See, pro-Bush commentators didn't mean anything bad at all by this comparison, and they certainly did not mean to imply -- where would anyone possibly ever get that idea? -- that Democrats are al Qaeda supporters. It's just that bin Laden sounds a lot like Democrats and all they're doing is pointing that out. What's the problem?
In that case, I'm sure they won't mind at all if it's pointed out that Saddam Hussein's defense theory at his war crimes trial in Baghdad sure does sound an awful lot like the Bush Administration's theories as to why they have the right to violate the law. As Stirling Newberry points out (h/t American Coprophagia):
Saddam Hussein's defense against his indictment by an ad hoc Iraqi tribunal is simply that has the head of the state he had unlimited power to defend the state. That enemies of the state did not have legal protection, and therefore he cannot be charged for what he did during that time.
Hussein must somehow be obtaining copies of the letters which Alberto Gonazelez has been writing in order to defend George Bush and is apparently taking copious notes, because he has almost every one of Gonzalez's points down pat. Uncanny, isn't it? Bush and Saddam have exactly the same view of what it means to be President and how it means that they get to break the law as long as they are doing it to defend the country.
I'm not comparing Saddam and Bush, of course. Not at all. I'm only innocently observing that they sound exactly like one another when talking about their view of the power of a nation's President to violate the law. That's all. The similarity is undeniable. Anyone can see it. What could possibly be wrong with pointing it out?
Is this really the infantile level of debate to which we're descending? It's only January. Marvel at how much more precipitously things are going to sink between now and November.
The thing that makes me the sickest is how they can't even own up to what they are saying. They're obviously saying what they are saying in order to equate in the public's mind opposition to the war and to Bush with Osama bin Laden, and then when called on it, they lie and say they aren't doing that. Sickening liars.
ReplyDeleteAnd we should push this Bush-Saddam comparison. They sound at least as similar as Moore & bin Laden.
The difference is, Moore is a private citizen in charge of nothing, and Saddam Bush is the President of the U.S.
Bush & Hitler both believe in a strong central authority, a built-up military, unilateral unprovoked invasions of other countries, law-breaking in the name of national security, contempt for international law and their rules, being photographed with militaristic images and slogans in the background, and constantly accusing domestic opponents of subversion.
ReplyDeleteI'm not comparing them or anything. Just pointing out that they share these similarities.
Bush is on a "jihad" of regime change in the middle east, Osama is also is on a jihad of regime change in the Middle East. Both of them have decided to make war to effect the makeover of what they think the region should be. In both cases, regime change is paramount goal and war, rather than peaceful means, is the chosen method.
ReplyDeleteThat's not to suggest Bush is following Osama. I'm just saying, you know, those facts are awful similar.
Fun. Though none of this is funny obviously. Personally I think it is the other way around. I think Gonzo and BushCo are copying Saddam's talking points. Saddam has a long and documented history of declaring himself above the law. Where as W. has only been at it for a few years.
ReplyDeleteEither way, with a few minor exceptions, I believe that W. and Saddam are on the same page when it comes to their beliefs in their individual sovereignty. After all, it would be my guess that one of Saddam's main reasons for gassing his people was ostensibly to "protect them".
I find Glenn's writing to be very thoughtful, spriited and intelligent. I think that his writing can serve to inspire mature, productive debate. I encourage everyone who chooses to participate in these discussions (including Glenn) to steer clear of the mudslinging that polutes so many blogs these days. Fewer people will take the blog seriously if there is meaningless ridicule throughout the discussions.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, great writing! Keep it up!!
On the whole, I see the Bush Administration on the run and very defensive. They don't offer rational explanations, they offer defensive responses seemingly meant to discredit their opponents. We, as opponents, shoudl not get caught up in that kind of quarreling. We will be better served by measured, mature, thoughtful inquiry and commentary.
my 2 cents...
This is an interesting debate, demeaned by both sides with invective. Saddam is indeed attempting to use the "chief of state" defense for his actions, as did the President over the NSA domestic spying issue. The difference? Last time I checked no Americans had been gassed by the President.
ReplyDeleteOsams bin Laden, whatever he is, is no fool. It serves his purposes well to monitor what those who oppose the President and the war think, and to play to those ideas. I do not agree with Michael Moore, but he is a clever film maker whose ideas resonate. I doubt that al-Qaeda has anyone of Moore's caliber when it comes to propoganda, so why shouldn't OBL crib from his works? Moore has proved as divisive in America as the President has, and that suits al-Qaedas goals.
However, Matthews saying that bin Laden "sounds like" Moore and me saying that both Moore and bin Laden do not like the President is not, the same as saying that Moore supports bin Laden or that he is a terrorist.
Can the Left make the same claim as regards their statements and feelings towards the President? Not based on the following Google searches:Bush Hitler (6,920,000 returns), Bush murderer (1,690,000 returns, Bush Gulag (890,000 returns. Or just read some of the previous comments on this thread.
The reality of this situation is that as much as they hate us, the OBLs and Saddams of the world are still fascinated by us, and are determined to use or freedoms (Moore's freedom to make his films and Matthews' to say that OBL is suing the material) against us.
This constant mud flinging, from both sides, serves no valid purpose. Anyone who relies on either Matthews or Moore for their news and education is a fool- neither are journalists, both are entertainers.
This topic offers the possibilty for real debate, the real question is can we actually rise to the occassion?
Saddam is indeed attempting to use the "chief of state" defense for his actions, as did the President over the NSA domestic spying issue. The difference? Last time I checked no Americans had been gassed by the President.
ReplyDeleteLast time I checked, neither John Kerry, Howard Dean nor Micheal Moore flew any planes filled with fuel and passangers into large office buildings (nor have they advocated or defended that), but that doesn't seem to stop the world from chuckling with smugness as they compare them to Osama bin Laden.
That is the whole point: trying to compare Democrats and war opponents to Osama bin Laden -- or trying to accuse them of "helping the enemy" and being "on the other side" -- is about everything except provoking debate.
Nobody in the mainstream can or does compare Bush to Hitler. When 2 out of 500 competitiors submitted ads in the Moveon.org contest which refereneced that comparison, the whole world shrieked with condemnation. Moveon pulled the entries down and had to make the point over and over that they didn't produce or sponsor them. It's not acceptable under prevailing mores to make that comparison and it is virtually never done in the mainstream.
By stark contrast, in the days before the 2004 election, pundits and journalists alike where pronouncing the bin Laden video to constitute an "endorsement" of John Kerry. Bin Laden's face is often used in ads accusing Democrats of being "soft" on terrorism. Democrats are routinely accused of "helping the enemy" and being "on the other side."
It is a cheap, ugly and manipulative form of propaganda and the point that is being made is that when journalists - rather than just partisans - do it, it becomes something different entirely.
Yes, that's how these people play the game. Meritless, unpopular positions are best advanced using the methods of the village gossip.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the comparison just being an innocent noting of similarity, well, the press doesn't innocently note that Bush is a fitness buff like Mussolini and Jeff Dahmer because the press is not in a state of innocence about the political implications of that comparison. Why the press is allowed to strike a pose of unawaress of the political implications of its allegedly innocent comparisons with Democrats is not really clear.
ReplyDeleteOne thing is clear though. Republican operatives will certainly find a lot of room to criticize any action that undercuts their monopoly on working the press, their monopoly share of the hearts and minds of worried newsroom staff. When innocence is being professed by these vipers is when you should reach for your revolver.
And Speaking of *National Security* as the Re-cycled Rovian Talking point for 2006 --
ReplyDeleteIt takes an awfully smug TURD (and I'll purposely omit the *blossom* part) to have the Nerve to lecture anyone on being "deeply and profoundly wrong" on protecting the Nation.
What a bit of personal hipocrisy from man who, regardless of meeting the statutory definition of the Crimes under the Espionage acts or those laws governing the illegally revealing of a CIA NOC's *identity* - there IS NO doubt that Rove spoke about this classified information concerning Valerie Plame - in violation of his duties and obligations NOT to do so with Reporters - and for no *whisleblowers* rationale.
Yet this endangerment to OUR National Security is unpunished and still wandering in the Presidential spheres, given access to Highly Sensitive, Secret and Classified information with nary so much as a hint towards a revocation of said security clearances from the Pres.
Yikes - this Crew at 1600 Makes me SICK! And their Congressional Enablers aren't a hairsbreath better.
In response to demarche's pastiche of half truths veneered with pox on both houses faux balance:
ReplyDelete- Matthews is a paid, professional journalist, Moore is not.
- Matthews and random web page hits are not comparable. Your little tactic of positing some monolithic Left that shares responsibility for random web page hits is a tedious and idiotic rhetorical gimmick.
