Fahrenheit 9/11

[Airband]

They only stopped supersizing in the states.  In fact in Canada, with their new monopoly game you have to supersize to get the game pieces.

But at least their Canada includes Quebec.

[Don Hudson]

Mitch;

Re, ". . . GWB should not just be defeated in this coming election, but he should probably also be imprisoned . . . "

Yes, but not for deception which, after all, requires at least two willing parties - the Deceiver and the Deceived for it to work. There was plenty of evidence long before Iraq was invaded that WMD's did not exist.

Why do you think the US is among the few nations on earth which refuses to support, join, participate or even recognize the World Court?

Take a look at an op-ed in the New York Times Magazine written by Ron Suskind, former senior national affairs reporter for the Wall Street Journal for an in-depth analysis of what this presidency is about. You have to create a log-in (free ) first but the effort is worth the read. The article can be found at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html

[Mitch Cronin]

I was among those deceived... I'm sorry to say. I was duped... and I fell for it, hook line and sinker.

The willingness to be deceived can come quite innocently.

That's a frightening bit of insight in that article! I didn't know any of that. .. I guess I can say I should have known that too, now that I think about it... but I had no idea he was such a soloist! I'd pictured much more of a loyal and complicit gang of insiders.

[Don Hudson]

Mitch;

Re "I'd pictured much more of a loyal and complicit gang of insiders. "

When Rumsfeldt made the admission two weeks ago that they knew there were likely to be no WMDs in Iraq, the only two people in the entire US government high-ranked enough to be important that still believed their own propaganda (for whatever reason) and those two were Bush and Cheney.

That's damn frightening and I don't mean to fear-monger here. Ruling a country by decree, faith and emotion is far different than using one's analytical capacities.

Groupthink, Yes-men...however you want to characterize it, there is not much in the way of consultation with advisors going on within the White House.

[Moon The Loon]

Donald Rumsfeldt - Robert McNamara - a grey blur.

In the mid-90's, McNamara wrote his autobiography, apologizing for the mistake of Viet Nam.

The American populace were disgusted by his admission.

They weren't disgusted by the war, they were disgusted by his admission.

It was like he slaughtered and ate Bambi.

[Guest Hawkeye]

I couldn't resist placing some viewers quotes below.

<< The good news is that it's available to rent now... too bad it probably won't be shown on TV before the election!

Well done Michael Moore >> Mitch Cronin

<< The Canadian media has aired a few great programs which totally back up MM's claims.

Unfortunately, the American public are very susceptible to rhetoric and false promises. >> groundeffect

<< One thing is for sure, he researches his subjects to the nth degree. How did he find the footage of Bush Jr in the 70's?? Amazing archived footage >> Croc Dundee

I read somewhere in another post that one person here admitted to being duped about WMD in Iraq by the Bush Administration. Well, you have been duped again, by none other than Michael Moore!

Here are some excerpts of the real truth that you can read for yourselves from this Website. http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html

The problem is, once you delve beneath the humor, it turns out his "facts and hard-core analysis" are frequently inaccurate, contradictory and confused. At one point in the film, Moore apparently even alters a Bush-Quayle campaign ad, changing history to make a point. Like many of the political celebrities increasingly filling our TV screens and bookstores, he is entertaining, explicitly partisan, and all too willing to twist facts to promote himself and his vision of the truth.

Although he uses statistics much less frequently in "Bowling for Columbine" than in Stupid White Men, Moore still manages to present at least one figure inaccurately. During a stylized overview of US foreign policy, he claims that the U.S. gave $245 million in aid to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001. The Taliban aid tale is a favorite of Moore's that he has repeated in numerous media appearances over the past year. Contrary to his claim, the aid did not go to the Taliban -- it actually consisted of food and food security programs administered by the United Nations and non-governmental organizations to relieve an impending famine

God help us if we all accept the Gospel according to Michael Moore!

[Mitch Cronin]

I didn't know he was preaching any gospel?

Heck, Hawk... all I said was that I thought his movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11" was well done... I don't think it was "a good movie", I don't even care if he peppered a few embellishments or outright lies over some truth. What that movie did for me (and that's the only MM movie I've ever seen, and I've not read any of his books) was to show me someone is doing a fine job of publicly exposing what a crooked shyster GWB is.

Whatever Michael Moore may be, what he's peddling cannot possibly come as close to dangerous as the stuff GWB has been peddling with great success. You don't even need Michael Moore's comentary to see much of that in his movie... All you need is the words GWB has himself uttered over time, in various situations.

...and by the way... Do you really think any web site, such as that you've provided a link for, is the place to find "real truth"?

