Bush Haters!

Boomers International Board: Election - Politics: Bush Haters!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Anonymous on Saturday, June 2, 2001 - 10:07 am:

Bush haters are fanatics - they have no lifes other than spending days and nights thinking of ways to defame him.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 04:40 pm:

The Bush haters are still living in their psychotic dreams and they can't accept that the election is over and Bush is the United States's President.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Anonymous on Wednesday, August 8, 2001 - 09:47 pm:



August 8, 2001 -- WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton wanted a convicted cocaine dealer sprung from prison, and it was "very important" to her, the former first lady's brother told the White House, according to a bombshell memo obtained by The Post.
The handwritten note, on White House stationery, appears to contradict Clinton's repeated claims that she knew nothing about brother Hugh Rodham's pardon-for-pay work to get her husband to free drug trafficker Carlos Vignali.

"Hugh says this is very important to him and the first lady as well as others," says the note, which investigators said is from a file on the Vignali matter kept by Bruce Lindsey, who was former President Bill Clinton's closest White House aide.

Bill Clinton freed Vignali on Jan. 20, over angry objections from the U.S. attorney's office, after Vignali had served only six years of a 15-year prison term for conspiring to sell more than 800 pounds of coke.

The note, from last December or January, is in the National Archives files for the Clinton White House and bears the stamp "Clinton library photocopy."

The memo is unsigned, but appears to be addressed to Lindsey and written by someone who knows the Clintons and their family, since it refers to Sen. Clinton's brother by his first name.

It suggests either Rodham lied to the Clinton White House, or Hillary Clinton lied when she later denied knowing anything about the pardon, for which her brother was paid $204,000 by Vignali's family.

Rodham was living with the Clintons on the third floor of the White House when Bill Clinton issued his controversial slew of 11th-hour pardons and sentence commutations, including Vignali's.

Sen. Clinton insisted at a news conference last February: "I did not know my brother was involved in any way in any of this."

Her spokeswoman, Karen Dunn, last night, said only: "We have nothing to add to what's already been said."

Rodham's lawyer, Nancy Luque, said he didn't speak to Sen. Clinton about Vignali.

"I seriously doubt whether he ever said that it was important to her," Luque said.

The House Government Reform Committee, which is probing the pardons, has written Rodham, asking him to explain "why you informed anyone on the White House staff that the Vignali matter was ‘very important' to you and the first lady."

The committee notes in its letter that Luque had told the House panel that Rodham "had no contact with President Clinton or Sen. Clinton" regarding Vignali.

Both Clintons have denied knowing Rodham was being paid by Vignali's family, but Bill Clinton has never explained why he pardoned Vignali.


I rather have the ex-drunk (more than 10+ years ago) than THE 2 CROOKS!!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Anonymous on Monday, September 24, 2001 - 01:15 pm:

Monday September 24 12:22 PM EDT
Bush Approval Rating Soars
A new CNN/USA Today Gallup poll shows that President Bush (news - web sites)'s job approval rating is 90 percent, the highest in Gallup's history of polling.

Of the 1,005 people polled, more than two-thirds think that more terrorist attacks on this country are at least somewhat likely in coming weeks.

Four out of five people say that they support military action in Afghanistan (news - web sites).

Three out of four people say that they favor military action in Iraq.

However, there is division over whether it is unpatriotic to protest against U.S. military action. Respondents were almost evenly split on that issue.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Anonymous on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 04:47 pm:

"Michael Moore Takes His Bush-Hatred to New Depths"

Posted by Jon Alvarez
Monday, December 29, 2003

The following is a letter from Michael Moore to his anti-Bush haters and supporters. The underlines are mine to highlight the depths of his anti-Bush agenda. My comments are at the end. Note his elitist posture about the troops. They are all poor slobs from the wrong side of the tracks who can't get a job anywhere ans sign up for the armed sevices. According to Moore, they just dont know any better.

Friday, December 19th, 2003
Letters the Troops Have Sent Me... by Michael Moore

Dear Friends,

As we approach the holidays, I've been thinking a lot about our kids who are in the armed forces serving in Iraq. I've received hundreds of letters from our troops in Iraq -- and they are telling me something very different from what we are seeing on the evening news.

What they are saying to me, often eloquently and in heart-wrenching words, is that they were lied to -- and this war has nothing to do with the security of the United States of America.

