Fahrenheit 9/11 coming 6/25

[Rspaight]

Fascinating. Sounds to me like each side was told something different by their respective representation.

It's a moot point, though, since they're both right -- "Rockin' In The Free World" works *very* well. WGFA would have been neat purely because of the segue from the closing Bush quote, but all in all RitFW is the better choice.

Ryan

[lukpac]

I just don't understand:

In fact I don't want them hearing a song that has the line, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Because the new boss I sincerely hope won't be the same as the old boss. I don't want that song.

If he didn't want that song, why did he try to use it in the first place? Seems like Moore just being pissy...

[Bennett Cerf]

43) Iraq wasn't paradise -- I've said many times that Moore's "kids flying kites" version of pre-war Iraq is shameful.

From the latest Entertainment Weekly:

EW: People have problems with your portrayal of kids playing in Baghdad before the bombings. I get what you're going for there, that those positive images were never seen, but Saddam was a bad guy and there's nothing to that effect in the film.

MICHAEL MOORE: Who doesn't know that Saddam was a bad guy? The media did a wonderful job hammering that home every day in order to convince the public that they should support the war. For 20 seconds in this film, I become essentially the only person to say, I want you to take a look at the human beings that were living in Iraq in 2003. The ones that we were going to bomb indiscriminately. In those 20 seconds I show a child in the barbershop, a young boy flying a kite, a couple getting married. People having lunch at a café. Anyone who takes that and says that I'm trying to say that Saddam's Iraq was some utopia is just a crackpot. The New York Times reports that our air-strikes that week were zero for 50 in terms of hitting the targets. We killed a lot of civilians, and I think that we're going to have to answer for that -- whethere it's now or in the hereafter. If you pay taxes and you're an American your name is on those bombs. They were human beings who were just trying to get on with their daily lives.

EW: But if you'd just taken a second to show that they weren't exactly living under the best of circumstances, that would have defused this criticism from the beginning. Right?

MOORE: No.

EW: No?

MOORE: I refuse to participate in the brainwashing that the media was doing to the American public. I didn't need to state the obvious. Kurt Vonnegut in Slaughterhouse Five isn't criticized for not showing the horrors of the Nazi regime even though he shows that the people who we firebombed in Dresden were essentially old men, women, and children. Is he doing something dishonest or wrong? I know it upsets a lot of people in the media that I'm not playing ball, that I'm not showing the images that they showed. I know it's embarrassing to them because anybody who sees my film now knows that you were only presented with one side.


I think Moore's point is entirely valid. I sometimes think critics of his film are pretending it exists in some sort of vacuum. His film is a response to news coverage everyone has already seen. We've already seen the Bush team's one-sided view of what made the war right. Now he's giving his one-sided view of what made it wrong.

[Rspaight]

So you end up with two caricatures and no truth. Moore could easily have shown the disconnect between the evil cartoon of Saddam/Iraq and the innocent people we killed (and pointed out that the burden of the UN sanctions fell on the people, not Saddam) but he didn't bother to do even that. He just posits that Iraq was a happy place that we ruined. No, Iraq was a deeply screwed-up place that we made even worse. (And yet, he has no problem [accurately] talking about what a screwed-up place Saudi Arabia is, because that meshes with his thesis.)

F9/11 doesn't exist in a vacuum, but in a documentary you've got to present enough facts to make your case. In this regard, Hitchens is right -- Moore only presents the facts that make his case look good and ignores everything else. If Moore wants to counter the administration's picture of Iraq, he needed to give us some stats on how the quality of life in Iraq compares to the vague emotional sketches provided by Bush. Instead, he just provides his own vague emotional sketch.

His comments in the EW interview are more compelling than what's on the screen, because in the interview he provides the context for what he shows. In the movie, there's no context -- he just shows the kid flying a kite and then a bunch of bombs.

I'm sympathetic to what Moore's trying to say, God knows, but being just as dishonest about the nature of Iraq as Bush was won't make me applaud him.

Still, at the end of the day, if that's what it takes to crack open the thick skulls of the voting public (if only from mass confusion), then he's done a service of sorts.

Ryan

[Rspaight]

[Patrick M]

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

[Matt]

[Xenu]

Oh yuck. Why does that remind me of the Amorica album cover for some awful reason? And lemme tell ya, Amorica album cover+Michael Moore=BLINNNNND! I'm BLINNNNND!

[Rspaight]

Oh, thanks *so* much for that. Now I have to go scrub my brain with steel wool.

Ryan

[Xenu]

I couldn't make a convincing headline. If any of you can improve on this...

It was either "Michael Moore Loves Amorica" or simply "Amoorica."

