so "across-the-board", so inconceivably fucked up that we must do something now to put a halt to this madness. I say we because even though I'm Canadian I sympathize with the good, hardworking people who make the States as great as they are. You're not that different from us.

-To be exploited, to be used, to be lied to and to be ignored is the greatest crime of all. Moore shows how it all happened: how the man wasn't even elected, how it's played out since, and how action must be taken. Get rid of that motherfucking cancer known as George "biggest disgrace in the history of American politics" W. Bush.

-The soldiers in Iraq were the most disturbing thing for me. They seemed like complete morons, total idiots who had no clue why they were there and oblivious to even basic rules of combat. I can't tell you how much contempt I have for the U.S. military now. People can argue that Moore only shows the "hotshots" and the "bad" side of the war, but there is no good side. The U.S. attacked that country with NO PROVOCATION. The scenes of Iraqi people crying over loved ones rings more true to me than that lady from Flint who told her children that the military was a great career move. Sorry, but her naivete is shocking. I didn't feel sorry for her at all. Her blind patriotism allowed her to experience a harrowing ordeal- the death of a loved one, just like the thousands of Iraqi's whose homes were ripped apart. I wanted to give that lady a shake: you think joining the army is all about fighting little wars and coming home victorious to ticker-tape parades? Get with it, lady. Bush lied to you and you paid for it the hard way. And it's still happening- her husband was absolutely right: what about the soldiers that are dying today? Right now?

-Is the U.S. Presidency about bettering America and the lives of it's people? No. It's about money.
If you don't believe it then you are the kind of American Dubya wants you to be.

-Did I mention this man is sitting in the White House as we speak?

-People say Moore made this film to justify his oscar speech. He made it because he loves his country and is only asking what happened to it. He wants it back, and so should you.
The man is very smart. He'll keep making films that show us what we are until we all wake up. Is Fahrenheit enough to get people to say "You answer to us. And we say BURN, motherfucker, BURN".

[pmw]

Im off to see this right now. I am very excited. Much of what you point out is right on the money and I'm glad to hear that the film is born of such sentiment.

Bush is an all time low in American history. What a shame for our country and what a detriment to the world.

Moore is an absolute patriot (via his other films). He might be a little egotistical, but he's pinned the measure of himself as a man to something much greater than money.

Im hopeful that through the thick fog that hangs over the US, there will be enough clarity to oust Bush and his gang of conspirators in the next election. We must reclaim our place amongst the other members of the world community. A young and untested country (relatively speaking) must start to show the signs of a maturing nation that can learn from history, account for its actions and be a positive presence on the earth. Otherwise...

P

[Johann]

I lost a friend today.
He thinks Fahrenheit is propaganda of the first order.

Funny, considering the images speak for themselves.

Clip after clip after clip of raw sewage, flowing freely from the mouth of one of the most arrogant men to ever walk the earth.
Tons of stock footage (many from major networks) that show beyond any possible doubt that the man in charge is a two-faced coward, a man whose only concern in life is fattening his pocketbook, at any cost- even the lives of his own countrymen.

Propaganda my ass. If Stephen Harper became the Prime Minister of this country we'd be no different from Bush and his cronies. No fucking different. I don't like the Liberals, but we don't have anything better. The shit's so deep no one except a cunning politician would dare try to "lead the country".

I'm feeling ill. But this too, shall pass.

You can't argue with a filmed image.

Yeah, great job, troops! OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM was a resounding sucess! Victory is ours! God Bless America!

WE ARE THE GREAT LIBERATORS OF OUR TIME!
WE ARE THE NATION THAT MAKES THINGS RIGHT IN THE WORLD!

You can't argue with a filmed image.

Anduril won't dare see fahrenheit. He's afraid of the truth for some reason. Yet he says he sticks to the facts. Give me a bleeding break. Something is not right. I think I'll stir a shitstorm, because I'm steaming mad that I lost a friend today:
Your blindness will be the death of you. (It's been doing a good job so far)

[anduril]

I won't see the movie because it is propaganda and I have no intention of having the proceeds of my money go to the types of causes that Moore advocates. Whatever Moore's talents as a documentary filmmaker (and I do not deny them), he rants and raves and distorts. See http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/ for starters. The arguments he presents in the film are nothing new from the liberal left in the United States and I don't need to see the documentary to know that. What's more, there are people with a great deal more intelligence than Michael Moore who have decried the Bush Whitehouse and the Iraqi conflict; I've read their material. So, don't bother throw the red herring at me that I need to see this movie...

And Johann: You're awfully naive if you think the filmed image doesn't lie. The skill of a director to use edits, cuts, and juxtapose images and thereby create a fiction is elaborate, extensive, and well-known. Any person who takes seriously film should be aware of that but you are so caught up in your love affair with film that it speaks no evil and you hear no evil.

You didn't lose a friend today; you purposefully denounced me today because you can't handle the fact that I have a different view from you. Good luck with that!

I will defend to the teeth the decision made by the Americans, the British, and many other Coalition governments to liberate Iraq. It was the right decision to make then and it remains the right decision today. Moore's talent for distortion and the liberal left change nothing on this issue.

[pmw]

A little blurb from a foxnews.com writer who was not a big Moore fan:

From Roger Friedman's / FOXNews.com review of the premier.

...

But once "F9/11" gets to audiences beyond screenings, it won't be dependent on celebrities for approbation. It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.

As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" - as we saw last night - is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty - and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice.

Readers of this column may recall that I had a lot of problems with Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," particularly where I thought he took gratuitous shots at helpless targets such as Charlton Heston. "Columbine" too easily succeeded by shooting fish in a barrel, as they used to say.

Not so with "F9/11," which instead relies on lots of film footage and actual interviews to make its case against the war in Iraq and tell the story of the intertwining histories of the Bush and bin Laden families.

...

Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion on the film. Though I must say Anduril that it would be a more interesting discussion if you saw the film!...Perhaps you could buy a ticket to something else and see Moore's movie instead...Ive heard of people doing that who feel similarily to you.

[anduril]

That's not a bad suggestion, pmw. I'll have to see if I can arrange that in the next little while before the film slinks out of theatres. I'm just in the midst of completing my thesis so time is tight with me these days. Still, I'll see if I can swing that. Never pulled that sort of trick before.

[anduril]

Incidentally, I have no doubt, as stated, that Moore is a talented filmmaker and, if I happen to make it in to see the film, I expect to have that confirmed with F9/11. The problem I have with F9/11 arises out of its distortion and misrepresentation; it is propaganda, meant to manipulate viewers to share the opinions of its filmmaker. It denies the viewer relevant facts and leaves open to them only one view--the filmmaker's. Michael Moore's website and rhetoric are enough to substantiate this interpretation.

The links between the Bush family, the House of Saud, and the Bin Ladens are well-known to me as well as the 'suspicious' movement of Saudis out of the country post-9/11. The complicated web of oil and other business connections is something I also know. I have seen and read ad nauseam about liberal opinions that the war lacked justification or legitimacy, that deny the existence of WMD and terrorist links to Saddam's regime, that argue for the inhumanity of the conflict, that lament the lost lives of American soldiers, and that carciature the right as heartless and elitist imperialists and socio-economic tyrants. I also understand and know about the American complicity in arming Saddam. There are also the arguments that Republican administrations turned a blind eye to Halabja and initially to the invasion of Kuwait that set off GWI--these are known to me as well. I also have read extensively about the so-called neo-conservative movement, their 'manifestos' and their pre-planning on Iraq. I also know the 'suspicious' chronological issues on 9/11 and liberal opinions about Bush's performance on that day. I've read countless collections of quotes that point out, or attempt to point out, inconsistencies and contradictions in the public and private, former and later statements of various cabinet officials. I've read many publicly available government, congressional, senate, and committee briefs on the events relating to 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I'm well acquianted with Moore's take that the media failed to ask the 'hard' questions. I know about the liberal complaints about Bush's military service. I understand the issues around the Abu Ghraib situation. I've also come across the liberal arguments that attempt to shock people with staggering civilian and military deaths. Yadda, yadda, yadda... etc. etc. etc. ... this is not an issue that I'm uninformed about. I doubt very much that Moore will have anything to present that I have not already read about or seen.

The skill of his film will be in the way he attempts to manipulate the viewer into accepting his perspective on these issues. To accomplish this, he will juxtapose images, suppress and ignore facts, utilize innuendo and imply connections, telescope events, make edits and cuts that distort reality, and so on.

Also, I should point out, I'm not a Bush or Republican groupie who subscribes carte blanche to everything claimed by them. Ditto for right-wing commentators like Vox Day, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc. etc. etc. Though I support Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war on terrorism, I come to my positions by my own research and support Bush, however imperfect he has carried on the Presidency and the Iraqi conflict, because ultimately his views more closely reflect my own.

[Raoul]

Originally posted by Johann

-The soldiers in Iraq were the most disturbing thing for me. They seemed like complete morons, total idiots who had no clue why they were there and oblivious to even basic rules of combat. I can't tell you how much contempt I have for the U.S. military now. People can argue that Moore only shows the "hotshots" and the "bad" side of the war, but there is no good side. The U.S. attacked that country with NO PROVOCATION. The scenes of Iraqi people crying over loved ones rings more true to me than that lady from Flint who told her children that the military was a great career move. Sorry, but her naivete is shocking. I didn't feel sorry for her at all. Her blind patriotism allowed her to experience a harrowing ordeal- the death of a loved one, just like the thousands of Iraqi's whose homes were ripped apart. I wanted to give that lady a shake: you think joining the army is all about fighting little wars and coming home victorious to ticker-tape parades? Get with it, lady. Bush lied to you and you paid for it the hard way. And it's still happening- her husband was absolutely right: what about the soldiers that are dying today? Right now?



Johan, buddy, I admire your passion but with all due respect I think you missed the point.
(in my best Obe Wan voice:) Look deeper, young patawan.

Those soldiers weren't morons, or even trigger happy shitheads as they may have come off. They were scared little kids. All of that bravado and apparent bloodlust has been instilled in them by a military industrial complex. C’mon, Johan. You saw Full Metal Jacket. It's what they put on to hide their fear from the camera, their colleagues and themselves

It’s important to read between the lines in Moore’s Films and not to get too carried away. Unfortunately, a style like Michael’s is the only way to get across to people in this “Reality TV” era.

(anduril) It denies the viewer relevant facts and leaves open to them only one view--the filmmaker's. Michael Moore's website and rhetoric are enough to substantiate this interpretation.


You’re absolutely right, but it’s not as though he’s hiding relevant facts because they might upset his point. Feel free to prove me wrong. One fact that Moore failed to mention was the fact that as proposals to the house judiciary committee failed to gain approval of the senate, John Kerry sat on the Senate as did Al Gore. Who’s side are they on, anyways?

Raoul

[anduril]

Originally posted by Raoul
You’re absolutely right, but it’s not as though he’s hiding relevant facts because they might upset his point. Feel free to prove me wrong.
That's exactly what he is doing; as I already pointed out, see http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/ for starters.

[Johann]

Now we get down to it.


Raoul- as a former Infantry soldier, I can speak with confidence about those soldiers. The "bravado" they displayed was part and parcel of a coping with the situation, sure, but man, the Canadian government SHUT DOWN our Airborne Regiment for the same behavior in Somalia. The soldiers are mocking their "enemies"- what the fuck is all this sexual shit? Naked prisoners, posing, simulating masturbation? What the hell kind of army thinks this is "proper conduct"? The Geneva Convention seems non-existant!
War Crimes. War Crimes. War Crimes.
Want me to say it again?

Fucking War Crimes.

There is a lot I love about America but man, that shit don't fly.
How the fuck are you gonna be respected as a liberator- like Canada was to Holland- go to Holland and ask anyone what they think of Canadians- that's gratitude for liberation, mario.
The U.S. military seem like a gang of phony machismo egomaniacal rapists. Yes, I saw Full Metal Jacket- it's the same thing! Who's criticizing Kubrick? No one. Don't shoot the messenger. Kubrick didn't go to war- he just showed it to us.
"We are jolly green giants, walking the earth!"

Have we learned nothing?

[Johann]

You have more than a different point of view. I entertain differing points of view. Why would I be here? I would just sit in solitude, happy with what I know. I seek differing points of view AND give up my own with supreme confidence.

You have unmitigated blindness.

I see both sides of the coin- you see one.

See, this world of ours is not so simple as you think. You can't "pick a party" and run with them. So many variables, so many issues...the planet is so unpredictable, the very nature of life so esoteric (and beautiful) that we cannot count on our leaders. Why? Because they're not like us- they don't live like us (JUST LIKE MOORE POINTS OUT) They don't give a shit about our problems. Oh, they'll tell you they do, they'll pledge that they do, but you have more naivete than me if you think they're gonna follow through.

The filmed image. Let's get down to brass taxes my blind ex-friend:

1. Movies are fundamentally deception. The movie Galaxy Quest showed us what the movie business is in a humourous way. The aliens wondered why humans called TV entertainment, when it was not real. They asked why we would entertain ourselves with a fictional show. With "lies".

2. There's a colossal difference between "giving it up" for such obvious, flagrant media and "giving it up" for a film (Fahrenheit) which has essentially only one question: What is going on?
Which begs the question, Kenneth: can you tell the difference between fact and fiction?

In this case, clearly the answer is NO.

[Johann]

Thanks for posting a link to Fahrenheit Fact, Ken-

TOO BAD NO ONE CAN CONTEST IT BECAUSE THEY WON'T ALLOW COMMENTS. I'm sure Moore himself has tried to speak out on the site.

This is what I'm talking about: one side of the coin, draconian fear-based blindness.

And the fact that you haven't even seen the film makes me wonder why I'm even addressing you at this point.

[Raoul]

Originally posted by anduril

That's exactly what he is doing; as I already pointed out, see http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/ for starters.
You've pointed us in the general direction of a stream of conciousness library that caters to kneejerk right wing apologists.

I'd be interested in seeing dirict refuations of Points of fact made in the movie. Please do this forum a favour and pick the pieces of that blog that you feel best represent it's points in specific and in spirit. I don't have time to sift through all of the bullshit rhetoric (ie: moore is fat, moore is unamerican....)

As I brought up in the other thread: This is America. If Moore distorted the facts, told lies, made unfair assertions or depictions, he's going to get sued. The guy's making a pile of money off of this movie that could probably fill my office a few times in large bills. If it's untrue or defamatory in any way, lawyers should be licking their lips.

As of yet, nothing.

Raoul

[Johann]

Hello darkness my old friend
I've come to talk to you again

The sound of silence.


Moore has gone on record: anyone who thinks anything in Fahrenheit is false, he'll give complete disclosure on where, when, and who gave him the information.

The man is a hero- he's going against authority and overcoming it. The government is for the people, right? That's precisely the problem. The people aren't happy. The people feel cheated. The people want answers. the people deserve answers.

The people aren't getting answers. They're getting rhetoric- from Bush, not Moore, Ken- fuck the ignorance is staggering- the U.S. is at an all-time low (like pmw pointed out) and it does not have to continue. SHOULD NOT continue.

[anduril]

Raoul: I'm not your librarian. If you can't spend a couple of minutes sifting through the blog that's your problem not mine. You won't have to go far for salient points about the movie because they don't waste time.