- Bin Laden made standard arguments against the war that have no special identification with Michael Moore. Your fairy tale stuff about Al Qaeda cribbing from his efforts as a 'skilled propagandist' really do nothing to advance your argument, though they do reveal the disturbingly fictionalized Ayn Rand novel like worldview that underpins what you're saying here.
Greenwald: “Nobody in the mainstream can or does compare Bush to Hitler. When 2 out of 500 competitiors submitted ads in the Moveon.org contest which refereneced that comparison, the whole world shrieked with condemnation.”
ReplyDeleteI am so excited! Like Diogenes, I have been searching the ‘net for a liberal who is not a captive of the cocoon, a liberal who is not a hypocrite, a liberal who speaks truthfully even when the truth does not put liberals in a good light. Instead I find that most liberal pundits (nevermind that right wingers do it too – not relevant here) only recognize the facts that support their current point of view; which just happens to support the liberal agenda.
I agree with your take on the comparisons of OBL’s comments to those of liberals. Now. Give me the links to your past posts or comments when you, along with the whole world, “shrieked with condemnation” at the MoveOn.org comparisons of Bush to Hitler. Oh, ugh, and a link to your protest over the “endorsement” by OBL of Kerry won’t be necessary.
I wait with ‘bated breath!
It's starting all over again. Instead of Al Queda in 2001 or Iraq in 2003, it's now Iran for 2006. When are people going to wake up and see what's going on. It's a slow coup d'etat using the politics of fear and anyone who says otherwise is labeled a traitor.
ReplyDeleteGive me the links to your past posts or comments when you, along with the whole world, “shrieked with condemnation” at the MoveOn.org comparisons of Bush to Hitler.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, this was not a "Moveon.org comparison," as I explained. Moveon.org had a competition asking its readers to design anti-Bush ads for the election. They received hundreds (if not more) entries from the public, two of which - two - referenced Hitler.
Secondly, I wasn't blogging then and therefore can't provide the links you request. Had I been, I would have made clear - as I did now - that comparisons between Bush and Hitler are, in my view, invalid. The defining attribute of Hitler is not that he hated Communists or built up the military or disregarded treaties and international law or tried to use the legal process to bestow until himself the power to break the law (although he, along with Bush, did all of that). What makes Hitler, Hitler, is that he embarked on a campaign of unilateral, conquest-seeking military domination and engaged in genocide. Until Bush does that, I don't think the comparison is valid.
For the same reason, the only people who should be compared to Osama bin Laden are ones who advocate terrorist attacks which purposely target and try to slaughter civilians. To compare someone who doesn't advocate that to bin Laden is demagoguery of the most dishonest and reprehensible type.
Gotta love that shit. Dems state facts. Michael Moore states facts. OMG Osama just stated a fact, he's just like the Dems and MM. Tweety on the other hand is not interested in the facts that are biased against him so he does truthiness.
ReplyDeleteThis is what Christ Mathews said: I mean he sounds like an over the top Michael Moore here, if not a Michael Moore. Do you think that sells in America, that this war is being fought for the Daddy Warbucks?
ReplyDeleteAnd it is true. OBL, in offering his purported truce, is riffing on the themes set forth in F-9/11, in which Afghanistan was invaded to fill capitalist coffers; and this is not new. OBL has also tracked the My Pet Goat propaganda point Mr. Moore elaborated on in his fine feature film.
So, Osama does, in fact, sound like "an over the top Michael Moore." Unless you think it the wildest coincidence that OBL repeats the same falsehood about Bush and the purported name of the children's reading material in that FL classroom that Moore gave us, one could reasonably suspect that Osama picked up on this (and other) leftist point of anti-Bush ridicule from a Moore film that many anti-American Islamacists adored.
Similarly, it would not be mistaken to compare some of the rhetoric of the isolationist right in pre-WWII America to Hitler's statements, because altho few of the isolationists wanted to commit genocide, some employed the same sort of anti-Semitic rhetoric as Hitler, right down to the same conspiracy theories. That is, they "sounded like Hitler." And OBL has tracked, and sounded like, Michael Moore.
Glenn: I fully agree that Moore, Dean and Kerry should not be equated with OBL, just as the President should not be equated with Hitler. I fail to see however,how saying that OBL's rhetoric has taken on a tone reminiscent of Michael Moore in any way equals saying that John Kerry, Howard Dean or Micheal Moore harbor the desire to fly planes into buildings. Has Matthews or any other "paid, professional journalist" said that?
ReplyDeleteFor "Anonymous" who accuses me of engaging in an "idiotic rhetorical gimmick" while constructing my "pastiche"- you too are correct in that "Bin Laden made standard arguments against the war that have no special identification with Michael Moore." That is why Matthews said "he sounds like an over the top Michael Moore." Perhaps the word "like" is too base for your consideration, given your obviously superior intelligence, but its use in this sentence implies a comparative statement. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my comment, but your use of large words in no way makes up for the lack of substance in your reply.
Had Matthews said that Moore sounds like bin Laden I would understand the resultant fury. In reality nothing more has transpired than a demogoue achieving his goal- his ratings have probably shot through the roof.
Well, either you're Chris Matthews or you're psychic. You are simply reasserting that Matthews was innocently making the comparison based on what popped into his head, disregarding my point about professional journalists not being in the business of free associating. Since you added nothing to your argument, dr demento, I'll consider your argument refuted and move on.
ReplyDeleteGreenwald: “...although he, along with Bush, did all of that.”
ReplyDeleteYes, just as the posters are saying that liberals have said all that. I see the distinction, ugh, I think. However, what the liberals said is a matter of record and what OBL said is also. Therefore, what principle would keep a reporter or anyone else from drawing a comparison? And further concluding that OBL was making use of the comments? Approving them? Is any of that crossing the line and constituting a statement that the commenter is an active supporter of terrorism?
Therefore, what principle would keep a reporter or anyone else from drawing a comparison?
ReplyDeleteThe same principle that keeps reporters from comparing George Bush and Adolph Hitler, or George Bush and Saddam Hussein, even though it's a "matter of record" that they have all sorts of views in common.
Here is what Osama said in his message:
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the mujahideen, praise be to God, have managed to breach all the security measures adopted by the unjust nations of the coalition time and again.
The evidence of this is the bombings you have seen in the capitals of the most important European countries of this aggressive coalition.
As for the delay in carrying out similar operations in America, this was not due to failure to breach your security measures.
Operations are under preparation, and you will see them on your own ground once they are finished, God willing. . . .
Days and nights will not go by until we take revenge as we did on 11 September, God willing, and until your minds are exhausted and your lives become miserable and things turn [for the worse], which you detest.
Anyone who compares (a) the statements of John Kerry, Howard Dean, Michael Moore or anyone else who does not advocate or defend terrorist attacks and the slaughter of innocent civlians to (b) Osama's message, is engaged in a deeply deceitful and disgusting act, and the more glib defenses we hear of this comparison, the more indefensible it becomes.
The defining attribute of Osama bin Laden and his "message" is that he is praising the previous terrorist attacks and threatening new ones. Anyone who tries to compare Democrats or war opponents to that message is doing nothing other than demonizing political opponents and engaging in rank deceit.
If George Bush declared that we need to do something to protect the races here in the U.S., and all the Latin immigrants are a terrible threat to the European-Americans who have risen to be the masters of the North American continent, then, any reporter would be justified in saying Bush sounds like Hitler, given that Hitler wrote:
ReplyDeleteNorth America, whose population consists in by far the largest part of Germanic elements who mixed but little with the lower colored peoples, shows a different humanity and culture from Central and South America, where the predominantly Latin immigrants often mixed with the aborigines on a large scale. By this one example, we can clearly and distinctly recognize the effect of racial mixture. The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood.
Similarly, when Osama bin Laden repeatedly, and at quite specific levels of detail, invokes the propaganda points of Michael Moore's latest epic, then, in those circumstances, only the willfully ignorant can fail to perceive from whence Osama is taking his rhetorical help, and whom he sounds a good deal like.
hypatia, you need to cite some damning specifics if you're going to make such a pointed claim. You sound like you're just mouthing the latest propaganda points of the week from Mehlman, so while I understand that it takes a thief to catch a thief you're going to have to rely on more than your authority as some dipshit on a message board if you want your argument to be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteJust to focus you a bit: you are making the specific charge that Bin Laden is using material straight from Michael Moore. Please cite your evidence for that contention.
This is from Osama in the video released in 10/04:
ReplyDeleteIt appeared to Bush," said bin Laden, "that a little girl’s talk about her goat and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers. That gave us three times the required time to carry out the operations, thank God.
It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the US armed forces would leave 50,000 of his citizens in the two towers to face these horrors alone at a time when they were most in need of him.