I've written back and spoken on the phone to many of them and I've asked a few of them if it would be OK if I posted their letters on my website and they've said yes. They do so at great personal risk (as they may face disciplinary measures for exercising their right to free speech). I thank them for their bravery.

Lance Corporal George Batton of the United States Marine Corps, who returned from Iraq in September (after serving in MP company Alpha), writes the following:

“You'd be surprised at how many of the guys I talked to in my company and others believed that the president's scare about Saddam's WMD was a bunch of bullshit and that the real motivation for this war was only about money. There was also a lot of crap that many companies, not just marine companies, had to go through with not getting enough equipment to fulfill their missions when they crossed the border. It was a miracle that our company did what it did the two months it was staying in Iraq during the war…. We were promised to go home on June 8th, and found out that it was a lie and we got stuck doing missions for an extra three months. Even some of the most radical conservatives in our company including our company gunnery sergeant got a real bad taste in their mouth about the Marine corps, and maybe even president Bush.”

Here's what Specialist Mike Prysner of the U.S. Army wrote to me:

“Dear Mike -- I’m writing this without knowing if it’ll ever get to you…I’m writing it from the trenches of a war (that’s still going on,) not knowing why I’m here or when I’m leaving. I’ve toppled statues and vandalized portraits, while wearing an American flag on my sleeve, and struggling to learn how to understand… I joined the army as soon as I was eligible – turned down a writing scholarship to a state university, eager to serve my country, ready to die for the ideals I fell in love with. Two years later I found myself moments away from a landing onto a pitch black airstrip, ready to charge into a country I didn't believe I belonged in, with your words (from the Oscars) repeating in my head. My time in Iraq has always involved finding things to convince myself that I can be proud of my actions; that I was a part of something just. But no matter what pro-war argument I came up with, I pictured my smirking commander-in-chief, thinking he was fooling a nation…"

An Army private, still in Iraq and wishing to remain anonymous, writes:

“I would like to tell you how difficult it is to serve under a man who was never elected. Because he is the president and my boss, I have to be very careful as to who and what i say about him. This also concerns me a great deal... to limit the military's voice is to limit exactly what America stands for... and the greater percentage of us feel completely underpowered. He continually sets my friends, my family, and several others in a kind of danger that frightens me beyond belief. I know several other soldiers who feel the same way and discuss the situation with me on a regular basis.”

Jerry Oliver of the U.S. Army, who has just returned from Baghdad, writes:

“I have just returned home from "Operation Iraqi Freedom". I spent 5 months in Baghdad, and a total of 3 years in the U.S. Army. I was recently discharged with Honorable valor and returned to the States only to be horrified by what I've seen my country turn into. I'm now 22 years old and have discovered America is such a complicated place to live, and moreover, Americans are almost oblivious to what's been happening to their country. America has become "1984." Homeland security is teaching us to spy on one another and forcing us to become anti-social. Americans are willingly sacrificing our freedoms in the name of security, the same Freedoms I was willing to put my life on the line for. The constitution is in jeopardy. As Gen. Tommy Franks said, (broken down of course) One more terrorist attack and the constitution will hold no meaning.”

And a Specialist in the U.S. Army wrote to me this week about the capture of Saddam Hussein:

“Wow, 130,000 troops on the ground, nearly 500 deaths and over a billion dollars a day, but they caught a guy living in a hole. Am I supposed to be dazzled?”

There are lots more of these, straight from the soldiers who have been on the front lines and have seen first hand what this war is really about.

I have also heard from their friends and relatives, and from other veterans. A mother writing on behalf of her son (whose name we have withheld) wrote:

“My son said that this is the worst it's been since the "end" of the war. He said the troops have been given new rules of engagement, and that they are to "take out" any persons who aggress on the Americans, even if it results in "collateral" damage. Unfortunately, he did have to kill someone in self defense and was told by his commanding officer ‘Good kill.’

"My son replied ‘You just don't get it, do you?’

"Here we are...Vietnam all over again.”

From a 56 year old Navy veteran, relating a conversation he had with a young man who was leaving for Iraq the next morning:

“What disturbed me most was when I asked him what weapons he carried as a truck driver. He told me the new M-16, model blah blah blah, stuff never made sense to me even when I was in. I asked him what kind of side arm they gave him and his fellow drivers. He explained, "Sir, Reservists are not issued side arms or flack vests as there was not enough money to outfit all the Reservists, only Active Personnel". I was appalled to say the least.

