Connect the dots when you watch 'Fahrenheit', Chicago Sun-Times, by Mark Steyn, 4 July 2004.
My Friends at Lucianne.com recently posted and reviewed the above Chicago Times article by Mark Steyn. Mark is a hero to them, just as Michael Moore is anathema.
I too have now seen Fahrenheit 9/11, and frankly, it would be terribly difficult to refute the facts or the legitimacy of the questions it poses. There are some "difficult to find" facts regarding the Bush family's long relationship with Saudi oil, the Saudi Royalty, and even the Bin Laden family. However, I highly suspect that they are all factual. Moore would have been insane to flout the Bush family with questionable facts in such a venue. I don't think he is insane. Steyn even promotes his own agenda within the article by taking credit for having previously revealed certain factual material in his articles. Great!
Additionally, the overall legitimacy, incompetence and ineffectiveness of this Republican administration has all been previously suggested in several books, and by several experts in only the last year. Some of these people have achieved high rank in the Military and Diplomatic Corps, are career public servants with specialized expertise, and some have in the past even called themselves Republicans. So Michael Moore is not unique there.
The "punch line" for the Steyn article is that Moore's movie is casts Dubya in a critical light. He says:
"So in theory I ought to welcome Michael Moore as a comrade in arms. But the trouble with "Fahrenheit 9/11" is that you don't come away mad at the Saudis or America's useless bureaucracy, you come away mad at Bush -- or, if not mad, feeling snobbishly superior to him. And, if feeling snobbishly superior to the president isn't your bag, what's left is an incoherent bore."
As I have pointed out to my friends at Lucianne.com many times, the Republican propaganda machine is to simply get the opposition to "shut up".. mainly by bullying tactics. The number one sin is being critical, or denunciatory toward the Republicans, the Republican President and his administration, or anything that is laughingly referred to as "conservative". (I say laughingly, because I'm a conservative. What is passing for conservatism these days is quite radical.. nothing "conservative" about it.. true conservatism tends to be moderate and non-reactionary. That's not the motif of the current power-base of the Republican Party.)
However, be that as it may, I recently posted a comment in the NYT on another attempt to squelch freedom of speech, probably unwittingly by Nicholas Kristof (actually one of my favorites) on 30 June 2004.
Kristof wants to strike a moderate tone for Liberals, while criticizing Moore for calling Dubya a liar.
The article:
Calling Bush a Liar
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
"So is President Bush a liar?
Plenty of Americans think so. Bookshops are filled with titles about Mr. Bush like "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," "Big Lies," "Thieves in High Places" and "The Lies of George W. Bush."
A consensus is emerging on the left that Mr. Bush is fundamentally dishonest, perhaps even evil — a nut, yes, but mostly a liar and a schemer. That view is at the heart of Michael Moore's scathing new documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11."
In the 1990's, nothing made conservatives look more petty and simple-minded than their demonization of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were even accused of spending their spare time killing Vince Foster and others. Mr. Clinton, in other words, left the right wing addled. Now Mr. Bush is doing the same to the left. For example, Mr. Moore hints that the real reason Mr. Bush invaded Afghanistan was to give his cronies a chance to profit by building an oil pipeline there.
"I'm just raising what I think is a legitimate question," Mr. Moore told me, a touch defensively, adding, "I'm just posing a question."
Right. And right-wing nuts were "just posing a question" about whether Mr. Clinton was a serial killer.
I'm against the "liar" label for two reasons. First, it further polarizes the political cesspool, and this polarization is making America increasingly difficult to govern. Second, insults and rage impede understanding.
Lefties have been asking me whether Mr. Bush has already captured Osama bin Laden, and whether Mr. Bush will plant W.M.D. in Iraq. Those are the questions of a conspiracy theorist, for even if officials wanted to pull such stunts, they would be daunted by the fear of leaks.
Bob Woodward's latest book underscores that Mr. Bush actually believed that Saddam did have W.M.D. After one briefing, Mr. Bush turned to George Tenet and protested, "I've been told all this intelligence about having W.M.D., and this is the best we've got?" The same book also reports that Mr. Bush told Mr. Tenet several times, "Make sure no one stretches to make our case."
In fact, of course, Mr. Bush did stretch the truth. The run-up to Iraq was all about exaggerations, but not flat-out lies. Indeed, there's some evidence that Mr. Bush carefully avoids the most blatant lies — witness his meticulous descriptions of the periods in which he did not use illegal drugs.
