« Failures of Imagination | Main | Damn good Sudan post... »

July 09, 2004

Comments

Presenting "Found art" a la Marcel Duchamp (a.k.a. "readymades") is considered among the most conceptual of artistic statements. So, on behalf of Michael Moore, I will thank you for that highest of compliments.

I second the above.

Sebastian,
Would it make you feel better to just say "It's a movie by a director loaded with facts and a point of view"? That's what everyone else seems to think it is.

It was neither a compliment nor an insult. Found art (by my limited understanding of the term) involves taking things in the world and changing their context.

sigh...another day, another rant about farenheit 911/michael moore. Just. Let. It. Go.

I hadn't heard anything about Moore from Sebastian in a few hours, and was getting worried.

Good Job, Sebastian!

You're a feisty feller -- I like dat!

Moore is a liar & propagandist, not unlike, that crazy female Nazi filmaker, Leni Whatshername .

Same tactics -- innuendo, reckless charges and distortion to whip up the masses for political gain. Ain't nuthin' new.

Gimme a few million bucks and the power to lie with impunity, Hell, I'll make a nice movie, provin' that John Ashcroft is a tender-hearted liberal:)

Davy,

You've managed in one comment to hit both a new low and a new high in the ongoing demonization of Moore.

Riefenstahl's work for Hitler was both so much more evil than anything Moore's attempted, the word "evil" should burn your lips in that context, AND so much greater Art than Moore's, he should be flattered by the comparison.

ok Sebastian. it's now at that point. Me thinks thou dost protest too much. Paging Dr. Freud. And may i reiterate, it's a great film and anyone who isn't moved by it has a heart of stone. Much of what people are moved by are not political facts but human stories, but you would have to see it to know that. Most of the folks criticizing F9/11 didn't see it to begin with.

And Davey, Leni R. was a brilliant documentarian. Don't confuse her gift with her patron. Karl Rove may be evil and accomplished, but you can't take his accomplishments from him, no matter how dubious they are. And if you all are so worried about propaganda, why not start attacking Fox News, which even Roger Ailes employees admit are slanted to whatever message he wants put across on a daily basis.

Why is calling Moore a non-documentarian interpreted as such an insult?

I'm a non-documentarian.

Me, too. Except sometimes, when I'm...ya know...documenting. Except my documents would put most of you to sleep within a paragraph. Or two, to be generous.

You've managed in one comment to hit both a new low and a new high in the ongoing demonization of Moore.

Ahh, Baloney.

Nobody is "demonizing" Moore. Is that some goofy victimology lingo?

I'm judging his work. The verdict? Dishonest propaganda designed to slander his political opponents. His charge is that President Bush aided and abetted the people who murdered 3,000 New Yorkers.

That is a serious charge -- either it is true or not.

If proven true, then Bush should be impeached and tried.

If proven false, Moore owes Bush the Mother of all apologies.

But, Moore doesn't want to prove or disprove the allegation. He just wants the heinous allegation to inger, causing political damage to Bush.

That's wrong. That's immoral. That's below the belt.

Now, Leni Rifenwhatever was a famous propagandist for the Nazis. I don't know if she actually murdered anyone. But she certainly aided and abetted a murderous enterprise.

She was particularly skilled at using partial truths and slants to portray evil people as good on film. This served the political agenda of the Nazis.

Moore is particularly adept at using identical tactics to portray good people as evil on film. This serves the political agenda of the Anti-Bush crowd.

The only difference is degree, not kind. Obviously, Moore isn't a Nazi. But he has adopted the same tactics to smear his political opponents. And some of you are enablin' it, willy-nilly.

Navy Davy

p.s. Where the hell are the Gary Farbers of the left?

Why is calling Moore a non-documentarian interpreted as such an insult?

I don't interpret it as an insult, Sebastian: I'm relieved if you have finally managed to adopt a sensible point of view about Michael Moore: he makes films. You do not agree with the POV presented in them. You don't have to get into a tizzy about this.

Sebastian, if what you're really concerned about is that some people call the mpvie a documentary, then I think you should move on and find another topic. The complaint strikes me as somewhere between trivial and naive.

I hope I'm not spoiling things too much if I say MTV's "Real World" isn't all that "real."

Navy Davy: That's wrong. That's immoral. That's below the belt.