Yep, I was duped early on, with the whole Bush administration lying about having solid intelligence that proved that "WMD's .... including "nucular weapons" [sic] , existed in Iraq.... I bought into their crap about a connection to al-Qaida... They lied like hell, and being the sap that I am, I swallowed it...

Now I think it was just as likely all about Bush Junior doing a thing for his dad. ...and more than likely all about money, of course. I reckon GWB is a puke who couldn't have gotten a job as an office mailboy without his dad's help. He should have stuck to drilling dry wells in Texas. The whole world would have been better off.

[Don Hudson]

Hawkeye;

Interesting website and one I think that is worth going to. I think the challenges to Moore's work are worth the read. Its up to Moore to ensure that the truth about what he saying is as accurate as possible. Its up to others like Keefer to point out where they think the errors are and its up to us to decide for ourselves and act accordingly.

The nature of this particular discourse is one of claims-counterclaims...another op-ed. Keefer may be criticized on the same basis as he criticizes Moore on...that of polemics. He dismisses Moore's work outright rather than finding those aspects of truth and social commentary that are accurate, or more importantly, challenging to established views and actions.

Keefer dismisses Moore in the first paragraph, "... liberal gadfly Michael Moore again demonstrates why he has a reputation as a slipshod journalist who has trouble getting his facts right.", and goes on in the second paragraph to say, "Moore established his reputation for playing fast and loose with the truth in his first film, the 1989 documentary "Roger and Me, . . . "

Well, because this is an ideological issue, reputations are linked to groups who's ideologies either coincide (in which case the man is a saint ) or disagree, (in which case the man is ... "slipshod" ). Despite Keefer's own polemics, Moore does not have an abiding or universal reputation for "slipshod journalism" as implied. (He's not a journalist, he's a documentary film maker. ), nor does he have a reputation for playing fast and loose with the truth because a lot of what Moore says is completely true. The method is film however and not an academic study.

Further, what Keefer doesn't acknowledge is the fact that Moore's work has been taken very seriously by many others. More importantly and in a far broader sense, Moore's books and films have clearly caused people to wake up and to start taking a look at what their government is doing in the their name and what US corporations are doing largely in totalitarian secrecy. The ideological argumentation is less important than the wider outcomes which Moore's work is causing.

If Moore is playing fast and loose with the truth, good research and not polemics will discover that soon enough. However, it is Moore who pays the price if he's not telling the truth. In Bush II's case, it is the American people and indeed the world who will pay. It is not the "gospel" according to Moore that many are afraid of Hawkeye; It is the gospel according to Bush.*

* http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html

BTW, found the following advertisement on the same page as Keefer's article. Its a minor puzzle at least to me why Keefer would write about Moore (who is making people think about Bush ) and at the same time co-author the book advertised below. Without knowing the writer its not possible to comment and perhaps this website is examining all cases of lying...er, "spin" regardless of the source. The title of Keefer's article is indeed, "Dude, Where's my Intellectual Honesty?".

All the President's Spin

George W. Bush, the Media and the Truth

By Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan

Available now from Touchstone Books, a division of Simon & Schuster

All the President's Spin, the first book from the editors of the acclaimed nonpartisan website Spinsanity, unmasks the tactics of deception and media manipulation that George W. Bush has used to sell his agenda to the American people.

From his campaigns for tax cuts to the debate over war in Iraq, President Bush has employed an unprecedented onslaught of half-truths and strategically ambiguous language to twist and distort the facts. Fritz, Keefer, and Nyhan's powerful critique of Bush's record of policy deception explains why the media has failed to hold him accountable and demonstrates the threat these tactics pose to honest political debate.

This is the essential book for every citizen who wants to understand how George W. Bush has misled the nation and why, if left unchallenged, all the President's spin could soon become standard practice -- a devastating development for our democracy.

[GDR]

Here's another take on thigs from the Post.

NATIONAL POST

The victory we're not hearing about

Elizabeth Nickson

National Post

Saturday, October 23, 2004

The media is still fighting Vietnam. Opposing that war was their last original idea, so they can't wait for the new Pentagon Papers, and they drool for the new Watergate. In the meantime, we are treated to characters and incidents from 30 years ago: quagmire; the ugly American abroad; the evil CIA; the secretive, faith-addled president; his repressive team; the ham-fisted military. To the press corps, it's eternally 1973.

George W. Bush has only himself to blame. His administration has not retailed its success in the war on terror. What we have instead is an eerie silence, the context of no context, the sense of hanging time and impending danger. Arrests are announced now and then, sure -- but without the big picture, there's a sense of meaninglessness about them. What's happening? Why can't we know? Is it really even happening?