"Bush is a jerk agreed, but I can't believe he is this big an Asshole not providing protection and arms for our troops to fight HIS WAR!”

From a 40-year old veteran of the Marine Corps:

“Why is it that we are forever waving the flag of sovereignty, EXCEPT when it concerns our financial interests in other sovereign states? What gives us the right to tell anyone else how they should govern themselves, and live their lives? Why can't we just lead the world by example? I mean no wonder the world hates us, who do they get to see? Young assholes in uniforms with guns, and rich, old, white tourists! Christ, could we put up a worse first impression?”

(To read more from my Iraq mailbag -- and to read these above letters in full -- go to my website: http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/dudewheresmycountry/soldierletters/index.php)

Remember back in March, once the war had started, how risky it was to make any anti-war comments to people you knew at work or school or, um, at awards ceremonies? One thing was for sure -- if you said anything against the war, you had BETTER follow it up immediately with this line: "BUT I SUPPORT THE TROOPS!" Failing to do that meant that you were not only unpatriotic and un-American, your dissent meant that YOU were putting our kids in danger, that YOU might be the reason they lose their lives. Dissent was only marginally tolerated IF you pledged your "support" for our soldiers.

Of course, you needed to do no such thing. Why? Because people like you have ALWAYS supported "the troops." Who are these troops? They are our poor, our working class. Most of them enlisted because it was about the only place to get a job or receive the guarantee of a college education. You, my good friends, have ALWAYS, through your good works, your contributions, your activism, your votes, SUPPORTED these very kids who come from the other side of the tracks. You NEVER need to be defensive when it comes to your "support" for the "troops" -- you are the only ones who have ALWAYS been there for them.

It is Mr. Bush and his filthy rich cronies -- whose sons and daughters will NEVER see a day in a uniform -- they are the ones who do NOT support our troops. Our soldiers joined the military and, in doing so, offered to give THEIR LIVES for US if need be. What a tremendous gift that is -- to be willing to die so that you and I don't have to! To be willing to shed their blood so that we may be free. To serve in our place, so that WE don't have to serve. What a tremendous act of selflessness and generosity! Here they are, these 18, 19, and 20-year olds, most of whom have had to suffer under an unjust economic system that is set up NOT to benefit THEM -- these kids who have lived their first 18 years in the worst parts of town, going to the most miserable schools, living in danger and learning often to go without, watching their parents struggle to get by and then be humiliated by a system that is always looking to make life harder for them by cutting their benefits, their education, their libraries, their fire and police, their future.

And then, after this miserable treatment, these young men and women, instead of coming after US to demand a more just society, they go and join the army to DEFEND us and our way of life! It boggles the mind, doesn't it? They not only deserve our thanks, they deserve a big piece of the pie that we dine on, those of us who never have to worry about taking a bullet while we fret over which Palm Pilot to buy the nephew for Christmas.

In fact, all that these kids in the army ask for in return from us is our promise that we never send them into harm's way unless it is for the DEFENSE of our nation, to protect us from being killed by "the enemy."

And that promise, my friends, has been broken. It has been broken in the worst way imaginable. We have sent them into war NOT to defend us, not to protect us, not to spare the slaughter of innocents or allies. We have sent them to war so Bush and Company can control the second largest supply of oil in the world. We have sent them into war so that the Vice President's company can bilk the government for billions of dollars. We have sent them into war based on a lie of weapons of mass destruction and the lie that Saddam helped plan 9-11 with Osama bin Laden.

By doing all of this, Mr. Bush has proven that it is HE who does not support our troops. It is HE who has put their lives in danger, and it is HE who is responsible for the nearly 500 American kids who have now died for NO honest, decent reason whatsoever.

The letters I've received from the friends and relatives of our kids over there make it clear that they are sick of this war and they are scared to death that they may never see their loved ones again. It breaks my heart to read these letters. I wish there was something I could do. I wish there was something we all could do.

Maybe there is. As Christmas approaches (and Hanukkah begins tonight), I would like to suggest a few things each of us could do to make the holidays a bit brighter -- if not safer -- for our troops and their families back home.

1. Many families of soldiers are hurting financially, especially those families of reservists and National Guard who are gone from the full-time jobs ("just one weekend a month and we'll pay for your college education!"). You can help them by contacting the Armed Forces Emergency Relief Funds at http://www.afrtrust.org/ (ignore the rah-rah military stuff and remember that this is money that will help out these families who are living in near-poverty). Each branch has their own relief fund, and the money goes to help the soldiers and families with paying for food and rent, medical and dental expenses, personal needs when pay is delayed, and funeral expenses.

2. Thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed by our bombs and indiscriminate shooting. We must help protect them and their survivors. You can do so by supporting the Quakers' drive to provide infant care kits to Iraqi hospitals...You can also help the people of Iraq by supporting the Iraqi Red Crescent Society...or you can make an online donation through the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

3. With 130,000 American men and women currently in Iraq, every community in this country has either sent someone to fight in this war or is home to family members of someone fighting in this war. Organize care packages through your local community groups, activist groups, and churches and send them to these young men and women. The military no longer accepts packages addressed to “Any Soldier,” so you’ll have to get their names first. Figure out who you can help from your area, and send them books, CDs, games, footballs, gloves, blankets—anything that may make their extended (and extended and extended…) stay in Iraq a little brighter and more comfortable. You can also sponsor care packages to American troops through the USO: http://www.usocares.org/.

4. Want to send a soldier a free book or movie? I’ll start by making mine available for free to any soldier serving in Iraq. Just send me their name and address in Iraq (or, if they have already left Iraq, where they are now) and the first thousand emails I get at soldiers@michaelmoore.com will receive a free copy of "Dude..." or a free “Bowling…” DVD.

5. Finally, we all have to redouble our efforts to end this war and bring the troops home. That's the best gift we could give them -- get them out of harm's way ASAP and insist that the U.S. go back to the UN and have them take over the rebuilding of Iraq (with the US and Britain funding it, because, well, we have to pay for our mess). Get involved with your local peace group—you can find one near where you live...A large demonstration is being planned for March 20... Also, back only anti-war candidates for Congress and President (Kucinich, Dean, Clark, Sharpton).

I know it feels hopeless. That's how they want us to feel. Don't give up. We owe it to these kids, the troops WE SUPPORT, to get them the hell outta there and back home so they can help organize the drive to remove the war profiteers from office next November.

To all who serve in our armed forces, to their parents and spouses and loved ones, we offer to you the regrets of millions and the promise that we will right this wrong and do whatever we can to thank you for offering to risk your lives for us. That your life was put at risk for Bush's greed is a disgrace and a travesty, the likes of which I have not seen in my lifetime.

Please be safe, come home soon, and know that our thoughts and prayers are with you during this season when many of us celebrate the birth of the prince of "peace."


Michael Moore

More confirmation from Mr. Moore himself that his agenda is nothing more than to ruin President Bush and discredit the War on Terror. Here he claims to have received hundreds of letters from troops, yet posts approximately 7 on his site, and their authenticity cannot be verified (NOT that Michael Moore would CREATE these letters on his own). I did attempt to look up one author from Washington state and could not confirm his existence. However, wouldn't Moore post the hundreds he supposedly has received on his site and the comments, if they confirmed his message and cause?

Please, sign and forward our petition to say NO to Fahrenheit911 at:


Full Story At:

Jon Alvarez
PABAAH: Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti-American Hollywood http://www.PABAAH.com


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Anonymous on Tuesday, March 2, 2004 - 01:01 pm:

'Bush lied' and the lying liars who perpetuate it
Jonah Goldberg (archive)

January 16, 2004

Sen. Ted Kennedy gave another one of his angry speeches this week. With all the gravitas he could muster, he recycled his standard complaint: that the Iraq war was never really about WMDs or the war on terror. It was a "political product" from "Day 1" of the president's administration.

This echoes Kennedy's earlier diatribes, like last fall when he said, "Before the war, week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie."

Personally, I think Kennedy's an embarrassment to his party. But that doesn't change the fact that he's taken seriously or that he speaks for a large constituency. So let's try to deal with the "Kennedy School's" view of the Iraq war.

First let me admit that I think the failure to find significant evidence of weapons of mass destruction easily constitutes one of the greatest intelligence blunders since Pearl Harbor. There's still a chance we'll find something. But if we do, it will probably be too little, too late to change this basic assessment.

Critics of the Bush Administration are probably cheering, "Finally! Goldberg's stopped drinking the White House's Kool-Aid!"

But hold on. To argue that this was a huge intelligence blunder is to largely let George Bush off the hook for the even-more-popular Bush critique: that he lied to the American people about Iraq.

For Bush to have lied, he had to have known that there were no WMDs, right? It's not a lie unless you know the truth. If you say something you think is true that later turns out to be false, we don't call that a "lie," we call that a "mistake."