Okay. And you doubtless criticized Bush & Co's use of the same tactics just as harshly? Got a link to where you did?

Nobody is "demonizing" Moore. Is that some goofy victimology lingo?

Nice try Davy, but comparing anyone with a notorious Nazi propagandist is a pretty good example of demonization. OR should those on the Right who blasted moveon.org for airing that Bush = Hitler video now offer their mother of all apologies?

The only difference is degree, not kind.

On the same logic, Bill Frist's experiments on cats are equivalent to Mengele's experiments on humans. Or almost anything Scott McClellan says is equivalent to Goebbels.

This is a terrible line to go down (hence Godwin's law) and (IMO) you should really back off rather than try and make the point again.

Finally, I don't recall anywhere in the movie that Moore says Bush "aided and abetted" the 9/11 bombers. But I guess you get to read whatever you want into the movie...

Ok, Well, enuff about Moore. He's a liar, but some of you (who should and do know better) are willin' to cut him some slack. That's cool -- free country and all.

But, if (And I do mean "if") Bush wins reelection, I'm gonna make the argument that Moore and his enablers helped "cause" this "effect," because they tolerated unjust methods, which helped push reasonable folks on the margin into the Bush camp.

But, we shall see!:)That's what elections are for.

Sorry for gettin' hot and heavy. Good weekend, all:)

the one thing i fervently wish is that when Kerry wins this election he throws open all the files and lets the fresh air in. I want every bit of obfuscation to be shown the light of day and for transparency to reign, finally. I'm just waiting for all those files to mysteriously disappear or get damaged like Bush's service records. Moore is no liar and that will be shown in time for those still in denial.

Moore makes "documentaries", not documentaries. Moore is a propagandist, not a "propagandist". All is fine in describing Moore as long as the quotation marks are in the right places.

I agree Bird Dog.

Really bird dog? Do you put those around "Fox News" too? Funny how Moore makes a doc and yet the above "news" station runs 24/7 with nothing but pro-Bush propaganda. and the folks who are so upset with Moore and call him a propagandist never seem to run posts on how Fox Propaganda is parading as news. If one were interested in truth as opposed to just getting and maintaining power i would think this would be the case but alas.....

"That is a serious charge -- either it is true or not.

"If proven true, then Bush should be impeached and tried."

I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that the prosecutor doesn't have to prove the charge before the trial takes place. But if the President has a case to answer then he (or Congress) is supposed to appoint a Special Prosecutor. Obviously there is no case to answer re 9/11 but how about deceiving Congress? John Dean has been going on about this. But given his history and the fact that he is picking on Bush we can always say he's a "lawyer" not a lawyer.

No, that would only hold if he's not really a lawyer, but just plays one on TV.

"The verdict? Dishonest propaganda designed to slander his political opponents."

Yawn.

If you want to find analogues, it's a little overwrought to go reaching for Nazis. Limbaugh's been a one-trick slander pony for the past 15 years. A significant portion of conservative media devoted a majority of its time to slander and dishonest propaganda for nearly a decade.

I hope you'll forgive me if I find your selective outrage uncompelling.

Gosh guys. It's no fair bringing Rush Limbaugh into this discussion.
He's so respected he's slept over at the White House.
Michael Moore can't say the same now can he.


Hahaha

And may i reiterate, it's a great film . . .

It really, really isn't. Not by any measure of what, aesthetically, makes a film "great." I may not know much about art, but I know something about film, and as a film, Fahrenheit 9/11 is a competently assembled movie. And yes, I've seen it.

Frankly, and in my opinion, a movie by Moore that concentrated solely on the Iraq war would have been much more focused and powerful. As it is, the argument-by-innuendo stuff is tiring, the pacing is bad, the question-begging is infuriating, and unless one is inclined to rabidly partisan Bush-hatred -- which, even as a non-Bush-voter, I am not -- the whole effect is ultimately stultifying.

Sebastian, if what you're really concerned about is that some people call the mpvie a documentary, then I think you should move on and find another topic. The complaint strikes me as somewhere between trivial and naive.

The problem, see, is that when movies are submitted for awards in the "Documentary" category, and organizations that are considered authoritative on the topic -- say, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences -- present them with awards for Best Documentary, then people begin to believe that they are, in fact, documentaries, and that by implication, the things that they say are true. And while Fahrenheit does, in fact, have a lot of, as National Lampoon used to call them, "True Facts" in it, the conclusions that filmmaker keeps leading his audience to are not true. Not in every case.

