Lies

At a pool party a friend was talking about how Michael Moore's new movie taught him so much. I sighed, asked what he learned, and cringed as he told me about pipelines through Afghanistan, Saudis leaving while everyone else was grounded, and congressmen who wouldn't talk about sons and daughters dying in Iraq. He also expressed shock that Republicans were trying to 'ban' the film. In other words he bought every one of Moore's more explicit lies. But hey, at least the Democrats will get his vote!

This is pretty much the line across the left half of the blogosphere: Moore is using Bush's tactics against him. Moore may lie, but we have to lie to win against the lying liars who we really don't like. See Crooked Timber, Matthew Yglesias, and Kevin Drum for examples. And if you want to be really ill you should read the comments at Crooked Timber or Drum's site.

These arguments sound plausible so long as you don't look to closely at the Bush 'lies'. The whole issue is remarkably similar to the imminent threat debate which I think is quite well summarized at Sharkblog. In the imminent threat debate, the adminstration actively argues against the idea that an imminent threat is needed, but is later hammered for allegedly arguing that there was an imminent threat.

I will take Kevin Drum's explanation of the main 'lie' in question:

"Which is all remarkably similar to the tactic Bush himself used to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11. He never flat out blamed Saddam, but rather made sure to include the words "9/11," "Saddam Hussein," and "al-Qaeda" in as many sentences as possible, thus leaving the distinct impression that Saddam had something to do with it."

This makes sense only if speeches such as the 2003 State of the Union Address were mainly arguments for the war in Iraq. The SOTUA was a sketch of the reasons for all our interventions in the Middle East for the near future--it was quite explicitly not just about Iraq. September 11 is used as a reference to the wake-up-call to the American people that the event provided. The lesson which Bush draws from 9-11 is that we have to act forcefully and quickly in many areas of the Middle East. Many on the left do not accept this as the proper lesson, but Bush is not at all being deceptive about what he thinks the lesson is. It seems to me that many on the left want to restrict conversations on terrorism to Al Qaeda while Bush wanted to point out that Al Qaeda is merely the most current incarnation of a much deeper problem that absolutely has to be dealt with as a whole.

And Bush's statements about Saddam's WMD intentions was fully in line with how the rest of the world saw them (French intelligence was not to the contrary for instance and other than the Mossad they are thought to have the best Middle Eastern intelligence available). The difference in opinion was on what to do about it.

Contrast this with the things that Moore wants to suggest. War in Afghanistan because of a Unocal pipeline? This idea makes no sense. The pipeline may explain why some governments (including Clinton's and Bush's before 9/11) were willing to consider dealing with the Taliban, but it wouldn't explain the need to go to war. The Taliban were willing to negotiate for a pipeline. Why invade if that were the reason? Moore knows this and doesn't care.

Moore makes many, many, many allusions to Saudi money. But if you look at what he is trying to say, it is ridiculous. Moore would have us believe that Bush is willing to sell out the possibility of thousands of American lives in a future 9/11-sized attack because he likes the Saudis and their money? Really? It couldn't be that attacking the 'Defenders of Mecca' would be super-likely to radicalize far more of the Muslim world than any act short of nuking Mecca? It couldn't be that? Moore knows this and doesn't care.

Moore sets up a congressman but the congressman engages in a way that Moore doesn't expect? No problem. He can just splice the answer away. Moore knows this and doesn't care.

Moore isn't just using Bush's tactics. Bush is arguing for a larger approach to terrorism than his opponents desire. That is why they must constantly pretend that his arguments about Middle Eastern terrorism are arguments about merely Al-Qaeda. That isn't a lie, it is merely a focus that most on the left don't want to deal with. Bush uses 9/11 as an illustration of what will happen if we don't fix the Middle East. Dealing with Iraq was important not because it was directly involved in 9/11 but rather because it is directly involved in creating and maintaining the poisonous and oppresive nature of the Middle East. Saddam had for more than a decade turned himself into a hero for 'proving' that you could defy the U.S. and threaten it and support its enemies and provide safe harbour for those who attacked it and not get hurt for it. He was still building his palaces with U.N. money after all. You may not like the argument, but Bush isn't dishonest about it--the large vision is exactly what scared so many in Europe.

Moore doesn't do that at all. He lies because he knows he can say anything and pretend that an artist should be unaccountable to the truth. He knows the art community enough to know that they will accept any lie from the left. And he is right about that.

Comments

[wilfred]

Sebastian, was there anything you liked about Moore's film?

[Macallan]

I can't speak for Sebastian, but thing I liked most about Moore's film is that I haven't seen it. I love that part.

[Navy Davy]

I saw it last week (meeting cancelled and I had 3 hours to kill).

Put it this way, Moore makes Oliver Stone's conspiracy theories look sober and responsible!:)

[doh]

In other words he bought every one of Moore's more explicit lies.

Call me uninformed, but I haven't seen anybody document any "explicit lies" by Moore in the film. Would you care to enlighten me?

[Edward]

Bush is arguing for a larger approach to terrorism than his opponents desire.

Bush is arguing for an approach to terrorism that the "facts" don't support and just so happens to look pretty much like his agenda before the WTC was attacked.

All this hyperventilating about Moore's lies boils down to one point and one point only. He makes Bush look bad. If that suits your desires, then you like Moore's film. If that doesn't suit your desires, you don't like Moore's film.

Dragging "honesty" and "patriotism" and "anti-Americanism" and all the other red herrings one sees in anti-F911 rants merely attempts to confuse the issue and equate Moore with Bush.

One is a self-proclaimed partisan troublemaker...the other is the President of the United States.

Put it in perspective.

At the very least, take Macallan's lead and don't go see it. You're well within all your rights to do so.

[Iron Lungfish]

Instead of tearing your hair out over Michael Moore, you guys could do everyone a big favor and find that mountain of chemical and biological weaponry Saddam had, or the evidence of a Saddam-bin Laden partnership. In the meantime, from here it looks like you're turning purple over one filmmaker who's pointed out that Bush is, indeed, a liar - and a liar who's gotten thousands of innocent people killed.

[Jesurgislac]

Doh - there aren't any explicit lies. In the same way as Bush never actually said that Saddam Hussein is connected with September 11, nor that Iraq definitely had tried to acquire yellowcake from Niger, nor that there was an imminent threat from Iraq to the US... though he certainly managed to convey as much by allusion and conjunction, so Moore manages to convey the ideas he wants us to get from his movie without actually saying, explicitly, anything that it's possible to point at as untrue.

The strange thing is, that I'm quite sure many of the right-wingers posting on this thread will defend Bush for the identical behavior for which they are condemning Moore: apparently not seeing the irony of holding a moviemaker telling a story to a higher standard of behavior than the President of the United States giving reasons for committing the US to an aggressive attack on another country.

[Iron Lungfish]

Bush is arguing for a larger approach to terrorism than his opponents desire.