Only the willfully blind can fail to observe that that does, indeed, sound like Michael Moore, and exactly tracks how Moore depicted Bush's reaction to the news of the attacks. It was remarkeds upon at the time.
Indeed, Talkleft said of Osama: His reference to Michael Moore's film is strange.
and Hitchens wrote back then:
Yet there [Osama] apparently was again, looking a bit distracted but nonetheless up-to-the-minute with the recycled taunts and jeers of Michael Moore. Who can imagine, as Bin Laden asserts, that the "Pet Goat" moment in Florida gave extra time to the 9/11 psychopaths, who were limited only by an air-traffic control delay at Newark airport? Still, I suppose it is assumed in al-Qaida circles that every little innuendo helps.
And I could list many, many more persons contemporaneously making the observation about the 10/04 video that Osama has clearly been borrowing from Michael Moore, which is to say, he sounds like him.
And here was David Kopel posting at Volokh:
ReplyDeleteMichael Moore and Osama bin Laden: The Canadian web journal PoliticsWatch.com has a new article noting some of the many similarities between the claims in Osama bin Laden's latest movie and the claims in Michael Moore's latest movie.
The reporter asked me for an observation, and I said, "It's a poor reflection on both of them. Michael Moore presents numerous anti-American falsehoods in Fahrenheit, and Osama bin Laden echoes them.
Does Kopel owe Moore an apology? Ha! I hope they try to get one.
Give me the links to your past posts or comments when you, along with the whole world, “shrieked with condemnation” at the MoveOn.org comparisons of Bush to Hitler.
ReplyDeleteHow about the fact that the RNC grabbed these animations and ran them on their web site - even after MoveOn had pulled them down - in order to milk another couple of days' 'outrage' from them?
To wit: MoveOn issued a press release repudiating the ads on January 5.
The next day, an article appeared from Talon News (Jeff Gannon's outfit) that said Gillespie has asked the Democrat Party as well as the Democrat candidates for president to immediately denounce the "political hate speech" found in these ads. Both ads are currently located on the RNC website. (Link)
Then-RNC chair Ed Gillespie led the charge, calling the ads "the worst and most vile form of political hate speech." (Link)
On the other hand, the RNC wasn't too aghast at the comparison, since they used it in one of their own web ads. Remember 'Coalition of The Wild-Eyed?'
The internet ad entitled "Kerry's Coalition of the Wild-Eyed," includes images of Al Gore, Howard Dean, Richard Gephardt, Michael Moore, John Kerry, and snippets of MoveOn.org;s ad comparing George W. Bush to Hitler. (Link)
And please note that I've quoted from Talon New, Fox News and a conservative blogger, to avoid being accused of using 'biased sources.'
Oh, that's all?
ReplyDeleteCiting My Pet Goat is indeed something Michael Moore, along with about a million other commentators, have done.
I can see the source of your confusion. You only have ever heard of Bin Laden and Michael Moore, so you have no idea how that could have reached Bin Laden any other way.
I thought you would have something more specifically belonging to Michael Moore. Bush's utter cowardice and lack of resolve in the face of the 9/11 attacks are a matter of historical record, not something invented by Michael Moore.
Addendum/Clarification:
ReplyDeleteI read too fast and didn't catch that the commenter was asking specifically for Glenn's outrage at the MoveOn contest entries (it's important to call them that, since they were not 'MoveOn ads' - they were not produced by MoveOn - and they also got nowhere near being one of the 15 finalists for 'Bush In 30 Seconds.' They were disqualified well before the finalists were named.)
Having said that, I wanted to show the level of 'outrage' on the Right - even while they went ahead and put them on the RNC's servers and used a piece of the contest entries in one of their own web ads.
Look at how stupid Hypatia has to go back to the LAST bin Laden speech to find "similarities" between bin Laden and Moore, and then the only thing she can find is that bin Laden mentioned the goat, which isn't something Moore invented but which was in the FUCKING NEWS (also note how Hypatia lied and claimed that bin Laden repeated the error made by Moore about the name of the book, which isn't true).
ReplyDeleteThere are WAY MORE similarities between Bush and bin Laden's speech - all the talk about the long war, the conflict between civilizations - than there is Moore and bin Laden. But only a fucking moron would try to compare a mass murdering terrorist like bin Laden to either Moore or Bush.
Finally, Hyaptia lies because she wants to pretend that it's only Moore this is being said about. They are comparing bin Laden to Democrats GENERALLY - what does lying Hypatia say about THAT?
Hypatia, in terms of your posting numerous professional ideologues making the same comparison Matthews made, that's precisely the point here. Wretches like Chris Hitchens are known to be scummy ideologues no better than Michael Savage in their barren lack of impartiality. That we have ostensibly unbiased Matthews indulging in exactly the same sorts of faux-innocent passive aggressive similarity-noting is the problem here.
ReplyDeleteJeff Jarvis -- another journalist who has to apologize to Michael Moore:
ReplyDeleteBin Laden remixes Fahrenheit 9/11
: The eerie thing about the bin Laden tape is how he remixes Michael Moore -- remixes as if in a Cuisinart. I swear the guy saw Fahrenheit 9/11 and picked up the themes for his latest wacky show -- even the fixation with that goat book. It's so nutty that if he weren't such an evil murdering slime, it would almost be funny. Or it would sound like another 527 ad.
And also Dan Darling, over at Winds of Change:
Given this and other the next set of rhetoric, I myself find it all but inconceiveable to argue that bin Laden hasn't seen Fahrenheit 9/11 and adopted its arguments to suit his own purposes. Does anybody know if has Fahrenheit 9/11 been screened in Pakistan yet? In any event, no doubt Michael Moore will be pleased to know that the man whose only complaint he once had with him was that he attacked "blue" rather than "red" states seems to like his movie ...
The notion that it is a stretch --a veritable outrage -- to say OBL sounds like Michael Moore, is simply absurd.
Hypatia Hypatia.. 10/04?
ReplyDeleteThat was Bin Laden's LAST speech.
You are such a little crook.
Go darken another doorstep with your lying propaganda.
Of course Scarborough et. al. are equating political opposition to Bush as treason, it generates ratings and buzz. I'm surprised we don't hear more of it.
ReplyDeleteAs Glenn said, it is debased, but if there is one thing that Lee Atwater taught the Republicans, it is that debased sells. Defamatory lies will be common currency until they don't work. Might as well get used to it.
Finally, Hyaptia lies because she wants to pretend that it's only Moore this is being said about. They are comparing bin Laden to Democrats GENERALLY - what does lying Hypatia say about THAT?
ReplyDeleteI can hardly be accused of lying about something I have not commented on in this thread -- tho I have in one below, in which I agreed with Glenn that the Conways & etc. are to be denounced for likening all Democrats to lovers of OBL. Indeed, I wouln't describe Michael Moore as a Democrat; he explitly rejects capitalism as evil, and I know of no (serious) Democrats who do that. And he refused to support Gore in '00, in spite of entreaties that his support of the Nader candidacy might hand Bush the Oval Office.
ReplyDeleteThat was Bin Laden's LAST speech.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yes, one can see how given that half the planet - including some on the left -- was remarking about OBL's last speech being taken from Moore's movie, it is breathtakingly heinous for Chris Matthews to (correctly) observe that Osama (still) sounds like Michael Moore in his latest video.
FUCKING NEWS (also note how Hypatia lied and claimed that bin Laden repeated the error made by Moore about the name of the book, which isn't true).
ReplyDeleteThat isn't what I said. The book Bush actually was using was not titled anything about a pet or a goat -- it was titled something like "Reading Level 2." But somewhere therein there was an exercise having to with a pet goat, so to maximize the ridicule of Bush, Moore (and others) adopted the notion that Bush was reading a book titled "My Pet Goat." And OBL prattled on about a little girl and her pet goat story enthralling Bush as the Twin Towers went down -- straight from Moore's movie.
As I've said, half the country then commented how much of the 10/04 OBL tape seemed to be taken from F-9/11. So it is hardly some horrible travesty for anyone to see how OBL still tracks Michael Moore; unless half the planet owes Moore an apology, including the leftish commenters who saw F-9/11 in the 10/04 OBL tape.
Fifty-nine deceits in Fahrenheit-911:
ReplyDeleteFahrenheit mocks President Bush for continuing to read the book My Pet Goat to a classroom of elementary school children after he was told about the September 11 attacks. Actually, as reported in The New Yorker, the book was Reading Mastery 2, which contains an exercise called "The Pet Goat." The title of the book is not very important in itself, but the invented title of My Pet Goat makes it easier to ridicule Bush.
As I've said, half the country then commented how much of the 10/04 OBL tape seemed to be taken from F-9/11.
ReplyDelete(Sigh) - There's a big difference between taking a line from someone's film and "sounding like" that person.
