"actually he used them because thats who was killed regular people minding their buisiness"

I guess you have never seen the pictures of dead mothers holding their dead children because that's who Saddam killed in Kurdistan. Just regular people minding their own business. That is untill they were gassed to death.

I find it real hard to belive that you just cannot understand how evil Saddam's regime was.

Some people may find comfort in sticking their head in the sand, but all that does is make you stick your ass up in the air.

OK, now that I have a little time, I'll start back from the top.

First, I'd like to say that I sincerely believe that most of us (I could say western democracies in general) deep down want the same thing. We want what's best for the USA and what's best for us as individuals. Of course, our priorities are different, some of us are more interested in our personal lives and others may think of our nation as a whole, but I do think a strong sense of wanting the best for both runs through a vast majority of us.

In that context, I think it's mostly a matter of interpretation about what the best path is for both.

With that said, I hope we can all disagree with a bit more civility.

Dear Tight_Fit,
"...I guess that doesn't include God Fearing Christians..."

I think you're still jumping the assumption gun when you see what you think is a liberal attack on conservatives. As Larrydavid clarified, the only reason he used the word "humans" is because "americans" would not include everyone. It was a simple choice of words which you seemed to have gotten incredibly defensive about, ending with a pretty low shot of Moore wanting sex with kids.

I'm assuming you haven't seen the movie, because if you had, you would know that the movie is not an attack on conservatives but an attack on Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft, and almost entirely on what he views as their false and misleading justifications for the war. In fact, he is harsh on the entire Congress, Democrats as well as Republicans, for their failure to question the war and the response (i.e. Patriot Act). Unless I've misunderstood your position on the war recently, I don't think your position would be very far off from Moore's. Again, the movie is NOT an attack on conservatives.

Dear Hunterman,
"Didn't the NYT staff have a few problems recently, and has been identified as being extremely left-slanted (like a few of the posters in this thread obviously are)?"

Some conservative commentators and publications claim so and others repeat it as part of the strategy of perpetuating the "liberal media bias" myth, but I don't believe it's true. I read a lot of news from across the spectrum, and while I've seen a fair of intelligent conservative commentary on NYT and other media outlets accussed of being "liberal media", I don't recall seeing much space given to liberals on conservative media outlets. (and please don't mention Colmes on Fox because that guy's a joke)

As for posters here being extremely left-slanted because they don't like Bush, I don't believe that either. A lot of people of the left and independents took Bush at his word with his claim of compassionate conservatism and bringing our country together, but Bush took a hard right once elected by giving Cheney and Rumsfield too much influence, ignoring more moderate convservatives such as Powell, and especially placing Ashcroft as Attorney General. If you were to follow the changes occuring in our judicial system through the efforts of Bush and Ashcroft, you would know that adult entertainment, including forums such as this are being threatened as well as our hobby in general. Did you know Ashcroft spent $8000 of taxpayer's money to drape the bare breast on the Statue of Liberty before being photographed in front of it? How much farther will the Bush Administration go with 4 more years?

Dear Gator,
"...He trashs the USA but pockets the money..."

He trashes the Bush Administration for what he views as misleading the nation and the Congress that supported him for failing to question him. He criticizes the people and companies who supported the war for a profit motive.

He supports the soldiers and families of the soldiers who were wounded or whose lives were lost. He supports the underprivileged who are directly targeted by recruiters and make up a large percentile of the military force because of limited job opportunities. He supports innocent Americans who have been spied on by abuse of the Patriot Act.

And of course he pocketed the money, that's the American way. And contrary to the line that will be pushed by conservative media, Moore does not attack people for having or making money (at least not in this film, unless it's profiteering at the expense of American lives)

"...2. I never said he needs to be poor...3. I never said he attacks the USA"

On Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 08:32 pm you posted "He trashs the USA but pockets the money". As Larrydavid and I explained, he neither trashed nor attacked the USA. In fact he trashes/attacks what he views as Bush, Cheny, Ashcroft and elite class war profiteering at the expense of the interests of thre rest of our country.

"The Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives..."

