Michael Moore propaganda continues...

Fahrenheit 911 pains

Published on June 29, 2004 By Draginol In Republican

This article at the Telegraph (linked below) sums up many of my views on Moore. Moore's writings and "documentaries" can be entertaining -- if you're already in the looney left wing camp or don't keep up with this stuff on a daily basis. To the rest of us, it's just frustrating.

In my view, Moore is little more than just some ranting left wing idealogue who has managed to get famous. There's a zillion conspriacy nuts just like him out there. It's like they've elected him king of the loonies to spread his nastiness around.

Given the success of his film, however, it's seems that he's managed to expand his base beyong the fringe and into the mainstream. What this means for Bush is unknown. Many people I know who are on the right fear that this bodes very ill for those of us who favor the administration's foreign policy.

But I disagree. I have great faith in the average person. I don't know if Bush will win or not (I tend to think he won't for electoral college reasons but that's not related to this film). But I don't think this film will persuade fair minded people.

Moore seems to forget that millions of Americans, such as myself, expected the US to respond in Afghanistan. The whole oil pipeline bullshit is just that -- bullshit. I don't care if there had been a magical energon cube mine in Afghanistan, after 9/11, we had better had gone in there and removed the Taliban and disrupted Al Qaeda.

Similarly, those of us who favored military action in Iraq could care less about the oil. I don't have any ties to "big oil" and yet somehow I've been in favor of the US removing Saddam since 1998. How is this possible? In Moore's slanted universe, people like me are dupes. Suckered in by greedy puppets of big oil to do their bidding. I would, on the other hand, argue that we are merely keepers of something Moore obviously lacks -- common sense.

Oil only comes into play in Iraq in that it was a resource that gave Saddam the capital to acquire things that could do us great harm either in the short or long term. After 9/11, removing Saddam was a "no brainer". The whole "Bush lied" nonsense strikes me as incredibly ignorant given that everyone thought he had WMDs long before Bush came into office.

But Moore seems to want to have it both ways. Bush is both a simpleton and a master manipulator of us dupes out in the world. The attacks of 9/11, which were planned during the Clinton years, demonstrate to clear thinking Americans that there is no foreign policy that would satisfy these maniacs. If the appeasement policies of the 90s led to 9/11, I think it's worth trying a more aggressive policy -- which is what Bush is doing.

Comments (Page 3)

bakerstreet

on Jun 30, 2004

"Why dismiss what has been reported as fact as a "conspiracy theory" before investigating further? "

Ah, but it has been investigated, by a bi-partisan congressional committee. Are they in on it too? I personally think it is more like a conspiracy hypothesis, or even a conspiracy fantasy.

Do you feel you are better situated to investigate this than the 9-11 commission? If not, do you think you are more qualified to spread spurious information? If you aren't in the position to investigate something, are you really correct in leveling charges? Since when are people guilty until proven innocent?

bakerstreet

on Jun 30, 2004

I wasted 5 minutes of my time and found the original SFC article on teh Willie Brown thing, read it here.

It seems it was nothing specific, he doesn't bother to say what was even said to him, he often got calls telling him to "be careful", and another article mentions that the actual warning was concerning this warning about Al Qaeda targets in Korea and Japan.

In addition he went on intending to fly the next day, something Mr. Anonymous doesn't care to say. I dunno where the nutty Condi Rice stupidity comes from, but it is no doubt a scary place...

There's some balancing information here that addresses some symptoms of this nuttiness: The 9/11 FAQ.

Addendum: Here's another interesting site. Good quote from that one:

"why would Rice give such a warning to Willie Brown, who wasn't in any danger, but not to administration official Ted Olson, whose wife died on Flight 77?"

IMHO these questions are so easily answered that I'd delete any posts that pose them. Just more tin-foil hat stuff.

All politicians are full of sh

on Jun 30, 2004

You know, it would be nice if Draginol answer the questions that have been posed. Or is the tinfoil hat getting in the way? You've been asked nicely--if you state that you believe what's been said by the conservatives so far, it's fine. At least defend your views--right now, you look like one of those pansy liberals you dislike so much.

Sigh....us peasants on either side don't count for much. Look at the posts: one says Bush is great; one says Bush is the anti-Christ; one says the Moore film is propaganda; and the next says it raises good questions. Unfortunately, who the f*&( is listening to us? We all know damn well that knew about the seriousness of 9/11. Unfortunately, they may have been dismissed with a "tinfoil hat" theory--and here is the result.

Let's face it, most likely if you're a conservative, you're going to think that the majority of actions following 9/11 are fine. If a liberal, then the opposite. But what does this arguing do? Does this help us get more than 0.25% interest in the banks? No. Does this help most of us be able to stretch our dollars in order to save more for a rainy day? No.

Damn, people--give it a rest. You know the powers that be could give a flying f--- what a bunch of peasants posting arguments here (and elsewhere on the net) think. Frankly, if you think that any politician is worth arguing over, then pretty much all of you are crazy. At least Moore and Bush are rich.

Draginol

on Jun 30, 2004

I have about as much interest redigging up the refutations of your various conspiracy theories as I do in looking up sites that debunk the various theories on the Kennedy assassinations.