Bush is arguing that we treat an asymmetric threat like a series of old-style twentieth century proxy wars. Where this has gotten us is an exhausted military stuck in a country whose invasion afforded us a negative impact in the war on Al Qaeda and which has prevented us from confronting real threats like Iran and North Korea with the possibility of force.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Sure, here is a good run-down: 56 Deceits . I don't totally agree with the numbering scheme--some are too finely ground and I would just count them as the same deceit. But there are by my count at least 5 items that I would think of as blatant lies and at least 10 other material items that are untruths in the magician-sleight-of-hand way.

Jesurgislac, thanks for confirming to me that you don't read my posts before commenting. Gosh I wish I could have spent oh whole paragraphs in dealing with the 'irony' you think conservatives are oblivious too.

[Josh]

I have no comment on the larger issues your post raises, but I have to say that you're completely misrepresenting the posts from Chris Bertram, Matthew Yglesias, and Kevin Drum. Not one of them suggests anything like "Moore may lie, but we have to lie to win against the lying liars who we really don't like."

[Iron Lungfish]

I've read "56 deceits"; it actually commits the same damn crime it accuses Moore of half the time. To pull out just one example, in the Florida recount, the study Moore alludes to in F911 does indeed conclude that a full statewide recount - the exact type of expanded, all-counties recount that had begun after the Florida State Supreme Court decision but was stopped by SCOTUS - would have yielded a Gore victory. The study that "56 Deceits" uses as a false rebuttal doesn't use a statewide recount, but a four-counties recount, of the kind that was happening before the Florida court decision. In this instance, Moore is in fact correct, and his debunkers are the ones "playing fast and loose in the truth."

[double-plus-ungood]

Sebastian, I looked through those "deceits" yesterday. They are laughable. Moore used footage of Gore at a rally earlier in the day than the film gave an "impression of", and he calls that deceitful enough to count?

The whole thing is full of things like "...is true in the narrow sense that ...", "Moore’s statement is technically true, but...", and "Although I consider the disjunction to be deceitful, other people may not."

Seriously weak stuff.

[Jesurgislac]

Jesurgislac, thanks for confirming to me that you don't read my posts before commenting.

Oh, I read your post, Sebastian. Thanks for confirming to me that you don't read my comments before responding to them.

(Actually, I went back and re-checked, and I suppose if Sebastian was really paranoid he might just assume that "many of the right-wingers posting on this thread" must include him...)

[Iron Lungfish]

And one more time, for the record: it is SO TELLING that the Right is incensed over a guy making a film, while the Left is incensed over a guy sending American troops to die in a pointless war.

[Gary Farber]

This is pretty much the line across the left half of the blogosphere....

I am always so pleased to learn I don't exist.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Iron Lungfish, which study suggests a Gore win with a whole Florida recount? The media recount suggested that if the pseudo-standards in place at the time the count was stopped had been applied to the whole state that there would have been a narrow Bush victory. Unless I am totally wrong the only count that would have led to a Gore victory involved a counting method that was proposed by noone at the time, and therefore would not have been actually used had the counting continued. Am I wrong about that?

[Moe Lane]

I am always so pleased to learn I don't exist.

About as much as I am to find out that apparently I'm "incensed over a guy making a film"? I mean, I thought that I had mostly not given a sh*t beyond the Bradbury issue, but apparently not.

Moe

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Sorry Gary, I don't read absolutely positvely everyone all time. Norman Geras doesn't like Moore either.

[Gary Farber]

He makes Bush look bad. If that suits your desires, then you like Moore's film. If that doesn't suit your desires, you don't like Moore's film.

Nonsense. Bull----. Untrue.

I don't like Moore's film because I believe it possible it hurts the case against Bush more than it helps it. I believe that putting forth bad arguments that don't make sense undermines a cause.

Refusing to discuss whether an argument is bad or not also undermines a cause, and credibility, Edward. Either an argument is supportable and defensible, or it isn't. If it is, supporters of it need to step forward and support it; if they refuse, they are instead giving support to the idea that they think they are unable to defend it.

I want to get Bush out of office. I think that making arguments that make no sense is destructive to that. Do you disagree?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

See also this site for an analysis of the 'facts' in the movie

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Also, this counts as a lie in reporting:

To support the idea that the administration lied in blaming Saddam for 9/11 Moore flashed Rice saying: "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11."

and cut the next sentences: "It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they're all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East..."

Which is yet another statement of the case which I presented above. It is broader than many on the left want it to be, but it is not a lie and it does not suggest that Saddam was involved in the planning or execution of 9/11.

[Gary Farber]

Moe:

About as much as I am to find out that apparently I'm "incensed over a guy making a film"?

Probably. Again we see what matters to many people: truth is a small issue compared to defending your team. (And if I didn't add this parenthetical remark, certain people would read that as intended to apply to only one team.)

Sebastian:

Sorry Gary....

Accepted.

I've consistently spoken against dishonesty from George Bush and Republicans. I've consistently spoken against comparatively trivial dishonesty during Bush's term from Democrats. I've consistently spoken against Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and O'Reilly. Not giving a pass to Michael Moore, when I think he hurts the cause of removing George Bush from office, or otherwise, isn't disproportional. I spend a lot more time on the Administration than I ever have on Michael Moore. Measurable fact, by word count.

Claims otherwise are simply false.

Here's the secret: cutting the wrists of your credibility by supporting bad argument hurts you in the end.

Whoever it comes from, whatever the argument is.

All the handwaving in the world won't change that, and neither will what team you play for, nor how noble your motives, nor how important your end.

Because there's always another end.

In the end, all that matters are the facts. In the end, what matters more than whether we chose to be honest about those, or not?

[Katherine]

I can't decide whether this argument is very naive or very cynical.

For what feels like the three hundredth time: almost everyone thought Saddam had chemical and biological weapons, but the Bush administration deliberately and knowingly deceived the public about the nuclear threat. And I am not talking only, or even primarily, about the sixteen words. I said this in October of 2002 and I'll say it again now.

As to Moore's movie, I haven't seen it yet.

[Edward]

I want to get Bush out of office. I think that making arguments that make no sense is destructive to that. Do you disagree?

I think we have a very complicated electorate and what convinces one person will simply stiffen the resolve of others to not be convinced.

I did not change my opinion on any issue in F911 because of seeing the film, but then I spend more time than the average American debating the details of each word, burb, sneeze coming out the President's mouth.

You seem to want F911 to be something it's not Gary. It's fluffy agitprop. It's not like it's Kerry's nomination acceptance speech.

[Edward]

burb = burp

oh, nevermind...

[wilfred]

Sebastian, again. Was there anything you liked about this film?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Wilfred, Moore is good at using color to tell you what emotion you ought to be feeling. He also hired a good musician to key up all the right moments.

[doh]

Thanks, Sebastian but it looks like the second link is largely based on the first link, and the first link is pretty weak.

