An Open Letter from Michael Moore to George "I'm a War President!" Bush

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Moore bashes Democrats quite often, because he feels they don't do much to differentiate themselves from Republicans. He accuses most Democrats of being little more than Republicans in drag. From what I've observed, this is more or less true.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Then perhaps I was too hasty in my judgement. Who knows, if I ever have the time to look at his self-serving drivel and find out that he does slam the left almost as hard as the right (only not as often), I may even have to upgrade his status from "intolerable" to "somewhat tolerable buffoon". [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] In case you can't tell, I have a hard time giving Michael Moore credit for anything other than being able to tie his own shoes. And I don't have irrefutable proof that he can do that. But he has rubbed me the wrong way ever since he came into the public spotlight in the early 80's. He has always struck me as something of a whiner that likes to ridicule the policies and decisions of others, but doesn't offer any viable alternatives to those policies or decisions himself. The cold hard fact is that I cannot give Michael Moore a fair evaluation because I have never liked his sarcastic satirism or his eternal whining and I really doubt I ever would - even if he were actually making a legitimate argument. The same holds true with Rush Limbaugh. He actually has some good points in his commentary from time to time - or at least I assume he does - but he can't say "Good Morning" without spewing some hateful, vitriolic remark about the Democrats in the same breath. So his personal antics negate any valid points his commentary might actually contain.

As far as Moore not having his own solution I've seen him live and he stated there that he was a communist. If he said that openly would you feel better about him? I somehow doubt it. Personally, as another communist, I find it depressing that he doesn't come out and admit it - its nothing to be ashamed of, and its the people who try and hide it that make it seem like something to be ashamed of. But then again I've never said I don't agree with Moore on everything, just that he is often correct in my estimation and he is correct in an often humorous fashion.

As for Moore's style of satire I personally feel he is less sarcastic as he is leading. He plays stupid in order to draw people in and make them say what they really think - and it really works. Over here we have a guy who does similar stuff called Louis Theroux. Notice what Moore and Theroux do in order to make their point - they don't add any commentary of their own to any of the people they interview. Its rare for Moore, in Bowling for example, to actually take to task any of the gun nuts, despite the fact that he obviously finds their beliefs ludicrous. Instead he just nods and gently nudges them in the direction of spilling their most disturbing secretly held beliefs. I strongly suggest watching him quite closely in an interview - he is a very clever man who practices satire without actually satirising stuff himself very often. Watch it with a stress ball or something...

[Night Stalker]

The problem with MR Moore, Barry, is that he doesn't "lead" people to a conclusion, he misleads them. Not only is that insulting to those that he is critisizing (as he uses unfounded accusations and miscontrued factiods to lay his attacks), it is also insulting to the intelligence of those that he would call to his banner. To me, using lies and misrepresentations of facts to support your cause tells me how weak your cause is and how immaterial it is. (non-specific you, not you personally).

[Barry the Sprout]

Is this the whole "Truth About Bowling" article stuff? You know that he released all the the out-takes from Bowling which clear up all the apparent "lies" Moore is making. For example, one that the author of "Truth about Bowling" absolutely loved to trumper from the rooftops was that the arms company Moore talks about don't make arms anymore. Moore released the unedited footage of the interview with the companies representative, in which the rep is asked if they make arms and he replies that they do. Thats just one example. Moore did not lie in that film and can back up with video evidence every one of his apparent fabrications. If you can stand to do so check out his fansite, its all on there.

[Night Stalker]

Well, even if every "fact" in Bowling is true, Moore spliced and edited segments from two different speaches of Mr Heston, creating a speach the Mr Heston never gave, and giving the impression that the NRA was callous and uncaring about the murderous rampage that Klebold went on.

That point alone cuts the credibility of the entire work.

I am not a memeber of the NRA BTW.

It's not just Bowling that he makes gross misrepresentations either, it's every film he makes.

And I could care less if he's a Communist. I find him deceitful and disingenous.

You for example, happen to be a communist. I don't agree with communism (pure communism that is, not that Soviet bunk), but I have enjoyed the debates that we have had in the past over political theory. I have never known you to be deceitful in any point you make to support your arguements. I have agreed with you at times, and others I don't, but I resect your positions because you present them in good faith.

Mr Moore doesn't. He is little more than a political rabble rouser (he doesn't even rate "Activist" in my mind) out to feed his cult of personality.

I've seen other sources other than the "Truth" website. I'll see if I can dredge them up, for I admit that one site doesn't support an arguement very well. You'll forgive me if I don't accept Moore's fan site at face value as support though .... it's a little self interested.

[Felix The Assassin]

Well heck fellows.
Looks like that other guy, whats his face, Ralph Nader is back lurking in the shadows.
Just think, we could have Al, Jesse, and Ralph all on the independent ballots.
Wonder what the "drudge" or "MM" could come up with for these three?