When it comes to a mass murdering terrorists, the standard should be pretty high for being able to say that someone "sounds like" the terrorist. One fucking reference in a message from a year ago in passing does not fucking qualify for anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty or integrity, which quite obviously excludes Hypatia.
Mr. Wambaugh and others:
ReplyDeleteIt was not merely one reference to a "pet goat" that caused a flurry of commentary -- some of which I've already linked to -- that the 10/04 OBL tape was replete with themes from F-9/11. Here is merely one more analysis.
ok, hypatia is just a troll.
ReplyDeleteGreenwald: “...even though it's a "matter of record" that they have all sorts of views in common.”
ReplyDeleteI suppose this amorphous “principle” carries a corollary that requires you to violate it with a comparison of Bush to Hitler or Saddam every time you mention it. Therefore it must apply only to professional journalists? This thread contains a really good discussion of the point you raised. Hypatia did a good job of making her points. So did the defender of MoveOn.org. Although I am not privy to the sites you originally railed against, I must say that the result of the thread is that your protestations were more to the goring of your ox than to goring in general (er, I guess I have to repeat that your ox was gored if I am to recognize your principle?).
ok, hypatia is just a troll.
ReplyDeleteWell now, isn't that a substantive rebuttal to the overwhelming evidence that people have been saying for a long time that OBL takes his propaganda tips from Michael Moore.
Whatever. Search my handle and you will see I've been posting here since early in this site's history.
Hypatia: "Well now, isn't that a substantive rebuttal to the overwhelming evidence that people have been saying for a long time that OBL takes his propaganda tips from Michael Moore."
ReplyDeleteJust as substantive as the argument that "people have been saying for a long time" that this is true, therefore it is.
And almost as powerful an argument as "oh, yeah, hee hee, keep up with this point, Karl Rove loves it."
You're in no position to tell others what is a "substantive" point, given the crap you've been doling out here.
ok, dr. demarche is just a troll too.
ReplyDeleteTo the hypatia troll entity:
ReplyDeleteWhat people have been saying for a long time is not truth. You present a large list of commentators who repeat the opinion that the old Bin Laden speech from October '04 is based on Michael Moore's talking movie (which of course itself wound up being reported an entering the world's public discourse, as all but the most naive children or brazen disingenuous propagandists would note).
This tells me that there is a conventional wisdom, a widely received narrative about OBL that he is taking some things from Moore. This does not either (a) establish the actual truth-value of that narrative or (b) excuse the invocation of that narrative in the context of a different speech in which the connection to Moore is, frankly, nonexistent.
You are a worthless hack, like I said before, just a troll. Go away.
You got to love the intellectual depth of Hyapatia's argument:
ReplyDelete'bin Laden said "goat" and Moore said 'goat,' obviously bin Laden got it from Fahrenheit 9/11!'
Such rigorous logic is the hallmark of winger philosophy.
A troll? I can honestly say I have never been called that before, and I've been called a lot of things.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how using quotes left on this page to make my point about the level of debate makes me a troll, but if that helps you sleep at night go with it.
Since I can't tell which anonymous commenter is which I am not sure to whom, exactly, I am writing this, but feel free to read my archives at The Daily Demarche and then drop by my present digs at American Future before you label me a troll.
"Such rigorous logic is the hallmark of winger philosophy. "
ReplyDeleteIndeed. Even if bin Laden DID get this anecdote from Moore's film - and there is NO proof that he did - it would hardly justify saying that Moore "sounds like" bin Laden.
That is a terrible smear that should require a lot of proof to say it. But as you point out, Hypatia has no proof that that's the origin. S/he can just repeat it over and over and then cite other people who do as though it's evidence.
let me clue the mouth breather dr demento in to something - trolling isn't the same as incivility.
ReplyDeletedemarche, your blog is long winded and lame. You're doing everyone a service by quitting.
ReplyDelete- there's an example of trolling.
I think Hypatia needs to read this, from a bunch of people with a lot of stars on their shoulders who also think there is a problem with Iraq.
ReplyDeleteUS Generals = Usama bin Laden?
Just ask Hypatia...
RepublicansForHumility.com
And I'm sure I don't mean anything bad by the following.
After 9/11, Silvio Berlusconi claimed Mussolini was a "benevolent dictator" who never sent any Jews to the death camps (Il Duce, in fact, sent 9,000) and sent his political enemies and the Jews "on holiday" in the country. His allies in the Italian Parliament, the neo-fascii, helped end the Estate Tax, which further entrenches the wealth of the wealthy.
Another of the main European allies of Bush, in invading Iraq, was Jose Maria Aznar of Spain. Aznar is the leader of the Populist Party, founded by Aznar's mentor, Fraga Iribarne. Iribarne was a sixteen year cabinet member of General Franco, and ended up heading the ruthless and bloodthirsty (over 100,000 Spaniards executed, Franco and Iribarne killed their own people) Spanish secret police.
But don't let the anti-Communist, fascist-friendly allies of an anti-Communist guy who buys his shoes from the same place as Saddam Hussein _ever_ give you the idea that Saddam and Bush have anything in common.
On an entirely different tack, in Iran, the religious right is in charge. In Palestine, Hamas is the right wing party. In India, the Bharatiya Janata Party of Hinduism is the right wing party. The Taleban were the religious conservative ruling "party" of Afghanistan. Usama bin Laden is a religious conservative.
Not your religion, not mine, but nevertheless, I think it can be said that some people make religious conservatism the centerpeice of their political identities.
Just as substantive as the argument that "people have been saying for a long time" that this is true, therefore it is.
ReplyDeleteBut I didn't argue that; I did argue that half the planet began saying this with the release of the 10/04 OBL video, including some on the left, and so this manufactured outrage at Chris Matthews now is just that, i.e., manufactured. As for why it is true, you could follow several of the links I gave, like the one to the Canadian site.
Let's see, Glenn asked "Is this really the infantile level of debate to which we're descending?" and I distilled several arguments down to their essential componenets and combined them into one.
ReplyDeleteThen, rather than address the issues of foul language, specious name calling and, ahem, uncivlity, I am labeled a troll, a mouth breather and dr demento.
Glenn, I am sorry to say that we have indeed descended to an infantile level. I apologize for my part in all of this, and repeat my original point:
This constant mud flinging, from both sides, serves no valid purpose. Anyone who relies on either Matthews or Moore for their news and education is a fool- neither are journalists, both are entertainers.
Well boys and girls, I've been saving this, because I wanted you all to dig deep holes before I threw the dirt over your rhetorical corpses. For you see, among those leftists who have speculated that OBL saw and is tracking Michael Moore's movie is none other than...Michael Moore. He threw it in Bush's face in a public statement to Bush at his (Moore's) we site:
ReplyDeleteThere he was, OBL, all tan and rested and on videotape (hey, did you get the feeling that he had a bootleg of my movie? Are there DVD players in those caves in Afghanistan?)
Any more questions?
I thought not.
But I have one: Must Moore apologize to himself?
Tsk, tsk, I forgot the italics; this is Moore's quote, the rest is me:
ReplyDeleteThere he was, OBL, all tan and rested and on videotape (hey, did you get the feeling that he had a bootleg of my movie? Are there DVD players in those caves in Afghanistan?)
I think it's odd that anyone worries about Michael Moore providing talking points to OBL. As if OBL would need help from anyone to hate or attack the United States. "They hate us for our Freedom". Not true, though to Bush & Wingers it has a nice, patriotic ring.
ReplyDeleteIn reality, the U.S. is being used as a straw dog by Radical Islam to enable it's own quest for power. With us to hate, they can consolidate, train, and motivate scores more terrorists.
I think those on the right who worry about Michael Moore should perhaps focus on our own (i.e. U.S. of BOTH parties) inept policy and absent management that have caused this situation to get out of control in the first place.
Just breathtakingly amazing how easy it is for you to blame a fat American filmmaker for Radical Islamic terrorism. If there were any proof that you are out of touch with reality, that would just about be it.
From Hyapatia:
ReplyDelete"The book Bush actually was using was not titled anything about a pet or a goat -- it was titled something like "Reading Level 2." But somewhere therein there was an exercise having to with a pet goat, so to maximize the ridicule of Bush, Moore (and others) adopted the notion that Bush was reading a book titled "My Pet Goat." And OBL prattled on about a little girl and her pet goat story enthralling Bush as the Twin Towers went down -- straight from Moore's movie."
From Osama bin Laden:
"that a little girl’s talk about her goat and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers."
Not from Fahrenheit 9/11:
Any mention of a little girl or the what goat does in the story.
I just watched the scene where Bush is in the classroom, and there is no mention of what the story is about. Wikipedia has a plot layout, which includes"
"In the end, the goat becomes a hero when it butts a car robber into submission."