RE: Litigation. You'd think so, eh? But, why then are the political pundits able to publish volumes upon volumes of lies month by month. The fact is that Moore's movie will receive protection under the very same forces that come to work to protect political booksales and op-eds in this country. Oh, and add to that, very bad move for Bush and the White House administration to sue Moore in an election year; better to ignore it.

[anduril]

F9/11 uses facts in evidence and it quite obviously passes the legal standards. Miramax and Moore wouldn't have released it if it didn't meet the legal standards (and, incidentally, both have indicated that legal firms were consulted and are retained in the event a libel/slander suit is launched); too much money at stake for them to make that type of move without legal consultation.

F9/11, however, is a distortion of the facts, a misrepresentation. There are many ways to accomplish this. You can put two disparate facts together and present them as having a causal connection of some kind. You can read into the absence of information. You can proof-text an issue while ignoring contrary evidence. In the case of film, you can take cut, edit, or juxtapose images to communicate certain implicit ideas. I could go on... the art of propaganda is extensive.

[Johann]

Fahrenheit Fact has no legs.

If all they can do is be anti-Moore without allowing anyone to say anything in return...

here, fishy fishy...


The "art of propoganda"? What possible benefit does Moore have in attacking Bush?

Where's his prize?

[Johann]

Fahrenheit uses more than just facts in evidence.

He's unearthed some devastating footage of Bush and his policy makers who have more than just their hands in the cookie jar.

These are Masters of Corruption. The kind that can only be produced by BIG BUSINESS.

The lives of fellow human beings are not important when you need your wallet full. This is Moore's argument.

See the film before you pass judgment, Ken- you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[anduril]

Fahrenheit Fact is just for starters... and it gives its readers a reasonable reason for not using comments. It is simply meant to disseminate some of the distortions at work in the film. Flip it back at you, Moore provides no place to comment on his film at his website. Its pure promotion too. To help the troops, Moore advertises on his site that he will send free copies of any of his movies if they write him and tell him their situation. Yeah, I'm sure that doesn't have an obvious set of motives. So gracious to help out the troops like that...

Michael Moore is a well-established liberal pundit. If you want to jump in bed with him simply because he also knows how to work a camera and spin a tale...

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
The "art of propoganda"? What possible benefit does Moore have in attacking Bush?

Where's his prize?

I really didn't read this, did I? Hmmm, where's his prize? What's the benefit? There are so many possible ways to just begin to answer this question... surely you can think of just one of those reasons and save me the time.

[Johann]

Only one: getting rid of that Texan asshole and knowing he helped do it.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
These are Masters of Corruption. The kind that can only be produced by BIG BUSINESS.

The lives of fellow human beings are not important when you need your wallet full. This is Moore's argument.

As I mentioned, I've heard it all. This is nothing new. Republicans and Bush et al. sit in dark rooms, smoking cohibas, and conspiring how best to manipulate the world stage in order to satiate their insatiable lust for power and wealth. Yes, yes, yes and poor little Michael Moore--no money to his name--valiantly walks the corridors of power in his blue collar and filthy hat, jeans, and shirt to root out this corruption and set it in the light of day for all to see. Hmmm... wonderful... Thank-you, Mr. Moore for your undefiled purity of conscience, your dedication to objectivity and the everyman. Thank-you, Mr. Moore that you alone have the courage to summon the American people to their civic duty, that is to vote Democrat!

[Johann]

He ain't "spinning a tale", man.

It's truth. Undeniable, you-bet-your-bibby truth. Moore is using a heavy-hand, but it's no more heavy than the one Bush and co. used to deceive the American people. (and the world)

I'm staring in disbelief at your comments, Ken.



Why are only Canadians arguing about this movie on this thread?

[Johann]

Originally posted by anduril


As I mentioned, I've heard it all. This is nothing new. Republicans and Bush et al. sit in dark rooms, smoking cohibas, and conspiring how best to manipulate the world stage in order to satiate their insatiable lust for power and wealth. Yes, yes, yes and poor little Michael Moore--no money to his name--valiantly walks the corridors of power in his blue collar and filthy hat, jeans, and shirt to root out this corruption and set it in the light of day for all to see. Hmmm... wonderful... Thank-you, Mr. Moore for your undefiled purity of conscience, your dedication to objectivity and the everyman. Thank-you, Mr. Moore that you alone have the courage to summon the American people to their civic duty, that is to vote Democrat!

You've heard it all before? You obviously haven't heard that Bush was a Yale BONESMAN. Know what they are, Ken? An elite group whose only mission in life is world domination! Hmmm. Bush is President....

And you don't believe it? Your post above is actually not that far off the mark- these guys do conspire to manipulate! They do have an insatiable lust for power and money!

This is how blind you are. They do it while people like you support it! SHAME ON YOU!

As I've said before, your ignorance is staggering.

[anduril]

No spin. Of course not. I know that. F9/11 is purity of vision, an unassailable bastion of truth, and Moore is the everyman who wants that truth to be heard. He shows consummate trust to lay out all the details and let his viewers decide. He strives to liberate his audience from the tyranny of their media and their enslavement to the wiles and deception of the Republican-right. 'F9/11 ignites box office Passion,' screams his website. Moore stares right into the abyss and cries out in the wilderness, "Repent!" He sounds the call: "Let all people hear know that their salvation is at hand. John Kerry shall deliver us from the throes of Satan and his minions. Vote! Vote! Vote!"

[anduril]

Geroge Bush, Skull and Bones, 1967. Yeah, I get it.

Oh, wait! John Kerry, Skull and Bones, 1965.

[Johann]

Time to check into rehab, man- whatever your on is destroying you and your good sense.

What happened to you? Your intelligence has left you....This is not the Ken I know.

[Johann]

Originally posted by anduril
Geroge Bush, Skull and Bones, 1967. Yeah, I get it.

Oh, wait! John Kerry, Skull and Bones, 1965.

Keep going! Don't stop there.

Yeah, you get it. What do you get?

Politicians are cunning-Kerry's an idiot too- all of them. The U.S. (and canada) are in a crisis situation right now.

[Johann]

George W. Bush will win the election in November. Why? Because he paid for it in cold, hard, blood-drenched cash. Remember Dogville by Lars von Trier? Do you remember your President NIXON?

[Johann]

I highly recommend reading two books by Hunter S. Thompson:

Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72- Hunter shows with extrordinary, gonzo, heat-seeking truth how Nixon stole the election in 1972 from George McGovern (and everybody else) and it's the best political book I will ever read- yes, EVER READ. Hunter Thompson is one of my heroes- as a journalist, a freak, and a man.

Kingdom of Fear- this is his latest. It's the truth, undistilled, AGAIN, by the greatest gonzo poet America has ever produced.
He tells us the next ten years are gonna suck big time, and I believe him. Read these important works- AMERICAN WORKS- with NO PROPAGANDA, and you'll see what it's really all about.

Hunter hated Bush senior so much he wrote a book called Better Than Sex, where he laments that the country is so fucked and Bush has to go so badly that he was willing to vote for Clinton to get Bush out of the white house.

I wonder what the good doctor is thinking right now, in the aftermath of Fahrenheit 9/11...

[Raoul]

Originally posted by anduril
Raoul: I'm not your librarian.
Indeed. Nonetheless, you haven't come up with anything usefull, and neither has that blog as far as I can tell. I'm inviting you to pick some salient points from it and throw them up here for discussion. Unless, of course, you can't find anythng of merit in that dung heap, either.


(anduril)
RE: Litigation. You'd think so, eh? But, why then are the political pundits able to publish volumes upon volumes of lies month by month. The fact is that Moore's movie will receive protection under the very same forces that come to work to protect political booksales and op-eds in this country.
Yeah, no. It looks like you might have your country lines blurred a bit. In the US, publishing provable untruths about a person or corporation makes one liable for court action. If any of the Facts that Moore asserts in his movie were not the truth, lawyers would come out of cracks in the sidewalk like those flying ants do this time of year. No one's going to get away with saying something like : "The Bush Family has made 400 bil off of business with the Saudis" and get away with it by saying, "oh... that's just my opinion and I'm entitled to freedom of speech".

Any lawyers out there care to comment?


(anduril)Oh, and add to that, very bad move for Bush and the White House administration to sue Moore in an election year; better to ignore it.

Tough one to ignore, this movie. Although, i'm sure they're wishing they could. You raise an interesting point: Could they better benefit by waiting untill they loose the election (if they loose the election) and then sueing? They would argueably be entitled to more dammages if they can prove that he made them loose the election.

Raoul[SIZE=1]

[Johann]

Exactly, Raoul.

Let's see if Michael Moore is sued after Bush wins in Nov.

[anduril]

Seriously man, I get it. Like I said, the Republicans are all gathered in dark rooms, smoking cohibas, and conspiring world domination. They need to be stopped. It reminds me of the Jews in Europe shortly before WWII. Here's my proposal in twenty-three points:

1. We demand the unification of all Americans on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples.

2. We demand equality of rights and the abrogation of the World Trade Organization, the G8, and NAFTA.

3. We demand land and territory for the sustenance of our people.

4. Only a member of the Democratic Party can be a citizen. Consequently no Republican can be a citizen of the United States of America.

5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in the United States only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.

6. The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Republic, the state or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting capitalist economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.

8. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.

9. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:

10. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

11. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

12. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

13. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

14. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

15. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the Republic, state or municipality.

16. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

17. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest, primarily Republicans and the Religious Right.

18. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious American to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the Republic must be striven for by the school as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the Republic of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

19. The Republic is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

20. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

21. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of an American press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the English language be Democratic: b. Republican newspapers be required to have the express permission of the Republic to be published. They may not be printed in the English language: c. Republicans are forbidden by law any financial interest in Democratic publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Republic of the Republicans concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

22. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the Republic so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the American people. Our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility.

23. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Republic. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Republic and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Republic within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.

[Johann]

Can you give me that in lay-man's terms?

I'm just a regular joe.
I just like movies.

Don't hurt me....

[anduril]

Originally posted by Raoul
Yeah, no. It looks like you might have your country lines blurred a bit. In the US, publishing provable untruths about a person or corporation makes one liable for court action. If any of the Facts that Moore asserts in his movie were not the truth, lawyers would come out of cracks in the sidewalk like those flying ants do this time of year. No one's going to get away with saying something like : "The Bush Family has made 400 bil off of business with the Saudis" and get away with it by saying, "oh... that's just my opinion and I'm entitled to freedom of speech".

If I'm confused or blurring lines as you suggest, perhaps you could address the substance of my point. Is it your take that all the books in this section (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=ckspiritual&path=tg/browse/-/11079) of Amazon.com are free from libel or slander. If you claim that they are, doesn't that point to how incredibly weak the legal standard of libel and slander is in the United States?

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
Can you give me that in lay-man's terms?

I'm just a regular joe.
I just like movies.

Don't hurt me....

Now, I'm confused. Who was the ignorant one again? If you can't appreciate the significance of what I posted then you've really got a horrible deficiency in your grasp of politics, history, and ideology, Johann.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Raoul
Indeed. Nonetheless, you haven't come up with anything usefull, and neither has that blog as far as I can tell. I'm inviting you to pick some salient points from it and throw them up here for discussion. Unless, of course, you can't find anythng of merit in that dung heap, either.

So, you've read it. Perhaps, you could give me some evidence for your position that it's a dung heap. Comment, if you will, on just a couple of the Fahrenheit Facts #1-15 at the site.

[Raoul]

Originally posted by anduril


If I'm confused or blurring lines as you suggest, perhaps you could address the substance of my point. Is it your take that all the books in this section (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=ckspiritual&path=tg/browse/-/11079) of Amazon.com are free from libel or slander. If you claim that they are, doesn't that point to how incredibly weak the legal standard of libel and slander is in the United States?

Well I'm no lawyer and my attorney was last seen en-route to Azatlan with a salt shaker half full of cocaine, but I'll do my best.

As near as I can tell, no. These books are not exempt from libel suits. We're talking about America here, you can sue anyone you want. If the judge finds that you have published information that is not true, and it damaged someone's rep, you pay up.

As for the Communist manifesto above, it's very clever. I dare say it's more inflamitory than a Michael Moore film.
It looks like you might have me all wrong: I endorse no major political party - democrat or republican. It's my position that, in all likelyhood, the democrats are just as evil or worse. Chances are that they're working towards the same goals.
Remember: No Senetor would sign the bill to have the Supreme Court's decision to appoint bush as president recinded. Many of those senetors were democrats. One of them was John Kerry.

What does this mean? I don't know. It could be that - as the good doctor has suggested many times before - we're doomed. I do know that if people started voting, payed attention to what was going on and made their voices heard on a large scale, chances are politicians would grow some accountability.[COLOR=skyblue][COLOR=skyblue][COLOR=skyblue]

[Johann]

Cazart!


My attorney was pouring beer on his chest to facilitate the tanning process...

[anduril]

Originally posted by Raoul
Well I'm no lawyer and my attorney was last seen en-route to Azatlan with a salt shaker half full of cocaine, but I'll do my best.

As near as I can tell, no. These books are not exempt from libel suits. We're talking about America here, you can sue anyone you want. If the judge finds that you have published information that is not true, and it damaged someone's rep, you pay up.

So why then haven't there been a virtual stream of suits and counter-suits with respect to these books? Are they all telling the truth? Why is this stuff getting published?


Originally posted by Raoul
As for the Communist manifesto above, it's very clever. I dare say it's more inflamitory than a Michael Moore film.

That's not the Communist manifesto but nice try. I'll give a "B" for effort, k?


Originally posted by Raoul
It looks like you might have me all wrong: I endorse no major political party - democrat or republican. It's my position that, in all likelyhood, the democrats are just as evil or worse. Chances are that they're working towards the same goals.
Remember: No Senetor would sign the bill to have the Supreme Court's decision to appoint bush as president recinded. Many of those senetors were democrats. One of them was John Kerry.


I love the world you live in. Can I join? Do I apply with the casting director of the X-Files or is it a direct application to Oliver Stone that gets me in? We can talk about it later in Roswell, okay? If I can shake my FBI tail, I should be there by sundown.

[Raoul]

Originally posted by anduril


So, you've read it. Perhaps, you could give me some evidence for your position that it's a dung heap. Comment, if you will, on just a couple of the Fahrenheit Facts #1-15 at the site.

Funny, I asked you to do that and you didn't want to. Anyhow, here goes.

Fact 15: A happy and healthy Iraq.

Those kids flying kites and peolple getting married were actual events happening in Iraq the day before the sky started to fall. Yes, the bomb shown was blowing up the Iraqi ministry of defense, and it was nowhere near those civilians shown in Moore's 'file footage'. However, I somehow doubt that the same type of activities were going on that day. Massive Ordinance Air Blasts put a damper on wedding receptions and kite activities.

Moore also had footage of the civilian casualties that isn't commented on in that blog. Now who's omitting facts?

