==
he handled the Afghanistan War pretty well, most sane citizens would agree
==

Uh... yeah, that's right. Afghanistan hasn't descended into a lawless chaos across much of its Northern areas; heroin isn't once again shipping its way merrily across into Europe from the poppy fields of the country; the Taliban were captured and given a trial; and there's no thorny problem of all the guys rounded up and dumped in a prison of dubious legality in Cuba.

Well, done, George!

Mark, just because people go see Michael Moore's movie, doesn't mean they walk out of the theater agreeing with it 100%.

The success of the movie is due to the hype. People want to see what has everyone up in arms. Conservatives have done more to promote this movie than Moore ever could. If this movie won the Palm D'or (sp?) and that was it, most of America wouldn't give a hoot. I can't imagine Ma and Pa Kettle in rural America giving a hoot about what happens in Cannes. It's the conservatives ranting and raving that sends people into the theaters.

The debate on Iraq has been going on for long enough, that I think most people already have an opinion of whether Bush's actions are right or wrong. Moore's movie will only solidify their viewpoint, not change it.

The outrageous success of Fahrenheit 9/11, proves that most Americans are either not fully grown adults or don't accept their fully grown adulthood. Only the November election will truly determine now just how much liberal rot has been eating away at the American electorate

and weren't you one of the people who encouraged me to not exaggerate with anti-right rhetoric? It's comments like this that inspire me to do so.

Afterthought - early in Clinton's presidency, there was a movie that came out called the Clinton Chronicles. It's pretty much the F9/11 of the opposite political spectrum.

Liberals blew it off as propaganda and so didn't talk about it.

And so it went away unnoticed by the general public......

Personally, I think the success of the movie has less to do with Moore and more to do with conservatives who can't quit talking about it.

I think by now Moore has to be given credit as a skilled entertainer and propagandist, and just because I think he is a reprehensible, opportunististic, sack of faux-working class shit doesn't mean the first half of this sentence isn't true.

I read somewhere yesterday that when people say something is "biased," more often than not they're complaining it's not biased in their way -- and I think that's what we're seeing with Mark's comments, which are as over-the-top and spiteful against Moore as Moore is against Bush.

"Hype" -- also known as "promotion" or "marketing" -- generally figures in anything successful, but that's not the main reason the movie is such a hit. It's a hit because half of this country can't stomach President Bush. Over half the country rejected him at the polls in the year 2000 and -- despite the fact that his numbers soared during 9/11 and thereafter -- well over half want to see him and his cronies gone by January of next year.

I don't buy into everything the movie says, and I don't think most people who see it do; most conversations that I've had about the movie are as devoted to its humor and its revelations as its credibility. Still and all, it's a wildly successful polemic, and it taps perfectly into the zeitgeist of the current mood.

BCB: "Personally, I think the success of the movie has less to do with Moore and more to do with conservatives who can't quit talking about it."

You may very well be right, Boom, and you know I respect you. But the conservative obsession with F 9/11 is something I'll take my chances with. We are right to talk about it.

My larger point is that I feel there's been a massive shift of opinion on Bush, the W.o.T, Iraq, and even Afghanistan (some of whom tried to deny that resistance to was a myth - ha! I do thank Moore for proving me right on that count.) I'm not happy that Moore's been so successful and will thus be encouraged to turn out even more outrageous, conspiracy theory-laden, propagandistic garbage. Just think how you would feel if Rush Limbaugh had as much success with his books on an international level, and imagine that Rush was also a filmmaker, rather than just a domestic talk-show host with no worldwide recognition.

Moore is actively encouraging more and more anti-Americanism worldwide by dipsticks who don't know any better and certainly won't challenge what they've seen and heard from Moore. This concerns me, Boom, and Americans should know better than to put money in the hands of someone like this. Do I consider Moore an "enemy of the state?" Yes. That's how seriously I take him and his "work."

But the conservative obsession with F 9/11 is something I'll take my chances with. We are right to talk about it.

Of course, Mark. I don't mean, don't talk about it at all. But I do believe the 24/7 coverage that conservatives give it, is as much responsible for it's success as the anti-Bush sentiment running through the country is.

if Rush Limbaugh had as much success with his books on an international level, and imagine that Rush was also a filmmaker, rather than just a domestic talk-show host with no worldwide recognition.

To me, the difference between Rush and Moore is that Rush doesn't practice what he preaches. Rush goes on about the sanctity of marriage. He is in the middle of his THIRD divorce. Rush condemns drug addicts. Rush is a drug addict. With Moore, things are at face value, you know what to expect from him. I don't really see them as comparable, but yeah, I already am dismayed at Rush's success, so if he had international success it would be even more disappointing.