Why does this matter? Because Hyapatia makes the claim that Osama bin Laden's description is "straight from Moore's movie." It isn't; he didn't get the details he mentioned from 9/11. So one cannot say that he was parroting Michael Moore, even if they still want to try and say that he first found out about the episode from Fahrenheit 9/11. A claim that loses some credibility when you realize the uncensored footage of the event at the school has been on the internet since at least June 2002 (http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm). The class reads the book in the video which you can download on the linked webpage.
Hyapatia, Michael Moore makes a joke to drum up publicity for his movie, and you equate that with how 'seriously' you tried to link the two. Please!
It does appear that one of us is standing in a hole, and it isn't me.
Recently, a top conservative intellectual at a conference for the Future of Conservative Foreign Policy told a story.
ReplyDeleteHe was asked "What's the solution to the Middle East situation?"
He said, on tape, that the answer is to build a time machine, go back to 1945, drive into Bavaria, and declare it the Jewish National Homeland.
One month later Ahmadinejad said that if the Europeans felt so guilty about the Jews, Israel should be in Europe.
Ahmadinejad _is_ a member of the right wing in Iranian politics.
As for the link to the Canadian blog, which really only quotes crap research from the National Review under Rich Lowry, it is easily destroyed.
Point 1. Osama and Moore aren't on the same topic. Osama is talking about why HE is fighting, Moore is talking about why he thinks Bush is fighting. The author is totally misreading Osama.
Point 2. Osama doesn't say the Bush family was bought by the Saudis. What a load of crap to even suggest it.
Point 3. Osama and Moore are not in agreement. Installing someone is not the same as the factual assertion that Bush's cousin called Florida for Bush.
Point 4. Is a fact. To mention a fact makes people Bush-hating anti-Americans. I can see that. Bush avoids facts like the plague.
motormeme writes: Just breathtakingly amazing how easy it is for you to blame a fat American filmmaker for Radical Islamic terrorism. If there were any proof that you are out of touch with reality, that would just about be it.
ReplyDeleteOh now please, I do not remotely blame the depraved Mr. Moore for the terrorist acts of OBL. No, that is not the point of this discussion.
You see, there are those who have demanded, in the most silly tones of faux outrage, that Chris Matthews owes Michael Moore an apology for stating that of which Mr. Moore himself is quite proud, namely, that OBL "sounds like" Mr. Moore.
The hysterically amusing thing is, these left-wing defenders of Michael and of all that is civil and pure, didn't seem to realize that the (ostensible) object of their concern has delighted in the idea that his attacks on George Bush were picked up by Osama bin Laden. He is such an egotisitical, putrid jackass, that in order to goad Geroge Bush on the day before the election, he flaunts his influene on the rhetoric of a mass murderer.
Apologize? To a creature like that?
Too funny.
josh narins: Tell that all to Michael Moore, who on the day before the election, shoved in the face of George Bush that OBL is influenced by his film. Far from being offended by the idea, he thinks it is just the right thing to taunt Bush with.
ReplyDeleteYou can't shame someone like that, and really can't defame them.
Mr. Moore himself is quite proud, namely, that OBL "sounds like" Mr. Moore... He is such an egotisitical, putrid jackass, that in order to goad Geroge Bush on the day before the election, he flaunts his influene on the rhetoric of a mass murderer.
ReplyDeleteHow can you honestly know this much about Michael Moore? I think you're in over your head here... Attacks without any quotes from Moore himself seem a bit contrived. (Whups, did I say a BIT?)
But this is a tone repeated often by Wingnuts, namely anger for its own sake. You guys seem to like that attitude. You need something to keep the blood boiling. This ranks right up there with the "War" on Christmas, the Defense of Marriage, and a Culture of Life. (But let's keep the death penalty)
My only point was that while you're fussing and bothering about Michael Moore and who saw the DVD, there are people being SHOT AT and KILLED who don't have the luxury of giving a damn about that. I guarantee you that OBL couldn't give a rats ass about Michael Moore.
And Matthews should appologize for wasting airtime more generally, IMHO. This is just par for the course.
My first comment on this topic was that to pretend that it would mean nothing for one of the many pudgy, right-wing blowhards to apologize for one of their daily assaults on the facts. That it would be like asking Bush to apologize for just one of the dead, innocent Iraqis.
ReplyDeleteEven if Matthews did it, it be an insult to the 10s of thousands of other lies pudgy, right-wing blowhards get away with on a daily basis. Or if Bush apologized, it would be an obvious diss to the 10s of thousands of unmentioned dead, innocent Iraqis.
It is not ironic to point out that these Iraqis might not be dead if Matthews had done 5% of his job as a journalist and tried to check the facts concerning WMD.
I, for one, hopes Osama watches more documentaries. The more you learn about the world, the harder it is to latch on to a narrow-minded world view, or any conspiracy theory.
Hypatia, citing a throwaway line by Michael Moore does not, in any way shape or form, suggest that Moore and UBL are alike, that they want the same ends, utilize the same means, think the same way, or share any aspect whatsoever of a worldview.
If they agree on something (e.g. that pi is an irrational number or that Bush read a book for minutes after I watched the second plane fly in with my own eyes) it is probably because it is true.
And we should count our lucky stars if Usama decides that documentary film-making is the future for al-Qaeda.
Can the Left make the same claim as regards their statements and feelings towards the President? Not based on the following Google searches:Bush Hitler (6,920,000 returns), Bush murderer (1,690,000 returns, Bush Gulag (890,000 returns. Or just read some of the previous comments on this thread.
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to point out that this is a category error. I'll explain.
(1) You state "Can the Left make the same claim". From this I gather that you do not count yourself as a member of "the Left".
(2) Originally, the "Bush/Hitler" meme started because 0.25% of the submitters to an experiment in citizen-generated political advertising resulted in that comparison. That's a statistically insignificant fact in terms attempting to count of how many people believe that "Bush=Hitler", or at least cynically believe that stating the equivalence is politically useful.
(3) Your very posting of this increases the counts you rely upon to make your point. Given the statistically insignificant start of the meme, it seems to me that most of the noise about it has been coming from the non"left".
(4) If this sort of analysis is considered valid, the cynic in me says those of us who are not fans of the current administration (I am not a Democrat) should start writing lots of commentary about how Giulianni is not as bad as Phelps in his abortion views. Never mind that it is totally dishonest and silly, hey, whatever works, right?
josh narins writes: Hypatia, citing a throwaway line by Michael Moore does not, in any way shape or form, suggest that Moore and UBL are alike, that they want the same ends, utilize the same means, think the same way, or share any aspect whatsoever of a worldview.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Michael Moore himself -- when issuing a public statement to George Bush -- OBL's video suggests that OBL has seen Moore's movie. Not only does Moore not find the suggestion offensive, he revels in it to taunt the President whom OBL was also (and in similar terms, thinks Moore himself) taunting.
What a patriot -- gleefully ranting about how a mass murderer seems to have adopted his propaganda points.
josh narins: Hypatia, citing a throwaway line by Michael Moore does not, in any way shape or form, suggest that Moore and UBL are alike, that they want the same ends, utilize the same means, think the same way, or share any aspect whatsoever of a worldview.
ReplyDeleteHypatia: According to Michael Moore himself -- when issuing a public statement to George Bush -- OBL's video suggests that OBL has seen Moore's movie. Not only does Moore not find the suggestion offensive, he revels in it to taunt the President whom OBL was also (and in similar terms, thinks Moore himself) taunting.
Hypatia: You are not responding to Josh. Responding to Josh would include either agreeing or disagreeing with the notion that
Moore and bin Laden "want the same ends, utilize the same means, think the same way, or share any aspect whatsoever of a worldview".
I find that too wide, however. So I'll ask, do you agree or disagree with the statement:
Michael Moore and bin Laden share a common vision for the world, and use the same tools in striving for it.
True, or false?
If false, can you start cataloging the ways in which a fat, white, western film maker of lower-class protestant decent differs from a skinny, brown, islamic terrorist of wealthy decent? I'm only asking so that we can get beyond annoying back and forth, and get down to the root of our disagreement.
It is simply that I recognize Michael Moore for what he is: a bloated, egotisitical, lying propagandist who feels himself to be living in a capitalist hellhole. The idea that anyone owes him an apology strikes me as so absurd, so completely inappropriate and wrong, that I just had to demonstrate why.
ReplyDeleteOk actually I'm alright with that explanation. If you have issues with Moore, that's fine. Rock on.
But even you'd have to admit that an equation with OBL is just sloppy and misguided. This attitude is so endemic of the Nitworks, and not just FOX. MSN, Timmeh Russert, et al. It's not this point that bothers me, it's every day this same ridiculous stuff.