Nobody is claiming that Saddam was an alright guy. Shit, he was a monster. But it's never discussed how he came to power: Through US money and Interests. .source (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/iraqgate/iraqgate.html)

Fahrenheit Fact no. 13: Air National Guard Service Misrepresented

It's interesting that Bush helping with a political campaign durring his absenteeism didn't come out untill long LONG after the questions arose, were ignored, arose again, were further ignored, 10k was offered to prove otherwise by that Doonsebury guy. All of a sudden: Hey, WAIT! I was campaining. Yeah. Campaining.

[Johann]

Why is this stuff getting published?

Same reason we're discussing this film: MONEY.

O.J.'s free because of it, there are Harry Potter films because of it, Bush is President because of it.

[Johann]

Another point about the National Guard service:

James Bath was Bush's co-pilot.
His name is blacked out on the white house-released document.
Michael Moore already had a copy of the original, and kindly tells us why the name was blacked out. Because people might find out that James Bath is in neck-deep with the Saudi's, placed there by Mr. George W. Bush. (his good buddy). Osama Bin-Laden is a Saudi, in case you didn't know, Ken.

See the film- it's all there on screen.

[Raoul]

Originally posted by anduril


So why then haven't there been a virtual stream of suits and counter-suits with respect to these books? Are they all telling the truth? Why is this stuff getting published?

Gee, you think people might be telling the truth? Is this a foreign concept to you? It's not always a good idea to file a libel suit. In general people don't like lawyers and would rather spend their time doing nearly anything else than court. Also, if they lack the resources, they're kind of stuck. But you're a smart guy, I don't have to point that out to you.



That's not the Communist manifesto but nice try. I'll give a "B" for effort, k?
gee, teach. do i get a gold star too? That was a re hash of the main points of the soviet doctrine. Pleas explain how you think that's relevant in this forum.




I love the world you live in. Can I join? Do I apply with the casting director of the X-Files or is it a direct application to Oliver Stone that gets me in? We can talk about it later in Roswell, okay? If I can shake my FBI tail, I should be there by sundown.

grow up. your attitude is the type that hinders progressive change. Just because a guy doesn't endorse any major political parties, he's a conspiracy nut? Your stupidity is really starting to show, buddy.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Raoul
Funny, I asked you to do that and you didn't want to. Anyhow, here goes.
Yes, it is. Except I had already read the blog and so it did not profit me any to pull stuff out for you if you were simply going to ignore it anyways. Now, I know you've at least scanned parts of it. Besides, its Moore that has to prove his case; the burden of proof always lies with the prosecutor.

Originally posted by Raoul
Fact 15: A happy and healthy Iraq.

Those kids flying kites and peolple getting married were actual events happening in Iraq the day before the sky started to fall. Yes, the bomb shown was blowing up the Iraqi ministry of defense, and it was nowhere near those civilians shown in Moore's 'file footage'. However, I somehow doubt that the same type of activities were going on that day. Massive Ordinance Air Blasts put a damper on wedding receptions and kite activities.

So you think happy and healthy Iraq was just on hiatus for the day?

Originally posted by Raoul
Moore also had footage of the civilian casualties that isn't commented on in that blog. Now who's omitting facts?
They are omitting facts. Your point?

Originally posted by Raoul
Nobody is claiming that Saddam was an alright guy. Shit, he was a monster. But it's never discussed how he came to power: Through US money and Interests. Source (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/iraqgate/iraqgate.html)
US money didn't bring Saddam to power; it kept him there. But, more to the point, doesn't this fact point to the American responsibility to fix what they had done? Also, if Saddam is as you concede a monster, should we have let him stay in power?

Originally posted by Raoul
Fahrenheit Fact no. 13: Air National Guard Service Misrepresented

It's interesting that Bush helping with a political campaign durring his absenteeism didn't come out untill long LONG after the questions arose, were ignored, arose again, were further ignored, 10k was offered to prove otherwise by that Doonsebury guy. All of a sudden: Hey, WAIT! I was campaining. Yeah. Campaining.
Striking rebuttal. Thank-you.

Perhaps you could comment on Fahrenheit Fact #14.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Raoul
Gee, you think people might be telling the truth? Is this a foreign concept to you? It's not always a good idea to file a libel suit. In general people don't like lawyers and would rather spend their time doing nearly anything else than court. Also, if they lack the resources, they're kind of stuck. But you're a smart guy, I don't have to point that out to you.
If all those books in that section of Amazon.com are telling the truth then there is no such thing as truth. The books are mutually contradictory.

In libel suits, you never lack the resources. Attorneys, if the case is any good, take these on a percentage of the settlement. Besides, the people being targeted by these political books are all persons of means.


Originally posted by Raoul
gee, teach. do i get a gold star too? That was a re hash of the main points of the soviet doctrine. Pleas explain how you think that's relevant in this forum.
It was not Soviet doctrine! I'm employing sarcasm to argue against the conspiratorial logic of your's, Moore's, and Johann's position.


Originally posted by Raoul
grow up. your attitude is the type that hinders progressive change. Just because a guy doesn't endorse any major political parties, he's a conspiracy nut? Your stupidity is really starting to show, buddy.
No. Because a guy thinks the Democrats and the Republicans are colluding and because a guy buys into Moore's theories suggests he is buying into conspiracy theory. Now true, to an extent, I'm starting to blur the distinction between your arguments and Johann's... it is after all Johann that brought up the Skull and Bones deal... but, I still think it holds true for the types of positions you are advocating.

[Johann]

So what about Skull and Bones, then?!

Do you not acknowledge that that group is bent on world domination?

Do you not recognize that the Bonesmen are an elite (in their own minds) group of "smart" men who have no other purpose than ACHIEVING WEALTH AND POWER?

How thick is your skull?

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
Another point about the National Guard service:

James Bath was Bush's co-pilot.
His name is blacked out on the white house-released document.
Michael Moore already had a copy of the original, and kindly tells us why the name was blacked out. Because people might find out that James Bath is in neck-deep with the Saudi's, placed there by Mr. George W. Bush. (his good buddy). Osama Bin-Laden is a Saudi, in case you didn't know, Ken.

See the film- it's all there on screen.
First of all, again nothing new but I bet all these facts were new to you when you first watched F9/11, eh?

Second, your point? Do you find it unusual that a businessman who owns an oil company had extensive contacts in Saudi Arabia and even had a contact person to deal with the Saudis? Do you find it unusual that a businessman would find a job in his company for an old colleague from his days in the National Guard? Please do go on... I can't wait until you link Bush with the Bin Ladens directly; that's when the shit really hits the fan...

[Johann]

This dialogue is hilarious- and you are the source of it.

When Bush was told of the 9/11 attacks, he sat there for 7 full minutes. What was he thinking?

He was thinking: "Who screwed me?"
He knew only one person did it: Osama.

The whole world quickly learned his name. Bush had to jockey pretty fast to get everyone to direct their anger at an enemy.

I did only learn of all of this shit at one film. And I believe the majority of what Moore points out. It's too logical. It makes too much sense.

He's absolutely right, and the picture is grim.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
So what about Skull and Bones, then?!

Do you not acknowledge that that group is bent on world domination?

Do you not recognize that the Bonesmen are an elite (in their own minds) group of "smart" men who have no other purpose than ACHIEVING WEALTH AND POWER?
Oh yes I do. They're the American branch of the Illuminati, didn't you know? Skull and Bones is a powerful group, involved in all the major evils of the past century: Iran Contra, the Drug Trade, the Assassination of JFK, the Vietnam War, and now the Iraq War. These guys are bad news. The people of this country need to go down to Yale right now and insist that the society be disbanded or at least banished from the campus.

[Johann]

Your posts speak for themselves.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
This dialogue is hilarious- and you are the source of it.

When Bush was told of the 9/11 attacks, he sat there for 7 full minutes. What was he thinking?

He was thinking: "Who screwed me?"
He knew only one person did it: Osama.

The whole world quickly learned his name. Bush had to jockey pretty fast to get everyone to direct their anger at an enemy.

I did only learn of all of this shit at one film. And I believe the majority of what Moore points out. It's too logical. It makes too much sense.

He's absolutely right, and the picture is grim.
Well, I'm glad you've been critical and scrutinized the information carefully. Kudos for a job well done! It's always best just to accept the first thing you hear; far more efficient way of learning anyways. Who needs to concern themselves with all that bullshit of reading books, articles, and divergent opinions? Better just to rely on one's sixth sense and the everyman, Michael Moore. Also, psychic abilities to read minds always comes in handy too.

[Johann]

I can't rely on news media to give me the truth.

Michael Moore is the best thing we've got right now.

[Johann]

As far as I'm concerned anduril until you see the film you're out of your league (but you'll just be stubborn- I can feel it).


You can insult Moore all you want- you just make him more right.

What hurts you so much that you have to say what you have been saying here?

[Raoul]

Originally posted by anduril

If all those books in that section of Amazon.com are telling the truth then there is no such thing as truth. The books are mutually contradictory.
i see. You've read all of those books, i suppose.



In libel suits, you never lack the resources. Attorneys, if the case is any good, take these on a percentage of the settlement. Besides, the people being targeted by these political books are all persons of means.

you're not wrong, attorneys will work on contingency. To sue someone for libel it costs about a year of a lifetime (at least) and unmeasureable stress. What's your time worth?


It was not Soviet doctrine! I'm employing sarcasm to argue against the conspiratorial logic of your's, Moore's, and Johann's position.

sounded lots like the hammer and sicle doctrine to me. i still don't understand what you're trying to prove. For the record, sarcasm is easily recognized by one's tone of voice. I just can't pick yours out between the pixels. Try writing to the point next time, we'll see if we can't get somewhere.


No. Because a guy thinks the Democrats and the Republicans are colluding and because a guy buys into Moore's theories suggests he is buying into conspiracy theory. Now true, to an extent, I'm starting to blur the distinction between your arguments and Johann's... it is after all Johann that brought up the Skull and Bones deal... but, I still think it holds true for the types of positions you are advocating.
gee, an expert. Who was it that gave you lisence to categorize our positions? Never mind. Again, to clarify your distortions, I never said that the Democrats and Republicans were in collusion. I only said that they have the same goals, and they do.

Do yourself a favour and start reading before you count yourself as an expert.

Raoul

[anduril]

Originally posted by Raoul
i see. You've read all of those books, i suppose.
Do you need to read all those books to know that they are mutually contradictory? Let's just pull out two titles: Lies: The Liberal Lies about the American Right by Ann Coulter and Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balance Look at the Right by Al Franken. Somebody's pants are clearly on fire here... and that's just two book titles.

Originally posted by Raoul
you're not wrong, attorneys will work on contingency. To sue someone for libel it costs about a year of a lifetime (at least) and unmeasureable stress. What's your time worth?
So, what you are saying then that it is not surprising that Michael Moore has not been sued? You'll have to excuse me if I'm starting to get a little confused.

Originally posted by Raoul
sounded lots like the hammer and sicle doctrine to me. i still don't understand what you're trying to prove. For the record, sarcasm is easily recognized by one's tone of voice. I just can't pick yours out between the pixels. Try writing to the point next time, we'll see if we can't get somewhere.
Oh, I see. I didn't realize that you actually believed that the Jews were out for world domination before WWII, which was a statement I made in that post. Hmmm... that would have been a clear indication of my sarcasm if the twenty-three points weren't enough. Guess, I'll have to give you less credit next time. I'll try to dumb it down some in future posts.

Originally posted by Raoul
gee, an expert. Who was it that gave you lisence to categorize our positions? Never mind. Again, to clarify your distortions, I never said that the Democrats and Republicans were in collusion. I only said that they have the same goals, and they do.
My apologies I assumed that when you commented on how the Democratic Senators failed to rescind the Supreme Court decision that you were implying collusion. But, now I understand: both parties are working independently towards the same goals. Got ya now. That clears it all up. Its sort of how the gas companies work independently to raise the price of gas. Not really collusion... just looks that way. Hopefully, you can understand where my confusion arose.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
I can't rely on news media to give me the truth.

Michael Moore is the best thing we've got right now.
Yeah, God forbid you should spend anytime outside a movie theatre and maybe do some of your own research on the topic. What a horrible waste of time that would be? Much better to live vicariously through movies; its easier too, I suppose. You can just place your trust in pure and unadulterated honesty, humanity, and goodness of directors, actors/actresses, and the entire, worldwide movie industry.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
As far as I'm concerned anduril until you see the film you're out of your league (but you'll just be stubborn- I can feel it).

You can insult Moore all you want- you just make him more right.

What hurts you so much that you have to say what you have been saying here?
You think I'm hurt and you care enough to ask... that's sweet, Johann. Are you saying we're still friends? That would be really special of you.

Until I see the film I'm out of my league, eh? That statement would require you to prove that there is significant information in the movie that I presently lack. Furthermore, it presupposes that you believe yourself to be in a superior league to which I should aspire and yet you've admitted that nearly everything in Moore's film was news to you and that you have done no real significant additional research into the topic. That's a strange league that I'm supposed to join.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
I can't rely on news media to give me the truth.

Michael Moore is the best thing we've got right now. You mean he's the only person who has theatrically released a documentary on the issue that you went to see. Personally, I make a point of checking and researching the sources on my own and you know what, the Internet lets you do a pretty bang up job without even leaving your home. You can read official reports, check out left-wing and right-wing opinion sites, consult all sorts of reference works, check out databases compiled by numerous individuals and NGOs, visit the official websites of the good, the bad, and the ugly in this whole situation, read dailies from nearly every major network and news organization in the world, etc. etc. etc.

[Raoul]

Sarcasm: Truely, it's a shitty way to make a point. It's tiresome, it's sloppy debating and subpar writing. In text form, it's difficult to tell when you're turning it on and off.

If you're any sort of writer, debator or holder of opinion, PLEASE learn to express your views by writing to a point. Frankly, it makes you look bad.

Al and Anne have decided to take it to eachother on the pages and airwaves rarther than in court. Eventually, it's possible that a suit for libel may be launched. I haven't read either book, but just because they're pointing fingers at eachother and calling eachother liars doesn't mean they aren't both right. Are they on the same subject?

"Out of his league" may not be the best choice of words, but I agreee that if you haven't seen the film, you're ignorant to make comments about its content. Let's be reasonable.

Also, let's be clear. There seems to be a stigma that calling someone a conspiracy theorist immediatle and completely refutes all of their claims. It's as though when someone alleges that two other people or parties conspired to do anything, they must be a complete nutjob. Why is that? Has this never happened in the history of civilization, politics or man?
Pease explain and see if you can do it with your tounge out of your cheek.

Raoul

[pmw]

This thread is becoming... repetitive. i would suggest that if the dialogue simply descends to character attacks, that it be carried on via email. It becomes too difficult for anyone else to enter, and too hard to decipher. Dialogue being the main function of this site...Cool, glad it generates such fervent discussion nonetheless. And of course, look forward to reading new ideas / takes on the film.
P

[anduril]

Raoul: I've resorted to sarcasm because the claims of F9/11 and the claims made by you and especially Johann are preposterous. And, quite frankly, I think the sarcasm has served the argument that I have made because, especially in Johann's case, it has already showed just how far he is willing to take the conspiratorial logic and how little critical research he has done to arrive at his views.