[Patrick M]

Since I think I'm the only one here who actually listens to the Black Crowes, thanks for ruining my listening experience(s) for the foreseeable future.

[lukpac]

More pot-kettle-black:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5296236/

Moore's movie begins by pitching his conspiracy theory about the 2000 election. We're all told in the audience by all recounting methods Al Gore won Florida. That drew a big gasp from the crowd. But, shockingly, this first fact cited by Moore's movie is a lie. Didn't anybody associated with Miramax or Michael Moore's movie read newspapers after the election, when some of America's most liberal papers published results from their independent review of Florida's ballots, concluding it was George W. Bush who won by all recounting methods?

Perhaps Joe only read the headlines.

Joe was hamming it up again on tonight's show, but the transcript isn't up yet. Something about this being the first time he's ever heard someone say that we helped Iraq fight Iran in the '80s. It looks like once it's up it will be here.

[Patrick M]

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html

[lukpac]

Joe was hamming it up again on tonight's show, but the transcript isn't up yet. Something about this being the first time he's ever heard someone say that we helped Iraq fight Iran in the '80s.

Here we go. He killed a million A-rabs!!!

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5423041

SCARBOROUGH: Hey, we‘re back now. We‘ve got Craig Unger, who wrote “House of Bush, House of Saud.” And we also have Joel Mowbray, who wrote “Dangerous Diplomacy.” And we also want to bring in Raghida Dergham of the Arab newspaper “Al-Hayat.”

Raghida, let me bring you in first.

And I want to read you what Michael Moore wrote in an open letter on his Web site in April. He said: “The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not insurgents or terrorists or the enemy. They are the revolution, the Minutemen. And their numbers will grow. And they will win.”

And he went on and HE said this: “The majority of Americans supported this war once it began and sadly that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe, just maybe, God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.”

It all sounds like stuff that may play pretty well on an Arab street that‘s not fond of the United States right now, huh?

RAGHIDA DERGHAM, NBC FOREIGN AFFAIRS ANALYST: Not necessarily because, first of all, the Arab street is not monolithic. There are different points of views. Some will look at the movie with humor. They will just simply have a good laugh at it.

Others are going to say, hey, look, we have known this is how this administration has wanted the war and the pretext of the war. And then there will be some who will say, this is good that the United States is debating the issue more openly than it did practically a year ago, now that dissent is allowed and there is now a decoupling of patriotism with support of the administration.

I think you will have different shades, but certainly it will not be a recruitment for al Qaeda.

SCARBOROUGH: Why is Hezbollah interested in this movie, then?

DERGHAM: I think it‘s because it says it shows American the president responsible in a way, and I think it‘s because Hezbollah is probably a little—is quite different, actually, from al Qaeda, because they are part of the Arab-Lebanese society. And the people do go to movies, whereas al Qaeda‘s recruits I think hardly have the time to just take this movie as a call for—to take arms.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Well, also, they will look at Osama bin Laden‘s videotapes.

MOWBRAY: Hezbollah and al Qaeda are cut from the same cloth. They are both bloodthirsty terrorists.

DERGHAM: Not really.

MOWBRAY: Hezbollah, before September 11, was responsible for more U.S. deaths than any terrorist organization on Earth.

DERGHAM: Well, that is not correct.

(CROSSTALK)

MOWBRAY: The fact of the matter is that George W. Bush is portrayed as probably worse and more evil than Saddam Hussein in Michael Moore‘s “Fahrenheit 9/11.”

Let‘s not forget that Michael Moore shows the images of the Americans beating and torturing the Iraqis, but then he shows Iraqi children playing in the streets before the war in Iraq started.

I mean, he doesn‘t show the torture chambers, the rape rooms. And I understand his opinion journalism. He is allowed to do that. I am OK with that. But let‘s take a look at what that opinion is. That opinion is that George W. Bush is morally inferior to the butcher of Baghdad, a man who killed 100,000 of his own people in a single month in August of 1988 and killed 300 Shiites after the end of the Gulf War.

(CROSSTALK)

MOWBRAY: We can‘t look at this and say, well, gee, Michael Moore is just a talented filmmaker. He‘s a crude propagandist. And we have to look at what the propaganda is, because it‘s disturbing.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, you know, Raghida, Richard Cohen, who is a liberal writer obviously with “The Washington Post,‘ said much the same thing that Joel just said here, that when you saw pictures of Saddam Hussein‘s Iraq in Michael Moore‘s film, there were pictures of kids flying kites, coming down slides, playing on swing sets. Michael Moore said he‘s never done anything to America. He‘s never done anything to any of us.