It's easy to run off at the mouth, have no basis in fact, and act as an echo chamber in a 24 hour news cycle based solely on ad revenue. I just want some recognition on their part that most of the time they are talking out of their ass. STFU, once in a while, seriously.
It's too easy for these talking heads to waste our time with half truths. Keep that kind of conversation in the green room. In your den at dinner parties. Try just please you bitches TRY to make the show valuable and worthwhile.
God almighty is death by a thousand cuts with this stuff. So like I said, I want Matthews to start on the Lithium or whatever it takes to get him to STFU and concentrate.
It is simply that I recognize Michael Moore for what he is: a bloated, egotisitical, lying propagandist who feels himself to be living in a capitalist hellhole. The idea that anyone owes him an apology strikes me as so absurd, so completely inappropriate and wrong, that I just had to demonstrate why.
ReplyDeleteJust for the record: I dislike him too. He is clearly the O'Reilly of the left. Worse than that, he annoys me.
I just find is shockingly surreal for folks to suggest with a straight face that he's somehow on the same team as bin Laden.
Hypatia: You are not responding to Josh. Responding to Josh would include either agreeing or disagreeing with the notion that
ReplyDeleteMoore and bin Laden "want the same ends, utilize the same means, think the same way, or share any aspect whatsoever of a worldview".
They must think the same way about some things, because Michael Moore took all hell's delight in the idea -- shoved in George Bush's face -- that what he (Moore) said in his movie tracked what OSB said in his 10/04 video.
Michael Moore is anti-American, which is why his film pleased the heavy-handed, America-hating censors in Cuba and played on television there, nearly risking Moore's shot at an Academy Award nomination. Moore's goals are not Osama's; they simply share an anti-Americanism that is also congenial to Fidel Castro (who also does not have the same goals as Osama).
ReplyDeleteMe: Hypatia: You are not responding to Josh. Responding to Josh would include either agreeing or disagreeing with the notion that
ReplyDeleteMoore and bin Laden "want the same ends, utilize the same means, think the same way, or share any aspect whatsoever of a worldview".
Hypatia: They must think the same way about some things, because Michael Moore took all hell's delight in the idea -- shoved in George Bush's face -- that what he (Moore) said in his movie tracked what OSB said in his 10/04 video.
OK, we seem to be getting somewhere. You're only claiming that they "think the same way about some things", and dropping the claims about "want[ing] the same ends, utiliz[ing] the same means, [or] shar[ing] any aspect whatsoever of a worldview". That's progress, and I assume that means you also answer negatively to the question that I posed to you. Now, can you elaborate on why?
If I'm incorrect, and you still answered affirmatively to my question (for reference, here it is: "Michael Moore and bin Laden share a common vision for the world, and use the same tools in striving for it. True, or false?"), please indicate so.
Michael Moore is anti-American, which is why his film pleased the heavy-handed, America-hating censors in Cuba and played on television there [...]
ReplyDeleteNeocons are anti-American. Apparently, many in the ruling class in China are avid fans of the Straussian political philosophy that underlies a fair amount of American Neocon thought. What appeals is the strong executive role, the subservience of the courts, and the justification for the use of falsehoods for political aims. This is the same China that regularly imprisons pro-democracy activists and journalists. Obviously, imprisoning pro-democracy activists is anti-American. So, Staussians are anti-American. QED.
QED.
ReplyDeleteUh, ok.
Fidel Castro's Cuba is heavily censored, and virulently anti-American. Nothing plays on television that Fidel does not approve of. F-9/11 played on Cuban television less than a year from its release.
Why do you suppose that is? The soundtrack?
You know what, Hypatia, my understanding of America is that dissent is an honorable tradition, that criticising our government is a part of what keeps our government in line with the will of the people.
ReplyDeleteI'd quote that line about the tree of liberty needing to be watered with the blood of tyrants, but that will probably get me labeled as an Osama lover.
"Michael Moore and bin Laden share a common vision for the world, and use the same tools in striving for it. True, or false?"
ReplyDeleteCompound question. Poor form.
Michael Moore is not a theocrat of any sort. OBL is a militant theocrat. They do not share a vision of the ideal society.
They do share a belief that America is evil, venal and corrupt (where they agree) and an impediment to the society they would prefer (where they do not ageree).
Have you actually ever seen any of Michael Moore's films, Hypatia? Sure, he's a blow-hard, and he's very critical of certain aspects of American culture and government. But to label him an "America hater" is really off the mark. He's in a long line of lefty gadflies who ally themselves with the little guy, the working man, people who struggle to get by. Criticize him if you want, but it's pretty sad to see such reflexive, simplistic cant. And really, Michael Moore must be the world's scariest, most powerful guy, given the number of times that the Right goes after him on the flimsiest of pretexts.
ReplyDeleteI sometimes think that people who are unwilling to criticize something that they supposedly love are in fact afraid of examining the object of their affection too closely, for fear they'll see something they don't like.
Hypatia: Uh, ok.
ReplyDeleteFidel Castro's Cuba is heavily censored, and virulently anti-American. Nothing plays on television that Fidel does not approve of. F-9/11 played on Cuban television less than a year from its release.
Why do you suppose that is? The soundtrack?
I made no claims about Cuba, Castro, or the nature of its television programming. Why are you talking about it? This entire response is a complete non-sequiter.
I did, though, make an argument about comparisons via a demonstration about how unreasonable comparisons are made. In fact, the unreasonable demonstration I made logically maps 1-1 to yours. Your response appears to be "Uh, ok", but if you'd like to amend that, please do.
I note that you still haven't responded to my very simple question, which I will repeat for a third time, in order to save you the problem of scrolling up and mistaking my referent:
Me: Michael Moore and bin Laden share a common vision for the world, and use the same tools in striving for it. True, or false?
Hypatia I am surprised that you did not grasp the meaning of MMoore's gleeful statements about Osama seeing his movie. The real point would be why is this murderer so comfortable that he could be watching movies in the first place?
ReplyDeleteMy other irritation with this whole debate is that it seems to be taking place without any recognition that there would be other sources of information besides the American media. Just because the loss of funds by the CPA and the slow, ineffective reconstruction have not gotten alot of play in this country does not mean that those stories are not well known elsewhere. The assertion, whether you agree with it or not, that the war was motivated by greed and profit does not need Michael Moore for its support.
Matthews asked if OBL's message, sounding like Michael Moore would play in America when it is not for America in the first place.
Compound question. Poor form.
ReplyDeleteMichael Moore is not a theocrat of any sort. OBL is a militant theocrat. They do not share a vision of the ideal society.
They do share a belief that America is evil, venal and corrupt (where they agree) and an impediment to the society they would prefer (where they do not ageree).
My apologies: I missed this. Please disregard my latest appeal for comment.
What if I said I believe that the U.S. trends toward venality and has a degree of corruption? Am I now comprable to OBL?
I do believe in both of those notions, but that doesn't stop me from wanting the U.S. to continue to be my home contry, which of course includes not wanting psychopaths to randomly attack me. (I do take this a little more personally, perhaps, than some; I live in Brooklyn, watched the towers fall, had a good friend barely get out, and smelled the resulting horror for weeks.) I can, however, differentiate between better and worse methods, thoughts, and ideas.
And if it is now fair to compare Moore to OBL based on what I presume you're segmenting into the "statement of issue" side of the equasion (which you identify as "where they agree"), rather than the goal side ("where they do not agree"), then it is quite clearly fine to compare Reagan and Hitler. They both hated communism. They did differ on what to do about it, but for our purposes, that doesn't matter.
then it is quite clearly fine to compare Reagan and Hitler. They both hated communism.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is fair to compare them on that issue; Communists were aware that first Adolph Hitler, and then Ronald Reagan, condemned them. No getting around that -- it's true.
And, as Michael Moore himself gleefully indicates to George Bush, his propaganda points in F-9/11 sound like OBL in his 10/04 video. That also is true.
And to return to the original point, Moore's own embrace of that truth is the best proof (as if any were needed) that Chris Matthews does not owe Michael Moore an apology.
That always amused me, people who thought it clever to save up their big time quote for the end, that old timey showmanship.
ReplyDeleteMoore himself isn't an authoritative source on the whereabouts or activities of Osama Bin Laden, so it's illogical to give his statements about that any significant weight for establishing the truth or falsity of sourcing for Bin Laden's words.
Nice 'burn' though, hypatia, you must really wow em at the meetings of your local chapter.
Hypatia, quoting me:then it is quite clearly fine to compare Reagan and Hitler. They both hated communism.
ReplyDeleteHypatia: Yes, it is fair to compare them on that issue; Communists were aware that first Adolph Hitler, and then Ronald Reagan, condemned them. No getting around that -- it's true.