Conspiracies of the type envisioned by F9/11 are ludicrous. They reflect a latent desire to explain events that the spinner feels that they can not control. Conspiracies help them to cope. Are there genuine conspiracies operating in this world? Sure Raoul. But not of the type that Oliver Stone or Michael Moore would have you accept. To propose that a group of such disparate people with so many disparate views, ideologies, aims, and philosophies could function as a single-minded entity with some long-term, inalterable, and unchangeable purpose is simply outside the realm of documented human experience. Life produces interesting coincidences, strange correlations, freaky and eerie innuendos but ultimately these are what they are and no more.

Let's take the Skull and Bones society. It is one of several so-called secret societies on Ivy League campuses. These secret societies are essentially and little more than the elite's version of fraternity. Its on-campus members are a collection of fortunate sons between the ages of 18-30. The secret societies meet a couple times a year to drink, eat, and talk. Obviously, given that most of the members are fortunate sons and attending one of the finest institutions in the world, it should not be surprising that these people go on to take up high powered positions the world over. But, while they share a common fraternity in their experience as members of the society, they are not in collusion to establish some sort of New World Order. That's the popular imagination gone wild, so enchanted by the rich, the famous, the powerful, and the ideas that a 'secret society' conjures up. Its nonsense and people who believe in that sort of nonsense really need to take a pill. The rich and the elite are far too concerned with their own lives and responsibilities to be gathered in dark rooms, plotting global domination. There are many reasons that converged to bring about the Iraq war and nowhere on that list can you justify a global conspiracy.

As for the Iraq war, it is justified on many grounds, quite apart from Moore's rhetoric:

(1) The Saddam regime was in persistent, repeated, and flagrant violation of the cease fire that ended GWI. It is significant to note that this reason alone justifies the conflict and also inveighs against the red herring that liberals throw out, i.e. "if we invaded Iraq, why don't we just invade North Korea or Iran?" The U.S. and the British took several preliminary steps to deal with these violations; they set up no-fly zones and instituted embargos on Iraq among other things. The violations continued.

(2) The Saddam regime, in collusion with officials from the U.N., abused the Oil for Food program, depriving Iraqi citizens of food and other humanitarian aid while simultaneously propping up the ailing regime. Source (http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=62155).

(3) Contrary to reports by the media and liberal populist opinion, the Saddam regime was attempting to reconstitute its WMD program. Despite the lengthy lead up to the conflict that allowed Saddam more than enough time to either transfer the weapons to the Baathist regime in Syria or hide/destroy these weapons and evidence pertaining to their existence, the Iraqi Survey Group still found considerable evidence. David Kay's Statement on the Interim Progress Report (http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html) is a very instructive read and, I think, would surprise more than a few people who accepted the media position that nothing was found. It is also worth noting that the Iraqi Survey Group remains active under the direction of Charles Duelfer. I encourage you to read his Testimony to the US Congress (http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2004/tenet_testimony_03302004.html).

(4) The UN Security Council, in unanimity, repeatedly determined that Iraq was in violation of its resolutions on several counts. In particular, Security Council Resolution 1441 (http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/RES/1441%20(2002)&Lang=E&Area=UNDOC), passed by unanimous vote in 2002, decided that Iraq was and remained in material breach of prior resolutions, including Security Council Resolution 687 (1991) (http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/RES/687%20(1991)&Lang=E&Area=RESOLUTION) and provides legitimate authority to effect compliance through the use of military force. The failure of the UN Security Council to act upon these resolutions with force has meant that the United States and Britain, who already faced the enormous burden of enforcing the no-fly zones and the embargos, had to bear what should have been the responsibility of all member nations. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that if the UN had stood up in one voice that Saddam would have fled Iraq and sought asylum in Syria, thereby avoiding the war altogether. The divisions on the council, however, gave Saddam the hope that the United States would have to back down in the face of international pressure and opposition.

(5) The Saddam regime remained hostile and belligerent towards the United States. It has been recently confirmed by Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, that Iraq planned attacks on the United States. This information was provided to the United States. Source (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3819057.stm).

(6) Again, contrary to reports by the media and liberal opinion, there was considerable circumstantial evidence to suggest that al-Qaeda agents met with Saddam and other Iraqi officials for the purposes of identifying potential areas of cooperation in their mutual aggression towards the United States. Indeed, this is consistent with the safe haven Saddam provided to Ansar al-Islam, an Islamic terrorist group with connections to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda leader, and al-Qaeda, more broadly. The connections between Ansar al-Islam and al-Qaeda are well documented by many organizations, including the Human Rights Watch, which is hardly a right-wing organization. I encourage you to read HRW's Backgrounder on Ansar al-Islam in Iraqi Kurdistan (http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/ansarbk020503.htm). It is also notable that Iraq long supported and encouraged the Palestinian practice of suicide bombing.

(7) The Saddam regime was one of the most brutal dictatorships in modern memory. Its crimes are horrific, grotesque, and unimaginable. As horrible as the abuses by American soldiers in Abu Ghraib have been--these actually seem more like psych-ops to me, they pale in comparison; this is not to justify the Americans but rather to give people a basis from which to merely begin to understand the degree to which Saddam brutalized and torture thousands upon thousands. Again, Human Rights Watch serves as an independent source for information on these abuses. I encourage you to read some of their publications (http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast_pub&c=iraq) on Iraq under Saddam. As you'll quickly notice, this site also has reports on the conduct of Coalition forces in the country.

(8) On strategic grounds, Operation Iraqi Freedom and the development of a secular Iraqi state, comparable to Turkey, have had numerous positive consequences already and will have positive long-term consequences for Middle-East peace too. First, democracies in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq will effectively isolate Iran and undoubtedly give strength to the reformist movement in that country. Iran will be completely encircled by prosperous and free states. Second, Iraq's constitution and democratic system will certainly serve as a model for countries such as Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt to emulate. Iraq will prove that democracy and freedom are not incompatible with Islam. Third, the liberation of Iraq has allowed Americans to move out of bases in Saudi Arabia where they were required in order to maintain stability and protect against Iraqi aggression. Obviously, the American military presence in Saudi Arabia is a huge source of the animosity that exists towards them. Saudi Arabia is the most sacred of the Arab lands in the Middle East. Fourth, Operation Iraqi Freedom will serve as a visible demonstration of American commitments to peace in the Middle East. Again, one of the sources of animosity towards the Americans in the Middle East has always been that the Americans have propped up dictatorships and, most notably after GWI, failed to adequately support popular uprisings against these regimes. Fifth, the instability in Iraq has meant that terrorists, who might otherwise attack civilians in the United States, are engaged in conflict with soldiers there. Many analysts are quick to point out that the Islamic militants have come flying out of the woodwork in Iraq but few have realized that this means they are not in the United States attacking civilians. The United States has effectively opened a front for its war against terrorism. This front contributes considerably to the safety of the world. Sixth, the denouement in Libya, as even Gadhaffi himself has stated, was inspired to some degree by American action against Iraq. I recognize that this denouement began earlier than the American invasion of Iraq but the decision to dismantle the WMD program was clearly post-invasion and, at least to some extent, related. Also, Libya's WMD program begs the question, "If a poorer country under equally stringent embargos could develop a WMD program that included an active nuclear program, why is there anyone who believes that Iraq didn't have WMD?"

Lastly, I'll just suggest an op-ed piece (http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2004/052604p.htm) by Ann Coulter that is actually quite good and incisive. I could go on too but I won't. This is enough.

[Raoul]

Andy:

I'm glad to see that you've dropped the sarc. and come back to rationality.

Nobody has ever tried to say that Saddam was an alright guy, but you've got to admit, andy, that it's peculiar that the Iraqi dictator was the one the United States cared about. The US aided and abeted a similar regime in East Timor, They have flat out ignored the Warlords of Africa and stood idly by as Pol Pot did his thing. Why Saddam? I dunno. Ask your buddy George.

It's those sorts of inconsistencies that make people wonder. Also, the fact that Bush, his family and his associates reap more dollars than I will ever count in my lifetime off of the war every day is something that can't just be ignored.

This thread has been very educational. I see now that it is violently impossible for anyone to come to terms here.

The left fails to acknowledge the theory that no one is getting screwed here and the power structure in the world is simply a result of the cream rising to the top: people good at business becoming more powerful and wealthy

The Right fails to acknowledge that those in the most wealthy and powerfull positions have attained those positions underhandedly and continue to perpetuate their Oligarchy at the expense of the people of the world.

Conclusion: I forsee widespread civil unrest in the united states and globally in the very near future

Question: Have you seen the film, Andy? If now, how is it that you feel so comfortable commenting on it?

Raoul

[anduril]

Originally posted by Raoul
Nobody has ever tried to say that Saddam was an alright guy, but you've got to admit, andy, that it's peculiar that the Iraqi dictator was the one the United States cared about. The US aided and abeted a similar regime in East Timor, They have flat out ignored the Warlords of Africa and stood idly by as Pol Pot did his thing. Why Saddam? I dunno. Ask your buddy George.

It's those sorts of inconsistencies that make people wonder. Also, the fact that Bush, his family and his associates reap more dollars than I will ever count in my lifetime off of the war every day is something that can't just be ignored.
Even if I granted that all of these things you have written are accurate, how does it in any way, shape, or form serve as an argument against the war in Iraq given the reasons I posted? How does casting dispersions on Bush, on the White House, on Oil Executives, or any other group make the war in Iraq unjustified? How does alleged American inactivity in other crises around the world make a case for inaction in Iraq? The fact is that it doesn't. And, what's more, you are not accurate in the dispersions you've cast so how much worse does it make your case? (BTW, if you think that you are accurate, start supporting it with facts and reliable sources; you are not going to convince anybody just on your word, except those who already share your view.)


Originally posted by Raoul
Question: Have you seen the film, Andy? If now, how is it that you feel so comfortable commenting on it?
I answered these questions in my very first post.

P.S. Sarcasm is rational. It is one way among many to conduct a debate and/or elicit a person's views on something. It is a particularly effective way to see how far people are willing to take their views.

[Johann]

Here's THE FACTS, anduril. And you're definitely no friend of mine now.



1. I don't like Bush- I don't trust him. I don't trust our government either. Pardon me for that- they have more power and money than me. I must assume this or I KNOW I'm naive.

2. I don't have time to research politics when I have no interest in it. I care about politics as much as it affects my world. Movies are my world. Fahrenheit is a film- I reviewed it. I believe Moore. You don't like it, no skin off my back. You're gonna find out in the years to come how right the man is.

3. Chris Knipp e-mailed me about my "self-fufilling prophesy" in predicting that Bush will win in November. You won't see me gloat. I just see everything and I'm telling you what I see.
I want to be proven wrong so bad...
Bush will win. He bought it with his oily dollars. What do you think he's been doing these last 4 years? Planning for the next four. Is everybody fucked in the head here? Watch Bush win people....

And another thing: anduril has "employed sarcasm" because he knows I'm right. YOU MOCK WHEN YOU SHOULD BE INTELLIGENTLY DEBATING ME.

4. Skull and Bones are a dangerous group all right. They're "bad news" alright. anduril is one X@?%& if he thinks this "society" is just hanging out sipping tea enjoying brotherly love. They're only responsible for one evil in the world x?Y?@#. George W. Bush. I'm raging inside knowing that Yale is where this guy went to University. Yale means nothing to me now.

Finally, this discussion is getting repetitive. Sorry, P.
I don't wanna get into "he said she said" with people who are blind beyond all doubt.

Sixth sense, intuition, gut-feeling- you bet your ass I'll follow these over "published opinion". This discussion is over as far as I'm concerned. My time and energy are not worth a pissing match.

[Johann]

The U.S. attacked Iraq with NO PROVOCATION

What right did the U.S. have to attack innocent people?

Sure saddam is a bad guy, but why bomb innocent people? Why kill innocent men, women and children.
They've screamed at soldiers- they've screamed at Bush:
Saddam may be a bad man, but he's OUR bad man.

How would you feel if bombs started raining on your head in Edmonton? People dying left and right? How would you feel if soldiers from another country barged into your home and started ransacking the place, looking for Saddam?

You wouldn't be happy, would you?

God bless America! The greatest liberators of all-time! We are enlightened! We help the world! If we can do this for Iraq, just think what we could do for your country! *just one question, though...psssst! do you have oil in your country?*


How's that for employing sarcasm? How far have you taken your blindness?

To the farthest reaches of ignorance..which is just left of hell.

[pmw]

As the admin, Ive editted the previous posts to remove certain comments about other users... easy enough to converse without hitting such levels.
P

[anduril]

Among your ad hominen attacks, I found a couple of salient points to address.

Originally posted by Johann
The U.S. attacked Iraq with NO PROVOCATION

What right did the U.S. have to attack innocent people?

Sure saddam is a bad guy, but why bomb innocent people? Why kill innocent men, women and children.
However, most of the salient points were, like this one, addressed in the eight points I made above or in my recent response to Raoul. If you disagree with my position then refute all eight points and provide sources to justify any position that I am not likely to take your word on.

Originally posted by Johann
They've screamed at soldiers- they've screamed at Bush:
Saddam may be a bad man, but he's OUR bad man.
This is the one salient point I could find that I've not actually addressed. Your argument, it seems to me, is that the people of Iraq did not want the invasion. Unfortunately for your argument, you happen to be wrong. Polls (http://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/949a1IraqPoll.pdf) conducted by the Oxford Research Institute confirm that more Iraqis support the Coalition invasion than are against it. A majority of Iraqis believe their life is better now than before the war (56%) and an overwhelming number (71%) believe that life will be better for them in the future.

Naturally, resentment towards the Coalition presence in Iraq is building and future polls may indicate some change as that begins to be reflected. This is to be expected. The Coalition presence is a reminder that Iraqis are not providing their own security nor are they completely independent of the Coalition-led forces. This is, again naturally, a humiliating experience. But, that more Iraqis than not, can still, even despite their resentment, support the invasion and clearly indicate that life will improve says something profoundly important. They supported this war despite its costs.

And, you know, I believe the reason that they support it despite its costs is that they know the costs of living under Saddam even a day longer would have brought higher costs. In fact, I think alot of the anger towards the Coalition is that they didn't do this earlier; that they didn't finish the job eleven years ago. In those eleven years, considerably more Iraqis died under Saddam's brutal thumb then in the Coalition invasion and the months since.

Originally posted by Johann
How would you feel if bombs started raining on your head in Edmonton? People dying left and right? How would you feel if soldiers from another country barged into your home and started ransacking the place, looking for Saddam?

You wouldn't be happy, would you?
If it was necessary to win my freedom, bring it on. I'll take care of my family and do my best to stay out of their way.

[Johann]

For once I'll try to be civil here.


You completely dodged my question on why kill innocent people.

They're "circumstantial casualties" in your view. "War is hell", right? "Wrong place at the wrong time, suckers...we are bombing you to free you. Please die gracefully. Don't kill American soldiers who are liberating you. We'll just get mad and make you pose naked while we smoke cigarettes..."

Polls mean nothing to me. Who really cares about polls and who actually relies on them? I could tell you "polls show that 90% of American people hate Bush" and I might be right. Did I do a poll? No. But it sounds correct...
One out of ten doctors agree that Tylenol is the best pain reliever!