Without a master narrative on the War on Terror, John Kerry's alternative wins. But what is Kerry's alternative? Seriously, now, what is it? Well, it's ramped-up police action, and alliances with every country, big and small, but especially France and Germany. It's like the War on Drugs (because that's working so well) or the War on Poverty (because that was so successful).

The truth is that the Bush strategy has worked. More than US$136-million of terror money has been seized, and 315 mostly bogus charities have been shut down. U.S. troops are engaged all over the world -- in practically every corner but Antarctica. Intelligence co-operation between America, Australia and Britain has become so close that Australian and British officials wander around the State and Defence Departments, and are considered "virtual Americans." (Note the absence of Canada in this list.) Intelligence is shared between countries as disparate as Norway, Israel and Uzbekistan within hours, not days. Russia is an ally. Saudi Arabia has killed and captured hundreds of al-Qaeda members. Libya, Syria, Sudan and Yemen -- the only Arab country to oppose the first Gulf War -- have covertly come to the aid of the United States, and arrested hundreds of terrorists. As veteran investigative reporter Richard Miniter reports in Shadow War, the Untold Story of How Bush Is Winning the War on Terror: "President Bush has built a global alliance as unconventional as the enemy arrayed against us."

Could it be that the Bush administration has saved us from another 9/11? Where is the pre-election attack that al-Qaeda threatened? What about the July 4th attack? What happened to the attack expected around the Republican Convention? What didn't happen at the Olympics?

The great criticism levelled against the Americans pre-9/11 was that they were uninvolved in the world. Has that ever changed. American soldiers are working all over the world, spending American money on people who supposedly hate Americans. Millions were spent to build Yemen's coast guard, and another hundred million to fight terrorism in the Horn of Africa so that al-Qaeda didn't dig in there. The terror war on the seas, once truly worrying, was sunk with the arrest of al-Qaeda admiral Al Nashiri. The fight against terrorism in Southeast Asia, where the group once had an extensive network of camps and safe houses, has been virtually won, the top operatives arrested.

Those operatives were subsequently denied sanctuary in Central Asia, and have settled in the failed states of North Africa. Sudan, Chad, Mali, Niger -- these countries are al-Qaeda's new Afghanistan. In thousands of uncharted settlements, amongst brutal sand pirates and war lords, they have been marrying into local tribes and making alliances with the Janjaweed, those brigands most responsible for the barbarity in the Sudan.

The Americans are right behind them. U.S. special forces are on the ground, new CIA posts are being founded and wide-ranging diplomatic initiatives are taking place. The "Pan-Sahel Initiative," a U.S. military program to develop and train local units in basic infantry skills, has started the process of rebuilding civil society in the region. Seventy al-Qaeda operatives have been arrested and 400 handed to the Jordanians and Egyptians.

The people doing this are our new heroes. Who are they, and why are they doing this insanely dangerous work? Why don't we celebrate them? Because our storytellers are intellectually disarmed, stuck in the fog of 1973.

[Don Hudson]

Hi Greg;

Going to FRA on PA's last sojourn...see you on the 27th?

On the newspaper article . . .

I have little reservation in what it says. In fact, Pakistan has been of great assistance to the Bush administration in arresting or otherwise "dealing with" terrorist factions. Those successes, marked or not by the media or the US administration, need to be acknowledged.

But of course this isn't about failures in publicity or getting the message out and those failures are not the genesis of Bush's or the US's problems and so I think the writer needs to be asked a few questions.

The article pre-judges success where I think that that success still needs to be demonstrated. Its not been quiet since 9/11, not by any stretch even though as the article claims, the Republican Convention, the Olympics, July 4th and such were untouched, the election still to go. However comforting it may be to Elizabeth Nickson to cite the War on Terror, it is impossible to prove a negative so we don't know the reasons that "nothing happened". But we have Bali, Spain and the ongoing Middle East to confront. Still, we know that damage has been done to many (retail ) terrorist networks in terms of finances, leadership and so on though we would be unwisely deluding ourselves that these networks will not continue to rebuild.

One further item of likely inconvenience to official views...If what the article claims is true about "global alliances as unconventional as the enemy's" (of this I have no doubt ) and more importantly the claims of successes in combating terrorism, then why the invasion of Iraq? The WMD ruse was well-understood as such by those who were paying attention...indeed why did Afghanistan so suddenly disappear from headlines and from US interest? The op-ed doesn't seem to contemplate these nasty bits but they're facts in the ongoing "War Against Terrorism" which probably have done more to exacerbate the likelihood of retail terrorism than quell it.