It may make for entertaining and pointed commentary to simplify it with a catchy example such as that, but do you really honestly believe that I, liberal d'Artagnan would not pull the trigger? How about absolutely anyone else on this website? Does that mean we are all conservatives then? Of course not. Simply put, it's a poor example with an obvious answer that would be the same for at least 98% of men. A better example to compare liberals and conservatives might be regarding consensual sexual relationships between adults, a topic that reflects some of the real complexities of human rights with a broad range of how we perceive things.

Roadglide I do understand how evil his regim was. I also understand that we supplied him with the gas. I also understand you are misinformed or uninformed.

So here is a little story for you back when we were in disagreement with Iran we gave him money and weapons to fight Iran, than we sold weapons to Iran and used the proceeds to secretly fund the contras.

than he was broke from the war with Iran and needed to rebuild the country. And he claimed that kuwait was drillingon an angle and stealing his oil so he asked if we had a problem with him attacking kuwait and our ambassador told him that we had no opinion either way. so he attacked , the saudis got scared and didnt want to be next so thay called their friend bush the 1st and we went to war. then we imposed sanctions ,and bombed the country on a regular basis (this was done by clinton also) and the rest is history.


http://www.bushflash.com/exe/thanks.exe

Dear Ootie,
"...It has also been shown how Moore conveniently omitted certain parts of footage that would have been detrimental to his film's purpose had they been included...But he did, so how can I trust him..."

You don't need to trust him because seeing the movie does not brainwash you. You can even say you're in a great position to begin with because you are skeptical. Anyone with reasonable intelligence should not have too difficult a time finding articles challenging Moore's claims and others supporting it. With all this information in front of them, they can decide for themselves who they believe and what the truth is. Perhaps it can go either way given the strength of conservative media. The really good thing is that the movie may get more people interested and involved in discovering the truth. Complaints of naivety has been shared by both parties (Right during Clinton years, Left during Bush years).

I see Moore's work in F911 as borrowing a page from some of those on the media right. Best-selling authors and commentators Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh do not provide "balanced" opinions on war or any other political subject. I have not done enough research on Limbaugh to comment much on his work, but I do know that Hannity and Coulter misrepresent facts and frame "liberal" quotes and actions out of context. I also know of specific examples of Coulter doing an inflammatory chop job with media sources to suit her agenda, the same accusation leveled at Moore. These conservative figures are cheered by the right.

Have you heard Clinton was a rapist? Have you heard Clinton murdered Vince Foster? Did you know Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet? Did you know Al Gore lied when saying Love Story was based on himself and his wife?

None of this was true, but everyone heard the claims and some people still believe them. Why? Because these deceptive examples were pushed by the Right, repeated over and over by the Right, and repeated MAINSTREAM. Why mainstream? It was sensational attention grabbing content, or they relented to the "liberal media bias" accusations, or in some cases both.

If one does not believe that "...Americans are possibly the most stupid people on earth...", then it should follow that Americans can see the movie without being brainwashed into ignoring any points of the movie that are challenged.

Dear Roadglide,
"...It does make you wonder why Moore left out facts like Saddam letting a known terrorist live openly in Iraq...Or how about this, the Russian's gave us intel that Saddam was planning terrorist action against U.S interests. This little but important piece of information came out during the 9/11 hearings...What was the President to do? Take action, or sit back and wait to be hit again."

The 9/11 commission also stated that Iran and Saudi Arabia had stronger relationships to Al Qaeda than Iraq. Following the logic you are laying out, we should have attacked Iran and Saudi Arabia BEFORE Iraq. And don't forget, Bush OPPOSED the 9/11 commission until he was FORCED to and REVERSED himself. Bush OPPOSED Rice testifying until he was FORCED to allow it and REVERSED himself. Bush REFUSED to testify in front of the commission unless Cheney was by his side, and unlike everyone else they would NOT have to testify under oath.

"...I guess you have never seen the pictures of dead mothers holding their dead children because that's who Saddam killed in Kurdistan. Just regular people minding their own business. That is untill they were gassed to death....I find it real hard to belive that you just cannot understand how evil Saddam's regime was..."

No one disagrees that Saddam was a horrible, evil man, but the Bush Administration did not push this war based on how Saddam acted towards Iraqi citizens. Bush and crew deliberately justified the war by portraying Saddam as a direct threat to American citizens on American soil. They repeated 9/11, Saddam, and bin Laden together over and over, willfully implying that 9/11 was coordinated by both, and some Americans still believe that Saddam had a direct hand in those attacks. The Bush Administration pushes the "Iraqis are better off" only because there was a failure to find WMD and a failure to find any collaborative relationship between bin Laden and Iraq. If this was Bush's true justification for the war, then why mislead the nation about it? Isn't that what you accuse Moore of doing?