True, Mr. Bush boasted that he doesn't normally read newspaper articles, when his wife said he does. And Mr. Bush wrongly claimed that he was watching on television on the morning of 9/11 as the first airplane hit the World Trade Center. But considering the odd things the president often says ("I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"), Mr. Bush always has available a prima facie defense of confusion.
Mr. Bush's central problem is not that he was lying about Iraq, but that he was overzealous and self-deluded. He surrounded himself with like-minded ideologues, and they all told one another that Saddam was a mortal threat to us. They deceived themselves along with the public — a more common problem in government than flat-out lying.
Some Democrats, like Mr. Clinton and Senator Joseph Lieberman, have pushed back against the impulse to demonize Mr. Bush. I salute them, for there are so many legitimate criticisms we can (and should) make about this president that we don't need to get into kindergarten epithets.
But the rush to sling mud is gaining momentum, and "Fahrenheit 9/11" marks the polarization of yet another form of media. One medium after another has found it profitable to turn from information to entertainment, from nuance to table-thumping.
Talk radio pioneered this strategy, then cable television. Political books have lately become as subtle as professional wrestling, and the Internet is adding to the polarization. Now, with the economic success of "Fahrenheit 9/11," look for more documentaries that shriek rather than explain.
It wasn't surprising when the right foamed at the mouth during the Clinton years, for conservatives have always been quick to detect evil empires. But liberals love subtlety and describe the world in a palette of grays — yet many have now dropped all nuance about this president.
Mr. Bush got us into a mess by overdosing on moral clarity and self-righteousness, and embracing conspiracy theories of like-minded zealots. How sad that many liberals now seem intent on making the same mistakes."
Personally, I don't think Dubya is a liar. I think he is a stuffed-shirt front-end for a group of Republican ideologues that are currently running the Party. His thought processes are shallow, and suitable only for the rhetoric that he is fed, and within which he has been bred. He is a product of right-wing political and intellectual in-breeding. So, while there may be "lies" involved, they may not be "his" per se.
Anyway, I provided the following defense of Moore in response to that article:
Calling Bush a Liar
Ghost Dansing
"The counterpunch is good. A component of what has generated the current state of affairs is the perception that the "right-wing" propaganda efforts, a technique that employs simplistic, strident, repeated accusations and phrases in as many venues as possible, has been effective. The technique is directed at the partisan political base of the Republican Party, and is full of half-truths and untruths. The phraseology is captured, unchallenged in the media, and saturates the newspapers and news broadcasts. "The UN is BAD", "The UN is CORRUPT", "GERMANY AND FRANCE are BAD for not supporting our perfect cause", etc. Only in the last year has the Republican administration started to receive serious challenges.. and only after their mirepresentations and miscalculations had come solidly home to roost. A component of this technique is simply muting the opposition, i.e. the media or the guy in the street who might argue with you. Think about how thoughtful introverts act in a room full of loud bullies. The Republican Party and their constituents have become loud bullies, and it has been effective. The Liberals have become the quiet introverts sitting in the corner, and discussing issues in quiet, comparatively non-public venues. Witness the suggestion that any criticism of the Republican administration regarding foreign policy or war policy is either "not supporting the troops" or "treasonous" or both. It has the effect of muting the opponent. Witness the fact that so many people believed that Saddam was involved in 9/11. The Republican administration continues to exploit that misrepresentation, and extend it. The media wasn't asking the right questions, the probing questions that would reveal the ambiguities and challenge the technique of simple, strident, repeated statements. The guy on the street isn't challenging the guy on the bus that simply asserts "WMD WAS FOUND IN IRAQ". The social construction of reality is filled with ambiguities, imperfect knowledge and convoluted understandings. The "right" has effectively exploited this to their benefit.. they have become pros, and influence operations are their main concern..witness the strength of Karl Rove in the administration.. a political spinnster.. an operative.. a propagandist. The counterpunch is good. Granted, the Liberal counterpunch is more effective if it can concisely and effectively challenge the "right wing" propaganda with complete truths. However, just breaking the ice to get anybody to challenge anything is a start. Hoorah for Moore."
If nothing else, Michael Moore is a good counter to the likes of Mark Steyn. Polemics beget Polemics, and the so-called "left" and/or other opposition to modern Republicanism should not unilaterally disarm itself. Criticize all you want. The President works for you. This is America. Have a nice day.
11:02:34 AM 
|
![Subscribe to "Ghost Dansing Comments [Radio Weblog]" in Radio UserLand.](http://radio.weblogs.com/0128215/images/xmlCoffeeCup.gif){kind=small}