You could look it up.

This vital distinction seems to be lost on many smart people. For example, the online magazine Slate has been hosting an interesting discussion among the most respected and prominent liberals who supported the Iraq war. The question before them, more or less, is whether they regret it. Some do. Some don't. Most hold positions awash in shades of gray.

One of those is Kenneth Pollack, the former Clinton NSC staffer and author of the hugely influential book, "The Threatening Storm." Pollack's book was the most coherent and sustained case for the war from any quarter. Slate's round-robin is timed to coincide with a must-read cover story in the current issue of The Atlantic in which Pollack tries to figure out where he - and we - went wrong on WMDs.

Anyway, Pollack tells Slate, "If I had to write 'The Threatening Storm' over again I certainly would not have been so unequivocal that war was going to be a necessity."

In response, George Packer, a prominent liberal hawk, says, "Ken Pollack should be congratulated: How many leading voices on this issue have subjected themselves to such honest criticism? What he got wrong he got wrong because the intelligence was mistaken. What the administration got wrong it got wrong because it didn't care about the intelligence."

This encapsulates pretty much everything that's wrong with even the White House's most respected critics: a nearly total inability to consider the possibility that this administration operated in good faith.

Packer says Pollack's mistake was based on the best intelligence available; however, Bush & Co are a bunch of bloodthirsty ideologues or greedy liars or both.

Unfortunately, there are too many anti-Bush slanders out there to count, let alone debunk, but they are all premised on the "fact" that Bush lied.

But nobody has made a remotely persuasive case that Bush lied. The German, Russian, French, Israeli, British, Chinese and U.S. governments all agreed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The German assessment was even more dire than our own. They were convinced Saddam would have a nuclear weapon by 2005.

Bill Clinton and his entire administration believed Saddam had WMDs. In 2002 Robert Einhorn, Clinton's point man on WMDs, testified to Congress, "Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors" including our 100,000 troops in Saudi Arabia.

The threat - chemical, biological and nuclear - against U.S. territory proper was only a few years away, according to Einhorn. Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Joe Lieberman, Tony Blair, Hillary Clinton, Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder: all of these people believed Iraq had major stockpiles of WMDs.

Were they all "liars" like President Bush? No? Why not?

You can't have it both ways. You can't say Bush lied while others who said the same thing were being honest. The White House was operating with fundamentally identical information to that of Clinton, Pollack and Einhorn. What was different was that this White House needed to deal with the post-9/11 world.

Maybe that clouded Bush's judgment - or opened his eyes. Let's have that argument. I certainly believe mistakes were made (though I still believe the war was right and just). But if you start from Kennedy's premise that the WMD thing was made up, I can't take you seriously.

Jonah Goldberg is editor of National Review Online, a Townhall.com member group.

©2003 Tribune Media Services


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Anonymous on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 03:34 am:

Democrat vows to 'keep pounding'
Wednesday, March 10, 2004 Posted: 5:18 PM EST (2218 GMT)

CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry, all but officially the Democratic presidential nominee, called Republicans he is battling "crooked" Wednesday.

The comments, caught on tape, came after Kerry addressed the AFL-CIO by satellite. Union workers had been standing behind him. When the satellite feed ended, Kerry spoke briefly with a couple of them.

"Keep smiling," one man said to him.

Kerry responded, "Oh yeah, don't worry man. We're going to keep pounding, let me tell you -- we're just beginning to fight here. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group of people I've ever seen."

"It's scary," replied another worker.

Nice going Mr. Kerry

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Anonymous on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 04:37 pm:

Kerry refuses to apologize to GOP
Candidate stands by
'lying' remarks in Chicago
The Associated Press
Updated: 3:13 p.m. ET March 11, 2004WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Thursday rejected Republicans demands that he apologize for calling his GOP critics “the most crooked, you know, lying group I’ve ever seen.”


“I have no intention whatsoever of apologizing for my remarks,” Kerry said during a news conference on the Senate side of the Capitol. “I think the Republicans need to start talking about the real issues before the country.”

A group of GOP leaders in the House and Senate called on Kerry to stop negative campaigning even while describing him as “Ted Kennedy on a South Beach diet.” They scolded Kerry for the offhand remark he made Wednesday in Chicago, contending it was undignified for a presidential candidate.