I forgot to make a point. This war was supposed to make the world a safer place, so what happened?

Invasion of a sovereign Muslim country based on false premises, and the events that arose due to lack of cooperation and preparation for the post-war period, has been a REMARKABLE recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Rather than weakening them, we have strengthened their resolve and provided them with more willing bodies than they probably even hoped for. Our failure to convince the world that Saddam had WMD's and was a direct threat to other nations led to a troop commitment and financial burden that is 90% American and will cost us in taxpayer dollars and human lives for years to come.

If we are very lucky, Iraq will not descend into civil war and become a breeding ground for Iraqi terrorists. (None of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi, were they? I read something like 15 of them were Saudis) If we're unlucky...

So basically some of us will continue to disagree about the result of the Bush administration's actions, but we ALL have the same desire, that the world be a safer place.

D'Art:

You make some excellent points and that is no surprise because you were formerly (and still are) a grandmaster debater. But since I can't even begin to address each point (some with which I agree and some with which I don't), allow me to repeat my main (and basically only) point.

Moore conveniently omitted certain parts of footage that would have been detrimental to his film's purpose had they been included. That makes him DECEPTIVE, not only biased. He crossed the line. If the truth about Bush was so cut and dry, Moore would not have had to resort to such deceptiveness and convenient omission. But he did. Therefore, I don't trust him.

That being said though, please don't confuse my post as necessarily meaning that I trust any other politician (including Bush) or politically active figure either.

A Wishing we could all be in a room to debate this topic kind of guy,

Ootie

I heard that Moore states in his movie that Iraq had never hurt or killed an American prior to the gulf war. Is this true?

Pretty much, I think he says we invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq ,a nation who never invaded us, who never even killed an american citizen

Check it out for yourself though, and then make up your mind

Just out of curiousity, has anyone seen the movie? Or are we all talking about a movie that none of us has seen?

I actually saw it twice, Ive never been moved like that by a movie in my life, I cried both times ,got angry both times, laughed my ass off both times. it was even better than I expected.


I think its sad that alot of conservatives wont se it the hired mouthpieces for the wealthy have done a good job distorting the message of the movie. and Im sure most republicans dont wanna support the film but I think everyone should see it and judge for yourself.

"I heard that Moore states in his movie that Iraq had never hurt or killed an American prior to the gulf war. Is this true?"
It is true that Moore said that. I don't know if the statement was true.
I have seen it. It was pretty good. But 80% of it was a composition of news segments. So, most of it shouldn't have been a shocker to anyone who has been watching the news for the past few years. It did show a lot of the double talk from the administration. People forget quickly and 'they' count on that.
I would have waited for it to come out on video, but the republicans convinced me to see it now. "There's no such thing as bad publicity."
Moore does add his spin and implies some things that I think are mostly coincidence, but not as much as in his other features.
Overall, I'd give it a B.

Prior to Desert Shield/Storm, our only deadly encounter with Iraq was the USS Stark incident - which the Reagan administration glossed over so fucking fast it was amazing.

For those of you who don't remember, an Iraqi warplane fired two Exocet anti-ship missles into the US guided missle frigate Stark while it was underway in the Arabian Gulf. 37 dead, 21 wounded, and the ship was nearly sunk. The official story was "pilot error" and that was the story everyone on both sides, Iraqi and US, kept.

RoadGlide writes" Ever wonder why Michael Moron used his peacefull pictures of Arab children playing and not those of dead Kurdish children that were gassed by Saddams regime?"

If he had shown those dead Kurdish children he could have pointed out that after it happened in 1988, President Bush vetoed a congressional measure to impose sanctions on Hussein and went on to loan him close to a billion dollars.

"Fahrenheit 9/11” is a movie made by a man whose power has surpassed anything his ego could have imagined. Moore has released this film, which raises questions about the Bush administration’s motives in the conflict with Iraq, in hopes that it would time nicely with the presidential election and get Bush ousted from office.