I am not interested in convincing the gullible who buy into crackpot conspiracy theories because, frankly, they're not worth my time.

You're right Baker, I probably shoudl stop allowing anonymous posters to comment on my blogs. Left wing or right wing, the conspiracy crackpost theorists really get on my nerves. It takes a lot more effort to debunk a crackpot theory than to come up with one.

Marten Langbraten

on Jul 01, 2004

"I have about as much interest redigging up the refutations of your various conspiracy theories as I do in looking up sites that debunk the various theories on the Kennedy assassinations.
I am not interested in convincing the gullible who buy into crackpot conspiracy theories because, frankly, they're not worth my time. "

Why do you post then ?
You just want to spread youre idea of whats important/true and not bother to answer those that say that things might not be as black/white as you say.
Anyway I should stop reading posts like youres and do something usefull. I agree with
"At least Moore and Bush are rich."

Patrucio

on Jul 01, 2004

"Isn't the Governator an republican?"

Barely, just barely, and basically just because he says so himself..

Now this is just plain silly. Why is Schwartzenegger just barely a Republican?

Because he supports abortion rights? So does Rudolph Guiliani , Michael Bloomberg, and others.

Because he supports stem cell research? So does Nancy Regan, Warren Hatch, and others.

Because he supports gun control? So does Lincoln Chaffee, Pete Wilson, and others.

In the United States, anyone belongs to whatever party whenever they say so. If you're willing to say "I'm a Republican," you qualify to be a Republican. Marilyn Manson is a Republican, because he says he is. Certailnt he's not a Christian Coalition Republican, but I have no doubt that he favors lower taxes and a smaller, less involved government. If you're willing to say "I'm a Democrat," that is the only qualification you need to be a Democrat. In our two-party system, political parties are SUPPOSED to be diverse. There is supposed to be a wide range of disagreement in them. Both of our parties proclaim to be "big tent parties", which means that there is more than one way to be a Republican and more than one way to be a Democrat. There are liberal Republicans (like Olympia Snowe) and there are conservative Democrats (like Zell Miller.)

bakerstreet

on Jul 01, 2004

Sorry, Pat, but I am not sure how you can be pro-Gay rights, pro-abortion, pro-stem cell research, pro-gun control... and still vote for Bush. You're essentially voting for someone who has nothing in common with you, except, perhaps, a bit of economic philosophy.

If you are a Republican that has to vote Democrat every time, are you really a Republican? At what point does what you believe not matter? Granted, one of those issues wouldn't disqualify anyone, but all of them???

It reminds me of the Kerry/Catholicism debate. I find it hard to understand how someone, again, pro-gay rights, pro-birth control, pro-abortion, etc., etc., can call themselves Catholic. Isn't it time to redefine yourself?

bakerstreet

on Jul 01, 2004

I mean, if you are "pro" all those things, one would assume you have a vision of the world with those things being accepted. Why would you vote for someone that you know will do as much as they can to defeat them?

I find it hard to believe that we are reaching a time where the only true difference between a Republican and a Democrat is economic philosophy. The fundamental definition of conservatism isn't just monetary.

"1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change"

Someone whose ideals are skewed that far out couldn't really be called conservative, could they... in anything but economic philosphy. If the Republic party is reducing itself to a catch-all party for anyone that isn't tax-and-spend, then maybe I need to rethink my own affiliation.

vorhandenheit

on Jul 01, 2004

"if you're already in the looney left wing camp "
"Moore is little more than just some ranting left wing idealogue "
"they've elected him king of the loonies"
"bullshit"
---Draginol

"This is how Democrats argue. Instead of engaging ideas, generally you're either an idiot or a fool..."
---Ann Coulter (CNN Crossfire July 5, 2002)

By the way Drag, some of us do keep very tedious track of day-to-day politics, and some of us still manage to come up with the conclusion that a second Bush term is a bad idea.

These "conspiracy theories" that you refer to with the Unocal oil pipeline. Sure, disagree with them, but that does not mean you throw out the Unocal ties with Karzai and Khalilzad who then get put in high positions in Afghanistan (such as president of the nation) a mere week before those very same people sign off on that very pipeline. Disagree, but at least find your own counter-theory instead of blindly disagreeing. As for the Saudi relationship, Craig Unger's "House of Bush, House of Saud" never got such vehement arguments levied against it... and he was interviewed directly by Moore in much of "Fahrenheit 9/11". Unger is not all of these bad things, right? Why is Moore for quoting him and interviewing him? Not a single fact in the movie has ever been refuted, it is the opinion Moore speaks in the voice-over that is generating controversy. Drag, I'm sorry to say, it's the Right this time that's got the conspiracy theories emerging. Moore gave a series of facts that were organized to provide his view, take what you will from the movie, but please don't come trying to assault people for your disagreement.

bakerstreet

on Jul 01, 2004

People need to look into the concept of "skepticism". It is easy to string together a set of completely reliable facts and then imply that all together they mean something sinister, especially if the listener already has a propensity to believe that there are dark forces with sweeping power.