I particularly liked the explanation of why the Britney Spears' interview was a "deceit" (because, roughly, there were a lot of celebridiots who were anti-war, and therefore Moore was being so slanted as to be deceitful).

Among the relatively few facts in dispute is whether Goss has an 800 line. The sites you link to claim there is such a line, but I have seen Goss' people say there isn't, that it was just a metaphor. For example, here's part of a story from USAToday quoting Goss' spokesperson:

"Almacy said Goss didn't mean to imply an 800 number really exists. She said he was referring to the intelligence committee as if it were a 'help line' Americans could call with concerns they have about the Patriot Act or other aspects of U.S. intelligence gathering.

'It is a reference to the intelligence committee,' Almacy said. 'Mr. Moore decided to take it literally and it wasn't meant that way.'"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-06-29-fahrenheit-goss_x.htm

I can't figure out why, if there is such a line, that Goss' people don't know about it, but at least it would be reasonable for Moore not to know about it either.

[Katherine]

Sebastian--fair enough, on the Rice quote. I agree: a technically accurate quote or fact, robbed of context in order to deliberately give a false or misleading impression is, for all functional purposes, a lie.

So. This is from a Bush speech in Cincinatti in October of 2002:

"If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

Transcript here.

Omitted: If Al Qaeda were able to acquire the same softball sized hunk of highly enriched uranium, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. Same for Hezbollah. Same for Hamas. Same for, I don't know, San Marino, Monaco and Liectenstein. Same for any country or organization in the world with some competent engineers, a library card, and a web connection. Designing the bomb is the easy part; getting the fissile material is the hard part.

Omitted: There was no evidence that Saddam Hussein could produce that much fissile material within a year. To get it in that time frame, he would've had to buy it on the black market or steal it. I don't know how much we knew then about whether this was feasible. I don't think we entirely know now*.

Omitted: if HEU was available to Saddam Hussein through theft or the black market, it was no less available to Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups.

(By the way, that claim is not from only one speech. Bush told the UN General Assembly on 9/12/02 that "Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year."

Bush said in a radio address on 9/14/02 that "Should his regime acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year."

November 1, 2002, Undersecretary of State John Bolton to the the Second Global Conference on Nuclear, Bio/Chem Terrorism: "We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material--whether from a foreign source or by securing the materials to build an indigenous fissile-material capability--it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year."

Cheney told Meet the Press on September 14, 2003 that: "The judgment in the NIE was that if Saddam could acquire fissile material, weapons-grade material, that he would have a nuclear weapon within a few months to a year. That was the judgment of the intelligence community of the United States, and they had a high degree of confidence in it.")

*The Bush administration has been GROSSLY NEGLIGENT on this issue, and deserves to lose the election on this ground alone, but that's a debate for another day.

[double-plus-ungood]

Rice: It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York. This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they're all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East...

Um, I think Moore might have done her a favor here by cutting that. I don't see how her "edited" quote is any better than her somewhat tenuous spin in the rest of the quote.

[Gary Farber]

I think we have a very complicated electorate and what convinces one person will simply stiffen the resolve of others to not be convinced.

While true, in the context of being asked:

I want to get Bush out of office. I think that making arguments that make no sense is destructive to that. Do you disagree?

You once again can't answer a simple yes or no question. Have you considered signing on with Scott McClellan, or do you not notice what technique you are using?

Edward, why do you feel it's a useful technique to bring up assertions about your beliefs, but not respond to questions about them? Is this intended to convince anyone of anything? Do you think it does?

Did the long-desired pipeline affect the planning of the invasion (i.e., we can't blow up that section, we'll need it for the pipeline)? It's not impossible, with Bush's connections to the energy industry, to imagine it did.

[...]

I believe Bush knew that the pipeline was of US interest before the invasion. I believe the planning for the invasion took that into account.

[...]

An invasion is nearly ALWAYS tied to access to resources.

[...]

We could have killed Saddam without an invasion.

These are all very strong and provocative claims, yet when questioned about them, you ignore the questions, and make no attempt to support them. Would you care to support any of them now, withdraw any, or ignore the question again?

Do you need to have previous questions on these repeated?

Let's try the last -- that we could have assassinated Saddam without war. How, if so, do you account for the repeated bombings that attempted to do this that failed at the beginning of the war? Hoax? How do you account for the U.S.'s failure to assassinate Castro all those years? Lack of trying?

You appear to believe that the world works like it does in a James Bond movie. It does not. We couldn't even get decent intelligence on WMDs, a fact that I believe you accept; yet you are willing to believe that we could have killed Saddam if we just really wanted to, but we didn't really want to. How does that make sense?

To draw back to Moore, what thesis would you draw from his argument?

That Iraq was a distraction from a valid war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Or that Afghanistan was a phony war hiding the fact that it was about profiting from a pipeline?

Generally speaking, what would you say the main arguments of his movie are?

[Moe Lane]

"Omitted: If Al Qaeda were able to acquire the same softball sized hunk of highly enriched uranium, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. Same for Hezbollah. Same for Hamas. Same for, I don't know, San Marino, Monaco and Liectenstein. Same for any country or organization in the world with some competent engineers, a library card, and a web connection. Designing the bomb is the easy part; getting the fissile material is the hard part."

San Marino, Monaco and Lichenstein have never indicated any interest in acquiring nuclear weapons, although they could certainly hide a small program (at least for a time). Hamas and Hezbollah have the interest, but not the resources. Hussein's regime had both the interest and the resources - not to mention links with terrorist groups, including I believe both of the ones that you mentioned. I have absolutely no issue with Bush deciding that Hussein was an unacceptable risk, post 9/11: it seemed and seems a reasonable decision to make.

"Omitted: There was no evidence that Saddam Hussein could produce that much fissile material within a year. To get it in that time frame, he would've had to buy it on the black market or steal it. I don't know how much we knew then about whether this was feasible. I don't think we entirely know now*."

He didn't feel like taking the risk of being wrong. Can't say I blame him. We also can't say even today what the feasibility of such a scenario was, as it impinges on still-developing operations on the WoT: such things are need-to-know, and neither you nor I need to know that.

I know that stating that last bit can make people feel a variety of nonpositive emotions, but I really can't do anything about that.

"Omitted: if HEU was available to Saddam Hussein through theft or the black market, it was no less available to Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups."

Contrary to popular belief (which is not necessarily Katherine's), building a nuclear bomb without the resources of a nation-state is not easy, which is probably why Tel Aviv isn't glowing in the dark right now. Uranium and its byproducts are not only radioactive: they're actively toxic. Don't try to build a nuclear weapon in a garage (or even a cave complex) without first updating your will; you just won't have the resources to handle it safely. But a nation-state could do it; in fact, they've done it in the past.

Moe

[Katherine]

As for Michael Moore--again, I haven't seen the fool thing, and I may not see it in theatres. I'm pissed off enough as it is, and I don't like being manipulated.

But let's not confuse separate questions:

1) Is this movie good for the Democrats' electoral prospects?
I think it very likely is.