Who cares how it affects the election? He’s getting rich. Moore, who is possibly the fattest, richest Democrat on Earth, needed only $6 million to make his film and $10 million to market it -watched it take in $21 million in its first weekend. Exit polls could be moved from voting precincts to movie houses, though chances are most moviegoers already have made up their minds.

Leftists applaud Moore'sto get to the bottom of the truth, while Republicans scoff that he would time his release to influence the political process. More than anything else Moore is a capitalist.

People hear that Moore has gotten to the bottom of historical ties between Bush and Osama bin Laden, and they flock to theaters, only to leave claiming that they knew it all along. The only person who knew it all along was Moore.

No, he didn’t know about secret meetings or Dick Cheney’s personal motives and probably doesn’t know a lot now, but what he knew was that in an election year people want to make excuses.

Most people are tired of Bush Sr. and Jr. and are ready to make a change. Conversely, these same people never have heard of John Kerry.

Enter “Fahrenheit 9/11” and there it is. All of the sudden, voters have to go see the movie to make an informed decision?

Forget watching the State of the Union or writing their congressman or congresswoman, now the best way to participate in the political process is over some buttered popcorn and Milk Duds.

The winner this year won’t be Kerry, the winner will be Moore. The loser won’t be Bush, it will be Americans.

Moore will get rich while speaking his mind to an audience of millions of paying customers. Is this a wonderful country or what?

God bless America!

Although I am not a great fan of Moore's, I doubt that his main motivation is money. He seems sincere in his beliefs, even if he sometimes takes shortcuts in making his arguments.

What strikes me about some of the rancor directed at him from the right is that it often comes from the same people who idolize Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and that gang. Of course, Limbaugh and O'Reilly aren't in it for the money, and never stoop to using demagogery over rational argument. And God forbid that they should try to be entertaining at the same time they are attempting to mold public opinion. It is fine to criticize the whole genre, but to pick on Moore while leaving the money-making entertainers from the right untouched is a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Cat; The only good thing about the USS Stark was that the Iraq's used French missles. Only one of the two that struck the ship actually went off.

I doubt that it was pilot error, one would think that an FFG would look different that a tanker on an A-4's radar. You are right about the way it was covered up.

The reason I asked that question was to prove that you cannot trust what Moore say's, unless you are willing to check up on every aspect of his story.

I'm sure that if he was chased around and asked questions on camera, when he was not expecting to be ambushed he would come across looking like a total moron.

A couple of days ago I was driving through New England in a rented car. I didn't know how the radio worked so I was scanning through the channels and happened upon a couple of conservative talk shows. Now, I've heard conservatives speak before, but not listened to any shows (don't get 'em where I live). What struck me was their lack of argument construction. They simply said the same things in different ways without offering much (if any) supporting arguments. They'd also rail on and on about liberals.

Monday's show was all about the early Iraq government handover. "See," the announcer said, "those liberals said it would never happen" (or words to those effect). She went on and on about the significance of the handover without talking about what could happen as a result of the handover.

For me, the handover was no big thing, the signing of a piece of paper. What I want to know is what's next? Will this government survive? How will it be supported? Etc. Instead, the host (of the show I spent the most time on), kept talking of this handover as if it was a victory of some sort (over the liberals, really).

I follow a lot of Noam Chompsky's arguments (see: <http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm>). This is a smart fella, and he constructs good arguments. I guess I demand too much from others, but the right wing just doesn't offer a lot of sense in their arguments.

Now, when I see/read Moore's stuff, I'm going in with more knowledge than most people, so I'm more likely to buy into his arguments. I consider myself pretty much middle of the road, but am very open minded as to other people's freedoms. People do what is right for them. Period. For me, the only people in this world who are truly evil are those who manipulate others with religion (say, someone who professes to be a Christian but has no problem with capital punishment (I mean, that whole "Thou shalt not kill" commandment is pretty straight forward, no?)).

I was thinking about Gator's liberal vs conservative example. It's a bit too extreme, Gator, so let me run this one by you:

Our prisons are overflowing. Most of the men behind bars are visible minorities and come from poor families. Most of the men behind bars are there on drug related offenses. Most men, when released, are re-arrested within two years. We have been fighting the war on drugs for more than a generation, spending billions of dollars. These are all facts.

What should we do?