OK. We're clearly getting somewhere now, even if it isn't where I'd like to go. I, personally, don't think it is acceptable to compare Reagan and Hitler on National Tv. Unless I'm misreading something, Hypatia does think that's OK.
No matter how one measures one's politics (for instance, I'm a libertarian that really liked the gridlock during the Clinton years after the Republicans found a spine), I don't think this sort of discourse gets us anywhere in terms of what's good for the country. Rank partisan bashing, frankly, sucks.
So, Hypatia, How would you suggest we go from here? Given that "your side" has made a lot of headway, and that "my side" has some valid points, how do we start the process of restoring civility and consensus politics?
ReplyDeleteNo matter how one measures one's politics (for instance, I'm a libertarian that really liked the gridlock during the Clinton years after the Republicans found a spine), I don't think this sort of discourse gets us anywhere in terms of what's good for the country. Rank partisan bashing, frankly, sucks.
I also am a libertarian, and am now quite longing for the benefits of gridlock; for that reason I hope the Democrats make some gains in '06. (Not because I broadly agree with whatever it is Democrats stand for these days, and I certainly reject that part of their base which cherishes Michael Moore -- those make me as ill as do GOP admirers of Pat Robertson or James Dobson.)
There is a problem with civility (or lack thereof) of political discourse, and while I think defending the likes of Moore is an absurd (and hugely ironic) place to stake a stand on that issue, there is a problem. Last night John McCain was interviewed on Fox and asked about Rove's comments that Democrats all live in a "pre-9/11 world."
McCain isn't a guy I always agree with, but he has a strong streak of decency, and he visibly appeared clearly distressed and offended at Rove's words. He said he works closely with some great Democrats, and that that they no less than Republicans care about national security and terrorism.
Republicans after Watergate went into payback mode, and then the Bork and Thomas confirmation hearings were so sleazy that GOP outrage shot through the roof. What we saw them do in the Clinton years, all the debased sex-scandal (and other) mongering, part of that was driven and unleashed by pure revenge.
Myself, I have no place to go politically. I didn't vote for almost ten years and instead focused on issues advocacy. Then 9/11 happened and the Democrats offered Kerry, and I ran to the booth to pull the Bush lever. Watching the ensuing Schiavo debacle, the corruption, and most especially the horrifying claims of Executive power as exemplified by this NSA warrantless surveillance matter, well, I can't say I'm feeling all that happy about my vote. (But it is also true that I was less than enthusiastic at the time.)
Politics in the U.S. today are deeply polarized, and I don't have any good ideas as to what to do about that. The GOP has a Robertson/Dobson/Falwell base to which it panders, and the Dems have moonbat lefties of the sort who think that a lying media whore -- and essentially Marxist -- like Michael Moore is the font of all truth.
I can't say how 2 parties who must be mindful and respectful of such whacked out extremists in their midst are really going to work together well. The "godly" really believe Democrats have become evil pawns of Satan. The "progressives" believe all Republicans are racist, theocratic running dogs of corporate Amerikka.
Honestly, I see little cause for hope, given the extent of the polarities. I'm not sure the Internet is much of a help there, either. It is very useful for fact-checking journalists -- and left and right have both demonstrated this -- but in terms of promoting reasonable and reasoned political discourse, not so much.
Hypatia, you keep droning on about the apology as if that's the real issue here. It's not.
ReplyDeleteMatthews' remarks, and yours, are the same sort of slippery, indirect, plausible-denial rhetoric that led to 70% of Americans believing that Saddam Hussein participated in the 9/11 attacks. It's deceptive. It's manipulative. It's absolutely toxic to any discussion about what's actually going on in this country.
You're entitled to believe that Moore is un-American, and to state that belief. You're NOT entitled to state it in a way that's essentially dishonest, that is guaranteed to create false impressions. Disingenuous post-hoc claims of innocence don't absolve you from responsibility.
On preview: If you deplore the extent of the polarization as much as you claim, then it's all the more important for you to refrain from tactics that increase it.
flak writes:
ReplyDeleteYou're entitled to believe that Moore is un-American, and to state that belief. You're NOT entitled to state it in a way that's essentially dishonest, that is guaranteed to create false impressions. Disingenuous post-hoc claims of innocence don't absolve you from responsibility.
On preview: If you deplore the extent of the polarization as much as you claim, then it's all the more important for you to refrain from tactics that increase it.
I do not merely "believe" that Moore is anti-American, I know, based on the evidence, that he is. Further, for Democrats to embrace Michael Moore -- to run around demanding an apology for an accurate statement of how his film plays well to, and is parroted by, Islamicists, including OBL -- reinforces my belief that Democrats have a death wish.
No one is more polarizing than freaking Michael Moore, and to take a stand that Moore has been oh-so-unfairly impugned, is sheer insanity. Democrats should be demanding that it is grossly unfair and dishonest to lump them in with Michael Moore. Which I had thought it was, until I saw this absurd campaign for an apology.
I do not merely "believe" that Moore is anti-American, I know, based on the evidence, that he is.
ReplyDeleteYou know, 100%, that Michael Moore would rather there not be an America? That he is fundamentally and actively opposed to anything that might benefit America?
Or do you mean that he opposes certain things about America?
Not that I expect a reply.
ReplyDeleteYou know, 100%, that Michael Moore would rather there not be an America? That he is fundamentally and actively opposed to anything that might benefit America?
Or do you mean that he opposes certain things about America?
Not that I expect a reply.
Why would you not expect a reply? I usually do reply to others' comments.
I do not "know 100%" that the Pope believes in God. But based on all the evidence -- his words and deeds -- he either does, or does a good imitation of a Xian theist.
Michael Moore has said that America is evil for having capitalism. He writes blistering attacks on small businessmen in general, whom he "civilly" refers to as "fuckers." Virtually every one of his films is an attack on America and its way of life, including people who believe in the 2nd amendment.
And his idea of a proper public letter to our President, after the world's premier terrorist has released a video mimicking Moore's anti-American filth and threats, is to proudly and brazenly taunt Bush with Osama's having done so. To claim it. To relish it.
He is a disgusting anti-American pig.
Okay, where's the evidence, Hypatia? Let's see it.
ReplyDeleteOkay, where's the evidence, Hypatia? Let's see it.
ReplyDeleteI should think that by now y'all would realize I do not make claims I cannot support.
But in any event, evidence for what?
I expected you to ignore my questions because you have ignored several pointed questions from me in the past. Probably had I not mentioned it, and forced the issue, you would have done so again, which is why I made that comment.
ReplyDeleteSo your contention is that Moore acts in accordance with what you would expect a genuine enemy of the United States and it's people to act? That he acts in what you are forced to conclude is an intentionally malicious fashion?
I expected you to ignore my questions because you have ignored several pointed questions from me in the past. Probably had I not mentioned it, and forced the issue, you would have done so again, which is why I made that comment.
ReplyDeleteSo your contention is that Moore acts in accordance with what you would expect a genuine enemy of the United States and it's people to act? That he acts in what you are forced to conclude is an intentionally malicious fashion?
I truly do not recall any "pointed" questions from you that I ignored, but I do remember one comment that I thought was rhetorical.
Based on the evidence, I find that Michael Moore believes that he lives in the belly of a beast that is corrupted by capitalism. His views of his country -- as he presents them in film and elsewhere -- are embraced by and congenial to totalitarians who despise America, e.g., Fidel Castro and Osama bin laden. That is not an accident.
Well, if you say you did not intend to ignore me previously, I believe you. Sorry to impugn you.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but I do not understand what you mean by "not an accident." Do you mean there is some common philosophical factor shared by Castro, bin Laden, and Moore, but not by you? What is this (possibly plural) factor?
Hypatia, you make plenty of claims that you don't support, dressed up in a lot of formal rhetoric that sounds a lot smarter than the actual content.
ReplyDeleteShow us your proof that Michael Moore "hates America."
hypatia, I really expected better of you. I had no idea you were such a credulous stooge.
ReplyDeleteMoore is a polemicist, a bomb-thrower. He takes outrageous positions with the ostensible purpose of spurring debate. (Not a rhetorical technique I'm especially fond of.) You know, just like Ann Coulter. And Michelle Malkin, and Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh, and any number of other rightwing nutjobs that you apparently feel are fine and dandy, since they don't refer to small businessmen as "fuckers," or proudly and brazenly taunt the president.
No, those people proudly and brazenly declare that I'm a traitor for thinking the president of my country is a walking disaster, a shit-midas who destroys everything he touches. Not only thinking it, but actually saying it out loud. And so, despite my personal distaste for Moore's polemics, I can't help but consider him the left's sole bazooka in this category. (You might consider why that is -- this wildly lopsided imbalance of unbalanced partisans.)