Moore is actively encouraging more and more anti-Americanism worldwide

With all due respect, Mark, anti-Americanism has never been greater in the history of our country. The ranks of terrorist groups have swelled unbelievably. Citizens around the world despise either Americans, the American government and it's policies and our self-centered attitude and willingness to use and manipulate other countries for our own best interests.

This has all been the case BEFORE F9/11 came out. Moore could not possibly outdo Bush in this achievement. Also, it is the sentiment in European countries (I saw on CNN or MSNBC yesterday) that citizens over there ADMIRE the American concept of allowing a U.S. citizen to speak out about his country as Moore has. Silencing Moore would only fuel anti-American sentiment even more.

boomcrashbaby: To me, the difference between Rush and Moore is that Rush doesn't practice what he preaches.

Or maybe Moore doesn't preach what he can't practice?

BCB: "Silencing Moore would only fuel anti-American sentiment even more."

Yes, probably so. But, Boom, you misunderstand me. I don't want to silence Moore through any legal means, and some on the Right do act thuggish when they suggest doing so. I mean to say that the American people should not be promoting the film on the level that they are. In fact, with Moore's reputation, why is the conservative moaning over F 9/11 such a surprise to them? Didn't surprise me one bit because you know the sort of slander Moore deals with via his past films and books. Conservative criticism or no, all you had to do was put two and two together. Americans should not be bankrolling this man's warchest and ego. I respect the choice available to them; I decry the choice they made. I repeat, they should know better.

Plus, is Moore really such a hero? He has declined any talk show appearances due to his fear that he'll face hostility (awww ...) and that he'll sue anyone who dares to criticize his film. I believe he may already be going after Christopher Hitchens (who, unlike Moore, is genuine and whose commentaries are based in geopolitical reality, and who is liberalism's real tough guy.) Moore is a wimp who can't take the heat, he just wants to throw a bunch of disingenuous part-facts together and see what kind of cheap laugh brayed or tear shed from his audience.

Bush has faced his critics in European and Asian countries, faces unprecedented bitching in his own country, and he doesn't hide from it. Doesn't say, "Oh, I better not go there, they don't like me. Oooh!" Instead, he smiles and says, "ain't democracy a wonderful thing?" If Moore had to take even three seconds worth of abuse on the level that Bush has, he'd shrivel up and die, but not before sic-ing his lawyers on the culprits. This is the sort of man the world looks up to. It's really pathetic, and really sad.

I'll give Moore this much credit ... he knows just how dumbed-down people's political and geographical knowledge and perception is, and he's just simply playing off that. Moore may be a lot of things, but I will say that he's one hell of an opportunist.

As for Rush? I defend him as a fallible human being, especially on the drug addiction, but I've always considered him a bit of a buffoon, not someone I was completely comfortable with as "my" spokesman. William Buckley or Jack Kemp, sure. But El Rushbo? He's on the right side of the fence but, as you note, too much of a hypocrite. Agreed on that note. If only more on the Left would shy away from Moore in a similar manner, for similar reasons ...

Thanks again for your tempered feedback, Boom. As always, you remain one of the most civil of my "opponents" to parry with, and I do mean that as compliment.

Thanks again for your tempered feedback, Boom. As always, you remain one of the most civil of my "opponents" to parry with, and I do mean that as compliment.

As the person who watches everyone's civility level, I have to agree with this. If you want to really argue forcefully and make it past that bogeyman censor, read Boom's stuff.

And Boom, are any of my emails making it through to you?

why is the conservative moaning over F 9/11 such a surprise to them?

You mean "pleasantly surprise," don't you? Watching Rush and Ann and the usual gang spew their impotent rage is nothing short of sheer delight. Each side likes to get the other pissed off; listening to Rush nowadays is schadenfreude at its finest.

Plus, is Moore really such a hero? He has declined any talk show appearances due to his fear that he'll face hostility (awww ...)

I think I've seen him (in passing) on at least three shows so far.

Mark, I agree with you that there's a shift of opinion with regard to the war, but I think you give Moore too much credit and the American people not enough credit. Moore is essentially preaching to the choir -- I would guess that most of the people who have seen the movie didn't go to see it in order to have their minds changed. If your sense of the sea change results in Bush not getting re-elected (and I'll come clean here and say that I sincerely hope that's the case), I don't think it's going to be because a whole lot of people saw this movie.