I believe that a conservative approach is to say that we are winning the war on drugs and we need more prisons. The problem is that we're too easy on these drug offenders, perhaps we should consider capital punishment for pushers. That's sure to deter people from dealing. Maybe we should force them to read the bible so that they can see the light.

As a liberal thinker, I note that Holland has a very open drug policy and their civilization has not collapsed. Maybe we should legalize and control drugs. The billions and billions of tax revenue we'd make could then be used to really educate our young and maybe even rehabilitate convicts (instead of keeping them in government sponsored crime schools).

I realize that this board is considerably more liberal than conservative, so I fear our right wing members are outnumbered. Worry not, my brothers, for while we disagree over some things, we all share the pleasure of some good ol' fashion, sweaty, monkey sex with beautiful babes.

Oh, I almost forgot ... This is a link you simply have to read: <http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/expressnews/articles/ideas.cfm?p_id=804&s=a>

Here's the opening paragraph:
"What would you say if I told you, in all confidence and between the two of us, that I think women are intrinsically inferior to men? That, being of lesser intelligence, they deserve the salary discount they get, and that their role in society should be strictly limited to having kids and cooking supper? "

You'll understand why I'm promoting this bit once you're halfway through the short acticle.

RoadGlide,

You wrote:

"The reason I asked that question was to prove that you cannot trust what Moore say's, unless you are willing to check up on every aspect of his story. "

Are you saying that there are other movies where one can fully accept all of the information without questioning the motives of the author? If so, which movies are that?

I still do not understand the argument that "No I have not seen this movie, but it is trash because Moore distorts the facts." I respect your right to not watch the movie, and I also respect your right to state that you don't like the movie. But the argument is to be honest fairly weak. No really weak.

Here are my reasons:

1. Not having watched a movie does not make one an expert. Some would argue that having not watched the movie makes your opinion less expert not more.

2. I hate to say it, but I see a touch of arrogance here. Underlying the comments is the notion that people that see the movie might not have as solid a grasp on the true facts, or are unable to weigh the issues in the film with other external information. Of course, you are able to do that. Does that suggest that you are smarter than most people? If so, it smacks of arrogance to me.

3. Thou dost protest too much. It's a movie for Chrissakes. Recently, there have been many movies that could be questioned as historically accurate. Passions of Christ is a good example. We do not demand historical accuracy from movies. Movies as an art form are to entertain and to provoke and stimulate thought. There is no question that Moore's movie does both. You might not agree with the thoughts it stimulates but I would say that this is the sign of a great movie!

Bluestravelor makes good points. I am still trying to download the film from from newsgroups so I can say I watched it and weigh in here... arrrgh.

I spent an hour on the phone last night with a friend of mine who is a staunch Republican. I too could be considered staunch Republican since I have never voted Democratic in my life. ANyway, I told her I wanted to see the movie and she flipped out--proceeded to tell me I was "fucking nuts" for wanting to see that trash. I suggested to her that she should go see it at the theaters so we could discuss it later. She absolutely refused.

I wonder why this film is generating so much anger from people that havent even seen it? I usually equate this sort of fanatical anger with liberals who are discussing Rush Limbaugh (calm down LAGuy--I can like Rush and still vote for Kerry).

GCL: It is bad enough that you, yourself, are a Republican, but now you reveal you actually have friends who are staunch Republicans. How can you expect me to remain calm in the face of this?

GCL; The rumor mill has it that the DVD version will be out in October. If you want PM me, I hope to be in Rio in October. Otherwise it can be FedEx'd.

Thanks Roadglide. Thats extremely kind of you. It is nice to have a sympathetic ear in the face of such intolerance (Laguy). If I havent gotten it before then I will follow up with you via inbox. Meanwhile, I am actively trying to procure a pirated copy which I believe is already available somewhere. But I sure wish the studio would consider releasing the DVD BEFORE the September elections so it may have more of an impact on the elections. Frankly, I dont care if Moore is acurate or not as long as the film turns some swing votes to Kerry.

LAGuy, My Repub friend is actually considering flying to Brasil just to "talk some sense" into me. If it is any consolation, I dont consider myself Republican anymore. I think I morphing in to a left wing pinko. But god bless Ronald Reagan.