You mean to tell me that while some country is bombing you you're gonna huddle with your family and say over and over:
It's for the best, dear- we're being set free by these bombs. After the war we'll be free. Hand me that grenade, junior...

[anduril]

I didn't dodge your questions at all. I addressed each one.

And, Jason: When people suffer oppression and persecution, freedom is worth the fight and I'll tell you, as Iraqis do, that they fear Saddam more than coalition bombs. My family, in that situation, would see that freedom is coming and, for all the fear that the bombs might create in their hearts, the joy at the prospect of a new life would be their promise in the dark night. Say what you will, but if I lived in Iraq, I'd be overwhelmed that Saddam is gone. Finally, opportunity.

[HorseradishTree]

Originally posted by anduril
Say what you will, but if I lived in Iraq, I'd be overwhelmed that Saddam is gone. Finally, opportunity.

All right, I saw it, and now I'm going to have to butt in.

The thing is, you can't think in North American terms when you're considering Iraq. OK, Saddam is gone, and that's a good thing. But that's really not the only issue. Was it worth the civilian lives to achieve this? In my opinion, no, and that's me. And I know I'm not going to convince the world about it. Hell, I can't even vote yet.

We've managed to get the bad guy out of his mansion(s), but at what cost? So many dead, foreign unrest, and a divided country. I'd love to be everyone's friend, but because of a stupid political happening, some people refuse to trust me anymore.

Bottom-line: this film is a must-see. They're facts. Moore himself said the film isn't fair, but that's really not the point. This isn't the kind of propaganda to recruit Hitler's Youth here. Moore's not trying to manipulate you. He just loves his country and wants the best for it. It's not like he's shoving anything down your throat. He's just presenting evidence and seeing what we'll do with it. I commend the man for utilizing the cinematic medium to get out a message.

[anduril]

Originally posted by HorseradishTree
All right, I saw it, and now I'm going to have to butt in.

The thing is, you can't think in North American terms when you're considering Iraq. OK, Saddam is gone, and that's a good thing. But that's really not the only issue. Was it worth the civilian lives to achieve this? In my opinion, no, and that's me. And I know I'm not going to convince the world about it. Hell, I can't even vote yet.

We've managed to get the bad guy out of his mansion(s), but at what cost? So many dead, foreign unrest, and a divided country. I'd love to be everyone's friend, but because of a stupid political happening, some people refuse to trust me anymore.
Whose guilty of thinking in North American terms here? I'd say it is you. Do you have any idea of the thousands upon thousands of people that Saddam tortured, brutalized, and murdered? And, please don't even suggest that the casualties in the invasion or the incident at Abu Ghraib come close because they don't. It doesn't appear to me that the present generation in North America, including perhaps also myself, have any realistic notion of tyranny. People say over and over again that they know Saddam was a bad guy but they toss it around as if he was just a neighbourhood bully you could ignore. This man was evil. Hitler evil! Get it? He thought he was the reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar, the ancient Babylon king--he even was working on rebuilding the city of Babylon; his modern-day political hero was Stalin. This man gassed men, women, and babies; he tore people limb from limb; shot them without provocation, simply for pleasure; he had whole populations exterminated; he stopped the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates for God-sake just to starve southern tribes--this devastated an entire natural ecosystem and way of life for thousands of people that had existed for literally hundreds of millennia. Do people not get this? You don't just turn your back on this type of evil. Damn it people. The outrage should be that the Americans let him run that country for so long; but to rail against the fact that they got rid of him now. My word, what is wrong with us?


Originally posted by HorseradishTree
Bottom-line: this film is a must-see. They're facts. Moore himself said the film isn't fair, but that's really not the point. This isn't the kind of propaganda to recruit Hitler's Youth here. Moore's not trying to manipulate you. He just loves his country and wants the best for it. It's not like he's shoving anything down your throat. He's just presenting evidence and seeing what we'll do with it. I commend the man for utilizing the cinematic medium to get out a message.
Michael Moore, like so many movie makers, wants an audience; everybody claims to be patriot to make a buck in the great olde U.S. of A. In this case, Moore has tapped into liberal hysteria over Bush, apparently an hysteria he himself buys into, and the result is a propaganda film. And, let's be clear... propaganda does not necessarily mean devoid of facts. Quite the contrary actually, propaganda is the deliberate use of ideas, information, or facts for the purpose of helping a cause, often by attempting to injure or cast dispersions on someone or something. This particular piece of propaganda makes selective use of the facts to create a lie.

[Chris Knipp]

Anduril,

Thank you for the link to the site of Farenheit 9/11 criticisms, because I am collecting those for a reply of my own, more as a definse of the film's whole approach and validity as a critique of Bush administration post-September 11th policies than to deal with dozens of nitpicking facts. The latter are just a propaganda device, as everyone knows, like the list of "errors" made up by the opposition to sling mud at the documentary, Chavez: Inside the Coup.

But since I have a lot of movies to write about and this one isn't first on my list, I'll state some points here.

Farenheit 9/11 is partisan. You can even argue that it's not a documentary at all, but that's another issue. I don't guess we're all violently opposed to passionate filmmaking. Passionate filmmaking is what we love, right?

Thus in a sense what it comes down to is, where do you stand? If you're seriously pro-Bush, you won't like this movie. If you refuse to see this movie, you're wearing blinders. You're afraid of something.

The anti-Moore sites and blogs are interesting to go through. It's surprising how feeble a lot of their points are. The one you cite, Anduril, has already backed down on a number of its "FFacts".

There is only one serious omission I've seen pointed out, and it is a serious one: Moore's failure to mention Israel in talking about the true motives for the invasion of Iraq.

An important fact to note is that Moore is all about facts now. Sure, he's in-your-face and not the least subtle. His lack of diplomacy has gotten him into trouble, notably when he was cut off at the Oscars. But we need guys who can get into trouble in the name of presenting the truth. Michael Moore is nothing short of a national treasure. That becomes clearer and clearer as the months and years go by. He becomes more and more valuable. Thank God for Michael Moore. He bridges the seemingly unbridgeable gap between Noam Chomsky and Rush Limbaugh.

But nonetheless he's got his facts together. Moore isn't working by himself with a skeleton crew and on a shoestring in Flint, Michigan any more. He's got clout and he's got money and he's got a substantial staff. The upshot of that is that his fact-checkers are better and more energetic than his opponents'. So, be very careful when you challenge his facts.

But ultimately, perhaps what is most effective about Farenheit 9/11 isn't the facts and statistics Moore cites at such length or the outline of data he builds up about Bush and the Bush family and the events leading up to and subsequent to September 11th's terrorist attacks on the US.

What's most effective is the images. The expression on Bush's face as he sits there reading that book in the classroom as the Twin Towers topple. As he prepares to announce the invasion of Iraq. As he winds up a remark about fighting terrorists (okay, in Israel, not in Iraq: so what?), smirks and lines up a golf shot. The bland faces. The smirks. The banality of evil.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Thank you for the link to the site of Farenheit 9/11 criticisms, because I am collecting those for a reply of my own, more as a definse of the film's whole approach and validity as a critique of Bush administration post-September 11th policies than to deal with dozens of nitpicking facts. The latter are just a propaganda device, as everyone knows, like the list of "errors" made up by the opposition to sling mud at the documentary, Chavez: Inside the Coup.

The anti-Moore sites and blogs are interesting to go through. It's surprising how feeble a lot of their points are. The one you cite, Anduril, has already backed down on a number of its "FFacts".

To back down when in error is not a sign of feebleness; it is a sign of integrity. The blog lists a number of good points. But, personally, the point for me is not whether F9/11 employs facts or not. As I've stated before, Moore uses facts to create a lie. It is the selective use of information, the use of information irrelevant to the argument, and the juxtaposition of real yet essentially unrelated images. It is, also, the interpretive lens through which the information is presented. Consider the opening of the movie in which viewers are given a picture of Bush in the classroom and the narrator asks us to consider what Bush is thinking. Are these facts, Chris? Are the rhetorical questions by the narrator meant to elicit any fair consideration of what Bush's thoughts might have been at that moment? No. Moore isn't interested in the truth, at least not beyond his version of it.

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Farenheit 9/11 is partisan. You can even argue that it's not a documentary at all, but that's another issue. I don't guess we're all violently opposed to passionate filmmaking. Passionate filmmaking is what we love, right?

Thus in a sense what it comes down to is, where do you stand? If you're seriously pro-Bush, you won't like this movie. If you refuse to see this movie, you're wearing blinders. You're afraid of something.
That's a red herring and you know it. Refusing to participate or watch something is not an indication of blindness or fear. The information in the movie is nothing new nor is Moore the first so-called documentarian to present this information. Moreover, I've now managed to see a good portion of the script. My refusal to watch this movie in the theatres is based on my unwillingness to support Moore, this project, or future projects like it. As a responsible consumer, that is my right.

As for being pro-Bush... I accept that there are more than a few things that I don't particularly like about the man's policies and judgment nor do I reject the notion that mistakes have been made in the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. Incidentally, I thought Blair was a much better spokesman for the war than Bush. I do, however, support Bush over Kerry any day.

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
An important fact to note is that Moore is all about facts now. Sure, he's in-your-face and not the least subtle. His lack of diplomacy has gotten him into trouble, notably when he was cut off at the Oscars. But we need guys who can get into trouble in the name of presenting the truth. Michael Moore is nothing short of a national treasure. That becomes clearer and clearer as the months and years go by. He becomes more and more valuable. Thank God for Michael Moore. He bridges the seemingly unbridgeable gap between Noam Chomsky and Rush Limbaugh.

But nonetheless he's got his facts together. Moore isn't working by himself with a skeleton crew and on a shoestring in Flint, Michigan any more. He's got clout and he's got money and he's got a substantial staff. The upshot of that is that his fact-checkers are better and more energetic than his opponents'. So, be very careful when you challenge his facts.

But ultimately, perhaps what is most effective about Farenheit 9/11 isn't the facts and statistics Moore cites at such length or the outline of data he builds up about Bush and the Bush family and the events leading up to and subsequent to September 11th's terrorist attacks on the US.

What's most effective is the images. The expression on Bush's face as he sits there reading that book in the classroom as the Twin Towers topple. As he prepares to announce the invasion of Iraq. As he winds up a remark about fighting terrorists (okay, in Israel, not in Iraq: so what?), smirks and lines up a golf shot. The bland faces. The smirks. The banality of evil.
Again, I'd ask you to explain Moore's apparent psychic abilities and reconcile that with what you call "presenting the truth"... not to mention his omission of facts. A lie can be either a wilful and stated untruth or an omission of truth. Where to start on the relevant issues that Moore left out of his movie? In fact, please explain to me how, in the final analysis, casting dispersions on Bush makes the case against the war in Iraq or Afghanistan? I'd say Moore missed the whole point...

[Johann]

Why is anduril still being addressed here?
He hasn't seen the film.
This forum is for discussion of the film.

See the movie or begone!

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by anduril
As I've stated before, Moore uses facts to create a lie. It is the selective use of information, the use of information irrelevant to the argument, and the juxtaposition of real yet essentially unrelated images. It is, also, the interpretive lens through which the information is presented. Again, I'd ask you to explain Moore's apparent psychic abilities and reconcile that with what you call "presenting the truth"... not to mention his omission of facts. A lie can be either a wilful and stated untruth or an omission of truth.

Anduril, turnabout is fair play. What you're describing here sounds identical to the approach that's been mastered by the Bush Administration (and aided by the American media). They are masters at distorting and manipulating information (aka "the facts") to produce their desired result. Moore's set out to burst their bubble, to shatter the myth they've tried to create, and he appears to be hitting a nerve...

Can you see why this film resonates so deeply with so many people? There is a tremendous amount of frustration at the bullshit and the deception that this Administration has tried to pass off on us. To claim that their intentions are pure is naivete of the highest degree, it's total blindness. That's probably the main point Moore is trying to make.

[anduril]

Originally posted by JustaFied
Anduril, turnabout is fair play. What you're describing here sounds identical to the approach that's been mastered by the Bush Administration (and aided by the American media). They are masters at distorting and manipulating information (aka "the facts") to produce their desired result. Moore's set out to burst their bubble, to shatter the myth they've tried to create, and he appears to be hitting a nerve...
I've never claimed that Bush has not done so, have I? Politics and media frequently descends into the art of propaganda. The question is whose myth do you accept? My eight points on Iraq are not the result of Bush or Moore's mythmaking. I accept neither Bush, Kerry, or Moore at face value; you clearly take Moore at face value.

Originally posted by JustaFied
Can you see why this film resonates so deeply with so many people? There is a tremendous amount of frustration at the bullshit and the deception that this Administration has tried to pass off on us. To claim that their intentions are pure is naivete of the highest degree, it's total blindness. That's probably the main point Moore is trying to make.
Oh, I know why it is popular... I'm not challenging its popularity. Also, as I just stated, I've never offered Bush my uncritical support; I could criticize the Bush administration better than most. Your claim to frustration, however, does not resonate with me nor with a significant percentage of the American population because we have decidedly different views on the extent, type, and motive in the so-called "bullshit" and "deception" of this administration.

[JustaFied]

I certainly don't take Moore at face value. I've given several examples on these threads of points in the film that I find misleading or deceiving. There are also many points he makes that are valid, poignant, and thought-provoking. I like what Edelstein said about the film in his "Slate" review: "It delighted me; it disgusted me. I celebrate it; I lament it. I'm sure of only one thing: that I don't trust anyone—pro or con—who doesn't feel a twinge of doubt about his or her responses."

I would say that there is a "significant percentage" of the American population that is distressed and frustrated by the actions of the Bush Administration. The Administration's art of propoganda is much more polished and institutionalized than that of Michael Moore. It's to the point where it's become unpatriotic to question their motives; that would be a brilliant ploy, really, if only it worked. It won't.

[anduril]

Originally posted by JustaFied
I certainly don't take Moore at face value. I've given several examples on these threads of points in the film that I find misleading or deceiving. There are also many points he makes that are valid, poignant, and thought-provoking. I like what Edelstein said about the film in his "Slate" review: "It delighted me; it disgusted me. I celebrate it; I lament it. I'm sure of only one thing: that I don't trust anyone—pro or con—who doesn't feel a twinge of doubt about his or her responses."
My mistake, JustaFied, I thought I was responding to Chris Knipp for some reason... sorry.


Originally posted by JustaFied
I would say that there is a "significant percentage" of the American population that is distressed and frustrated by the actions of the Bush Administration. The Administration's art of propoganda is much more polished and institutionalized than that of Michael Moore. It's to the point where it's become unpatriotic to question their motives; that would be a brilliant ploy, really, if only it worked. It won't.
It goes both ways... naturally. America is a deeply divided nation and only looks to remain so for years to come. There is a culture war going on in the United States that is reflected also in the political arena as Democrats come to represent one side of the divide and the Republicans the other.

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by anduril
There is a culture war going on in the United States that is reflected also in the political arena as Democrats come to represent one side of the divide and the Republicans the other.

Some would argue that Democrats and Republicans are on the same side of the divide...I don't quite see it that way...

[anduril]

Well, in some ways, yes. Although one side of the divide, plugs their nose and votes Democrat while the other side, plugs their nose and votes Republican. There's alot of hostility out there towards politics nowadays.