But I bet if you poll any hundred people who are walking out of a showing this weekend, and ask them, "Why did George W. Bush invade Afghanistan?" you will get somewhere north of 85% who will answer, "To build a pipeline for the benefit of Unocal and Halliburton and Enron."

I praise the Michael Moore film for the following reasons:

1. The story of the National Guard member mom, and the grief she has.
2. The (horrifying) scens of destruction of people and places in Baghdad. Yes, this is war, and this is what happens in war. But people should know the actual effects of policies you disgaree with.
3. The Iraqi mother, distraught in her own grief.
4. The showing scenes of both Rice and Powell, in early 2001 I believe, dismissing Hussein as any real threat to the world, or to the US. Juxtaposed with scenes of Rice and Powell, playing UP what a threat Hussein was, in 2002.
5. The soldier who was guarding an oil compound, saying how he is on 7 day shifts, making 2-3K a month, while a Haliburton (I believe this is correct - saw the movie two weeks ago) truck driver makes 8-10K a month, working 40 hours. Is this the way to treat our soldiers?
6. The pointing out of the fact, that the Congressmen and women who voted for the war in Iraq, are so willing to send other children than their own, and their own children are, except for a few exceptions, not going.
7. The Bush joke: ""This is an impressive crowd: the haves--and the have-mores. Some people call you 'the elite'. I call you 'My Base".
8. The promo scene - "Terrorists are bad - let's golf!"
9. The Saudi beheading - these are our good friends??!!??
10. The scene at the contractor's convention, talking about how much money they were going to make.
11. Showing the rage of the Florida representatives, that their many of their (should have been legal voters) constituents, were thrown off the rolls. Don't remember seeing this anywhere else.
12. Tank drivers talking about how great their in-helment audio was - didn't know this either.
13. The viewing of how Bin Laden family members were, for the most part, cursorily questions, before leaving. Yes, there is a misleading suggestion here, but remember, it has ALSO been determined that a few family members were allowed to fly inside the United Stats (one US city to another) during the ban. It IS very unseemly, and I'm glad it was viewed.

That's all.

Phil
Are you saying this:
"Why did George W. Bush invade Afghanistan?" you will get somewhere north of 85% who will answer, "To build a pipeline for the benefit of Unocal and Halliburton and Enron."

isn't even partly the case?

Because otherwise, why aren't we in Sudan?

So, if we don't invade Sudan, Iraq will have been all about oil? I think you're going to have to hold my hand through that logic.

6. The pointing out of the fact, that the Congressmen and women who voted for the war in Iraq, are so willing to send other children than their own, and their own children are, except for a few exceptions, not going.

Let me tell you, as the son of a distinguished combat veteran and 28-year-career soldier, this is a non-starter. Congressmen cannot force their children to join the military -- those people are free moral agents. And so, just as importantly, are the people who do enlist. Everybody has a choice.

Note that Moore doesn't even address the question on any kind of real information ground. How many Congresspeople a) have children b) of military age, who are c) eligible to serve? Isn't that kind of, you know, an important set of information?

7. The Bush joke: ""This is an impressive crowd: the haves--and the have-mores. Some people call you 'the elite'. I call you 'My Base".

People at the event at which that clip comes from gave nearly a million dollars to health care for the poor that evening. Terrible, isn't it?

8. The promo scene - "Terrorists are bad - let's golf!"

Yes, it's amazing what kind of response you'll get when you ask someone a question on a golf course.

Phil
Are you saying this:
"Why did George W. Bush invade Afghanistan?" you will get somewhere north of 85% who will answer, "To build a pipeline for the benefit of Unocal and Halliburton and Enron."

isn't even partly the case?

Um, yes. As evidence, I offer the fact that a) three years later, there's no pipeline, b) there isn't even a plan for one at the moment, and c) there are no Western companies (let alone U.S. companies) who have anything at all to do with the TAP protocol signed by the regional governments. It's, excuse the pun, a pipe dream right now. But I'll listen to your counterevidence.

Because otherwise, why aren't we in Sudan?

Er . . . because it wasn't where the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden were in late 2001 and early 2002?