As to #41, I guess I would have to say... so what? To me this speaks less about how corrupt Republicans are than how naive the average Bush critic is. You think it is any different on the other side of the aisle? You think Clinton didn't make shady deals on a grand scale? Everyone involved in foreign policy manuvers themselves and their friends into positions to capitalize on it. You have to look at the actual changes, not the subsequent profit.

This oil stuff is neither the ends, nor the means, it is the by-product. By-products are just gravy. You might as well fault heart surgeons for driving Jags...

As has been said by me and others, numerous times, who gives a damn if peope made money? Would you prefer people funding the Taliban and Hussein, or a free Afghanistan and Iraq? Please, stop pretending that there are people in leadership positions that are there for only selfless, non-profit reasons. There aren't.

Give up, there is no tooth fairy. If you can understand the concept of "power vacuum" in Iraq, then you can understand it in terms of business.

Jeff George

on Jul 01, 2004

Vorhandenheit,

Very well said. I follow these forums and other political discussions and there is something I have see constantly. Many on the right utterly REFUSE to speak in facts and references, preferring to insult and pretend that they don't see the actual facts that are posted. I have seen many, many, many of Draginol's comments and he fits that profile perfectly. If something that fit in with his preconceived extreme right wing views then he ignores them, even if facts are thrust in his face. Notice how every where you look, and listen, the right is claiming that Moore's new film is full of lies, yet not one of them has produced a single lie, and when you ask them to, they don't. In fact, many of the people making the claim of lies haven't even seen the film. I get the impression that they really DON'T want to think for themselves; they want to be told want to think, and if Rush Limburger, Bill O'Lielly, Mike the Savage, or Shawn Insanity say that it's full of lies, that's good enough for them.

J

Marten Langbraten

on Jul 01, 2004

Its no use arguing with a right wing activist like this.Its like talking to a brick wall.

Draginol

on Jul 01, 2004

I always love it when the left tries to spin dislike of Moore into being pro-Bush. I'm not particularly pro-Bush. I just don't have patience to argue with people who buy into conspiracy theories so easily.

Bakerstreet was nice enough (nicer than I would be) to dig up some links that debunk many of the "questions" posed by the conspiracy theorists.

Someone claiming, for instance, that the jews were behind 9/11 and claiming that the jews had been told to not go to the WTC on 9/11 isn't even worthy of a response at this point because that kind of BS has been debunked soo many times.

I'm not interested in discussing poliltical issues with gullible conspiracy theories of the left or right. People who buy into Michael Moore's tripe are really taking a litmus test. Anyone who buys into Moore's bizarre and thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories is just not worth putting energy into discussing with and I am more than happy if those people meander off to some other website to discuss their latest crackpot theory.

Simply put, people who think oil is a major motivator what went on in Afghanistan or Iraq are, at best, ignorant (Iraq's GNP was $20 BILLION annually. Oil is an important resource but it is not a particularly lucrative one but knowing that would require a basic grasp of economics).

vorhandenheit

on Jul 01, 2004

Drag.... you just said that oil is not a particularly lucrative resource... and you are calling others ignorant.

EDIT: By the way Drag... according to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, the GNP of Iraq pre-war was about $50 Billion. That's why the oil there was going to pay for the entire war (not, it seems, because oil is not particularly lucrative). I'll go dig up the congressional hearing if you'd like. Right now Iraq is sitting pretty at about $15 Billion GNP.

bakerstreet

on Jul 01, 2004

The answers to the majority of these questions are already out there. The whole vibe of propaganda these days seems to be lie - be refuted - move on (moveon) to lie somewhere else.

The fact is, Moore doesn't say anything. Moore asks questions. Since when do we have to spend countless hours to prove allegations wrong in order to be innocent? It is the responsibility of the accuser to prove these allegations.

So the mentally challenged go from site to site, asking "the hard questions". They get bit, their arguments refuted, and then they move to another site, like a fungus. A regular on a site like this will see new dolts come in over and over and over, replaced by new dolts the next day.

In that light, why should we have to refute these questions numerous times a week? Should I keep a form answer on my harddrive to paste everytime a conspiracy nut appears?

It is akin to me accusing someone of murder on a message board, and unless it is proven incorrect every time it is asked, everywhere it is asked, it is somehow a indisputable. What if we simply don't feel we have to dispute such drek?

Why should we have to refute "questions" at all? If your allegations are in the form of a question, then, frankly, answer them yourself, WITH PROOF, not supposition. 9-11 has been exaustively investigated by people far more informed than the tin-foil hat brigade.

The point though, isn't getting answers to these questions, it is the patently dishonest tactic of asking leading questions in order to poison people against Bush. If they answered them honestly there wouldn't be any propaganda value. As I said previously, I could string together completely unrelated, completely untrue facts and pose situations that are comepletely false. You see it with the Roswell/Black Helicopter/Bigfoot people all the time. In this case, though, I think the most vocal know that the accusations are untrue and just don't care.

From now on, I would simply refer such folks to the 9-11 commision. If they think they are more informed than them, or that the commission is fixed, then frankly you'll never be able to reason with the nuts anyway.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!