Gcl, the election is Nov 4. There ought to be quite a run on that DVD in October.

im going to rio in august, im sure there are bootleg copies avalable here ill bring one down for whoever wants

I just saw it. Powerful stuff; well crafted movie. The theatre was only 20% full (at a 4:30 show) and about half a dozen people left during the film (no idea why). The connections drawn are awefully strong. Even if you want to discount half of what he presents, it's still a remarkable situation Moore offers up for us.

I chatted with a few people outside the theatre afterward. One Republican told me that our current situation was much like Vietnam. He admits he voted for Gore last time because he didn't think Bush had what it takes. There was no doubt to which way he was voting this time.

The most remarkable comment came from a woman working the desk at my hotel. When I told her the film was playing in this Anytown town, she expressed surprise, telling me she didn't think it would be allowed to be shown. Huh? Censorship? She said the supreme court made a ruling because "We have laws about a sitting president." Huh? She didn't strike me as one who'd bother seeing the movie as she is, no doubt, already well informed.

Holy shit, people seeing a thinking-man's movie and then actually talking politics afterwards. Fuck, if this keeps up there may actually be a few educated voters come November.

I treat Farenheit about the same as Oliver Stone's "JFK". Yeah, a good portion of it you can probably explain away and discount, and some of it's just fiction, myth and conspiracy theory, but you still get the strong feeling that there is quite a bit truth to be found. That is probably Moore's goal - to get some folks to think about it.

I saw 'Fahrenheit 911' this afternoon. Moore has a lot of courage considering the uptight political climate we live in now (the patriot act et. al.). If the people in positions of power are willing to sacrifice the blood of American youth for money who can consider themselves safe. Certainly not a pudgy middle aged gadfly director who has thrown all caution to the wind and has attacked publicly the powerful American oligarchy who is profiting from this war.

The lines are drawn and clearly there is a battle going on for the minds and hearts of a nation. Martin Luther King once said: "someone must be concerned about saving the soul of America".

I personally feel that you don't destroy a bad idea with a bomb but with a better idea. I thought we were the ones bringing the light of civilization to these long suffering people under the domination of the lunatic Hussein. Now we are involved in a civil war just like Vietnam and also in a holy war between the Israelis and the Arabs.

We are asshole deep in trouble in Iraq with no end in sight. There are 900 dead and 4,000 wounded and the numbers keep climbing. Moore does not turn his back on the victims of this war. He includes scenes of these kids who have sacrificed their limbs and their sanity and their innocence. The realities of getting caught up in a quagmire in the middle east are dizzying to contemplate. It boils my blood that the circle of friends surrounding Bush are profiting from this blood money.

There is an old German saying: "When God wants to punish a nation, He gives them leaders that have no wisdom".

Health and Peace, Lancer

Dear Ootie,

One of the debates within the left has been whether to respond in kind to what the left views as misleading, inflammatory and deceptive attacks from celebrated Republican figures. If you are following the many, many articles that both support and criticise Moore, you will notice a significant number of mentions of Limbaugh and other popular Republican commentators.

Of course, F911 will likely be a one shot deal for most Americans that see it while conservative talk-show hosts, best-selling authors, and television personalities such as Coulter and Hannity will continue to mislead if not outright lie to their respective audiences. And unlike Moore, who has limited his attack mostly to the Bush Administration and what he considers an irresponsible Congress (for allowing themselves to be duped), conservative heroes such as the aforementioned often attack the ENTIRE left side. (Coulter goes as far as accusing all liberals of treason.)

Now I bring this up not as an admission that Moore has done what he is being accused of nor to condone it if he has, but to identify what appears to me to be a considerable amount of hypocrisy coming from conservative media. CM seemed to have little to no problem pushing the message of Clinton as rapist and murderer based on unsubstantiated rumor and/or outright lies, but now that their man is being portrayed as short-sighted and simple-minded, they're up in arms over a MOVIE that they will have plenty of time to dissect, attack, and argue about. I won't expect them to be rationale and balanced in their response, so anyone that doesn't like Bush can probably expect to be called the full barrage of inflammatory names. (CM likes to call you a liberal if you don't like Bush).

It should also be noted that Democrats (at least this Democrat and others that I know) consider Moore significantly to the left of the Democratic Party. CM attacks would be more appropriately targeted towards progressives such as the Greens, but it's not in their best interest to admit that Democrats have moved significantly towards the center. They call everyone left of themselves "liberal" and try to paint them as extremists.