“If you ask me, he’s getting off on the wrong foot in this campaign by name-calling,” House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., told reporters as he and other GOP leaders met in his office Thursday. “We’re not lying when we start saying that Senator Kerry is the old-time Democrat of tax and spend.”

'Ted Kennedy on a South Beach diet'
Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., said, “We see John Kerry as Ted Kennedy on a South Beach diet.”

The Republicans rejected Kerry’s call for returning to Clinton-era tax rates for people earning $200,000 a year, contended he would raise taxes on the middle class by $900 billion, and doubted Kerry’s ability to adequately fund defense.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Kerry was “not in synch with the American people.” Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said, “This concerted effort to convince the American economy is in the tank is simply not accurate.”

Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said Kerry’s remark about “crooked ... lying” Republicans gave Americans “a little glimpse of the real John Kerry, and he’s not even tired yet.” Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said Kerry should apologize for a comment “outside the bounds of where people who want to hold the highest office in this country should be making.”

© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Well then, when you are a presidential-hopeful
and a husband of a heinz heiress that...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Anonymous on Sunday, July 4, 2004 - 04:34 am:

"Would you call Michael Moore a traitor?"

No, freedom of expression (29.8%) 566 votes
Yes, gives aid and comfort to the enemy (35.1%) 666 votes
No, patriotic dissent (24.0%) 455 votes
Yes, Hezbollah embraces him (11.1%) 211 votes

Total votes: 1898


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Anonymous on Sunday, July 4, 2004 - 04:39 am:

The Michael Moore Test

by L. Brent Bozell III
July 1, 2004

George W. Bush has rarely if ever said a discouraging word about Hollywood, but Hollywood is unloading every gun and bomb bay on George W. Bush. Earlier in the summer, we had the cartoonish science-fiction film “The Day After Tomorrow,” in which the clueless Bush stand-in president somehow freezes from global warming, and the Cheney stand-in vice president confesses he should have listened to the Greenpeace gang, for they have all knowledge and wisdom.

At least that malarkey was pitched as fiction, raising further questions about Al Gore’s political sanity for roundly endorsing it.

The main exhibit now is Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9-11,” a film full of flagrant fouls on the facts, posing as a nonfiction documentary. In Moore’s alternative universe, President Bush went to war not to fight terrorism, but for oil riches. He went to war not to defend America’s honor and security, but to enrich defense contractors and keep the poor people in the ghetto (or exploit them as cannon fodder). He went to war not to defeat Osama bin Laden, but as a monstrously cynical wink-wink deal between the Bush family and the bin Laden family.

How inaccurate is it? Entire corporate dairy farms don’t have this much manure. Moore critics could write a book the size of a dictionary chronicling the second-by-second lying and fact-mangling in this movie, starting from the very first minutes in which Moore suggests Bush couldn’t get anything passed in his first eight months in office. (Major tax cut, anyone?) On and on the conspiracies tumble out, yet surprisingly he leaves out his best one: the theory that Bush has Osama stowed in some Saudi attic for safe-keeping.

Then consider how low it stoops in its mean-spiritedness. The Bushes and the bin Ladens plotted September 11 together? Think of every supposed Republican campaign atrocity the news media have drummed into our heads in the last 20 years, and compare it to Moore’s bubbling cauldron of hate.

The Willie Horton ad? “Romper Room” stuff. Pat Buchanan’s 1992 convention speech? A day in the park with Mary Poppins. The “RATS” ad? Get serious. Even the nastiest liberal ads in 2000, like the sleazoid NAACP commercial with James Byrd’s daughter insisting George W. Bush dragged her daddy to his death all over again, look like Barney the Dinosaur next to this tripe.

Even in its smallest notes, "Fahrenheit 9-11" is full of cheap and sleazy laughs, such as showing Paul Wolfowitz combing his hair down with his own spit. Let’s hope Moore knows he’s just setting himself up for elongated hidden-camera closeups of him trying to eat, or clips of him interspersed with cartoonish clips of the morbidly obese man buried in a piano case. That’s the level of childishness indulged in this prank-umentary.

For the Left, this film is a test to separate the wheat from the chaff, the honorable from the dishonorable, the serious from the unserious. In the Clinton years, conservatives needed to step away from the unsubstantiated videos that talked in conspiratorial tones about all of Clinton’s heinous secret crimes. To be taken seriously, every liberal today should criticize “Fahrenheit 9-11" as an affront to journalism and civil discourse.