2) Are the movie's worst & most deceptive arguments and theories good for the Democrats' electoral prospects?
I would like to believe they are not--I am a big believer in the importance of credibility and with this administration, the truth is definitely bad enough. But I don't really know the answer.

3) Do Bush's deceptions justify Moore's?
Easy: no.

4) Are Bush's deceptions more destructive than Moore's?
Easy: yes.

5) Is the average voter and/or average viewer of Fahrenheit 9/11 better or worse informed after the movie than he was before?
This is what I really wonder about, and I won't be able to say unless and until I see the d*mn thing.

[Moe Lane]

Gotta remember preview next time. One last point: prior to the Afghanistan liberation, al-Qaeda had both the inclination and a very small proportion of the resources necessary to pursue a nuclear program, but by the time of Bush's 2002 speech they were even less likely to create or acquire one than Hamas and/or Hezbollah. Also, Hussein's links to al-Qaeda are the subject of much debate, and my statement "Hussein's regime had both the interest and the resources - not to mention links with terrorist groups, including I believe both of the ones that you mentioned." is explicitly meant to refer to Hamas and Hezbollah.

[Navy Davy]

The film's problem isn't lies. Smart people, smart editors, smart lawyers know how to "massage" lies into, well, partial truths.

The problem is slanted propaganda and intellectual dishonesty.

Example: The only pro-Bush testimonial in the entire film is by a gum-chewing, ditzy 21-year old named Brittany Spears. So, MM posits the following tacit argument:

1. The only person on camera who likes Bush's policy is Brittany;
2. Brittany is young and stupid;

Therefore,

3. Bush's policy is bad.

It's really not much more complicated than that.

Of course, MM could have given us a testimonial of, say, Nobel Prize winning Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel from February 2003:

WASHINGTON - Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel said Thursday that while he abhors war, he believes the world community must confront Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Wiesel, who survived the Nazi death camps and won the Nobel in 1986, urged Europe to put pressure on Saddam.

“I believe it is the moral duty to intervene when evil has power and uses it,” Wiesel said. “If Europe were to apply as much pressure on Saddam Hussein as [it] does on the United States and Britain, I think we could prevent war.”

He said the Holocaust could have been avoided if the world had intervened in 1939, a time he compared to the current crisis with Iraq.

“He cannot have weapons, I think he has these weapons, because he would use them,” Wiesel said, stopping short of comparing Saddam to Hitler.

U.S. President George W. Bush dropped in briefly on Wiesel’s meeting Thursday afternoon with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Saying, “I am not a man of war,” Wiesel said military conflict still must be considered as a last resort. Wiesel is chairman of The President’s Commission on the Holocaust and behind the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity.

The family was sent to Auschwitz, where Wiesel’s mother and youngest sister were killed. In 1945, Wiesel and his father were sent to the Buchenwald concentration camp in Germany, where his father died.

So, Moore could have used Brittany or Elie or both, but chose only Brittany. Therefore, the man is intellectually dishonest, among other things. The movie reflects this in about 20-25 different ways.

[Edward]

Gary,

Repeatedly you accuse me of avoiding your questions wholesale, as if I never answer any of them, and then bombard me with more questions, apparently unsatisfied with the answers to the dozens I did answer. It begins to look like the medium is the message (i.e., Gary's smarter/worthier/more tenacious than Edward).

I've just emailed you an answer to each and every one of the questions above (emailed to avoid putting the other readers here to sleep and taking the thread too far off topic, as many of these questions were from another older thread).

I'm not avoiding your questions. I'm simply choosing the ones that most interest me. With so-o-o-o-o-o many to choose from, my schedule only permits so much "Gary Time" per day. Maybe if you wrote them in iambic pentameter, your alloted time to compose them would better match my alloted time to answer them. ;p

[dmbeaster]

Bravo Katherine.

Under the right-wing standards of "lying" being used to judge Moore's film, the Bush administration is also clearly "liars." Your nuclear example is only one of many.

And it does make a big difference that one occurs in an admittedly polemical film, wereas the other masquerades as policy committing American lives, prestige and treasury to a fraudulent venture.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Same for any country or organization in the world with some competent engineers, a library card, and a web connection. Designing the bomb is the easy part; getting the fissile material is the hard part.

Omitted: There was no evidence that Saddam Hussein could produce that much fissile material within a year. To get it in that time frame, he would've had to buy it on the black market or steal it. I don't know how much we knew then about whether this was feasible. I don't think we entirely know now*.

Omitted: if HEU was available to Saddam Hussein through theft or the black market, it was no less available to Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups."

Omitted from your current argument... The much derided claim that Saddam's Iraq was looking for uranium in Africa has been given new force from a surprising source--Joseph Wilson. Mr. Wilson now reveals that Baghadad Bob himself was negotiating trade agreements in Niger of all places. But when it was made clear that uranium was not on the table, no agreement was forthcoming.

[doh]

Nice summary Katherine.

5) Is the average voter and/or average viewer of Fahrenheit 9/11 better or worse informed after the movie than he was before?

I think the average viewer probably has more information after seeing the movie, but, perhaps more importantly, what the movie accomplishes is to raise questions in people's minds.

I am interested in Gary's question about what the main arguments of the movie are, because my own sense is that most of the facts of the movie are true, and most of the main arguments are true, but a lot of the innuendo of the movie is not true. (I may be borrowing someone else's argument here, maybe Krugman's?)

For example, it seems clear to me that the Saudis in the US (especially the Bin Ladens) got special treatment in being allowed to leave so soon, and I think there's at least a very good chance that that special treatment was in part due to the Bush family's historic ties to the Saudi royal family (but I don't think Bush consciously favors Saudi interests over US interests). I also think the average viewer had no idea that the Bush family had such ties to the Saudi royal family.

Basically, I think it's possible for a work of art to tell the truth without literally reciting facts, and that is somewhat how I approach the movie, but I find that approach a little disturbing as well applied to the political arena (in that it become hard to distinguish truth from preconceived notions).

Navy Davy, I think the charge of intellectual dishonesty makes little sense in this context. Moore isn't required to interview the people you think he should interview to make the points you think he should make. (Although the editing of the Condi Rice interview, or the Kennedy (Cong. ?) interview might support a charge of intellectual dishonesty).

[carsick]

The right seems to want Michael Moore to be the presidential candidate for the democratic party so they can have an easy target.

This season I am, by all accounts, on the side of the liberals yet I don't plan on seeing Michael Moore's film. I've seen some of his work before and understand how he makes his argument. What amazes me is the number of folks who want tie Michael Moore to the DNC in hopes of sinking it.

He doesn't lie but he does infer. Big deal so does Bush Cheney et.al.

He agrees with the democrats on a number of issues but he's not on their payroll. He's a film maker who edits his films to get across his view of the world. Ooh Scary. That's never been done before by a film maker.

Have any of you guys seen his other films?