So if you take Moore's blather at face value, then what's your position on the declarations of Coulter et al.? Am I a traitor?
Hypatia has a bit of a hard on for Moore. So much unrestrained hatred. . . "He is such an egotisitical, putrid jackass. . ." Wow, that's a lot of venom. It does not appear that she has even bothered to watch any of his movies. For instance, Bowling for Columbine did not attack the 2nd Amendment so much as ask why we as a nation have so much violence, when, for instance, a country like Canada with similar levels of gun ownership does not. Hypatia's views of Moore are the knee jerk reaction to some sort of perceived wrong not objective analyis.
ReplyDeleteSo if you take Moore's blather at face value, then what's your position on the declarations of Coulter et al.? Am I a traitor?
ReplyDeleteI deeply dislike Ann Coulter, and have said so here and elsewhere. Further, I've seen some on the right -- even David Horowitz -- spank her for her claim that all liberals and Democrats have treason in their hearts. The list of Democratic statesmen and patriots is so long, it is overwhelming to even try to compose it.
In some interview, and I think it was Fox, she was asked if JFK was traitorous. For once in her life, she stumbled around and wouldn't give a straight answer.
National Review refused to publish one of her most extreme screeds, leading her to go off in a snit and them to not let her come back. Right-leaning professional historians have lambasted her parsing of Cold War history, because it is a fact that many Democrats were strongly and efficiently anti-Communist.
The sensible right rejects Pat Robertson and his insane conspiracy theories and pronouncements on divine retribution. It isn't going to rise up in faux outrage if Keith Olbermann or someone dismisses him as an American Taliban.
For years sensible people of left/liberal persuasion have rightly rejected being lumped in with Michael Moore and his deranged, anti-American ravings. (Notwithstanding that Democratic luminaries from Dean, to Kerry to McAuliffe all turned out to see F-9/11 and pronounce how good it was, and to publicly toy with the idea that, say, Bush had been told by the Saudis of 9/11 in advance. And the fact that the DNC seated the guy who gave OBL talking points next to Carter at their '04 convention.)Yet, suddenly, he is presented in an online campaign from the left as a mere "war protestor" whose honor has been besmirched and to whom an apology is owed.
Oh, but don't think he is one of us, or that we agree with him. If the left/liberals don't want the GOP running around calling them terrorist-lovers and traitors, purging all connection with Mr. Moore is a necessary place to start. Swing voters, like many whose sites I read -- they voted for Gore in '00, but Bush in '04 -- are going to stay away if y'all are perceived as in bed with Michael Moore.
But hypatia, I still don't understand what might be the common factor between Castro, bin Laden, and Moore?
ReplyDeleteWhat attribute do they share that causes you to say that Moore is "anti-American" in the same sense that Castro and bin Laden are?
prunes: I don't know what more I can say that I have not already stated. Moore is anti-American; afflicted with the "living in the belly of the beast" syndrome I referenced. That is what he has in common with OBL -- they do not share a preferred alternative arrangement. Moore's preference is closer to (and I am not saying identical with) the anti-American Castro's, because Moore embraces an anti-capitalist, far-leftism that is a Western intellectual development. That intellectual tradition has historically also been significantly characterized by profound antipathy to the United States.
ReplyDeleteFinally,and again, there is a reason Moore's propaganda is congenial to OBL and Castro: all three are anti-American, even if they disagree to lesser and greater extents on other matters.
Hypatia, all you have done is continue to "state" that Michael Moore is un-American. Where's the evidence you claim to have? Have you seen his films?
ReplyDeletehypatia, I may just be failing to take your point, but it seems to me that you are essentially making a circular assertion.
ReplyDeleteReading through your posts, I do not find what you indicate you have previously stated. It must be obvious to you, but please direct me towards some factual matter (of any type) whereby I could follow your reasoning.
That Castro and/or bin Laden might seize upon critiques of America's policies for their own purposes is no evidence. I am interested in what Moore has done that is characteristically "anti-American."
Prunes: One of the things that I am sensitive to is accusations that I ignore questions, especially if the one positing them seems to believe the questions are hard and that is why I avoid them. But I’ve made my initial point here, namely, that Chris Matthews could not have been outrageous in saying Osama sounds like Michael Moore, because Michael Moore is delighted that he does, and admits it.
ReplyDeleteNow, you may not think it says anything about Michael Moore that he gloats over the fact that a mass murdering, fierce enemy of this nation likes his latest anti-American film, in which displacing Osama’s Taliban network is depicted as a capitalist conspiracy. I submit that if you do not see what that says about Moore, nothing can be made to cause you to do so.
I leave you with this, about the Stalinist/Marxist meme war -- begun long ago, with much residue today -- from Eric Raymond in a discussion over at :
What changed under the Soviets is that Gramscian seduction of the intelligentsia became not merely an instrument of old-fashioned Marxist evangelism but a conscious and principal weapon for corrupting and destroying Western institutions, one that actually substituted for warfare by other means. No secret was made of this; it's right there in Party doctrine.
…
We know much more today about Stalin's meme war than we did before the Soviet Union fell, because some of the immediate successors of the original architects of the program are still alive and are talking. Koch's book is good on the subject; so is Denial: Historians, Communism, & Espionage by Haynes and Klehr. These revelations have unsettling consequences even for lifelong anti-Communists like myself; I'm still trying to get over the shock of learning that Dorothy Parker was a Stalinist agent of influence!
I'm not a conservative, have never been a conservative, and don't ever expect to become a conservative. So it spooks me how accurate all those old-time McCarthyite rants about Communist subversion turned out to be now that we have the Venona transcripts and ex-KGB generals telling all to historians. Back in the '60s and '70s I thought I was as hard-core anti totalitarian as an American boy could be, but even I bought some of the obscuring smoke that the anti-anticommunist "liberals" were peddling. For you, a self-described "conservative Republican", accepting the full magnitude and insidious character of the meme war should be easier.
One of the things we've learned from ex-Soviet informants is that academia, the press, and the entertainment industry were regarded not merely as high-value targets, but targets which by around 1980 they believed they had largely succeeded in subverting or neutralizing So: we know the Soviets aimed to apply Gramscian subversion as a war weapon against the West, we know they believed themselves to have succeeded in significant ways, and the dominant cultures of the entertainment industry, the press, and academia behave today precisely as we would expect if they had succeeded in those ways (that is, they sneer at traditional values and patriotism and exhibit pervasive left-wing and anti-American bias).
…..
Few things are more pathetic than Marxist cant that doesn't know itself to be Marxist cant, but we hear it constantly—and that is Stalin's victory, toxic memes successfully poisoning our discourse long after the despotism that spawned them has died.
I lack further time to continue this discussion, as I have real life obligations and am busy spreading elsewhere the gospel of what is wrong with Bush’s warrantless surveillance program. I would refer you to the books and authors Raymond mentions in his Cato Unbound article, and inform you that Michael Moore is an anti-American spouting, as Raymond puts it, pathetic Marxist cant that he perhaps doesn’t know to be Marxist, but which we hear constantly from those in the anti-American, far-left like Moore.
Oh, he's anti-American because he's (by your lights) a pseudo-Marxist.
ReplyDeleteWell, at least I understand your position now. Thank you for taking the time to reply again, hypatia.
In the Cycles of American History by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.(1986) he reveals much about an Imperial Presidency. Quotes: Imperialism is what happens when a strong state encounters a weak, and uses its superior strength to dominate peoples for its own purposes. Congressional criticism alerts a president to flaws in his policy...supports strengthens his hand and increases his authority. Presidents should regard the requirement of Congressional collaboration not as a burden, but as an opportunity to give policy a solid basis in consent. A system in which a rubber stamp legislature delivers whatever the executive requests is only as good as the executive and his requests. Executive leadership must begin by educating Congress and public opinion. Consent is never more indispensable than on questions of peace and war. Congressional criticism alerts a president to flaws in his policy; support strengthens his hand and increases his authority. The American people must be behind it. If the executive...is not persuasive, you don't want fundamental Constitutional changes. The final stage of an Imperial Presidency---the policy of condemning opponents of the president as traitors to the republic. The secrecy system is to protect the executive branch from ACCOUNTABILITY, its incompetence, and its venality, its errors and on occasions, its crimes."
ReplyDeleteLord Bryce said, "...publicy may cause losses, but may avert some misfortunes."
John Taylor wrote in 1814: "Executive secrecy is one of the monarchial customs, plausibly defended, and certainly fatal to republican government."
I'm definitely blogrolling you, Glenn. Thanks for some much-needed balance and perspicacity. God knows the media won't provide much of it.
ReplyDeleteI also mentioned you in my new Assclowns of the Week (as a source, not as an assclown!).