""Why did George W. Bush invade Afghanistan?" you will get somewhere north of 85% who will answer, "To build a pipeline for the benefit of Unocal and Halliburton and Enron."

isn't even partly the case?

Because otherwise, why aren't we in Sudan?"


The answer to "isn't even partly the case"
is a very clear

NO.

We attacked Afghanistan because the direct organizers and planners of the 9/11 attacks were staying in Afghanistan under the direct protection of Afghanistan's government. That isn't the only possible reason to attack a government of course. But it is a darn good one that has nothing to do with an oil pipeline.

Moore himself does not refer to his film as a documentary. And documentaries frequently have a strong point of view.

So grow up and either discuss the merits of the content of the film (not worth it -- its a polemic, but a good one), or at least quit the endless ad hominem about Moore and his film.

A very important thing to take from these numerous threads on F9/11 is that this film is successful and on it's way to mega-successful. And it chaps the far right that the left is being heard. And look what might happen, we may actually get a moderate president instead of a Neocon. And if anyone here thinks Kerry is a liberal, i ask you to look at Nader and Kucinich to see that there is indeed a wide swath to the left of him. But what is to the right of our current leaders? God forbid we actually have a left wing president after having many far right ones but that's a pipe dream. We have had conservatives in the White House for most of the last 30 years and a very conservative Congress for over a decade. And the right wing keeps screaming about how the country is going to hell and we need to move this country towards some glory day in the past. What a bunch of hooey. If people want to complain about the state of this Union, try pointing a finger at what's been running the show for most of my adult life.

Do you put those around "Fox News" too?

No wilfred, because their news segments aren't that different from other cable news. If you believe FoxNews is "24/7 propaganda", then your perspective on reality is skewed. Your beef is with the opinion shows. What chaps the hide of this mainstream Republican about F911 is its fundamental dishonesty.

Beg to differ bird dog (i know, begging isn't pretty). It's not just the O'Reilly's that are slanted, the actual news is slanted as well. I just read yesterday that 4 Fox employees are coming forward to talk about this so i believe it's you who have the skewed view here. I always screw up the link thing on this site so here is the web address.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040709/dcf030_1.html

If people want to complain about the state of this Union, try pointing a finger at what's been running the show for most of my adult life.

Go Wilfred! Go Wilfred!

Righteous Rant Dude!!!!

"Moore himself does not refer to his film as a documentary. And documentaries frequently have a strong point of view.

So grow up and either discuss the merits of the content of the film (not worth it -- its a polemic, but a good one), or at least quit the endless ad hominem about Moore and his film."

What ad hominem attack? An ad hominem attack is an attempt to discredit arguments by discrediting their messenger. I've been trying to attack the arguments just like you are supposed to, though some here seem to pretend that he isn't actually transmitting any arguments.

I've been trying to discuss the content of the film.

And Moore most certainly does refer to it as a documentary. His films don't get entered into the documentary catagories by accident. He submits them to that catagory on purpose.

Sebastian
You've been trying to discuss the content of the film?

The topic of this thread is about identifying the movie as propaganda vs. documentary (not mutually exclusive by the way). I don't see you discussing the details.

Does Moore imply and you infer then you get upset. Or does Moore infer and you imply?

The film is both documentary and propaganda. This is one of the bizarre side effects of living in a multidimensional universe. Others include:

    Yellow fire trucks.
    Dog people who are also cat people.
    Avocado ice cream.
    Moral atheists.
    Patriotic war-protesters.

we may actually get a moderate president instead of a Neocon

This only points out that you have no idea what "Neocon" means. Bush is not a neocon. If you want a convenient generalization to describe Bush as part of some group or other, choose another one. Because neocon is already taken. It's possible that one could use neocon in the context of Reagan, but the generalization breaks when you try to stretch it around either of the President Bushes.

Wilfred,
Soros-funded left-wing groups are complaining that FoxNews is biased? Sheesh.

Our present president is indeed a Neocon, as evidenced by his appointment of the coterie of self-confessed Neoncons in his inner circle but i never said his father was. And if a president filled his Administration with fascists, could we not infer that he was a fascist himself or at the very least a fascist sympathizer, which is no better? And no, i don't necessarily believe Neocons are fascists, although both are repugnant to me.