Dear Bluestraveller,

I saw it before I commented. I enjoyed the movie, but it wasn't as entertaining as I had hoped. I had read of more interactive audiences and was expected that, but I saw a late weekend showing in an area that leans right, so there wasn't as much audience participation as I thought there would be.

I thought there were some great and funny moments in the film that were connected by portions that dragged. I didn't go in expecting unbiased reporting, but rather a passionate commentary (like an editorial) from someone whose political views I knew to be significantly to the left of my own. Overall I enjoyed it, but I don't think I would see it again unless it was part of some kind of movie party.

BT, I couldn't agree more with your analysis of the arguments attacking the MOVIE.

Dear GCL,

"...I usually equate this sort of fanatical anger with liberals who are discussing Rush Limbaugh..."

If you think liberals are the fanatically angry ones, my guess would be you've bought into the "liberal media bias" myth.

True fanatical anger, at least in my opinion, can be much more easily found on recommended reading lists for the right, such as bestselling author and right-wing heroine Ann Coulter. I started a topic a while back for her here.

"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant" - Ann Coulter

I am watching the movie now. As I suspected, Moore is a little over the top. It is almost making me sympathetic to Bush it is such a hatchet job. The message I am getting so far is that Bush has sinister motives--which I dont believe. I think Moore may have been more convincing if he had taken a more moderate position and just tried to make Bush look incompetent.

Anyway, I fell asleep trying to watch it last night, will pick back up on it sometime today. BT--call me if you want to try to watch together. I could not reach you last night.

Dart, I actually do believe there is a liberal media bias. And I agree with you, the left is not the only party with extremists. I think they exist on both ends of the spectrum. I have experienced some pretty ugly stuff talkign to liberals though...even on this board just for mentioning that I liked Rush. What I find most ironic is that the liberals claim to be the ones that are open minded and accepting when in fact they are anything but accepting of opinions that dont agree with their own.

GCL: Mentioning that you like Rush is itself pretty ugly stuff. OTOH, I'm waiting for my copy of the Bukkake tape (or, preferably, DVD).

Roadglide writes "Or how about this, the Russian's gave us intel that Saddam was planning terrorist action against U.S interests. This little but important piece of information came out during the 9/11 hearings."

Well how about this?

Russian president Putin-speaking from Kazakhstan-was only responding to the 9/11 Commision's staff report that found no "credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." So it didn't come out during the hearings and the White House never corroborated his assertion.

LaGuy...mega dittos on the Bukkake. I would love to film it.

Update--I am still trying to get through the movie. Its a little like a bad 20/20 piece, except Hugh Downs is fat.

Dear GCL,

We probably won't convince each other on the liberal media bias myth, but if it's something you want to debate, it's probably better to do it in the LMB topic than here. I had intended to write an essay on it and was reading up on various sources, but I thought the main points were hashed out pretty well in the thread and probably didn't change any minds anyways, so I figured why bother.

My point, however, was not that both party has extremists, a fact that I do agree with. I would say that the Republican party is closer to the right extreme than the Democrats are to the left extreme and that "fanatical anger" is much easier to find coming out of conversative media than the so-called liberal media. As I've pointed out, angry and inflammatory commentators such as Coulter and Hannity seem to be cheered by most of the Republican Party and conservative media and have been celebrated for years. Conversely, the Moore phenomenon regarding politics is brand new, and unlike the CM treatment of Coulter and Hannity, Moore's work appears to be criticized as much as it is praised in the so-called liberal media. (The "liberal media" charge is always win-win, if it's not the conservative viewpoint, just cry "LMB"...but again...other thread)

If you can identify so-called liberal media equivalents of a best-selling author calling all members of the other party traitors and idiots (Coulter) or the most popular radio personality insulting a president's daughter by calling her a dog (Limbaugh) or the entire establishment pushing unsubstantiated rumors of the President as rapist and murderer(a lot of conservative media), I would love to see these examples. Of course, these examples should have occured PRIOR to Moore's film.

Well, if the conservative media gets its way then Bush will get re-elected and we can see what happens with 4 more years of Cheney/Rumsfield foreign policy, 4 more years of Ashcroft as AG, and a strong push to the right of the entire federal judicial system as the right further populates the courts with conservative judges and likely new Justices for the Supreme Court.