DERGHAM: Certainly.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: And here is a guy, again, Raghida, that‘s responsible for the death of a million Arabs.

UNGER: If I may jump in here.

(CROSSTALK)

DERGHAM: No, please, let me answer the question. Let me answer the question. You have been jumping in all the time.

Look, I certainly disagree with painting the picture of Saddam Hussein as he was running a kindergarten in Iraq. He was definitely a man who killed his own people and transferred the Iraqis into poverty. And I think absolutely I disagree with the notion Iraqis lived well under Saddam Hussein. They really needed out of this tyranny.

Now, having said that, in the Arab mind, altogether, this is one issue. The other issue is, what did the president of the United States go for the war in Iraq and why this war and for what purposes. There‘ a lot of skepticism. It‘s quite unclear as to the reason and as to the outcome.

And I think I want other repeat it‘s a very good thing that we now can debate this soberly, differ, and respect each other‘s point of view. And I think this is what Michael Moore brought about.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Raghida, I cannot let you say on my show that Michael Moore debated anything soberly or he brought—he elevated the level of debate. He has taken it into the sewer by suggesting that the president of the United States was bought off by the bin Ladens, that we went into Afghanistan for an oil pipeline deal that was actually killed in 1998.

I don‘t have time to go through all the lies. I‘m going to in a second, but it‘s Craig‘s turn to go.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Craig, go ahead.

UNGER: With regard to the Saddam Hussein thing, let us say one thing that I think the picture does elevate the debate is that it reminds people that among the great supporters of Saddam Hussein was Donald Rumsfeld, who in December of 1983 on behalf of the Reagan-Bush administration, went to Iraq and assured Saddam that we knew he was using chemical weapons, but you know what, that is just fine.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Well, that‘s 1983. Let‘s talk about now.

(CROSSTALK)

UNGER: This was a policy.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: This is a canard.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: He killed a million people, didn‘t he, Craig?

(CROSSTALK)

UNGER: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: He killed a million Arabs, didn‘t he?

UNGER: And it was supported by Donald Rumsfeld and

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Answer my question. Did he kill a million people, yes or no?

DERGHAM: No, no. Who killed a million people? Who did

(CROSSTALK)

UNGER: He was a mass murderer and the policy was supported...

DERGHAM: Joe, who killed a million people?

SCARBOROUGH: Saddam Hussein; 400,000 mass graves have been found so far. He invaded Iran, a war that cost a million Arabs their lives. He invaded Kuwait. It is unbelievable. I want to get back to Craig, though.

DERGHAM: We don‘t know the millions.

(CROSSTALK)

DERGHAM: You can‘t throw this around.

SCARBOROUGH: You don‘t know this? You don‘t know that there have

been 400,000 mass graves found in Iraq right now? You don‘t know that the

Iran-Iraq war killed close to a million Arabs? You don‘t know that

(CROSSTALK)

DERGHAM: There was a war that the United States was a partner in, the war against Iran.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: The United States was a partner.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: This is propaganda. That‘s unbelievable.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Craig, I want to go back to

(CROSSTALK)

UNGER: She is absolutely right on that.

(CROSSTALK)

UNGER: This is a piece of history she‘s absolutely right on.

SCARBOROUGH: Craig, can I ask you a question?

UNGER: Go right ahead.

SCARBOROUGH: Do you think—because everybody wants to talk about Ronald Reagan. I want to talk about this administration, George W. Bush. Are you saying that this president, George W. Bush, Halliburton, and all these other things, all these loopy conspiracy theories, do you think they were involved with the Iran-Iraq war or winking and nodding while the Kurds were gassed in 1988?

UNGER: There is no question that Donald Rumsfeld

(CROSSTALK)

UNGER: I didn‘t say—Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, all supported the...

SCARBOROUGH: The gassing of the Kurds?

UNGER: Saddam Hussein during that period. And they did it for seven years after knowing it, from 1983-1990.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Joe, I have got to go to a final question here, because what we have heard tonight is that Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell supported the policy of gassing Kurds and invading Iran.

(CROSSTALK)

UNGER: Supported Saddam Hussein and they knew what he was doing.

MOWBRAY: Bottom line, Joe, is this. Yes, Donald Rumsfeld was sent as an envoy in 1983 to Saddam Hussein. We know the famous picture, the handshake.

As early as 1985, Richard Perle and the so-called neoconservatives, the ones that you have all these conspiracy theories about over at the Defense Department, these—this group of people was actually opposing Saddam Hussein back in the ‘80s after Don Rumsfeld went to Iraq.