And of course my italic tag failed to turn off the italics at the end of the quote...

Thanks Mark and Justene for the compliment.

because you know the sort of slander Moore deals with via his past films and books.

FYI, Mark, I've never seen a Moore movie. I only know about him from conservative news coverage.
(when F9/11 comes out on DVD, I will rent it now, solely due to the coverage it has received. I HAVE to see what everyone is talking about.)

Justene, I did receive your reply to my email last night but no other. I will promise you that I will try harder on my phrasing and perspective, when discussing religion. Although when religion comes up on topics like politics, societal practice and/or discrimination, etc. I do feel that it becomes fair game and should be held to the same scrutiny as anything else. For the record, I do know that there are many decent religious people who are tolerant and who do not want to impose their religion on the unwilling. Those people I do not want to offend. Such a perspective does not change my view of any organized religion overall, and I will continue to say so and adamantly speak against it, but will work on phrasing my words better.

Justene, I did receive your reply to my email last night but no other. I will promise you that I will try harder on my phrasing and perspective, when discussing religion.

For those following along, nothing you have said violates any editing issue. My suggestion was personal from me to you because I think you'd be more persuasive if you made that change.

On one point I agree with Mark Edward Manning - "it doesn't bode well for Bush..." On other issues, I think Mr. Manning misses the target.

While "Fahrenheit 9/11" is grossing millions (about $60 million as of last weekend), Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are digging their own graves. Recent polls illustrate that most conservatives continue to support Bush and most liberals despise him. Moore's movie may have some impact on the so-called swing vote, but, for the most part, those of us seeing the movie already had our opinions of Bush before we got there. You seem to imply that there are so few liberals that conservatives must be seeing the movie too. The $60 Million is coming from the real majority who voted for Gore in the 2000 election. The fact is, when polled, most Americas, while they shy away from the word "liberal", consider themselves to be liberal and agree with real American ideals of liberalism (such as tolerance, religious freedoms, civil rights, personal privacy and humanitarianism).

Further, you don't give enough weight to the damning evidence coming from the 9/11 Commission and the recent Senate Intelligence Committee's report on Iraq that make it clear that Bush, at the very least, misrepresented the evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction when requesting permission from Congress to go to war. In addition, Mr. Bush now pretends publicly that he went to war to "free the Iraqi people", while, on the other side of the campaign trail, Mr. Cheney continues to insist (despite mounting evidence to the contrary) that there were WMD's and a Bin Laden - Hussein connection. Not to mention, there was a complete lack of post-war planning the result of which has our young men and women in the military dieing.

Regarding Moore and my view of the movie - liberals are not dumb (whether you disagree with our politics or not). Moore is a propagandist and this movie is quite obviously not pure documentary. It is clear that Moore strings non-sequential items together to support his point of view and exaggerates others. However, if 75% of what Moore implies is true, and most facts point to that being the case, we definitely need to remove Bush and his cronies from office.

Finally, on Americans being grown adults - it is the conservatives who act as children. It is child-like to follow the President and other politicians unquestioningly like children follow their mommy. Unlike liberals who, despite conservative rhetoric, love this country and are able to question our government's actions like free-thinking adults (the way our founding fathers intended).

On one point I agree with Mark Edward Manning - "it doesn't bode well for Bush..." On other issues, I think Mr. Manning misses the target.

While "Fahrenheit 9/11" is grossing millions (about $60 million as of last weekend), Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are digging their own graves. Recent polls illustrate that most conservatives continue to support Bush and most liberals despise him. Moore's movie may have some impact on the so-called swing vote, but, for the most part, those of us seeing the movie already had our opinions of Bush before we got there. You seem to imply that there are so few liberals that conservatives must be seeing the movie too. The $60 Million is coming from the real majority who voted for Gore in the 2000 election. The fact is, when polled, most Americas, while they shy away from the word "liberal", consider themselves to be liberal and agree with real American ideals of liberalism (such as tolerance, religious freedoms, civil rights, personal privacy and humanitarianism).

Further, you don't give enough weight to the damning evidence coming from the 9/11 Commission and the recent Senate Intelligence Committee's report on Iraq that make it clear that Bush, at the very least, misrepresented the evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction when requesting permission from Congress to go to war. In addition, Mr. Bush now pretends publicly that he went to war to "free the Iraqi people", while, on the other side of the campaign trail, Mr. Cheney continues to insist (despite mounting evidence to the contrary) that there were WMD's and a Bin Laden - Hussein connection. Not to mention, there was a complete lack of post-war planning the result of which has our young men and women in the military dieing.