The writer also states, "The great criticism levelled against the Americans pre-9/11 was that they were uninvolved in the world. " I think that such a statement is exceedingly naive although it is certainly what the US media would want people to believe; that "we're doing all this reluctantly and because we must". I don't know what books or events she has been reading/witnessing to be able to say this but the great criticisms from those who have been watching closely have been precisely the opposite: That the US invades where it needs to, ostensibly, though its never examined as such in the US media, to ensure fertile ground for US investment in foreign lands and to ensure that whatever democracy exists, it is the "right" kind. That to me is as large a story if not larger than terrorism...wholesale terrorism that is.

Lastly, she claims the media is "stuck" in the 70's, trying to eke out headlines in the fashion of Vietnam and that to the press corps its "eternally 1973". I don't agree but not because she's wrong. I think its far worse than even she gives the media credit for. The media only followed Vietnam and began criticizing the war (a la Pentagon Papers revelations) long, long after the US population saw the error of their government's ways and wondered why their youth were being sent overseas. First protests were in the mid-60's...US mainstream media didn't "see" Vietnam for what it was until well after My Lai and almost to the horrific evacuation from the US Embassy in Saigon when that city fell. Many knew what was happening in Cambodia and the Killing fields years before the media ever whispered a dissenting word and peace was delayed by Henry Kissinger for at least two years which allowed the slaughter of millions of Cambodians to occur...all in utter media silence. The US media is hardly cantankerous, belligerant or even a bit cranky and criticizing its role today is stating the boringly obvious.

But as far as the main theme of the article goes, its probably quite correct and probably does need more public exposure. I agree with the author that these people (on the ground and doing covert work) are doing extremely dangerous and hero's work.but I think that it ignores a lot of other stuff on the way to its conclusions.

BTW, we have to remember who owns the "National" Post and read these kinds of stories in the context of a US policies on their new Star Wars initiative.

[GDR]

Hi Don

I'll be there on the 27th.

The writer also states, "The great criticism levelled against the Americans pre-9/11 was that they were uninvolved in the world. " I think that such a statement is exceedingly naive although it is certainly what the US media would want people to believe; that "we're doing all this reluctantly and because we must".

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The Americans are criticized when they do take acton but they are also criticized when they don't. Look at the criticism leveld over attacking Iraq and yet they were criticized when they stopped short of taking out Hussein after liberating Kuwait.

Based on what we know now I frankly don't know if it was the right decision to go into Iraq but I do believe that the world well be better off in the long run. I would agree that there might have been better alternatives but then again maybe not.

The article pre-judges success where I think that that success still needs to be demonstrated. Its not been quiet since 9/11, not by any stretch even though as the article claims, the Republican Convention, the Olympics, July 4th and such were untouched, the election still to go. However comforting it may be to Elizabeth Nickson to cite the War on Terror, it is impossible to prove a negative so we don't know the reasons that "nothing happened".

It cuts both ways. There is no doubt in my mind however, that given the opportunity there would have been a follow up to 9/11 in the US, (or Canada for that matter), if they had been able to pull it off. The Americans were able to stop that guy on the ferry out of YYJ with the plan and the weapons to plant a bomb at LAX.

The op-ed doesn't seem to contemplate these nasty bits but they're facts in the ongoing "War Against Terrorism" which probably have done more to exacerbate the likelihood of retail terrorism than quell it.

I disagree Don. I think that your point ignores the fact that we have a vicous enemy who is without conscience, (at least in the way that we think of conscience). Their hatred of the western world is such that they rejoice in giving up their own lives to kill innocent civilians. The world and the US ignored them through the attacks on the "Cole", the embassy bombings in Africa and several other attacks by Islamic terrorist groups. The attacks kept escallating until 9/11. They are now facing a defensive battle which is keeping them to some degree off of the offensive.

This isn't a war about poverty. It is a war about ideology. The 9/11 terroists were not impoverished in their childhood and had been living very comfortable middle class lives in the US as guests of the Americans. (Nice guests. )

History will only record what happens. Everything else is conjecture.

See you on Wed Don and have fun in FRA. By the way is Hirsty deadheading in from YYC or is he working?

Greg

Edited for spelling. memo to self...proof read

[Don Hudson]

No...he's d/h'g. Will see you there.