[Felix The Assassin]

Now the part about their military exp.

I just most recently say a side by side photo.
1. showed pres Bush in the cockpit of an ancient 60's era air force jet. The caption said "Texas Air National Guard".
2. showed Mr Kerry in uniform, but one could not tell where the picture was actually taken, but the caption said "Vietnam".
3. Showed President Bush
4. Showed Mr Kerry the anti-war demonstrator, dishing his country, his military, and his awards.
5. Showed president Bush
6. Showed Mr Kerry claiming his rightness to his Silver Star.

Go figure!

I will only say three things about Mr Kerry.
1. Look at his voting on military advancement.
2. Look at who he is married to.
3. Look at his awards and decorations. He freaking has a SS. If he were pro military, was proud of his heritage, and was not the family gentleman of the Heinz corp. I would almost consider him to be a prime canidate. But then, he would not be a????

[Night Stalker]

More on Mr Moore ....
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/ - this site I find a little over the top. Some facts are cross referanced, but often the author uses the same ad hom and empty rhetoric that I despise in Mr Moore.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html - this site is more even handed.

I did go to Moore's site for his explantions about the Lockheed site. I listened to the very short segments that Moore has the guy saying. For one thing, Moore still gives the impression that ICBMs are manufactured there. Both the site's website and the interviewee state that they are refurbished Titan IVs, used for orbital launch. They have not been in the business of making Nukes since the 60s. Moore tries to insinuate that they still are involved in WMD construction. The manager mentioned that that plant had a part in the construction of Peacekeeper Nukes. That is true but that plant is not responsible for the missile itself. Another Lockheed plant handles that. Moore may as well implicate Intel Corp for making WMD because they make semiconductors. That is a similar arguement that Moore is making in this instance. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Lockheed or American Defense business, but it is HUGE. Not all parts are made by the same players, and even in house, development and production of any particular system is distributed all over the country. Moore is trying to insinuate that this plant is solely to blame. Then he extends his metaphor to blame this plant for the destruction in Afghanistan.

As I said before, he doesn't lead, he misleads. He's disingenous.

[Timber Loftis]

I watched Bowling and thought it was good. But, then I saw how Moore used a LATER Heston speech in a confusing way-- he represented the speech as occuring in Columbine right after the tragedy, yet it occurred later at a different location. The NRA actually cancelled most of its programe for Colorado following the tragedy. This I found most disturbing.

Plus, his "speech" during the Oscars regarding "fictional wars" and other "fictional" things was annoying to the extreme. I wanted to go all Tyson on his ass for that.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 2. To show Bush's hypocricy would require showing his belief was false, he knew it was false, and that he went ahead and stated it anyway. This can't be shown. We all basically tought Saddam had WMD. Heck the UN stated Saddam had WMD several several times. Saddam agreed to a cease fire in which he ADMITTED he had WMD and AFFIRMED he would get rid of them. He actually USED WMD on the Kurds (mustard gas). He NEVER showed proof of disarmament, and I for one was not willing to believe he pulled a bund of "secret disarmaments" and did not inform the UN -- particularly since he was wiley enough to call every news station on the planet when he made the piddly gesture of cutting up a few SCUDs in an attempt to avoid US invasion. In short, becuase it was a reasonable belief shared by many, no one will ever be able to prove Bush intentionally lied. There is a difference between a reasonable mistake and a lie.

I offer evidence and facts, not the same old tired arguments. You may dodge these, find a witty remark to degrade the impact, but the facts stand on their own. And Im talking about 2003 facts, not, 1998, 1996, or 1991, or 1988 or any other time in the dead of history, but relevant contemperary information.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4122113/ Regarding chemical and biological weapons, the U.N. inspectors headed by Hans Blix conducted 731 inspections between November 2002 and March 2003. Despite claims by the U.S. government of the existence of specific stockpiles of weapons and active weapons programs, they found no evidence of either. In his reports to the Security Council, Blix was always judicious. "One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist," he said. "However, that possibility is also not excluded."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._intel100.html WASHINGTON — The public version of the U.S. intelligence community's key prewar assessment of Iraq's illicit arms programs was stripped of dissenting opinions, warnings of insufficient information and doubts about Saddam Hussein's intentions, a review of the document and its once-classified version shows. What that comparison showed is that while the top-secret version delivered to President Bush, his top lieutenants and Congress was heavily qualified with caveats about some of its most-important conclusions about Iraq's illicit weapons programs, those caveats were omitted from the public version.

There is a difference between a reasonable mistake and a mistake made in haste while ignoring relevant informed opinions- a stupid avoidable mistake! Leaving out the caveats and dissenting opinions about Iraqs WMD from the public version of the intel report is a deception

You may want Bush and Co. to have simply made a 'reasonable mistake' but that assessment defies reason and the facts.

[ 02-24-2004, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]