And what do you think Soros is trying to get out of all of this besides making sure BOTH sides are heard when only one gets aired these days? If he were just looking for tax breaks and corporate giveaways like other billionaires, he would just be part of Bush's 'elite'. So what's his motive besides showing his love of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the best way to show Patriotism?

Our present president is indeed a Neocon, as evidenced by his appointment of the coterie of self-confessed Neoncons in his inner circle

I guess you would conclude that I'm Puerto Rican, since all of my employees are Puerto Rican. You'd be wrong, but at least you'd be consistent.

wow, that was really, really weak.

I agree, which is why I pointed it out.

Well for some reason you need the obvious pointed out to you. George W. Bush is a Neocon or at best Neocon-lite. The radical right is running your party. Wake up and smell the napalm. You don't appoint a boatload of Neocons and take their PNAC advice and start their wet dream in motion if you're not one of them. He also has betrayed much of what Republicans hold dear such as less government and deficit reduction. The only thing he still represents from that Party is a thirst for power and control at any cost. Combine that with Dirty Tricks (not to be confused with Tricky Dick Cheney, i'm talking about the cleansing of W's service records and the intimidation of intelligence officials who don't support the Neocon agenda) and voila, we have America in 2004. Maybe you're not old enough to remember Nixon in power but i do and we are back there again, only with an even nastier group than Haldeman and Erlichman and Liddy (and skipping over the Oliver North/Iran Contra thugs).

And secondly, if you were a Puerto Rican man it could only improve your empathy quotient. Walking around America in the shoes of a minority will do that to you.

You're missing the point. The assertion that GWB is a neocon doesn't logically follow from your premise. You can attempt to build a case that GWB is a neocon from other premises, but given that the first condition necessary to be a neocon is that one be a former liberal, I think you're not going to get very far.

Again, if you believe GWB is radical right, the meaning of radical right is going to have to change, a lot. GWB is a mixed bag of politics, and I'm not saying that's a good thing. The rest of your statement is too devoid of anything factual to reply to.

So you have to be a former liberal to be a Neocon? Only in the Slarti universe. And i'm supposed to take your posts seriously? Time to enjoy the gorgeous NYC weather outside, this thread is threadbare. See you on another thread to fight another day.

No wilfred, because [FOX News'] news segments aren't that different from other cable news.

Having done nothing but watch cable news at night for the past few days, I could clearly discern major, fundamental differences between the FOX News reportage -- the actual relaying of information about the real world, rather than commentaries thereon -- and the other cable news channels. Insofar as it's possible to make this claim without a formal academic study, you're wrong.

Disclaimer: I was watching the international versions of the news channels (CNBC, CNNI, BBC, FOX, TV5 Asie and a little TVE {hard with virtually no Spanish}) so my recent observations are slightly skewed, but this tracks with the observations I've made over the past three years inside the United States so I feel confident in my assessment. I can make a much more finely tuned series of claims if so desired, but I suspect neither you nor I would be terribly interested.

[Added in proof: In case it wasn't clear, I'm not making any claims about the rectitude of anyone's reportage. That's a different, albeit hugely important, issue that can't even approximately be tackled in comments on a blog. For now I'm only taking issue with the contention that FOX News is "not that different" from the other cable news channels.]

but given that the first condition necessary to be a neocon is that one be a former liberal...

I'm fairly sure that while the original neocons (paleoneocons?) were all former liberals, it is not necessary for the current breed (neoneocons?) to be so credentialed. That was certainly the impression I got from a quick glance through The Neocon Reader (? don't remember the exact title), where the author/editor/compiler -- James Q someone-or-other -- explicitly stated that former liberalism was no longer a prerequisite, and it seemed like he ought to know.

Would comment further (by, e.g., finding out the actual name of the book) but my brain is slowly frying under the assault of voicemail menus, so I'll leave off here.

"And what do you think Soros is trying to get out of all of this besides making sure BOTH sides are heard when only one gets aired these days?"

Puh-leese. You can have psuedo-complaints about a lot of things in the world, but the idea that liberals can't get their message out in the U.S.--when they have one--is ridiclous. No one can guarantee how it is RECEIVED by the public, but the message gets out just fine.

Anarch, no one is claiming that FOX news in not different. I believe the claim (and as a non-watcher of television news I am wholly unable to add useful data to the claim) is that it is not more suggestively positive to the right than other outlets are to the left.