[Guest Hawkeye]

Mitch,

<< I don't even care if he peppered a few embellishments or outright lies over some truth. What that movie did for me (and that's the only MM movie I've ever seen, and I've not read any of his books) was to show me someone is doing a fine job of publicly exposing what a crooked shyster GWB is. >> Mitch Cronin

That's quite a statement there Mitch! So, if you couldn't care less about deliberate outright lies over the truth, what does that say about you? Knowing Michael Moore has lied, twisted the truth or even throw in a few embellishments, how can you say truthfully that MM has shown you he is doing a fine job of exposing a "crooked shyster" in GWB as you say?

If GWB is indeed who you say he is, then you are really no different than he is. George Bush lies, you accept a lie as truth! One has to ask, who then is any better than the other?

But, if you are a George Bush hater as Michael Moore is, then I guess the truth really doesn't matter as you so clearly stated in your quote above.

If you want to talk about Crooked Shyster's, then you have to look no further than on this side of the border. The Liberal Ad Scam to mentioned but one. It's amazing how people in this country are so quick to bash the leader of another country, yet fail to see our own Goverments lies and decietfulness to the Canadian Public.

Before we judge or condemn people, maybe we should remove the stick from our own eye, then we could see more clearly to judge others.

[Don Hudson]

Hi Greg;

Re, "I disagree Don. I think that your point ignores the fact that we have a vicous enemy who is without conscience, (at least in the way that we think of conscience). Their hatred of the western world is such that they rejoice in giving up their own lives to kill innocent civilians. The world and the US ignored them through the attacks on the "Cole", the embassy bombings in Africa and several other attacks by Islamic terrorist groups. The attacks kept escallating until 9/11. They are now facing a defensive battle which is keeping them to some degree off of the offensive."

From Atlantic Monthly, October, just started reading an article by James Fallows called "Bush's Lost Year":

"As a political matter, whether we are now safer or more vulnerable is ferociously controversial. but among national-security professionals, there is surprisingly little controversy. They tend to see America's response to 9/11 as a catastrophe.", and,

" 'Let me tell you my gut feeling', a senior figure at a military-sponsored thinktank told me recently. . . . " 'In my view we are much, much worse off now than wehen we went into Iraq. That is not a partisan position. I voted for these guys. But I think they are incompetent, and I have had a very close perspective on what is happening. Certainly in the long run we have harmed ourselves.' "

I do not agree that they are "some degree off the offensive" in the sense that they are hobbled. Even if they were, the invasion of Iraq has given them cause for jihad. There was no need to invade Iraq to rid the world of a tin-pot dictator who was originally an ally of the US, evil though he was. With Rumsfeldt's admission that there were no WMD's, the chief and only justification for the invasion evaporated and only two people in the US government who count now believe the propaganda they peddled to the world and that's the President and the Vice-president.

Back to the article...

Glad you'll be there on the 27th...should be a good time for ol' Thirsty..hope we make it on the d/h...looks pretty full.

[zipped]

Hi Greg

Thanks for the George Bush unbiased comments. It is easy for many Canadians to be anti Bush. Most Canucks are anti American anyway. I for one am not either. Belive it or not Bush is still VERY poplular in the US and in many parts of Canada. I say again check out the site below.

ps....is the group still doing coffee at Marys at 9am?

Michael Moore is a "Big Fat Stupid White Man"

read the book.

http://moorelies.com/book/

For a more balanced view rent the movie

DC 9/11 - A time of crisis

[groundeffect]

My favorite quote of the 'millenium so far', comes from the 'Passionate Eye' this evening...nyc times writer Cris Holmes regarding the American media's coverage of the beginining of the Iraq confict, ;

'that was not reporting, that was called stenography'

Says it all in my opinion.

As to the poster who refered to me and others as being 'duped'

I suggesest you delve a wee bit deeper than the republican party's response to an indepenent film maker's attempt to show a different perspective..as opposed to the incumbent 'news speak'

As I stated previously...I agree MM took artistic licence in making his film...but those , hmm, difficult questions. remain unanswered...

[Moon The Loon]

Without taking sides, the George W sides' worst nightmare is the voter who thinks and hopes.

(There's that apostrophe again!)

[Gumbi]

"My favorite quote of the 'millenium so far', comes from the 'Passionate Eye' this evening"

Talking about quotes... I kinda liked the one from former president Clinton yesterday when he said something like " Their candidate promises you fear, our candidate promises you hope, the choice IS really simple ", isn't it?

Gumbi

[Kip Powick]

Many more helpful hints were that came from. Never hesitate to ask. Would be sort of interesting to get an animated discussion on the proper use of puncuation going here

Yeh and spelling...but then again the word is spelled correctly...it's just the wrong word

[Moon The Loon]

I can't write my own reading...