[Gary Farber]

San Marino, Monaco and Lichenstein have never indicated any interest in acquiring nuclear weapons, although they could certainly hide a small program (at least for a time).

The key spot to keep an eye on is Grand Fenwick. Let's not let our eye drop from the ball, people!

[Moe Lane]

I'm surprised at you, Gary. Everybody knows that the Duchy of Grand Fenwick can be trusted with the Q-Bomb. 'Course, they are English... ;)

[Gary Farber]

I have absolutely no issue with Bush deciding that Hussein was an unacceptable risk, post 9/11: it seemed and seems a reasonable decision to make.

I'd agree with that, Moe. The key question, particularly in retrospect, is precisely what policy was the best to enact from there, and what should the timing and methodology have been.

It seems to me that this remains a crucial issue of debate, and an unsettled question; only history will ultimately give us the clearest answers, as we know, often those remain unclear and debatable. But I don't believe that either the "pro-war" or "anti-war" "sides" have an irrefutable answer to that question at this time, or, in fact, anything resembling one. And I find assertions from either side of absolutely irrefutable answers lacking in credibility.

To be a bit more specific, there's a fair case to be made, particularly in hindsight, that delaying invading a couple of years might, perhaps, have worked out better. I certainly wouldn't make such a case as definitive, myself; I'm well aware of plenty of also strong arguments back at it; but it's not a loony question. There are other possible responsible ways matters might have gone without going for a Michael Moore worldview (which is why I resent Moore being put forward as a credible response to Bush, and think he's a distraction that undermines credible opposition to Bush).

I would make very strong cases for Bush and Co. really screwing up the execution of their policy, in their lack of sufficient planning for the occupation, dismissal of the Iraqi Army, ignoring professional military advice that far larger numbers of troops were required for the occupation, and so on. This does not, I feel, give credibility to the argument that Bush is the best choice to lead America and the world in the war on terror.

[James Casey]

Well, my two cents (which works out to around 1.09 pence at the present exchange rate of £1 to $1.84) is that I'm a tad alarmed by Jesurgislac's comments about a higher standard of truth for the President. Yes, of course the President needs to be more trustworthy than a filmmaker. That is sooooo far from meaning that we can not criticise a filmmaker's lies (if such they be) as much as we like or they deserve.

For what it's worth, I agree with Gary - sure, I want Bush out. His presidency terrifies me at times. But every time I read an insult aimed at him and his, or a conspiracy theory, I recall how incensed I would feel were it levelled at someone I liked. It's. Just. Wrong. Period.

And Gary's right, again in my book, when he says those who steer clear of that behaviour are wise, verily, because (did I just use 'verily'? Yes. Hmm. Okay. Carry on) once this is all over, those who thought they'd fight fire with fire will not be in positions of credibility. They may say, "Fine, my job is done", but they are endorsing such behaviour and therefore giving their opponents justification to continue.

Where's asdf when you need him/her/it? This partisanship stuff really sucks. Does Bush lying really tarnish the presidency? No, it tarnishes him. His job has little to do with the inherent morality of the case. Yes, our leaders ought to be more trustworthy than most, and shame on them and us if not. But lying does not become more or less acceptable according to who's doing it.

[Gary Farber]

The problem is slanted propaganda and intellectual dishonesty.

[...]

Example:....

Or, for instance, Iraq is a land of kite-flying children. Therefore people weren't living in poverty in a terrifying police state where hundreds of thousands were killed (far more if we add in the Iran-Iraq War Hussein started along with invading Kuwait). Therefore attacking the state was a criminally monstrous unjustified act.

Or that horrifying scenes of dead bodies and shattered limbs, and the tale of a mother whose son died proves the war was unjustified, when the identical scenes could be made from WWII or any war. The underlying thesis of the war being unjustified might be fully supported, but it's not by anything along those lines, unless it is news to someone that war is horrible and violent.

The sound anti-war arguments are along the line of attack that perhaps containment should have been continued, and if so, for what length of time, and under what conditions. But that's not colorful and doesn't lend itself well to lots of music, laughter, and quick cuts. Substance: who needs it?

[Jonas Cord]

What amazes me is the number of folks who want tie Michael Moore to the DNC in hopes of sinking it.

Then please, please won't someone tell my fellow Democrats to stop talking about how important the movie is, how it gets the message out, and how everyone should go see it.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"What amazes me is the number of folks who want tie Michael Moore to the DNC in hopes of sinking it."

Come on now, Democrats aren't going out of their way to avoid being associated with the movie. see here for instance.

[Gary Farber]

...and then bombard me with more questions, apparently unsatisfied with the answers to the dozens I did answer.

It's quite terrible to express one's opinions publically, and then have people expect you to be able to support them, isn't it? No, not really. I realize that my magic powers of logic and asking for citations are terribly unfair, but, respectfully, I can't feel sorry for you in this. If you restrain yourself to saying only that for which there is evidence, and, more importantly, only believing that for which there is evidence, these problems don't arise. I'm not on some crusade to pick on you, Edward; I merely expect you to be able to support what you say, and to make sense, just as I expect anyone I respect to. I don't treat Moe, Sebastian, von, or Katherine any differently in this. (It does bother me that while Katherine is semi-withdrawn, and you are the primary face of the liberal left on this blog, that you are making such a bloody awful and incoherent case for opposing Bush, but them's the breaks.)

Nor am I shy about blogging myself, posting all over, and making myself open to challenge of my statements. You are welcome to do so.

I've just emailed you an answer to each and every one of the questions above (emailed to avoid putting the other readers here to sleep and taking the thread too far off topic, as many of these questions were from another older thread).

And I thank you for the strenuous effort writing those eighty or so words must have been. And if not a single person here says they'd like me to respond to your answers, I'll certainly let the subject of Michael Moore's film, and your thoughts about the issues he raised, drop. After all, what are we here for if not to not answer in public for fear of boring people?

Carsick says:

He doesn't lie but he does infer. Big deal so does Bush Cheney et.al.

I believe you mean "imply," not "infer."

But this idea that since Bush and Cheney -- whom we oppose -- engage in certain behavior, therefore "big deal," blahblah, it's okay if we do it, simply doesn't fly. Either we can condemn people for doing that, or we can't. I say we can.

When the day comes that a vote for the Democratic Party is a vote for a double standard, I'm outa there.

(And anyone trying to sell this sort of double-standard: what moral ground will you claim when the Right comes after President Kerry dishonestly, as they of course will? "Well, it was okay for us to do it in '04, but not for you to do it now"?)

[Gary Farber]

Jonas Cord says:

Then please, please won't someone tell my fellow Democrats to stop talking about how important the movie is, how it gets the message out, and how everyone should go see it.

I'm trying, here and here, and elsewhere.

[JC]

Kevin Hayden at American Street makes a good point today -

Indonesia is having elections. The MOST POPULOUS Muslim country in the world, is having elections.