[Chris Knipp]

Johann has a salient point. One really gets a bit tired of reading people's speculations about films that they just ought to go out and see.

To back down when in error is not a sign of feebleness; it is a sign of integrity.

This is a somewhat naive remark, since the term "back down" itself implies feebleness. However, you're right that to admit one has made an error (in pointing to someone else's supposed error) shows good character, and is necessary. But if they'd gotten their facts straight in the first place they wouldn't have had to back down, and you need to be careful when you are stepping up to point the finger at somebody else that you're justified in doing so. The "feebleness" I was alluding to is a feebleness in engaging in debate, since they showed an inabilty to double-check their own fact-checking.

As I've stated before, Moore uses facts to create a lie. It is the selective use of information, the use of information irrelevant to the argument, and the juxtaposition of real yet essentially unrelated images.

This is nonsense, and if it is coming from somebody who hasn't seen the movie, it's arrogant nonsense.

The rant that follows is ridiculous. I don't need to point out that neither the US nor any other single nation can go in and exterminate by bombing his country whatever evil tyrant there is ruling a country. There have been lots of them, and there are now.

However, here as always -- difficult as it may be in this instance -- I wish to discuss these topics in the context of the movies, in this case Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11. If you haven't seen this movie, Anduril, then you're talking about the invasion of Iraq, but not about the movie and so you lack a thorough context and are not a full-fledged participant in this discussion despite the noise you appear to be making. You've made your position clear: you think the unilateral invasion of Iraq was justified and you embelish that justification by hypothesizing the joy of the Iraqi people in being invaded, because the fall of Saddam resulted.

But Michael Moore's film, Farenheit 9/11, isn't invalidated, even for you, merely by the fact that he disagrees with your position.

[anduril]

I find it interesting that you didn't address my relevant points concerning the movie if, in fact, you are, as you say, so interested in discussing the film nor has anyone shown me that the content of this movie is anything other than what I believe it to be.

But, in the interests of humouring your navel-gazing, I will not make another post and I will simply let stand what I've written, which is easy to do seeing as it has as yet not been significantly challenged. My subscription to this thread is over.

[Johann]

Chris is absolutely right: what's most effective is the images.

This was one of the first points I was trying to make: you can't argue with a filmed image. Moore is not manipulating STOCK FOOTAGE. He's not weaving a complex web of lies with actual footage of Bush and company. You can't argue with the images of Bush acting like an arrogant idiot.
His speeches are priceless. Moore has dug up some DEVASTATING clips.

How are these images lies? How are these speeches lies?
They're not. They speak for themselves, and the result is pretty damning.

Chris brings up a great point:
Israel.
That country has more nukes than you can shake a stick at. There are more "weapons of mass destruction" in Israel than there is tea in China. (I'm exaggerating, but there are a shitload of nuclear weapons in Israel- all protected by the President.)

The US are great buddies with Israel, and they pose more of a threat to the US than Bin Laden and Al Queda did.
Where's the movie on Israel and the potential powderkeg that can be? Where's the expose on Bush's relations with the Israeli's?

[Chris Knipp]

Chris brings up a great point:
Israel.
That country has more nukes than you can shake a stick at. There are more "weapons of mass destruction" in Israel than there is tea in China. (I'm exaggerating, but there are a shitload of nuclear weapons in Israel- all protected by the President.)

The US are great buddies with Israel, and they pose more of a threat to the US than Bin Laden and Al Queda did.
Where's the movie on Israel and the potential powderkeg that can be? Where's the expose on Bush's relations with the Israeli's?

RIght. But my specific point re: Farenheit 9/11 is the question of why Moore spends so much time on the Bushes' chummy relations with the house of Saud, when obviously the invasion of Iraq and establishment of a permanent US military presence there was something that Israel was very eager to have, whereas the Saudis were not so enthusiastic about all the unrest and insurgency an invasion of Iraq would cause.

Too bad Anduril has "backed down" himself, like some of the challengers to Moore's facts in the movie. I wanted to ask him what we did about Ceausescu, Suharto, Duvalier, Marcos, King Jong Il, and on and on; why it just happened that the dictator of the country with the second greatest oil reserves in the world was the one we just had to eliminate.

[Johann]

I just wish anduril would see the movie and then tell us specifically the lies Moore purports.

Moore says he's thinking of offering a $10,000.00 reward for anyone who disproves anything in his film.

[Chris Knipp]

P.s.

I didn't bring up the Israel issue. I got it from an anonymous blog published by the Tom Paine site: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/blind_or_a_coward.php. It's a pretty nasty critique of Moore, but it has a good point. Again, though, this is not a distortion of fact, but an omission.

[Johann]

Chris Knipp speaks for me too! *sorry* :)

[Garbanzo]

WTF, M8 ^^??

Maybe you'd learn a thing or two, Anduril, by watching this movie, even if you don't agree with it.

It is unfortunate that all the people that need to see this movie refuse to.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Too bad Anduril has "backed down" himself, like some of the challengers to Moore's facts in the movie. I wanted to ask him what we did about Ceausescu, Suharto, Duvalier, Marcos, King Jong Il, and on and on; why it just happened that the dictator of the country with the second greatest oil reserves in the world was the one we just had to eliminate.
Is this an invitation for me to rejoin the discussion? I "backed down," as you call it, because you more or less asked me to do so by claiming I wasn't a full participant in the discussion. Plus, I felt that no one was actually raising any significant counter-arguments to what I'd written or making a good argument that there is information in F9/11 that I need to see or don't know about; your argument, e.g., reflects a position I've already answered--a point which evidently you didn't bother to read. Tell me, Chris, what's the point of engaging in an argument when (a) you're more or less told to get lost, (b) the opponent doesn't even read your points, and (c) the opponent makes no significant counter-arguments and only throws out red herrings and ad hominens? In spite of this, let me know if you want me to enter the thread again and I will renew my subscription... as I said early on, I'm game for this argument... I'll defend the war in Iraq and I'll also comment on anything in F9/11 that's presented to me... in the meantime, I'll simply point out again that no one on this thread has yet served an adequate rebuttal of the eight points I made in an early post or given me a quality reason to see this movie; I may have "backed down" but my arguments are still standing without me. CYA.

[oscar jubis]

As a pacifist and a liberal, it's easy to predict how I feel about the war and Moore's doc. My contribution will take the form of quotes from Jonathan Rosenbaum's review, which I found interesting/pertinent and reflect my p.o.v.

"F. 9/11 demonstrates a certain filmic intelligence not apparent in Moore's previous films. It's most apparent in his skillful and sensitive depiction of the attack on the WTC. His elliptical treatment of a Christmas Eve army raid on a Bagdad home later in the film is equally effective."

"Moore's most important achievement is delivering to American moviegoers many facts about Bush and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that our TV news have downplayed or ignored. In fact, the current popular documentaries have scored at the box office precisely because they help fill in the enormous gaps created by our depleted and corrupted TV culture".

"Objectivity in a documentary (or a film review) is not only impossible but undesirable. The merit of Fahrenheit 9/11 lies in its ability to enrage you_or conversely, to clarify some of the rage you already feel_without abandoning the capacity to entertain that has always been Moore's trump card."

"Moore is no less scathing in his treatment of Congress, circling the Capitol in an ice cream truck to read the Patriot Act aloud to those representatives who never looked at it. He also documents the Senate's dismissive treatment of black representatives who came to the Senate chambers to protest the disenfranchisement of their constituents in the 2000 election. In fact, black and working-class people turn out to be the film's true heroes_ a part of its dramaturgy and argument that Moore develops with considerable skill and nuance."

[Chris Knipp]

I'm glad you and your guru Rosenbaum liked Moore's movie, Oscar -- I agree that you, like I, would have a hard time not doing so, given our politics. It's always interesting to see what the sage of Chicago has to say if only because so many film buffs swear by his words. However from my viewpoint his as usual dry, rather stilted style seems like kind of a funny way to get at what Moore's doing. You'd hardly guess he's describing the blunt populist from Flint and not Kiarostami or Hou Hsiau Hsien. Good point about the treatment of the World Trade Center bombings, though: it is a subtle approach. Some of Moore's editing isn't at all subtle, but that passage certainly is. I wish Rosenbaum had listed the "current popular documentaries" that have "scored at the box office precisely because they help fill in the enormous gaps created by our depleted and corrupted TV culture." I'm not sure what he's referring to other than this and Control Room. Typical self righteous tone: do we have to be told this about our "TV culture"? I hardly think so.

Interesting that Rosenbaum says "Objectivity in a documentary (or a film review) is not only impossible but undesirable." David Denby (whom film buffs abhor, I take it) says just the opposite in his very harsh treatment of the second half of Farenheit 9/11. Not that I agree with Denby, but this remark of Rosenbaum's (joining the Moore camp in makiing it) doesn't add a whole lot to the discussion, because obviously there are documentaries that take a very neutral stance, and Moore is an extreme example of the other approach -- hardly the only desirable method. It's not true that Farenheit 9/11 is the ideal or typical kind of documentary; it's a very special one, arguably not even a documentary but an empassioned argument.

Denby cites Jarecki of Capturing the Friedmans as the kind of neutral documentary people should make and calls Jarecki one of the "great" documentarians of today. That's ridiculous in my view: Capturing the Friedmans isn't brilliant, just lucky, much like Noujaim of Control Room, a matter of lucky timing and serendipity. In that sense Moore's Farenheit 9/11 emerges as a powerful piece of work because he has shaped his material so consciously and, yes, it is good to know what a documentarian's biases are, up front. But one thinks of To Be and To Have, the French documentary about a schoolroom, where the filmmakers are completely recessive and that, too, is clearly a wonderful and -- in a very different way -- a very appropriately constructed and shaped documentary. Perhaps it's obvious they believe the teacher and his classroom are worthy of our worshipful attention and that is a position, but it's never overtly stated and is hardly partisan.

There is a lot of stuff, including the black congresspeople's failed attempt to protest the ruined election and disenfranchised minority voters, that is new to us in the movie. But if this is the substance of Rosenbaum's description of it, he (not untypically, again) fails to note the essential power of it which lies in two things, mainly: first in the coherent chronological narrative that Moore constructs for us, which constitutes a sequence that's almost unbearable to see all connected together; and second, on another, non-verbal, non-logical level, in the images, in Bush's facial expressions, and those of the other adminstration clique members shown in TV outtakes, whose utterly damning message requires no explication by the narrator whatsoever.

[Johann]

OK, anduril- here's your 8 points- deconstructed.

1. Repeated violation of a cease-fire? "this reason alone justifies it?" Wrong. He's not under their jurisdiction! This not justification for war. The "red herring" you speak of is accurate- the US & Britain has no right to intervene, regardless of what Saddam is doing. The US is not a schoolmarm,anduril. They don't have license to police the earth.

2. How long has the U.N. been impotent? Uh, FOREVER. It shouldn't surprise anybody that they're corrupt too. What Bush is basically saying is "we are the only country that can rip off it's own people". Again, This is not justification for WAR.

3. Even if boatloads of WMD's were shipped out of Iraq before the inspectors could find them this does not give the U.S. the right to invade & attack anyway. My guess is Bush said "No weapons? He's not gonna make me look like an idiot on the world's stage! Prepare OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM!!!!!"

4. This point only shows that the U.N. are incompetent and Saddam is ignoring other countries. We know that already. Big deal. STILL NO JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR. I don't care if Saddam gave the finger to a thousand Presidents- you don't bomb him for that. You don't kill innocent people for his mistakes. If your nation is truly righteous, you find better ways to resolve the situation. Not doable when Bush is a WAR PRESIDENT!

5. Re-read what I wrote on your website about point #5. My employment of sarcasm was especially apropo, imho. Ridiculous excuse for justification...Pre-emptive strikes are cowardly, horrific abuses of power.

6. Even if you are correct, it still doesn't justify WAR. Am I getting my point across, here? These "justifications" are great for building a case for war, but not for war itself. It was just enough for 'ol Bushy to use his military, which needs to go to war otherwise where's the justification of the defence budget? No war means all our war toys collect dust, soldiers get rusty...

7. Duh. Saddam is a bad guy. The world knows this already. You don't have to tell us. Again, the US is not the world police. Again, this does not justify WAR.

8. I won't even dignify this one with a reply. You know my answer.

[Chris Knipp]

It's unfortunate that this thread has been dominated by Anduril. This is much the same thing that happened with a lengthy thread about Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, which I believe he liked. He went to see it. I did not like it, but I went to see it the first night, with an open mind.

This is a film website. It exists for the discussion of films. This thread has been commandeered for a political debate. Now, sure, Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11 is political -- and passionately partisan. But if this is really FilmWurld we're here to talk about a movie. And whether you are "familiar with most of the facts" contained in it or whatever, you're not qualified to talk about the movie unless you've seen it.

The thread has also been derailed into a narrower discussion than the issues dealt with in Moore's movie. Anduril's eight points are justifications for the US invasion of Iraq (or at least he thinks they are), but Moore's movie is an indictment of the US government's response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 or, to put it another way more germane to Moore's outlook, the policies the Bush administration has used 9/11 as an excuse for carrying out. Along the way, Moore is saying, obviously, that Bush and his family and his administration have shown themselves not only biased but incompetent and dangerous.

Some of Anduril's statements have been interesting, and they've stimulated lively responses from Johann, Raoul, and several others (unfortunately, not many others). I find it interesting that because Anduril thinks the war was justified he therefore thinks Bush's incompetence is irrelevant. I don't think the issues Anduril brings up have much to do with Moore's movie directly. He isn't addressing Moore's points; he's addressing the general idea that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified, which he seeks to refute. That's a general idea; but Moore's movie deals with a much wider spectrum of issues. It's also a movie, not a text, and it must be dealt with as a movie, and not as a series of facts or claims or arguments.

I'm sorry that Johann doesn't even bother to reply to the intricate and convoluted series of points Anduril included in his #8 point in favor of the invasion of Iraq. Some of Anduril's arguments are fairly conventional. But at times, here, he really goes off on his own:


the instability in Iraq has meant that terrorists, who might otherwise attack civilians in the United States, are engaged in conflict with soldiers there. Many analysts are quick to point out that the Islamic militants have come flying out of the woodwork in Iraq but few have realized that this means they are not in the United States attacking civilians.” The United States has effectively opened a front for its war against terrorism. This front contributes considerably to the safety of the world.

"Few have realized...." Few indeed. This is one of the more inspired examples of doublethink I've ever seen. But ingenious though it is, I doubt it would gain much currency on the rightest of right wing websites.

But to get back to my point: none of this is a critique of Moore's Farenheit 9/11, which Anduril has not seen. Whether he avoids seeing it out of fear, out of a desire not to "aid" the "causes" Moore stands for, or because (although he can spend hours participating in this thread) he is too busy working on his thesis to go out to a movie -- movies are a waste of his valuable time -- I have to protest against the lengthy commandeering of this website for partisan, non-cinematic uses.

I didn't mind dropping $10 into Mel Gibson's treasury, no matter how pernicious I found his film: I'm here to discuss films. And you've got to see 'em to talk about 'em.

[Johann]

Thank you Chris for bringing us back to reason.