To their credit, a number of liberal pundits and journalists have been passing this test: PBS’s Gwen Ifill on “Meet the Press,” William Raspberry and Richard Cohen in the Washington Post, and Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times, to name a few. ABC and NBC, after promoting Moore and the film for days, also greeted the film’s debut with a “truth squad” feature pointing out a few inaccuracies. Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball have done the same.

Unfortunately, the nation’s film critics are almost universally failing this test, raving about the greatness of the movie and leaving the matters of accuracy and civility by the wayside. Editor & Publisher found the vast majority of newspaper movie critics, nine out of ten, recommended the film. Their message boils down to this: “Hey, as cinematic art, it’s great and never mind the intellectual dishonesty of it all. Great flick.”

Other critics are even worse, actually trumpeting this garbage as tremendously factual: “Its trajectory is guided with pinpoint accuracy,” wrote Desson Thomson in the Washington Post, and it “obviously skews facts to its own advantage, but that's what the game is all about. What counts is the emotional power of Moore's persuasion.”

That common argument – facts, schmacts, how about the emotional impact? – is too distressingly vague, an argument critics would not accept if the artwork were Leni Riefensthal’s Nazi propaganda works, or D.W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation.” The message matters. The next test for theatre owners and movie critics is Mike Wilson’s forthcoming film “Michael Moore Hates America,” which should be finished later this year. Let’s see what they have to say then.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Anonymous on Sunday, July 4, 2004 - 03:24 pm:

yep, even Ted Rall calls Michael Moore....


Michael Moore and the Battle for Hearts and Minds
DAYTON, OHIO--I've never met Michael Moore. I know several people, however, who have. They all say the same thing: Michael Moore is an arrogant, hypocritical blowhard.

The same goes for "Fahrenheit 9/11." I haven't seen it, but friends who have say the film is a throw-everything-at-the-wall-in-the-hope-that-something-sticks mess riddled with exaggerations, innuendos and inaccuracies. They also call it powerful and important.

From what I hear, Moore's new hit documentary dwells on the fact that the Bush Administration allowed a planeload of Osama bin Laden's Saudi relatives to leave the U.S. a few days after the attacks. Moore's insinuation that the flight was unusual is patently false; in most countries, it's standard diplomatic practice during periods of crisis to evacuate foreign nationals who might become targets of violence. It is true, however, that the Bush and bin Laden families have a long, unholy and possibly treasonous relationship. Here a functionally false factoid points to a bigger truth.

During a sequence explaining how Hamid Karzai came to become the president of Afghanistan, the film references the notorious Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline project (TAP) conceived by the Unocal Corp. to carry oil and gas from the landlocked Caspian Sea basin to Indian Ocean ports. Beginning in 1996, the U.S. overlooked human rights abuses and heroin cultivation in hopes of signing a TAP deal with the Taliban. Karzai, then a Talib himself, worked as a Unocal consultant. Bush inherited TAP (and Karzai) from Bill Clinton, but the movie makes no mention of this fact. However, Bush did revive TAP after the Clinton-Taliban talks had collapsed. And he went a lot further than Clinton, invading Afghanistan and installing Karzai as his puppet. True, Moore's decision to exclude the Clintonian origins of the TAP scheme from his script was disingenuous. But, given that Bush's interest in TAP was so much greater than Clinton's, does it matter?


RALL 6/29/04


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Anonymous on Sunday, July 4, 2004 - 07:32 pm:

Sept. 11 witness says Moore's film insults victims of the attacks

'From Here to Eternity." Tora, Tora, Tora." "In Harm's Way." There have been more than 20 films made about Pearl Harbor, and over 200 films made about World War II. These films inspire patriotism, courage, and nationalism. They tell us about the honor and bravery of the soldiers and the nation that supported them. Two and a half years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the world watched American forces fight on D-Day. Two and a half years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the world is watching Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11.”
Moore’s film is the first major motion picture about Sept. 11, 2001. This bears repeating. When future generations look back on the Sept. 11 massacre, their first impression, through the medium of film, will be a work in which the president and the government are blamed for the attacks, and the soldiers who are protecting this country are defamed. Instead of a film version of Lisa Beamer’s book, “Let’s Roll,” or Richard Picciotto’s “Last Man Down,” we are presented with this fallacy. How could this happen?

It would be a colossal insult to insinuate that Franklin D. Roosevelt or the U.S. government were in any way responsible for the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Can you imagine the indignation of the men and women who lived during that period?