Wasn't one of the arguments for the Iraq war, is for a "shining example of democracy" in the Islamic world?

Why is it, that neither Indonesia (most populous) or Turkey (arguably the Muslim country with the best military) count in this?

There are two examples, right there.

Not to mention that Turkey borders Iraq, Iran and Syria.

Given the international and Islamic focus of this site, when was the last time that this was brought up?

[Jonas Cord]

I'm trying, here and here, and elsewhere.

Thanks Gary, you rock.

[Navy Davy]

Gary Farber,

Wow! A righteous man of the left -- I'm impressed.

There is always a temptation to justify improper means to obtain desired ends. Everyone faces this temptation.

Michael Moore has used slander, innuendo, intellectual dishonesty and McCarthy-ite recklessness (means) in his quest to beat Bush (ends).

You are correct to point this out. You are also correct to point out that there were legitimate, honest grounds to oppose the Iraq war, and that Moore obscures these.

True, I want Kerry to lose. I think he's weak on National Security and foreign policy. But there are numerous means I would reject, even if it meant stifling my desired end -- to reelect Bush. But that's okay with me - I don't want Bush to win at any cost.

Good for you, Gary. More on the left need to follow your example.

[Jesurgislac]

But that's okay with me - I don't want Bush to win at any cost.

Congratulations: it seems very likely you'll get your wish. Bush won't win. (Of course, he didn't win last time, either.)

[Dave Schuler]

Wasn't one of the arguments for the Iraq war, is for a "shining example of democracy" in the Islamic world?

Why is it, that neither Indonesia (most populous) or Turkey (arguably the Muslim country with the best military) count in this?

Neither are Arab countries. Since a near article of faith in Islam is that the Koran can only be properly read in Arabic, native speakers of Arabic e.g. Arabs have a special role in Islam.

[Jesurgislac]

James Casey: . That is sooooo far from meaning that we can not criticise a filmmaker's lies (if such they be) as much as we like or they deserve.

Of course. But, this is the interesting thing: many of the people enthusiastically criticizing what they say are "Moore's lies" were equally enthusiastically claiming that when Bush uses innuendo, misdirection, guilt-by-association, technically-true-but-deceptive statements, etc - that when Bush uses these weren't lies.

So these people are actually holding Michael Moore, making a movie, to a higher standard of truth than they hold the President of the United States, making speeches leading the US to war.

Which is... ironic.

[Edward]

Gary,

It does bother me that while Katherine is semi-withdrawn, and you are the primary face of the liberal left on this blog, that you are making such a bloody awful and incoherent case for opposing Bush, but them's the breaks.

Katherine represents the left far more eloquently and more convincingly than I do. It's so true.

She has this unassailable command of the facts, passion, conviction, and flare for writing that few others writing on the left side have. She's a gem and I believe my co-bloggers will agree that ObWi is lucky to have her.

As for the rest of your post, I've made several efforts to address your concerns. None satisfied you. It grows tiresome, what can I say?

I get your point: the effort to defeat Bush is not well served by F911 because it's weak.

You continue to ignore mine: It's a film, not Kerry's stump speech...it doesn't need to be a watertight critique of the Bush administration...it needs to be entertaining.

We disagree on the importance of deconstructing it. I don't feel it's worth it.

But then because I don't share your sense of urgency or recognize the importance of your point, you start a rampage where you take particular phrases within my rants out of context and demand I defend them. You wait until the next time you see me posting, cross threads, and demand answers again.

It's a game, and it's boring, I'm sorry. If it was related to the topic of the thread more and to proving how smart you are less, I might find it more interesting. At this rate, though, I simply don't want to encourage more of the same borishness.

As for my less provable statements: maybe the US could not have killed Hussein without invading Iraq. I honestly can't say with absolute certitude. I would have preferred they tried to killing all the innocent civilians who died in the invasion though.

As for the rest of it, you've sucked all the fun out of this for me.

Gary's right. He's the king. He knows everything you should ever want to know. You should only ever read his blog if you want to know anything.

Does that cover it?

[vida]

The film was obviously highly slanted, but I have still not heard anything documenting significant false factual statements. To me it seemed very much like a left wing equivalent of listening to Limbaugh or Hannity, except that it was much more artful (and in my partisan opinion, much more honest). I hear calls for the "intellectually honest" left to condemn the film - never hear the equivalent calls regarding the radio hucksters and the intellectually honest right.

[Gary Farber]

So these people are actually holding Michael Moore, making a movie, to a higher standard of truth than they hold the President of the United States, making speeches leading the US to war.

Fine. So, Jes, what do you say to those who don't do that? Is there some reason Michael Moore shouldn't be criticized on mere fact, rather than on the motivation of the critics?

[Navy Davy]

Sorry, Gary Farber, it looks like you'll be playing the role of Will Kane in High Noon -- you're goin' alone!

Sadly, that's how the left operates these days -- they must stop that monster Bush at any cost.

Of course, in my view, this hyperventilatin' hysteria will likely contribute to Bush's reelection. But, c'est la vie.

Bottom line: Farenheit 9/11 is a dishonest piece of crap. Period.

[Gary Farber]

We disagree on the importance of deconstructing it. I don't feel it's worth it.

Edward, that's fine. Really. Perfectly so. 100%.

But you can't say it's not worth deconstructing it, but it's worth defending. Pick one.

I didn't bring up the topic here. You did. You wrote a long post, "Fahrenheit 911," defending it. That was your choice. You can withdraw that choice, and declare that you were wrong, that it's not worth defending. Up to you. Or not.

But you can't claim it's worth defending, but not deconstructing. Won't fly.

Pick one, please. (Or, again claim I'm being "boring" and unfair by pointing this out.)

If it was related to the topic of the thread more....

Yes, discussing the substance of F911 in a thread about, er, the substance of F911, certainly is off-topic, isn't it? I just came from out of nowhere on that one! Who saw it coming?!

Sebastian, you started the thread: have I gone "off-topic"? Anyone?

As for the rest of it, you've sucked all the fun out of this for me.

Gary's right. He's the king. He knows everything you should ever want to know. You should only ever read his blog if you want to know anything.

Does that cover it?

With all due respect, Edward, if you find yourself unable to respond on substance, and you're reduced to making personal characterizations about my motivations, and feeling sorry for yourself, I'm not going to accept responsibility for that.

I am sorry that you feel that asking you to support your opinions with substance is unfair, but, you know, it isn't.

Turning that into an "he's picking on me unfairly with his mean old logic" doesn't change that.

If you feel I've been unfair to you, quote the passage, and I'll apologize if I agree.

Meanwhile, this?

Gary's right. He's the king. He knows everything you should ever want to know. You should only ever read his blog if you want to know anything.

That was rude and uncalled-for.

If I might be so bold as to suggest: a grown-up response would be to respond to the substance, offer responses such as "I support this assertion with this cite," "you are right about that when I consider it," "I don't know about that, but since I can't support it, I withdraw it," "I believe you're around that because of X, Y, and Z [see URL]," and "thanks for an interesting discussion that keeps me on my toes; my arguments will be far stronger now."