Regarding Moore and my view of the movie - liberals are not dumb (whether you disagree with our politics or not). Moore is a propagandist and this movie is quite obviously not pure documentary. It is clear that Moore strings non-sequential items together to support his point of view and exaggerates others. However, if 75% of what Moore implies is true, and most facts point to that being the case, we definitely need to remove Bush and his cronies from office.

Finally, on Americans being grown adults - it is the conservatives who act as children. It is child-like to follow the President and other politicians unquestioningly like children follow their mommy. Unlike liberals who, despite conservative rhetoric, love this country and are able to question our government's actions like free-thinking adults (the way our founding fathers intended).

Further, you don't give enough weight to the damning evidence coming from the 9/11 Commission and the recent Senate Intelligence Committee's report on Iraq that make it clear that Bush, at the very least, misrepresented the evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction when requesting permission from Congress to go to war.

I'm sorry. All the reporting I've seen says there is no evidence that the administration pressured anyone to come up with evidence to support going to war. As well, the president's claims about Niger and Iraq's uranium sales call have been backed up by the Senate committee AND a British committee.

Honestly, how you get "misrepresented" from those things is beyond me.

Finally, on Americans being grown adults - it is the conservatives who act as children. It is child-like to follow the President and other politicians unquestioningly like children follow their mommy. Unlike liberals who, despite conservative rhetoric, love this country and are able to question our government's actions like free-thinking adults (the way our founding fathers intended).

Ah, you mean our founding fathers who owned slaves and only allowed land-owning gentlemen to vote? Those founding fathers?

I'm sorry, but the assertion that "it is conservatives who act like children" is pure poppycock. It demeans the intelligence of a great number of highly intellectual, learned people who happen to disagree with you.

If that's not the ultimate definition of childishness, I don't know what is.

Manning's Title: "Fahrenheit 9/11 proves the power of liberal emotion over independent thought"

...Oh yes, just as:

Bush Proves Iraq Had Weapons of Mass Destruction

Bush Proves Iraq Was an Imminent Threat

Cheney Proves Al Kayda - Saddam Hussein Connection

Bush Proves Gay Unions "Threaten" the "Sanctity" of Marriage...


Manning, sounds like you and a lot of Bush supporters have relatively low standards for proof?

So what's next?

Bible Proves Creationism?


PROOF:
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2. a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.

3. a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

=================

Today's BONUS!

Additional Irony:

Manning shows the power of 'conservative emotion' while decrying the power of 'liberal emotion'':

"...the very fact that American citizens are pouring money like water into the pockets of the lowlife, rabble-rousing Moore, proves that most Americans are either not fully grown adults or don't accept their fully grown adulthood. Only the November election will truly determine now just how much liberal rot has been eating away at the American electorate...

I'm just thrilled that Moore's piece of celluloid is able to inspire emotional aneurisms in so many of the Far Right.

PS: Manning, you've seen the movie, right?

Otherwise, you wouldn't make so many hearty assertions about its contents, right?

Just curious.

Your diatribe gives Moore's effort too much credit and "proves the power of neoconservative emotion over independent thought."

I saw the movie a couple of days ago and left the theater wondering why on earth it got a Palme d'Or at Cannes. (My conclusion was that it was less a vote for the film and more a vote against Bush, showing how effective the Bush foreign policy has been.)

A major weakness was Moore's concentration on trying to blame the invasion on a Saudi-Bush conspiracy for oil. Control of the oil fields was certainly a factor (as the oil pipeline through Afghanistan was a factor in the invasion of that country), but he left out the more than a decade of neoconservative efforts to invade Iraq, including the Trent Lott/Newt Gingrich Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (being blamed on Clinton, whose only options were to sign it or not).

The neocons did get a spot in the movie in the form of Wolfowitz in a turn that still makes my flesh creep just thinking about it. Wolfowitz inserts a comb into his mouth, tongues it for a while, then takes the slimy mess and runs it through his hair. That isn't enough to get his hair just the way he wants it, so he spits on his fingers, and runs them over his hair. A lick-spittle of his didn't think that was quite enough, so he steps into the frame and pats down the spittle-laden hair, Wolfowitz smiling and smiling and smiling through it all.

MEM: he handled the Afghanistan War pretty well, most sane citizens would agree.