I'm so caught up in my indigance over anduril's claims I find it difficult to enunciate myself. anduril uses his "learned-ness" to blast me from on high. The invasion of Iraq was absolutely necessary in his eyes.

Indeed, how can we discuss a film in such frustrating circumstances?

[Chris Knipp]

When somebody has his "twelve points" or his "eight points" it's easy to get caught up in trying to refute them -- and lose sight of the fact that his whole discussion is "pointless" because it's not what we really mean to be talking about! It gets interesting, but it keeps others from engaging in the discussion, when it turns into a slugfest between two or three participants.

[Johann]

Yes, and a slugfest between two people who know each other very well (maybe too well) degrades the situation even further..

He knows I'm not quick on the draw with "eloquent language", so I'm forced to reply in a manner that makes me look like a jackass...Many apologies for my outbursts on this thread- as I've said before anduril riles me up like no one I've ever met.

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
It's unfortunate that this thread has been dominated by Anduril. This is much the same thing that happened with a lengthy thread about Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, which I believe he liked. He went to see it. I did not like it, but I went to see it the first night, with an open mind.

Well, I'll come to Anduril's defense on this one. He wrote at length about the faults in "Passion of the Christ", and he led a healthy debate against a person here called MickeyMoose who was a strong proponent of the film. Anduril, a person with an extensive background in biblical studies, found the film to be more in line with a traditional passion play (historically anti-semitic) than a true interpretation of the Bible. I hate to be speaking for him here, but I don't think he would argue with that description. I, for one, learned alot from Anduril's postings about that film.

Of course, I agree one should see "Fahrenheit 9/11" before really delving into its subject matter. As has been mentioned before here, the images in the film are its strong point. We live in an image dominated soceity, and control of images and information is something that the Bush Administration has mastered. Now, Moore comes along and presents other images, ones that aren't nearly as flattering to the Administration. I applaud that.

I also find somewhat perplexing Anduril's statement about the "new front" on terrorism in Iraq making the U.S. safer. This argument about movements of concentrations of terrorists might be a bit more applicable, if at all, to Israel. Possibly the suicide bombers (or "suiciders" as Bush calls them) may shift their focus to Iraq, but I don't think there would be any effect on the U.S. directly.

[Johann]

Christianity is anduril's forte. It was a golden opportunity for him to wheel out his knowledge. If you notice, he spoke about Gibson's film from an authoritarian position.

You won't see him "talking movies" here in any great detail.
Jesus is priority #1.

[JustaFied]

I'm not sure I agree with you that he was speaking from an authoritarian position. More of an professorial (or academic) position, which is what he's in training to be. I was impressed with his knowledge on the subject, just as I'm impressed with your knowledge of film.

What may be frustrating to Anduril (and to the academic mindset) here is that they want to center this debate about Fahr9/11 in the context of the traditional oral and written argument. Our society, however, is just as dependent on the power of the visual image as on the written argument in formulating our opinions. In not seeing the film in this context, Anduril is failing to understand why this film has a legitimate appeal to so many people.

[Johann]

TOUCHE, JustaFied!

anduril and I have passion- him for Christ, me for films.

I invited him to FilmWurld to discuss Gibson's film, and it would be two-faced of me to say that he was authoritarian. I knew what he was capable of in terms of "discussing" the film. The knowledge you gained was expected and encouraged by me.

The political intensity of this thread is also my fault- anduril wouldn't have appeared unless I stated his refusal to see the film.
(MY BAD!)

[Chris Knipp]

I apologize for misinterpreting or misremembering Anduril's lengthy explications of biblical matters as showing a liking for Mel's Passion, if he didn't like it. But my point still stands that it took us away from the movies, our true subject, as has his discussion of the Iraq war without seeing Michael Moore's movie.
JustaFied wrote, "What may be frustrating to Anduril (and to the academic mindset) here is that they want to center this debate about Fahr9/11 in the context of the traditional oral and written argument. " Clearly that was true. But Farenheit 9/11 is a movie, and this is a movie website. I'm repeating myself, and pointiing out the obvious. This whole discussion is beginning to seem irrelevant, which is a shame. It's really an important movie about important matters.

When Johann said, "If you notice, he spoke about Gibson's film from an authoritarian position," I suspect he meant "authoratative" rather than "authoritarian." He cited authorities. But after a short while, he forgot we were talking about Mel Gibson's movie. Johann also helpfully explained, "It was a golden opportunity for him to wheel out his knowledge. " Well, I did feel that knowledge was being wheeled out, but to what end, I was not so sure. Johann goes on: "You won't see him "talking movies" here in any great detail. Jesus is priority #1." But that hasn't been true of Anduril in this thread. I guess Bush replaced Jesus? Or is it just that Jesus is on Bush's side?

[pmw]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
But that hasn't been true of Anduril in this thread. I guess Bush replaced Jesus? Or is it just that Jesus is on Bush's side?

I think it's odd how willing people are to link Jesus and Bush together in one breath. As if one might be doing the other's will (whatever that would be...). It's a clever strategy on the part of the Bush team.

Moore's interview with the mother from Flynt documents an interesting shift in faith that we might see more of as things going wrong in Iraq. The link between god and country by way of Bush's war/will doesn't hold up when your child comes home in a body bag for a war that doesn't really seem to have a point.
A very touching moment in the film.
P

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Johann also helpfully explained, "It was a golden opportunity for him to wheel out his knowledge. " Well, I did feel that knowledge was being wheeled out. But to what end, I was not so sure.

I think what Anduril was doing in the "Passion of the Christ" discussion was helping to put the story in the "context" of biblical interpretation. That's the key word here, "context". Without some understanding of the Bible, how are we supposed to analyze Gibson's film, how are we supposed to respond to charges of the film's anti-semitism? In what context are we to view the film? By the look, or feel of the film, or some other equally amorphous criteria? When that Mickey Moose guys says simply that the film is not anti-semitic, is biblically accurate, and that we shouldn't criticize it because Gibson has the "right" to make the film, how should we respond?

I believe we should take a similar approach to "Fahrenheit 9/11". One should analyze the film in the context of information gleaned from many sources. Don't just take Moore at his word. Sure, it's a film, and this is a message board to discuss film, but we need to seek to understand the broader context of the film's subject matter, and that may involve moving beyond the comfortable borders set by the film itself. That's responsible analysis of an "important" film.

Again, what's so striking (and important) to me about this film is the images we don't get from other mainstream sources. That's where the medium of film can be most important in helping to educate society. It reminds me in a way of The Revolution will not be Televised; we see the images and we hear different interpretations of what happened. We're left with the difficult task of thinking for ourselves and formulating our own opinions.

[pmw]

I agree with you there Justafied. Films, art, music whatever ultimately have a context that extends beyond the body of work. And an important look at the other elements of a particular context is...important.

P

[Chris Knipp]

I agree with JustaFied in principle too. Context is essential; this is a truism, surely. The question is what context and when you need to seek outside help to get it. For a Buddhist raised without any education in other religions who has never read the Bible, some further preparation and "context" would be needed to understand Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ. But since I was raised as a Christian in a Judeo-Christian culture and did study the Bible as a youth, I have plenty of "context" already. I also viewed plenty of other reviews and discussions of the film before expressing my opinion about it or respondong to the questions about The Passion's possible anti-semitism, etc., that JustaFied mentions.

We should not, of course, "just take Moore at his word." With Moore's Farenheit 9/11, just as with Mel's Passion, background knowledge is essential to evaluate the film, but I have lived the events Moore deals with and saturated myself with information about them for the past three years, so don't think it necessary for me to do any special research just to understand or evaluate it. What is most important to be on the same page in discussing Farenheit 9/11 is to look carefully at the film -- not just engage in a scattershot discussion of the issues it touches on, losing all direct reference to its specific look, sound, and contents; the information it conveys, and the way it conveys that information. That's the hard part: to focus on the film itself -- within its broader context, of course. Needless to say, that involves watching the film -- at least once -- more than once if necessary!

In the case of The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (Chavez: Inside the Coup), my praise of the film, perhaps somewhat naive at first, admittedly, led to my being provided with an endless supply of objections and lists of the film's "errors" by the Chavez opposition. I received and exchanged emails with several dozen of them to and from Caracas. Before and after these exchanges I did what reading and research I could to study the context of the film. I became more aware of the filmmakers' biases as a result, but wasn't led to reject its claims. I remain convinced of its essential validity.

I think native intelligence and the exercise of logic and analysis are the main tools we need in evaluating and discussing any polemical or factual film document. In other words, if your brain's working and you've been paying attention to current events, you've got what you need.

Moore makes his biases extremely clear.

If the arguments that've been presented on this thread in favor of Bush's policies are an example of the "broader context," then they're neither needed nor new. We have been hearing them for the past couple of years, and they haven't grown more convincing over time.

Again, what's so striking (and important) to me about this film is the images we don't get from other mainstream sources.

Fine. Which are those?

We're left with the difficult task of thinking for ourselves and formulating our own opinions.

Indeed. That's what we all try to do.

[Johann]

Fahrenheit 9/11 begins in a way that allows Moore to guide us, almost like children, in a labrynth of media that is controlled by wealthy, powerful people.

That's it. That's all this film is. He pieces together a very convincing expose on corruption and lies.
His point is very simple: If the government is for the people and by the people, why are the people being exploited and deceived?

The film opens with Al Gore winning the state of Florida.
Fox News channel reports that BUSH has won. (While confetti showers Gore and company) Bush has direct, immediate family members working in his favor at Fox and in the state gov't. I love the shot of George and Jeb sitting together and Bush confidently says to the camera "We WILL win Florida. You can write it down." You believe he'll win because Moore puts the shot in context.
Has anyone seen Horns and Halos? There's a clip of Bush on the campaign trail back before 2000 and he stands at a podium, glaring at his "supporters". He says: "You wonder why I'm here?! I'm here to get your vote." and he says it with such contempt for his listeners it seems as if this "campaigning thing" is beneath him. This is one of the reasons why I think he'll win in Nov. Bush is identical to Nixon in this respect: he hates campaigning. He hates "getting the votes". He'd rather pay someone off to seal his victory than earn it.

Moore goes from Bush's steal of the election to the floor of congress, (helmed by Gore himself) where he shows us an undeniably corrupt situation: all of those black members of congress who challenge Bush's election as President, and being shut out of having their say because no Senator will sign.

You can't argue with that. You can't contest that. That alone makes this film incendiary, and Bush should be shaking in his boots right now. The gig is up. Bush is not the elected President of the United States. He stole the election by scratching 16,000 black voters names off of the Florida ballot. That's crime and corruption of HUGE proportions. Giant scale.
I'll always remember that black woman in congress; "No-no senator has signed it, and I DON'T CARE that no senator has signed it! You can't argue with a filmed image.

Moore then continues to unmercifully rip Bush's administration apart. For once in my life it was nice to see the left say
"fuck it: I'm telling it like it is".

[JustaFied]

"Fine. Which are those?"

You know, what sticks with me about the film is how personal it is. We see beyond the curtain, in a way, we wipe away the veneer that's part of the "production value" of mainstream media.

Example: Bush still reading after the attacks. We don't see that elsewhere. That image is as haunting as anything else in the film. At the core, he's like a child waiting to be told what to do. That's what I take from that image.

Example: Florida Congressmen (and women), enraged that they can't get one Senator to sign their petition. There's nothing illegal here, this is part of the democratic process, but it's still necessary to show the personal impact of the election debacle. It's moving in a way that a Peter Jennings description would not be.

Example: The interview with the mother whose son died in Iraq. In looking at the bigger picture, we talk about "acceptable" number of casualties, collateral damage of precision bombing, etc., and it tends to become detached and impersonal in a way. Five marines died this week, ten less than last week, good news! But behind every single death there is a grieving family, and that should never be overlooked in pursuit of the goals of "the big picture". Moore's film personalizes the situation in a way that has been widely overlooked by other sources, and he provides a valuable service in this regard.

[Chris Knipp]

It's too late to write a review of Fahrenheit 9/11 because so many critics have had a go at it, so I have had a go at some of them instead. I also quote a couple that I like. And I point out a couple of the most serious real flaws of the movie -- not it's Michael Moore rudeness, but actual lacks or imbalances in the arguments.

But don't get me wrong. I love Michael Moore. For all his faults.

My piece you will find here: http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/viewtopic.php?p=335#335

I also say one or two things about the significance of the movie. To me and, maybe, to you.

Please read it. http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/viewtopic.php?p=335#335

[Sola]

Chris, nice articles. If you post them on here, people can reply, unless you dont want them sliced and diced by Anduril. Maybe it's better to leave them on your site actually.

solang

[Chris Knipp]

It's kind of long to post here but I can.

[pmw]

I wouldn't mind reading them in a new thread. It might give us a new place to start in talking about the film. Look forward to reading comments on your writings.
P

[Chris Knipp]

Okay. If you insist....

[Johann]

These anti-war protest slogans were found on some signs:

Who would Jesus bomb?
WAR begins with "DUBYA"
Frodo has failed- Bush has The Ring
Bush is proof that empty warheads are dangerous
Let's bomb Texas- they have oil too!
How did OUR oil get under THEIR sand?
A thousand points of light and one dim bulb...
How many lives per gallon?
PRE-EMPTIVE IMPEACHMENT!!!!!!


Here's a juicy morsel from the lips of Bush:

"I'm the commander- see, I don't need to explain- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation".

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.- Matthew 19:24


And here's a blistering piece of writing that sums up everything I feel: by the gonzo doctor himself, Hunter Thompson:

Good news is out of the question in this brutal year of our Lord, 2002. All markets collapsed about 3 days after George Bush moved into the White House....yeah, it was THAT fast. BOOM, presto, welcome to bombs and poverty.

The news is bad today, in America and for America.
There is nothing good or hopeful about it- except for Nazis, warmongers, and rich greedheads- and it is getting worse and worse in logarithmic progressions since the fateful bombing of the World Trade towers in New York. That will always be a festering low-watermark in this nation's violent history, but it was not the official birthday of the end of the American Century.

No. That occured on the night of the presidential election in the year 2000, when the nexus of power in this country shifted from Washington D.C. to "the ranch" in Crawford, Texas. The most disastrous day in American history was November 7, 2000. That day was when the TAKEOVER happened, when the generals and cops and right-wing Jesus-freaks seized control of the White House, the U.S. Treasury and our law-enforcement machinery.

So long to all that, eh? "Nothing will ever be the same again", the whorish President said at the time, "as of now we are in the grip of a National Security Emergency that will last for the rest of our lives ".

Fuck you, I quit. Mahalo.

[Chris Knipp]

I didn't like the way anduril, who has not seen the movie, managed with his dramatic departures and reentries to dominate this longest and most often viewed FilmWurld thread about Fahrenheit 9/11. However, since he dominated the thread, I'm using it to answer something he said. Somewhere here he has remarked that Iraq is really a pretty safe place to be now. That's an extraordinary claim, in view of the news coming out of Iraq. Let's talk about safety. Not only is Iraq ever more unsafe, it's also ever more corrupt, and US and corporate personnel are moving into all the former bastions of Saddam's power to continue their operations --and divert aid funds to their own corrupt uses (as Naomi Klein has recently reported from Baghdad in a piece for The Nation entitled "Shameless in Iraq" http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040712&s=klein).