Or you can go another way. Up to you.

[Gary Farber]

"...never hear the equivalent calls regarding the radio hucksters and the intellectually honest right."

Really? I read them all the time on blogs. I've made them myself many times. Do you need cites? Oh, just go to my blog and drop "limbaugh" into the search function. Do you need cites for other blogs?

[Gary Farber]

"I believe you're around that because of X, Y, and Z [see URL]" should have been "I believe you're wrong about that...."

Sorry for my not proofreading properly.

[Edward]

That was rude and uncalled-for.

I'll let that stand in opposition to "It does bother me that while Katherine is semi-withdrawn, and you are the primary face of the liberal left on this blog, that you are making such a bloody awful and incoherent case for opposing Bush, but them's the breaks" as far as rude goes.

In a nutshell: I don't agree with your central premise that F911 is not worth defending. I defend it as a film. I've noted repeatedly that it doesn't prove its case beyond a shadow of a doubt in all arguments, but, again, I defend it as a film. It's highly effective as agitprop, which is what is aspires to be, and it must be judged as such.

[Slartibartfast]

It's highly effective as agitprop

Why is it that the other side's agitprop is loathsome and misleading, while your side's is just politics? Not digging you in particular, Edward, this is a general question, for both sides of the political fance.

[Gary Farber]

We disagree on the importance of deconstructing it. I don't feel it's worth it.

And, simultaneously,

I don't agree with your central premise that F911 is not worth defending. I defend it as a film.

Let me get this straight, Edward. It's worth it for people to agree with you, but if people disagree with you, well, they shouldn't. It's not worth it.

You keep doing this.

How, exactly, are you not contradicting yourself in just this one, say?

And, incidentally:

I don't agree with your central premise that F911 is not worth defending.

Of course, I never said any such thing, let alone made it a "central premise" to anything. Quote where I did, please.

(No, no, not some longwinded explanation. Just quote the words, please.)

[Edward]

Why is it that the other side's agitprop is loathsome and misleading, while your side's is just politics?

Well, that is the $64,000 question, Slarti.

I think it's what I noted earlier:

If that suits your desires, then you like it. If that doesn't suit your desires, you don't like it.

If it suits your desires and you still feel compelled to criticize it, I don't think you understand the nature of agitprop. It's calculated to serve a purpose. If Kerry were to repeat some of those claims in a stump speech, then all this outrage would be justified.

[Gary Farber]

Edward, incidentally, how is a characterization of your argument:

...you are making such a bloody awful and incoherent case for opposing Bush....

The equivalent of

Gary's right. He's the king. He knows everything you should ever want to know. You should only ever read his blog if you want to know anything.

Does that cover it?

I characterized your argument. You understandably don't like it that I said you did a bad job. No problem.

But I didn't say "Edward is a stupid person who can't write a good argument," or characterize you as a person, at all.

You, on the other hand, engaged in a passive-aggressive attack on my person, my character, and my beliefs.

A more flighty person might feel justified in responding in kind and get all rude and such. I have a relatively thick skin, but I'm quite human, and I don't accept that these two acts and sets of words are equivalent. I take exception. I ask you to, again, reconsider the difference, and what an appropriate response is, please.

[Slartibartfast]

Agitprop in general doesn't suit my desires, Edward. It doesn't really matter what political direction it comes from.

[Gary Farber]

If that suits your desires, then you like it. If that doesn't suit your desires, you don't like it.

I repeat: this is factually untrue. It suits my desires. I don't like it. It suits Ellen Goodman's desires; she doesn't like it. I can cite countless other examples of people whose desires it suits, who don't like it.

I previously pointed this out in response to you, Edward. That the idea had never occurred to you was then defensible. It no longer is. Why are you repeating a false statement?

A true statement would be "It suits my desires, so I like it" or "it suits our desires, so some of us like it." Go with those as your heart desires. Please stop making an otherwise false claim.

If it suits your desires and you still feel compelled to criticize it, I don't think you understand the nature of agitprop. It's calculated to serve a purpose.

Yeah, most thinking things in life are. So? How does "purpose" cut moral slack? Suicide bombings are also "calculated to serve a purpose" (and if anyone takes this statement to mean I'm asserting that suicide bombings and misleading political statements are morally equivalent, they have a reading comprehension problem); "purpose" is morally neutral.

"Being misleading is justified if it suits my purpose"? That's what you're standing up for?

Bush's use of an aircraft carrier, etc., was "agitprop," right, Edward? So it "was calculated to serve a purpose," so you defend it? No. All that matters is that it "suits your purpose"? This is morally defensible?

What else is morally defensible so long as it "suits your purpose"? What isn't?

[Slartibartfast]

FWIW, I think Gary's made (and continues to make) an excellent point here, Edward. When you've been petty, it's best to own up to it. This ain't my fight, so I'm going to leave it at that.

[Bloggerhead]

Just saw the film myself and it is as many on the left (to wit, KD, MY, PK & Edward) have said it is: broad & sloppy in parts, esp. early on, and tight & potent in others. The chimp-in-headlights segment is a signal moment of clarity*, and the interviews with the troops & particularly the mother who lost her son would appear to belie the, um, agitprop that the SCLM are intent solely on imparting negative images of the war. (I mean, where in the hell has this stuff been, then?)

None of which, of course, addresses specifically Sebastian's thesis that the film contains at least 57 bald-faced lies, while the Bush administration uttered nary a one in the leadup to war. In fact, no-one's really addressed that thesis, because, well, it's just so damned bizarre.

Now, Navy Davy's characterization of the film as "McCarty-ite" does merit some attention, because that's Edward's (and other's) point: this is a film made by a filmmaker. Moore doesn't have the power to convene congressional hearings, create blacklists, subpeona witnesses, nor send troops to battle. So Gary's defense of truth, while admirable, is of little use when it distracts us from the double dose of parsing to which Sebastian has treated us (i.e. parsing, again, the administration, as well as the supposed 57 lies--talk about hyperventilating hysteria).

To be sure, Gary does acknowledge that much which the right is calling lies with regard to F911 is really stuff we don't know yet, for example, the pipeline rationale for war. Wouldn't it be nice if Cheney were to release all the particulars surrounding the energy task force?

Finally, Gary you are an undeniably fine blogger with a fine blog (who still can't convene congressional hearings, create blacklists, etc.), and I'm sure if you made it known to them, the proprietors of this equally fine site would be more than happy to take you on as left-wing voice. You'd be a worthy addition, no question. I'd do it myself, but you're gonna have let me know where I can score the crystal meth.

*"They know where I am; tell the bastards to come and get me." Or "I remember seeing the first plane hit, and thinking, 'What a terrible pilot.'" Or, hell, "Bring it on." Enough said, or rather paraphrased, right?