Anyone not in the Stepford-Republican mode would have to say that the Aghanistan effort was less than stellar. The idea of removing the terrorist safe-haven provided by the Taliban was a good idea, but the effort has been poorly executed. Currently, the Taliban is running around Afghanistan killing anyone they find with a voter registration card. That's not my definition of "pretty well."

Wolfy has recently been diagnosed with some sort of life-threatening neurotoxin poisoning due to excess oral intake of dandruff and Brylcream.

Apparently, a little dab'll do ya.

That was almost as chilling as the seven minutes of the "Deer-in-the-headlights" look as BUSH sat reading "My Pet Goat" while the nation was under the largest enemy attack since Pearl Harbor.

"Bring 'em on! -- But not before I finish this photo op!"

"I'm sorry. All the reporting I've seen says..."

[personal attack deleted]I never said Bush "pressured" anyone - I said he misrepresented the so-called evidence. It has been proven that the uranium memo from Niger was a fake, using a copied signature from someone in a previous Nigerian administration.

Regarding our founding fathers, it is just like a neocon to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The point I made is that when conseratives follow (i.e. believe anything without question) their political leaders blindly, they act like children. Unlike neocons who seems to detest people who don't think like they do, I respect everyones opinion and right to believe in it.

That was almost as chilling as the seven minutes of the "Deer-in-the-headlights" look as BUSH sat reading "My Pet Goat"

You're right, although it's too bad Moore didn'thave film on the part when Bush was told about the first plane and said: "Man, that's one bad pilot."

maybe it's you, sir, who has the lack of thinking going on.
You didn't assume for a second that maybe folks wanted to see the film on account of it was reportedly very good?
No?
I didn't watch the film on account of i want moore to think for me (even if i DO agree with many of his sentiments), i watched it because im interested in film, and Moore's have been consistently good.
A lot of folks might just have done the same thing.
After all, did everyone go into The Passion becuase they wanted someone to tell them what faith to follow?
No, they went becuase it was marketed to all hell, and also, happened to be very, very good.

The merits, or more accurately lack thereof, in Mark Manning's latest, have been dealt with astutely. So, I am just going to pontificate about Michael Moore, far Right fellows and sex. I know nothing of Moore's love life. However, I have rarely seen a man excite other men, usually on the Right, to the extent Moore does. I am beginning to wonder if there is a homoerotic component. Is Moore the 'bear' of far Right guys' dreams?

maybe if he shaved...

that would be one snide bear

If he shaves, then he's not a bear.

I should change that. If he shaves, then he's not a bear. Just bare.

Yuck...

I have read several reviews on this movie and many complain that it is propaganda, but none that I have seen so far refute any of the actual facts pointed out. Sure you can discuss context and editing, but interpretation should be left to the receiver.

I think the biggest problem is that Moore himself is quite partisan. Though he does at times appear to be objective, as he did in Stupid White Men, he does have liberal emotion.

I think that more Americans need to study the writings of Noam Chomsky. He is non partisan, always objective and simply shows you facts that are irrefutable. I highly recommend his new book "Hegemony or Survival - America's Quest For Global Dominance." It's an incredible read and really opens your eyes.

Whether you're a "die-hard" Republican or Democrat, you really need to take step back and think objectively about what is best for this country. I try to be non-partisan, but have tended to lean more left, simpy because some of the Republican party's views and policies frighten me. But having said that, I believe Clinton has made grave errors during his presidency including the bombing of the aspirin factory in Sudan.

The fact of the matter is that George Bush's administration is making this country less safe. Sure that is debatable, but only if you believe in safety through militaristic imperialism. But bare in mind that it wasn't tanks that took down the trade center. It was a bunch of people who couldn't screen a bag for razor blades.

If more than 50% of your money goes into defending something, than less than 50% goes into what you are defending.

Wow, was doing a little poltico web surfing and came across this brilliant article. Sadly every time I read something from a conservative it always seems to be based on emotional feeling and not fact. Also it is almost always based on berating someone else of making fun of someone. What is with the comment about Mike Moore kicking Bush when he is down. Cmon the guy made a movie, Bush can't handle that? Kicking someone when they are down might be like Rush Limbaugh calling Chelsea Clinton an Ugly little girl; What did she ever do to deserve that? The one thing the Republicans have been very successful at is Marketing. In particular say you are the opposite of what you really are and call the other something he is not. It is like Walmart and their ads telling how good their employees are treated. If you notice in this article it is very negative, very demeaning, and very emotionally based. Republicans say this is what the Liberals do, but if you look at the facts it pretty obvious who in this world has a positive vision.