However there is some recent research on advocacy group citation on the news (at the moment I can't find it) which suggests that FOX is slightly less biased by that measure than other stations. When I read the report I found at least one major statistical assumption that I wouldn't make, but I find at least one in every statistical study I have ever read.

Anarch, no one is claiming that FOX news in not different. I believe the claim (and as a non-watcher of television news I am wholly unable to add useful data to the claim) is that it is not more suggestively positive to the right than other outlets are to the left.

That's not at all how I read the claim, fwiw. On verra.

We appear to be diverging from the original post topic somewhat but in order to determine whether, say, the New York Times is left wing or Fox News is right wing, don't you need some kind of benchmark? I suspect that few would doubt that the NYT is left of Fox but that doesn't necessarily make the NYT left wing or Fox right wing for that matter.

And secondly, if you were a Puerto Rican man it could only improve your empathy quotient. Walking around America in the shoes of a minority will do that to you.

So all minorities are more empathetic than all non-minorities? Fascinating, and not even a little tiny bit racist!

All documentaries have a POV; some are stronger than others.

I'm amused the rightwing could work itself into such a lather over F911, yet their only complaint is that it's not a documentary.

but given that the first condition necessary to be a neocon is that one be a former liberal, I think you're not going to get very far.

Sadly, no.

While it's true some of the original founders of neoconservatism were former liberals (a point made by Michael Lind, it isn't a prerequisite for inclusion. It's akin to suggesting one cannot believe in representative democracy unless one has wooden teeth or owns a plantation in Virginia.

Of course, Bush is a neocon. The man referred to as the "Godfather" of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, says he is.

I was unable to find anything saying Kristol named Bush a neocon, BTW. Just that he played well with neocons, which is a slightly different thing. Kristol's previously pointed out that Christian conservatives get along well with neocons, so this is not out of bed with his previous writings.

Specific passage:


Since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s, neoconservatism has been an intellectual undercurrent that surfaces only intermittently and one whose meaning is glimpsed only in retrospect. It has flowered again of late, and President George W. Bush and his administration seem to be at home in the political environment created by neoconservatism's renaissance.

But for the sake of argument, let's imagine that Bush is in fact a neocon. What, if anything, does that say about him in a negative context?

JFTR, my poor downtrodden PR employees are both more highly educated than I, and one of them makes more money than I do, at a higher labor grade. I only picked PR because it applied to me personally; if my employees had had anything else at all in common I may have gone that way instead.

Has the Bush adminstration even refuted the evidence Moore presents in the F911 "documentary?"

nope, they go with the same plan everytime: Don't attack the message...(cause we can't) Attack the messenger....

Unfortunately it didn't work with Clarke either...

The WH usually doesn't bother itself with responding to movies. Just a guess, here. I know you want to believe that anything the WH doesn't address must be true, but no one with even a brief acquaintance with logic would agree with you.

Slarti:

As with many things related to this administration, I don't see logic as entering into it.

When Joe Wilson published in the NYT, they blew his wife's cover. When Richard Clarke's book was released, they got ol' Jimmy Angle to release some background tapes. (Brit Hume practically high-fived Angle on the air after that one.)

Why should this be different?

Why should what be different?

Look: if even ten percent of what Michael Moore claims has a shred of evidence to back it, there ought to be no problem at all impeaching the President. Or, even, making charges more formally. One may as well ask why the WH has failed to respond to The Day After Tomorrow. Or any random Ted Rall cartoon.

Why should this be different?

Because they're still searching frantically for a good weapon to use against Michael Moore, and so far, they've failed to find one?

The WH usually doesn't bother itself with responding to movies.

Didn't they issue an official comment about the Reagan telemovie on CBS? Or was that just the RNC?

One may as well ask why the WH has failed to respond to The Day After Tomorrow.

They did, actually:

And the White House briefly ordered NASA officials not to discuss the film, which takes some intentional jabs at the administration. After reporters got hold of the gag order, the administration rescinded the memo.

Ordering NASA to shut up is an unusual choice of response, I'll grant you, but it's a response nonetheless.

if even ten percent of what Michael Moore claims has a shred of evidence to back it, there ought to be no problem at all impeaching the President.

I've not seen F911 yet so I can't speak to this matter with any great authority, but if Michael Moore is making the usual left-blogospheric arguments then yes, I'll put money that at least ten percent of what Michael Moore claims has a shred of evidence to back it. Whether or not that evidence amounts to a compelling, or even credible, case is a completely different matter.