[Edward]

Slarti,

FWIW, I think Gary's made (and continues to make) an excellent point here, Edward. When you've been petty, it's best to own up to it. This ain't my fight, so I'm going to leave it at that.

In a vacuum, absolutely. I agree. At the tail of several attacks on my integrity and intelligence, well, eventually it gets to you. But, in a vacuum, I agree.

Gary,

"Being misleading is justified if it suits my purpose"? That's what you're standing up for?

No.

What I'm standing up for is the idea that liking a piece of agitprop is understandable if it suits my desires. I'm human. I'm partisan. I'm delighted by the hard time Moore gave Bush in his film. It's really that simple and unimportant. Given how hard Bush attacks Kerry, I'm not predisposed to feel sorry for him about this film either.

If that suits your desires, then you like it. If that doesn't suit your desires, you don't like it.

I repeat: this is factually untrue. It suits my desires. I don't like it.

My statement was a generalization (the use of 'you' as in the third person 'one', as opposed to the second person, should have conveyed that). It was not meant to account for each and every person who wants Bush to lose, let alone specifically you, Ellen Goodman, and the "countless other examples of people" you could cite. It was a generalization in response to Slarti's generalized question: "Why is it that the other side's agitprop is loathsome and misleading, while your side's is just politics?"

Generalizations, by definition, don't attempt to account for each and every individual, so exceptions are not as powerful a disputation as you're relying on them being here. On the other hand, had I known you would be answering for Slarti, I would have been more specific.

Bush's use of an aircraft carrier, etc., was "agitprop," right, Edward? So it "was calculated to serve a purpose," so you defend it? No.

Well, at first I criticized it, until someone pointed out to me that it was simply harmless PR and then I got over it. I made fun of it because it was easy, but I didn't give it the moral weight so many are giving this film. And that's really why I'm stubbornly denying the validity of your point. You refuse to acknowledge context. I insist it's paramount here.

I've been very consistent in this. In my very first response to you about this (what seems eons ago now), I wrote:

Secondly, in a vaccuum, the answer to your question is no. All people/sources should be honest. In context, however, where one source is an admittedly partisan provacatuer (who doesn't force anyone to go see his film [in the movie theaters, where people expect to be entertained], it should be noted) and the other is the real-life President of the United States (who, in real-life, dismissed a record-breaking, multi-million number of protesters worldwide as a "focus group" and who did force the military to invade Iraq) there's not as much of a moral dilemma here as you're trying to build.

But that's not clear enough obviously...it leads you to question me again and again with what always boils down to:

"Being misleading is justified if it suits my purpose"? That's what you're standing up for?

I don't know how to clarify the distinction better here. Each time I attempt to leave it at that, though, confident I've answered the central question in this exchange, you refocus on some tangential question in order to come back round to something like:

It would have been nice if you had answered my questions, by the way, instead of ignoring them. That tends to lessen my enthusiasm for putting time and energy into dialogue.

That last statement is confusing, given how much time and energy you have put into this, but...

I don't expect propaganda to be anything higher than this. I expect it to be "true" in the sense that the author is not simply making things up, but I also expect it to spin the evidence into as strong an argument as possible. Moore met that expectation. I defend his film on those terms.

[Slartibartfast]

Oh, Jane Galt has an on-topic piece on this very topic. Interesting.

[Jesurgislac]

FWIW, I think Gary's made (and continues to make) an excellent point here, Edward. When you've been petty, it's best to own up to it.

I surely wish Gary would, Slarti.

[James Casey]

What I'm standing up for is the idea that liking a piece of agitprop is understandable if it suits my desires. I'm human. I'm partisan. I'm delighted by the hard time Moore gave Bush in his film. It's really that simple and unimportant.

I agree it's understandable, Edward - do you agree, however, that it's wrong?

I would also argue that it's not helpful to the cause to publicly say things like that (and yes, this is a public blog, however privately owned).

If Kerry wins, there's going to be a lot of stuff slung his way by some Republicans. A lot of their justification will be the 'fight fire with fire' mentality some Democrats are using right now. Do you want American politics to continue in this state, or do you think it's unavoidable and therefore acceptable to join in?

I would say either is wrong. I'm curious to know what you think.

[Edward]

James,

I would say that if nonpolitician/nonjournalism Kerry critics admit to the fact that they are wholly partisan in critiquing him and do so in a context where that's clear, that so long as they don't simply make things up, I would not hold them to a higher standard than I'm advocating holding Moore to.

I agree it's understandable, Edward - do you agree, however, that it's wrong?

It's wrong to like the film?

No, I think it's fine to like the film. I would object very strongly were Moore's innuendo to make its way into an official Kerry speech. I don't believe our politicians have any business trading in such wares. But Moore is not a politician. In the end, he's an entertainer on par with Jon Stewart or Dennis Miller.

Do I like Dennis Miller? Not particularly. But I'd hardly argue that what he does is wrong.

[James Casey]

It's wrong to like the film?

More specifically, I meant would you say it's wrong (however understandable) to endorse agitprop, lying, and the use of lies such as and including Moore's in that film, to promote any cause, including the removal of President Bush from office?

And by 'wrong' I mean morally, and I also mean strategically.

[James Casey]

...have only seen one segment of Jon Stewart, and never any Dennis Miller, so not qualified to talk about them! :)

[Edward]

Gary,

After a full night's sleep I realize that you are absolutely right about the inappropriateness of my snarky sarcasm above, the one that ends with "Does that cover it?"

It was, as you note, uncalled for. I'm sorry I let it come to that. Please accept my apology.

e

[carsick]

Gary

"When the day comes that a vote for the Democratic Party is a vote for a double standard, I'm outa there."

Just to make my position clear. I will not be voting for Michael Moore in the fall. In fact, I don't even see his name on the ticket.

I have seen his movies before and know his MO. (by the way, ALL his movies have similar strategies to get his point across - part of the reason I don't enjoy his work).

[carsick]

A quick note on "infer" and "imply".
I beleive Moore infers then communicates his inferences to his audience in his film. In the sense that he uses "reasoning involved in making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation".

His inferences do have implications though.

[carsick]

I reread my posts and apologize if the tone comes off snarky. It wasn't the tone I was going for but it may be the voice that's read.

[Slartibartfast]

I thought I posted a "well done, Edward" here. Maybe the dog ate it.

[Bird Dog]

Edward,
All this hyperventilating about Moore's lies boils down to one point and one point only. He makes Bush look bad.

No, the point is that Moore is accusing Bush of lying while he himself is lying and deceiving in the process. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Edward]

No, the point is that Moore is accusing Bush of lying while he himself is lying and deceiving in the process. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I give up on this one Bird Dog. I disagree that they're parallel wrongs (more like chalk and cheese to me), but I've realized some folks see them as such, so I don't see any point in belaboring the point.

I'll still recommend the film for anyone who wants to be entertained. If you want the truth about the Bush administration, however, I recommend you read Joshua Marshall. ;)