Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

While many reviewers of this movie disclaim, "this movie won't change anyone's vote," I think it might help to affect the election. Consider that Howard Stern is supposed to already have switched a significant number of votes. I think there are plenty of people who will be influenced by Moore's arguments.

Too bad they don't have voter registration tables at the exits in the theatres.

I don't remember Moore ever saying anything about a conspiracy, and I don't see that there is anyting about conspiracies in this movie. The shocking and sad truth is that everything depicted on screen is and has been out in the open for everyone to see for years. It just hasn't been reported on. Hidden in plain view as it were. The idea that there is some conspiracy is the spin that the right wing media put on Moore's movie, and once again their efforts to get people to use specific words in describing something have, unfortunately, succeeded. Before Moore's movie, there were a spate of books highly critical of the Bush and his administration, (many from people within his adminstration who had first-hand knowledge of his misdeeds) and the the term used to describe such authors and their readers was "Bush haters". Such a term is about as subtle and useful for framing the terms of a debate, and thereby nullifying opposition as a term like "tax relief" Who in their right mind would be opposed to tax relief? Who in their right mind would listen to a Bush Hater? How compelling could a movie full of conspiracy theories be?

To anyone who takes the time to read such books as House of Bush, House of Saud, one will find that a conspiracy of any sort is hardly needed. For that matter anyone who watches NOW With Bill Moyers. The criminals in the Bush administration are far too brazen to need a conspiracy. George Bush the Elder makes no attempt to hide his involvment with the Saudis. He makes no attempt to cover-up his relationship with the Carlyle group. To the contrary, both of these associations are things he is undoubtedly proud of. You are never going to see contrition from such a man. Likewise, Bandar Bush does not disavow his relationship and meetings with the Bush's. When this administration was drafting its energy policy, it went immediately to Enron and other big energy companies. Though the specific details of these dealings the administation has been able to keep secret, it is no secret that they occured. Does anyone douby that this administration is deep in to the pocket of big oil? It has been out in the open since the beginning.

This sort of cronyism and quid pro quo way of doing things has been a long acknowledged hallmark of the way that Bush and his administration does business. This isn't even a debateable issue. They simply do whatever they please, and with rare exception get away with it. Period.

If Moore has somehow implied that these things aren't right out in the open, and that there is some kind of conspiracy behind all of it, someone please inform me.

The fact is, Moore did not have time to catalogue even a fraction of what Bush is responsible for. That is, Bush is far worse than he comes off in F9/11. Unfortunately, there is only so much truth you can pack in two hours.

I will have to wait until I see the movie before deciding whether Moore provides a convincing alternative answer to the question of why Iraq was invaded (it doesn't show in Sydney until the end of the month).

To me, neocon "idealism" resembles the old "manifest destiny" ideal of the USA; leading to the the idea that a strong economy, backed overwhelming military force, and a Monroe-Doctrine-like warning to other nations to not infere with this destiny, is the way to guarantee the best of all possible worlds - for Americans, at any rate.

I'm not fond of "conspiracy theories", in the pejorative sense of the phrase, but I do think the neocons are masters of opportunism. They seized, in a gruesome kind of way, the oppportunity created by 9.11 together and a not-too-bright president, in order to put their "ideal" into practice.

After 9.11, we were "all Americans", expressing our sympathy for such an act or terror. We even held our breath and our words during the attack on Afghanistan, understanding the anger and rage. But the reasons for taking this war to Iraq?

You could call this idealism, but it still looks like opportunistic greed and power to me. If Moore is saying something like this, then I will find it convincing, and consider it much closer to the truth than the rubbish being peddled about bringing democracy to the middle east.

Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy, Saudi Arabia and the Failed Search for bin Laden if it's not already on your list. I still haven't finished it; it's a hard read (for me anyway, their names are so different than ours, I have a hard time connecting them).

Ahh you missed an excellent review of the fictional documentary:

"To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery."

http://shorl.com/fastajebrikivu

@ Daniel Luke

"The criminals in the"

Since you provide no evidence here you must be convinced. Please share some now.

Moralphile--

You neglect to mention that your quote is from Christopher Hitchens who, by the way, supported the war in Iraq. He was on Tucker Carlson's new show on PBS, Tucker Carlson Unfiltered, where he opined that he anticipates what amounts to endless wars with many Arab states, and he seemed to be all in favor of that too. Any establishment mouthpiece like Hithchens would naturally be angry when someone attempts to throw a monkey wrench in the plan for endless war, and that is exactly what Michael Moore did. I don't know anyone who disagrees with the politics of Michael Moore who gave the film a favorable rating, and I include among such reviewers James Kunstler who I highly admire and respect.

The crimes of George Bush are not really in dispute. We can start with the drunk driving from his early adulthood, and move on from there to his dessertion as an airman for Texas Guard. Lying to the country, as was demonstrated most recently during the Clinton preidency is also, technically speaking, a crime. It is particularly dastardly when these lies lead to thousands of people losing their lives.

The lies and misdeeds of George Bush are so well-known, well-documented and legion, they hardly merit ennumeration and explication when one speaks of them. One can speak of the crimes of a Hitler or Stalin (and I'm not comparing the severity of Bush's criminal misdeeds necessarily to either of these two figures) without having to fullfuill the requirement of some kind of proof. It is generally understood. In the case of Hitler, what is particulary alarming is that he spelled everything out in Mein Kampf before hand.

F