Dart--I hope ur wrong about the conclusion above. I want Kerry elected and Bush to lose; cause I am, as you know, a liberal. There, I said it.

I think examples of extremists saying things considered hurtful or silly by the other side can be found. Louis Farrakan can be downright brutal. And look at the way Dan Quayle was treated. Al Gore took a pass during that campaign when he mispoke.

As to Al Gore, he received the most brutal press coverage imaginable. For example, he never said he invented the internet, yet that supposed quote was harped upon by the media over and over again. (What he said was that he was instrumental in the development of the internet, using as the basis for this statement his leading the way on a bill that provided government funds for its development). If there were any media bias in the last election, it was anti-Gore and pro-Bush.

OTOH, if you need to look to Louis Farrakan for an example of supposed liberals saying extreme things, the problem is Farrakan is not liberal, nor supported by the vast majority of liberals in this country. I wouldn't have a problem, however, equating his rhetoric (during his wilder days) to that of Ann Coulter and her compatriots.

I am not a liberal. I am certainly a fiscal conservative and I applauded the accomplishments of both the Reagan and the Clinton administration to reduce the size of the federal government. There is no doubt that these efforts have made our country stronger.

I am pro business, and I am anti union. But, and this is a big but, I see absolutely no logic in the American occupation of Iraq. There were no WMD. We pissed off our allies, and we ran rough shod over the UN, and then we tortured prisoners making us look like hypocrits. All to the tune of 100's of billions of dollars.

There I said it. And now people feel that they have to call me a liberal which I am not. Just because I have these thoughts does not make me unpatriotic or treasonous.

I guess I am just tired of all the name calling.

Heck...maybe I am not a liberal after all cause I feel exactly like BT. I know this, I dont like Bush one bit.

BTW--is liberal a dirty word? I dont see that as name calling.

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Bush is neither. As to foreign policy, including Iraq, these days the labels don't work.

Remember that the infamous "Neocons" are actually classic liberals, engaged in nation building. If they worked for Clinton, the Republicans would crucify them.

Why can't people remember what 9/11 really was....the attack on America that killed 3,000 innocent Americans and the plan was to hijack at least 15 more planes and who knows how many more Americans would have died.

So let us look at the history of Saddam. First all thee killing of the people in his own country. Second him starting the Gulf War and after losing refusing the obey the terms of surrrender. Could you imagine what would it have been after World War II if Germany and Japan would have refused to follow the terms of surrender. Next ....his tries to assassinate Bush Sr. and refuses to obey how many resoultions from the UN.

So Bush....who was told by Clinton that Saddam has WMD. The CIA (who's head was appointed by the Clinton) tells Bush there are WMD. British intelligence tells Blair who tells Bush there are weapons of mass destruction. Putin of Russia tells Bush Russian intelligence had discovered plans that Iraq had targets on American interest. Saddam himself refused to allow UN inspectors which he aggreed to when surrender in the Gulf War to look for weapons of mass destruction. And everyone forgets Iraq had a history of trying to build nuclear bomb years ago the Isreal did their famous raid and bombed it.

The real scandal Moore and the rest of the World so be investigating and be outrage with is the oil for food program where the UN, France, Germany and Russia they profited Billions of dollars to look the other way for Saddam.

So Bush had the guts to stand up and say enough is enough and has taken the fight to the extremist before they are able to develope or obtain WMD and use them on America and make 9/11 look nothing.

It's called short memory. Moore has an issue with President Bush, and those that don't like Bush jump on Moore's merry bandwagon of half-truths.

Not that this isn't obvious Beachman, but the connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein is entirely lacking in your commentary. Indeed, Bin Laden and his followers would have liked nothing more than to overthrow the essentially secular Saddam Hussein and replace his rule with a fundamentalist Islamic State. The U.S., under Bush, has already assisted Bin Laden in achieving this first goal, and may be on the road to helping him achieve the second. Not to mention that Bush might as well put a sign on the White House that reads "Al Qaeda Recruiting Office." Simple solutions to complex problems often don't work. Bush is a simpleton. I doubt anyone is more happy than Bin Ladin with the opportunity Bush has given him.