"Peace," anduril wrote, is all about what the Iraq invasion is about. Allow me to quote from the eighth and most elaborate item in anduril’s eight-point argument to justify the US invasion of Iraq:
(anduril) On strategic grounds, Operation Iraqi Freedom and the development of a secular Iraqi state, comparable to Turkey, have had numerous positive consequences already and will have positive long-term consequences for Middle-East peace too.. . Operation Iraqi Freedom will serve as a visible demonstration of American commitments to peace in the Middle East. In somebody's fantasy that no doubt was the case -- those somebodies being the neo-cons surrounding Bush and the personnel of the Project for a New American Century who devised the rationale anduril is summarizing at this point in this thread.

But the neocons are dangerously misled visionaries, whose bold imperial aims have led our country into a quagmire. The truth isn't pretty.... here's what Robert Fisk, the London Independent's award-winning Middle East correspondent, recently posted from Baghdad about the situation there. (You will find this and other Fisk columns on the website devoted to him, http://www.robert-fisk.com/.) The current piece (July 28, 2004) is entitled, "Baghdad is a city that reeks with the stench of the dead" and here is some of what he wrote:

The smell of the dead pours into the street through the air-conditioning ducts. Hot, sweet, overwhelming. Inside the Baghdad morgue, there are so many corpses that the fridges are overflowing. The dead are on the floor. Dozens of them. Outside, in the 46C (114F) heat, Qadum Ganawi tells me how his brother Hassan was murdered.

"He was bringing supper home for our family in Palestine Street but he never reached our home. Then we got a phone call saying we could have him back if we paid $50,000 [£27,500]. We didn't have $50,000. So we sold part of our home and many of our things and we borrowed $15,000 and we paid over the money to a man in a car who was wearing a keffiyeh scarf round his head.

"Then we got another phone call, telling us that Hassan was at the Saidiyeh police station. He was. He was blindfolded and gagged and he had two bullets in his head. They had taken our money and then they had killed him."

There is a wail of grief from the yard behind us where 50 people are waiting in the shade of the Baghdad mortuary wall. There are wooden coffins in the street, stacked against the wall, lying on the pavement.

Old men - fathers and uncles - are padding them with grease-proof paper. When the bodies are released, they will be taken to the mosque in coffins and then buried in shrouds. There are a few women. Most stare at the intruding foreigner with something approaching venom. The statistics of violent death in Baghdad are now beyond shame. Almost a year ago, there were sometimes 400 violent deaths a month. This in itself was a fearful number to follow the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. But in the first 10 days of this July alone, the corpses of 215 men and women were brought to the Baghdad mortuary, almost all of them dead from gunshot wounds. In the second 10 days of this month, the bodies of a further 291 arrived. A total of 506 violent deaths in under three weeks in Baghdad alone. Even the Iraqi officials here shake their heads in disbelief. "New Iraq" under its new American-appointed Prime Minister is more violent than ever.

Qadum Ganawi puts his hand on my arm. "Listen," he says. "My brother had two tiny children. One is only a year old. We have sold our house and borrowed $15,000. How can we ever pay this back? And we have nothing for it but the grief of losing my dear brother.

"He was a car importer so they thought he was rich. He wasn't. And, you know, his wife is Syrian. She went to Syria for a holiday with the two babies. She is there now. She doesn't know what has happened to her husband."

Trucks are arriving in the street beside us, a pick-up and a small lorry with corpses for autopsy. Tony Blair says it is safer here. He is wrong. Every month is a massacre in Baghdad. Thieves, rapists, looters, American troops at checkpoints and on convoys, revenge killers, insurgents, they are shooting down the people of this city faster than ever.

One man was shot dead by a US soldier as he overtook their convoy on the way to his Baghdad wedding. We found out only because his marriage was to have been celebrated in a hotel occupied by journalists. Another death I discovered only when an old Iraqi friend called on me last week. He wanted me to help him leave Iraq. Quickly. Now.

"I work for the Americans at the airport but I think I'm done for if I stay." Why? "Because my uncle worked at the airport for the Americans, just like me. My uncle was Abdullah Mohi. He was driving home the other night but they stopped him a hundred metres from his house. Then they took a knife and cut his throat. We found him drenched in blood at the steering wheel." Abbas looks at me with dead eyes. "Should I go to Jordan? Help me."

At the mortuary, a big, tall man, Amr Daher, walks up to me. "They killed one of our tribal leaders from the Dulaimi tribe," he says. "This morning, right in the middle of Al-Kut Square, just a couple of hours ago." Selman Hassan Salume was driving with his two teenage sons when three gunmen came alongside in a car and shot him dead. Both his sons were wounded, one seriously.

Hospital records tell only part of the story. In the blazing heat of an Iraqi summer, some families bury their dead without notifying the authorities. Some remain unidentified for ever, unclaimed. The Americans bring in corpses. When they do, there are no autopsies. The morticians will not say why. But the Ministry of Health has told doctors there should be no autopsies in these cases because the Americans will already have performed the operation.

Not long ago, six corpses arrived at the Baghdad mortuary after being brought in by US forces. Three were unidentified. Three had names but their families could not be found. All had suffered, according to the American records, "traumatic wounds to the head", the normal phrase for gunshot wounds. There were no autopsies. Death is now so routine even the most tragic of deaths becomes a footnote. A US tank collides with a bus north of Baghdad. Seven civilians are killed. The Americans agree to open an investigation. It makes scarcely a paragraph in the local press. Four days ago, a US M1A1 Abrams tank crossing the motorway at Abu Ghraib collided with a car carrying two girls and their mother, all of whom were crushed to death. It did not even make the news in Baghdad.

No wonder the occupying powers - or the "international forces" as we must now call them - steadfastly refuse to reveal the statistics of Iraqi dead, only their own

Even the deaths we do know about during the past 36 hours make shocking reading. At Mahmudiyah, south of Baghdad, gunmen killed two Iraqi police officers travelling to their station. In Kirkuk, an Iraqi policeman, Luay Abdullah, was shot as he waited for a lift home after guarding an oil pipeline. A Kurdish woman and her two children were killed when someone sprayed their home in Kirkuk with gunfire. A Kurdish peshmerga guerrilla was murdered in a drive-by shooting.

A former government official was killed in Baghdad. Then yesterday afternoon, a senior civil servant at the Iraqi Interior Ministry in Baghdad was shot dead. In the town of Buhriz, hours of fighting between insurgents and US troops left 15 dead, according to the Americans. All, they said, were gunmen, although it almost always transpires that civilians are among the dead in such battles.

American documents say insurgent groups "have become more sophisticated and may be co-ordinating their anti-coalition efforts, posing an even more significant threat". There is an increase in drive-by shootings. And, a chilling remark this, for all would-be travellers in and out of Baghdad, the Americans believe "recent attacks on air assets suggest that all type of aircraft, civilian, fixed-wing and military ... are seen as potential targets of opportunity".

So the war is getting worse. The casualties are growing by the week. And Mr Blair thinks Iraq is safer.

So much for "safety" in Baghdad. That's the way it is, not the way anduril and his neocon thinktank idols would like it to be. Does anduril read the columns of Robert Fisk? I suspect not. He avoids such unpleasant stuff, just as he has avoided seeing Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.

In closing I can’t resist again quoting my favorite passage from anduril’s eight-point document, because it is so (sadly) hilarious:
(anduril) Many analysts are quick to point out that the Islamic militants have come flying out of the woodwork in Iraq but few have realized that this means they are not in the United States attacking civilians.

Interesting logic, a model of anduril's thinking, I guess. Obviously it means if we breed anti-American insurgents around the world, our country will become safer and safer.

[Johann]

Yes indeed, lots of peace to be had over there in Iraq.

On anduril's weblog he has comments from two "gentlemen" who say audacious things like "I hope the Iraqi people remind their children what their freedom cost". Shocking.

Here's some more great commentary from my man Raoul Duke (HST), a man way ahead of his times:

Welcome to the 4th Reich.
The first horrible years of our new Century....

We are coming to a big fork in the road for this country, another ominous polarization between right and wrong, another political mandate to decide "which side are you on"...

The American Century was over in January 2001. They were Punctual, as the Fascist mentality cannot survive without brute Punctuality- never be late! For fear of being guilty of "DEVIANT BEHAVIOR", and being brought "within The System". Bang! Slam! Bend over...Seig Heil! Who is god? The Boss is God-and you're not...Hey Rube, you are NOTHING! YOU ARE GUILTY!

We've seen Weird Times in this country before, but the year 2000 is beginning to look SUPER wierd. This time, there really is nobody flying the plane....We are living in dangerously weird times now. Smart people just shrug and admit they're dazed and confused.
DOOM IS THE OPERATIVE ETHIC.

Look around you. There is an eerie sense of Panic in the air, a silent FEAR and UNCERTAINTY that comes with once-reliable faiths and truths and solid institutions that are no longer safe to believe in. Guaranteed fear and loathing. Abandon all hope...

Onward Christian Soldiers. Mahalo. Fuck those people. I've had a bellyful of those vengeful Christian bastards and their Rules for righteous punishment. Those fruit-bags have had their way for 2,000 years and look what we have to show for it: Boom Boom. Sorry honey, but that money you had in the bank just went bye-bye. Our horse failed to finish. Earnings weren't sufficient. You will suffer huge tax penalties on top of everything else.

We are in trouble over here, Simon. The deal is going down all over our once-proud U.S.A. We are down to our last cannonball.
Stand back! Those Pentagon swine are frantic to kick some ass, and many job opportunities are opening up in the Armaments, Surveillance and New Age Security industries.

There is always a bull market for vengeance and violence in America. I would never claim to speak for my whole nation, Simon: I am not the Voice of America- but neither am i a machine-gun Nazi warmonger. I have been feverishly writing down my various fears and worries and profoundly angst-ridden visions about our immediate future.

There is a Presidential Election, right on schedule, but somehow there is no President. A new Congress is elected, like always, but somehow there is no Congress at all- not as we know it, anyway, and whatever passes for Congress will be as helpless and weak as Whoever has to pass for the "New President"





And you don't believe we're on the Eve of Destruction.....

[Johann]

I just re-read this whole thread again and I think it's pretty damn awesome. This thread may be the best one I created.

It's amazing to read how tunnel-visioned and ignorant anduril was, saying that my claims were "preposterous".
Not so preposterous 5 years later, is it?
I was bang-on the money. And it reinforces my notion that gut feelings are way more important than the spin that comes from governments.

I was against the Iraq war long before it was fashionable to do so, and I was smeared here for doing just that.
But there's something to be said for sticking to your guns and knowing in your heart what is right.

I want to thank Michael Moore for inspiring this heated thread with his brilliant Palm D'Or winning film.
It produced edifying debate and shined a huge light on hypocrisy and ignorance.

2 weeks and no more George W. Bush.
I just wish it was his funeral and not merely him moving out of the White House.
History will show him to be the worst thing for THE WORLD, not America.

Thanks for nothing Dubya, you fucking moron!

[Johann]

Postscript:


I said in this thread 8 years ago: If Stephen Harper became Prime Minister we'd be no different than Bush. And we aren't.
Canada has a Republican President.
Who's fucking our country up.
EXACTLY LIKE GEORGE W. BUSH FUCKED UP THE USA.

[Chris Knipp]

I don't know much about Canada -- the last time I actually went there was when I was in college -- and one of the times it was to hear Glenn Gould play at the Stratford Festival, so you can guess how long ago it was. But I look on your country as a refuge, as a more civilized place. Maybe all in all the USA is a more exciting and interesting place to be, or some parts of it are, but Canada has advantages, such as a functioning health care system, less crime, fewer guns, less paranoia, more tolerance and a more stable economy not as wrecked by the global financial crisis. This Canadian guy who lived in California for a while mentioned some of these things and also thought your beef and your fruits and vegetables taste better, and you are more aware of the rest of the world, while Americans are obsessed with their own country and wear blinders about most of the rest of the world

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080820170109AATurUC

I hope Harper isn't going to take those things away from you. But if he makes Canada Bush-like, then you'll get the paranoia, and maybe more financial corruption that will undermine the economy.

[Johann]

Thanks Chris.
Our health care system is functioning, but it's deteriorating. All Provincial Premiers just said yesterday in a joint media call in Victoria that what the Harper government has done is unprecendented.
They said that the government's refusal to negotiate with them is beyond baffling. It makes no sense whatsoever.
They are giving the health care sector 1% to operate on.
Officially it's 6% for 20% of the whole enchilada, which, when you do the actual math, is 1% of their operating costs.
It's astounding. They won't even entertain a MEETING.
Harper sure ISN'T doing it the way Paul Martin did it.
When he took office the feds gave 50%. Then it was whittled down to 30%
Then 20%.
And now it's at 6%.
It's mind blowing.
Harper has eroded our health care system. His contempt for Canada cannot even be calculated. It's astronomical how large his contempt is.

This country rocks. Everyone with a brain knows it. And it makes me puke to see it being thrown into an incinerator by such a fuckhead goof.
Just like many Americans are sickened over what Bush did.
He was handed a surplus too, just like Harper was, and what is the National debt in the USA now?
Right. In the trillions.
We're in the billions, but Harper is getting us there, inch by corrupt inch.

[Chris Knipp]

Very sad news. Keep us posted.

Get him out! No pseudo-Bush in Canada!

[Johann]

Oh I'll keep you posted.
Harper is the biggest disgrace this country has seen in AGES.

President Obama is set to officially reject Harper's Keystone pipeline plans for Texas soon and I'm glad.
This pipeline is not to enrich Canadians (or Allies). It's to enrich Harper himself. And of course scores of his pals in the energy sector, which is his only priority in the Prime Minister's Office. That's his only focus.

If anyone thinks otherwise they are a fucking idiot.

[Chris Knipp]

I hope Obama's Keystone Pipeline decision is solid and not just going to lead to some alternative that is hardly better. The gov't has hedged, saying the rejection is more due to the too-soon deadline for a decision than to outright rejection of the whole project -- if I understand correctly.

PBS:
As we had noted before, The Washington Post is reporting that the administration will ultimately allow TransCanada to resubmit a proposal that reroutes the pipeline around the Sandhills of Nebraska. The Post reports:

"The administration's decision includes language making it clear that TransCanada can reapply, stating, 'The determination does not preclude any subsequent permit application or applications for subsequent projects.'

The Republicans and Harper are displeased, but they have not failed. The environmentalists for whom this has been a huge rallying point have wond a temporary victory.

[Johann]

Indeed.

They talk about jobs it would create, but do they know that the second this pipeline goes through Canada loses 20,000 jobs over it?
And Harper is always blabbing about creating jobs, boosting the economy? What economy you fucktard?!?!
What a crock of horseshit.
It's all about profits for him and his buddies in the oil/energy sector. Period. Full stop.
And we all know that Harper doesn't give two flying fucks about the environment, calling protestors "radicals who want to treat Canada like it's an untouchable National Park".

I want Harper six feet under the ground, with an Exxon Flag to mark his grave.

[Chris Knipp]

That sounds like a desirable goal.