“Fahrenheit 9/11” is indicative of a nation that has become too apathetic, ignorant or deceived to face the enemy at the gate. America, where is your fury?

On Sept. 11, 2001, I stood across the Hudson River, watching the Twin Towers burn, knowing that if the plane had struck at 9:46 a.m. instead of 8:46 a.m., I would be dead. As a survivor and witness to the attack on the World Trade Center, I am more than insulted by this film. I am outraged. This film is based on conjecture, hearsay and propaganda. At a time when this country desperately needs to rally in support of our brave soldiers and our strong leaders, Moore is content to spread discord and divisiveness.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Anonymous on Friday, July 9, 2004 - 11:53 pm:

•Kerry Campaign Chest Tops $180 Million

•Stars Turn Out for Kerry Fund-Raiser
•Bon Jovi Hosts Fund-Raiser for Kerry
•Art Turns Into Cash at 'Bye-Bye Bush' Fundraiser
•Kerry Trails Bush in Camp Funds as Summer Begins

•Record Fund Raising for Bush, Kerry Camps
— Whoopi Goldberg delivered an X-rated rant full of sexual innuendoes against President Bush last night at a Radio City gala that raised $7.5 million for the newly minted Democratic ticket of John Kerry and John Edwards.

Waving a bottle of wine, she fired off a stream of vulgar sexual wordplays on Bush's name in a riff about female genitalia, and boasted that she'd refused to let Team Kerry clear her material.

"I Xeroxed my behind and I folded it up in an envelope and I sent it back with a big kiss mark on because we're Democrats — we're not afraid to laugh," she said.

She addressed fresh-faced vice-presidential candidate Edwards as "Kid," and "young Mr. Edwards" and cracked, "He looks like he is about 18 "

"I'm going to card his ass tomorrow."

Other celebs also competed to bash Bush. Singer John Mellencamp (search) sang a specially written song that called the president "just another cheap thug" and ridiculed him as the "Texas bambino."

Kerry could be seen laughing uproariously during part of Goldberg's tirade — and neither he nor Edwards voiced a single objection to its tone when they spoke to the crowd.

They hailed the fund-raiser as a great event.

Edwards said it was "a great honor" to be there and insisted, "This campaign will be a celebration of real American values."

Kerry thanked all the performers for "an extraordinary evening," hailed the "great producers" — Harvey Weinstein of Miramax and Jann Wenner - and said "every performer tonight ... conveyed to you the heart and soul of our country."

Last fall, Howard Dean (search) ran into a similar problem when a New York fund-raiser turned into a stream of ugly racist jokes and X-rated Bush-bashing — but Dean instantly came out and said he didn't like the tone of some of the jokes.

Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt (search) noted that Kerry is claiming to share "conservative values" and said, "Sitting there while the vitriol and venom spew forth demonstrates [Kerry's] lack of leadership and how far he is from mainstream America."

Schmidt added, "It's no surprise that a group of Hollywood celebrities would be so excited to support the most out-of-the-mainstream ticket in Democratic Party history."

Also on the Bush-bashing team was comedian Chevy Chase (search), who claimed the president is dumb as "an egg-timer" and said Edwards will make Vice President Dick Cheney look "as bright as a bundt cake" when they debate next fall.

Latin comedian John Leguizamo said he refuses to believe there are any Hispanic Republicans, claiming that's "an oxymoron," because "Latins for Republicans — it's like roaches for Raid."

Leguizamo added that he made sure to get there early to clear security because "I kind of look Arab — that's why I don't wear underwear anymore, just to make the searches go faster."

Screen legend Paul Newman (search) blasted the Bush tax cuts, saying, "I am a traitor to my class. I think that tax cuts to wealthy thugs like me are borderline criminal — I live very high off the hog."

Actress Jessica Lange dismissed Bush as "our so-called president" to the fat-cat crowd and afterward said, "I'll do everything that I can possibly do, short of selling my children," to beat Bush.

Additional reporting by Jennifer Fermino

For more news, entertainment and sports coverage, click here for NYPost.com.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Anonymous on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 03:04 pm:

GOOD GRIEF!! ....it's politic's as usual!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By slbxrlsy on Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 02:10 pm:

Authentication Error

Your username/password combination was invalid, or you do not have permission to post to this topic. You may revise your username and password using the form at the bottom of this page.

Add a Message

This is a private posting area. A valid username and password combination is required to post messages to this discussion.