I have a memo that was authored by Cap Weinberger—to Cap Weinberger from Richard Perle in which Richard Perle states that Saddam Hussein is a problem, he‘s a menace, and we should not associate with him. It was in January of 1989, five months after the worse use of chemical weapons the world has seen since the end of World War I, when Saddam killed 100,000 people, the Kurds, in a single month, in August of ‘88, that the State Department wrote a top-secret memo to Bush, the new incoming President Bush, that we need to have closer ties with Saddam because he‘s a bastion of stability.

It is the same State Department that today supports the Saudis and during the mid-‘90s supported the Taliban after they took over Afghanistan in 1996. Let‘s talk about the real culprit here, Joe. It‘s the State Department.

SCARBOROUGH: And I‘ll tell you what. It is disturbing to me that here we have got a debate and people can‘t even step up and admit the basics, that Saddam Hussein killed a million Arabs. He killed more Arabs than any other leader in the history of the Middle East. And yet nobody wants to admit that.

Instead, it‘s blame America for somehow, we were responsible for Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds. Somehow, we were responsible for Saddam Hussein invading Iran? I have never heard that until tonight. Somehow, I‘m sure we‘re going to be blamed for Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait.

I‘ve got to tell you, I don‘t understand it. But I appreciate all our guests being with us.

We‘ll be right back on SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY in a minute. Stick around.

[Rspaight]

You don‘t know this? You don‘t know that there have been 400,000 mass graves found in Iraq right now?

PM admits graves claim 'untrue'

Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
Sunday July 18, 2004
The Observer

Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that '400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered.

The claims by Blair in November and December of last year, were given widespread credence, quoted by MPs and widely published, including in the introduction to a US government pamphlet on Iraq's mass graves.

In that publication - Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves produced by USAID, the US government aid distribution agency, Blair is quoted from 20 November last year: 'We've already discovered, just so far, the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves.'

On 14 December Blair repeated the claim in a statement issued by Downing Street in response to the arrest of Saddam Hussein and posted on the Labour party website that: 'The remains of 400,000 human beings [have] already [been] found in mass graves.'

The admission that the figure has been hugely inflated follows a week in which Blair accepted responsibility for charges in the Butler report over the way in which Downing Street pushed intelligence reports 'to the outer limits' in the case for the threat posed by Iraq.

Downing Street's admission comes amid growing questions over precisely how many perished under Saddam's three decades of terror, and the location of the bodies of the dead.

The Baathist regime was responsible for massive human rights abuses and murder on a large scale - not least in well-documented campaigns including the gassing of Halabja, the al-Anfal campaign against Kurdish villages and the brutal repression of the Shia uprising - but serious questions are now emerging about the scale of Saddam Hussein's murders.

It comes amid inflation from an estimate by Human Rights Watch in May 2003 of 290,000 'missing' to the latest claims by the Iraqi Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, that one million are missing.

At the heart of the questions are the numbers so far identified in Iraq's graves. Of 270 suspected grave sites identified in the last year, 55 have now been examined, revealing, according to the best estimates that The Observer has been able to obtain, around 5,000 bodies. Forensic examination of grave sites has been hampered by lack of security in Iraq, amid widespread complaints by human rights organisations that until recently the graves have not been secured and protected.

While some sites have contained hundreds of bodies - including a series around the town of Hilla and another near the Saudi border - others have contained no more than a dozen.

And while few have any doubts that Saddam's regime was responsible for serious crimes against humanity, the exact scale of those crimes has become increasingly politicised in both Washington and London as it has become clearer that the case against Iraq for retention of weapons of mass destruction has faded.

The USAID website, which quotes Blair's 400,000 assertion, states: 'If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II.'

It is an issue that Human Rights Watch was acutely aware of when it compiled its own pre-invasion research - admitting that it had to reduce estimates for the al-Anfal campaign produced by Kurds by over a third, as they believed the numbers they had been given were inflated.

Hania Mufti, one of the researchers that produced that estimate, said: 'Our estimates were based on estimates. The eventual figure was based in part on circumstantial information gathered over the years.'

A further difficulty, according to Inforce, a group of British forensic experts in mass grave sites based at Bournemouth University who visited Iraq last year, was in the constant over-estimation of site sizes by Iraqis they met. 'Witnesses were often likely to have unrealistic ideas of the numbers of people in grave areas that they knew about,' said Jonathan Forrest.

'Local people would tell us of 10,000s of people buried at single grave sites and when we would get there they would be in multiple hundreds.'

A Downing Street spokesman said: 'While experts may disagree on the exact figures, human rights groups, governments and politicians across the world have no doubt that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and their remains are buried in sites throughout Iraq.'