Hyperbole (or the deconstruction thereof) aside, I'd also argue that there is more evidence supporting the impeachment of Bush than there was of Clinton, and that the alleged crimes and misdemeanors of Bush are of a vastly more serious character than those of which Clinton was accused. That's close to the ultimate in damning with faint praise nowadays -- "At least we're not Saddam!", in all its infinite variations, still takes the cake IMO -- but it does suggest that with a sufficiently hostile Congress (more exactly, with a Congress as hostile to Bush as the 1994-1998 Congresses + Special Prosecutor were to Clinton), yes, Bush would have been impeached by now.

All that is quite deliberately avoiding the question of whether Bush should be impeached, let alone convicted. [For the sake of all that's holy, i.e. Moe and fluffy kittens, let's not go there right now.] I just think you're confusing the "rightness" of an impeachment with the process of impeachment itself, especially as practiced by a partisan Congress.

So you have to be a former liberal to be a Neocon? Only in the Slarti universe. And i'm supposed to take your posts seriously? Time to enjoy the gorgeous NYC weather outside, this thread is threadbare. See you on another thread to fight another day.
Rather than storming out, I would find it educational if Wilfred could provide Wilfred's definition of a "neo-conservative."

Gary
It would be absurd to assume that every person who considers themselves a neoconservative is an ex-liberal. Perhaps the movement was given a boost by the intellectual firepower of some ex liberals.
When someone is being deliberately naive in pushing an absurdity it gets boring.

See Max Boot's definition. I'm sure parts of it have already been posted but visit the real thing. Neoconservatism defined by a self proclaimed (not former liberal) neoconservative:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:axIskgvCM20J:www.benadorassociates.com/article/180+definition+neocon&hl=en

This may be easier. The other was the cache.
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/180

My 2 cents.

"Neo" connotes "new" but in the sense of resurrecting with improvements or contemporary twists or the advantage of hindsight, as in neoclassicism.

A "neo" movement does connote that its followers awoke to or discovered the value of what they're now advocating, but that in no way implies that what they had been was the opposite of what they now promote.

Therefore, I'm not at all sure that "neoconservative" need imply that its followers had been liberals, merely that they've awoken to the inherent merits of conservative values and have somehow updated their applications.

Thanks, carsick, but I'm familiar with a great many people's definition of "neo-conservative." What I'm not familiar with is Wilfred's.

Edward, the problem with definitions by etymology is that while they're terribly logical, more often than not language drift, or simple history, makes such conclusions completely wrong.

Take, for instance, the word "anti-Semitism, since this comes up a lot. If one takes the etymological, logical, course, it should mean prejudice against all Semitic people. But, of course, it doesn't, and never has. It was coined by Wilhelm Marrin 1879, an anti-Semite, as a replacement for the word "Judenhass," which means "Jew hatred," since that term had, well, become offensive in polite society. It never actually, ever, has meant "prejudiced against Semites," but solely and specifically "Jew hatred." Logical or not.

A "neo" movement does connote that its followers awoke to or discovered the value of what they're now advocating, but that in no way implies that what they had been was the opposite of what they now promote.
Unfortunately, as I demonstrated above, what "neo" means is actually quite irrelevant to the actual historical coinage, and/or contemporary usage, of "neo-conservative."

Myself, I'd tend to say that "neo-conservative" has little useful meaning at this point, as far too many people use it to mean contradictory things. Certainly, currently, given that as many people on the left are as clueless about the history, and subdivisions, of "conservativsm," and "the right," as there are people on the right who are clueless about the history, and subdivisions, of "the left," some people on the left can be found who simply use "neo-con" to mean "them bad people in the White House, we hates them, we do."

But if someone insists they know what "neo-con" means, and that someone else is wrong, it's incumbent upon them to offer their definition, else their contribution lacks meaningful content.

That was supposed to be "Wilhelm Marr in 1879."

Unfortunately, as I demonstrated above, what "neo" means is actually quite irrelevant to the actual historical coinage, and/or contemporary usage, of "neo-conservative."

Yes, I agree, which brings us back to waiting for Wilfred to supply his definition.

Just couldn't let it sit that "neo" implied some sort of 180 degree conversion.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad