What is Michael Moore's Real Agenda?
 

Money.

Think about it. He has become fabulously wealthy bashing Big Business, America and the Right (especially Bush). His support of Nader may actually have cost Gore the election - but Bush's win has been a boondoggle for Moore. In 2004, it is also likely that Moore will influence younger voters to support Nader - and ensure Bush's re-election.

And he will cry all the way to the bank.

Rich White Trash

Michael Moore has been making a lot of money the past four years at George Bush’s expense. If Bush is re-elected, Moore should continue to do very well making his propaganda movies and authoring his “humor” books attacking the President. Bush in office is, after all, very good copy for Moore’s business, which consists almost wholly of making money by ridiculing others. So perhaps it is no surprise that Moore is one of those responsible for getting Bush elected in 2000. And more to the point, he may help re-elect Bush this time as well, whatever his avowed purpose in making the movie.

Moore’s new screed, Fahrenheit 911, opened nationally this weekend in about 900 theatres. The movie, the top prize winner at Cannes, may make more money for Moore than his previous film, the Oscar winning Bowling for Columbine. The best-known movie reviewers have been pretty much unrestrained in their praise for the movie (A. O. Scott, Roger Ebert, Kenneth Turan). The charge by Moore and the Weinstein brothers at Miramax that the Disney Corporation was trying to prevent the movie from being distributed (a completely false story of course), helped to create early buzz for the film even before its initial showing at Cannes. Moore, a millionaire many times over already, may not be in Mel Gibson’s league as a Hollywood money machine, but he has been equally adept at creating controversy for his books and movies, which creates a bigger audience for them, and more cash to fill those very large pockets on his trousers or overalls.

Moore does not look like the kind of guy the Hollywood elites would love. Other than on The Sopranos, there are very few jobs in Hollywood for people who look like Michael Moore. But Moore has been the creator of an unending string of nasty mocking portrayals of the President, red meat for the condescending “coastals” and lefty “bobos” of blue state America. Each of Moore’s recent books and movies has been fact-checked and proven wanting by those who took the time to do so. That has not mattered to Moore’s ready-made audience.

Add to this a general incoherence on political message, other than viciousness towards the President, Israel and corporations, Moore’s axis of evil. As Christopher Hitchens has noted, Moore seems to be saying in Fahrenheit 911 that we went to war in Afghanistan for Texas oil and gas interests, who wanted to build a pipeline through the country. Yet he also seems to be saying that Iraq was a mistake because it diverted our attention from going after bin Laden with greater force strength and finishing the job in Afghanistan. As Roseanne Roseanna Danna might have said on Saturday Night Live when confronted with an obvious inconsistency, “Never mind”.

Thematic incoherence does not matter when the goal is to create enough scatter shots at Bush and his cronies to keep the audience both laughing and angered. It is the anger part, however, where the movie will likely have its payoff.

Moore says he is not in Ralph Nader’s camp this time, as he was in the 2000 election. Moore is now fighting-off charges that ads for his film will violate campaign finance laws. During the primary season, Moore endorsed General Wesley Clark. If Moore feels bad about Bush being President, he certainly had something to do with it. During the 2000 campaign, I attended a Nader rally in Chicago. The speakers included such political theorists as Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam, talk show washout Phil Donohue, Studs Terkel, and Moore. Terkel told the audience that because he lived and voted in Illinois, it was safe to vote for Nader, since Gore would carry the state in any case. Moore was more unabashed in his enthusiasm for Nader. He accompanied the traveling Nader team in appearances across the country, including many contested states.

Since the 2000 election, Moore has made the “stolen” election of 2000 in Florida a major theme of his book (Stupid White Men). The stolen election charge is categorically false. But if Moore feels guilty about his helping Nader win over 90,000 votes in a state that was decided by only 537 votes, it would be important for him to show that Gore really won the state despite Moore’s best effort to make Nader a successful spoiler.

Of course, a Gore presidency would never have created the economic opportunities for Moore that the Bush White House has. And a Kerry Presidency won’t either. So it is important to evaluate what impact his current film will have on the campaign. If you already hate Bush, you are part of a ready-made audience for Fahrenheit 911. If you enjoy mocking him in the company of fellow travelers, then it will be close to a religious experience to build your wrath at the President for two hours. It is possible that several million people will see Moore’s “documentary” before the November election.

Moore says he hopes that young people, who don’t vote in large numbers, will see the movie and then choose to throw Bush out in November. Maybe this will happen. But there is another possibility. That is that the Moore audience will find John Kerry just a bit too bland for their tastes, too white bread, given the higher order Bush loathing that Moore’s movie will help create. If this is the case, then Ralph Nader, with his unrestrained attacks on corporations and big oil, Bush, and Texas, Israel, and the war in Iraq, will seem a lot more palatable, as James Pinkerton suggests.

This is an audience that has been prepared for Moore by Paul Krugman, Molly Ivins and their ilk. After seeing Fahrenheit 911, how many in the audience will become enthusiastic partisans for John Kerry, the man who voted for the $87 billion for Iraq, before he voted against it, and who voted for the Iraq war resolution in the Senate? The Moore partisans are a far-left subset of the Howard Dean forces, who represent the most un-nuanced portion of the American political left.

Can this group fall in love with John Kerry? Will Moore’s movie help them do so? In some national polls, Nader has been running north of 5%, more than double his performance in 2000. This is an unrealistic assessment of how he will likely do in November, since he may not be on the ballot in as many states as in 2000, and he may be the candidate of different parties in different states. But the hard left that will cheer Fahrenheit 911 includes a lot of people who will find greater psychic reward in the Nader camp than the Kerry camp, particularly among the young who are not likely to be so pragmatic in their voting selection. In a conversation in New York just after the movie opened this week, Moore provided some empirical evidence that this may well occur, describing a college audience of 200 who viewed the movie, after which half said they would vote for Nader.

Inevitably, as reported in the New York Times on its front page Friday, Kerry will shift his themes towards the center, since that is how he can best appeal to those who are not in ether of the two partisan camps -- the muddled middle or swing voters. This is hardly surprising. With a sharply divided electorate, there are few swing voters to fight over, and a highly partisan campaign won’t be very appealing to them.

If there is some possibility that the Moore movie will push leftist partisans to Nader, how about the swing voters? Will the Moore movie push them towards Kerry? I doubt it. First, I don’t think most swing voters are a natural audience for Michael Moore movies. Second, though swing voters may have doubts about Bush and Iraq, they also don’t loathe him personally, as Moore does. The Moore movie may make them uncomfortable, just as his intemperate rant during the 2003 Academy awards show probably did.

In a recent column, Dick Morris, the former advisor to and now fulltime Clinton deconstructionist, suggested that the former President’s new book will likely have a negative effect on the Kerry campaign. Morris has been arguing for some time that the two Clintons want Kerry to lose, but not get wiped out. A Bush blowout win might severely damage the party. But a Kerry win would be worse for the perpetual Clinton family campaign, since it would mean that Kerry would be re-nominated in 2008, and deprive Hillary of her shot at the White House until 2012 at the earliest, when she would be 65 years old. And then, she would have to compete for the nomination with other ambitious politicians, including Kerry’s sitting Vice President, perhaps a younger candidate such as John Edwards. The nomination in 2012 will not be hers for the asking, as it might be in 2008, if Kerry were defeated this year.

Morris argues that the new Clinton book with its inevitable focus on the Monica issue will leave a subtle message that is good for President Bush. Namely, all this sordidness on the personal side has disappeared since Bush’s election. Say what you may about his policies, he has not personally disgraced the White House. Laura Bush is appealing and not controversial. The Bush daughters have largely stayed out of the limelight. Family has been safe ground for this Administration. For undecided voters, this is a message that the Clinton book may bring to mind. So why did Clinton need to get his book out during this election year?

Odd as it sounds, there may be a strategic partnership between Clinton and Moore as regards the election. Moore is a capitalist at heart, regardless of his faux affections for laid-off auto workers in Flint. There are autoworkers in Kentucky and Tennessee now producing more efficiently-made Japanese brand name cars than were produced in Flint, before the factories closed there. Companies that can’t compete will fail, a lesson Moore has never learned, as evidenced by his tiresome screeds directed at General Motors. There is also no evidence of Moore giving his newly-minted millions away to his favorite causes that now presumably have greater needs under the Bush corporate welfare regime.

Moore seems to revel in the adulation of his fans in his speeches at colleges, and when addressing movie audiences. Given his looks, Moore was probably not the most popular guy in his high school class. The accolades have come later in life, and are undoubtedly appreciated, and may have gone to his head. As David Brooks describes in the New York Times, Moore is now the most sought-after America-bashing speaker around the world. Get a very overweight American man to claim that Americans are ugly and stupid, and America-hating people in Europe, whatever their appearance or brainpower, will cheer. As Mathew May has written, the fact that leading Democratic Party elected officials pay tribute to Moore and his toxic message is evidence of the decay of a once significant political party.

But Moore is above all a skillful manipulator of his audiences’ or readers’ emotions. He has mixed his poison with humor, and thereby reached a much larger crowd. And that manipulation has led to a very fat wallet.

For Bill Clinton, there is both power and money at stake in the coming election. Dick Morris has made the case for the power side. But the money side matters too. During his administration, Clinton partisans excused the sex, and argued that in any case, it was never about money with Clinton. Now the former President charge synagogues $250,000 for an hour talk on why Yasser Arafat disappointed him. He and his wife have earned over $20 million between them so far for two very bad books. Their money is not, for the most part, going to charity either. As both Moore and Clinton must realize, this is a great country. Make it while you can. The celebrity left has not gotten any poorer during the Bush years. For both Moore and Clinton, it is probably in their interest to keep the gravy train rolling. Follow the money.

Yes... money, filthy luche... Just because someone makes money does not make them evil or duplicitous...

I find the whole let's demonize "X" because he/she is just in it for the money a bit tiresome.

Personally, I could care less if Moore makes money from his endeavours... I hope he buys a big fat dwelling in NYC and smokes Cuban cigars.

I don't buy for an instant the argument that he does this to get rich. There are far easier ways to get rich than poking Corporate America with a sharp stick.

I'd agree with you about money, but add power, too. He loves the attention and feeling of importance.

He's been an anti-establisment rabble-rouser since he was a little kid. He was outspoken in high school, went on to become a left-wing journalist and now a left wing movie maker.

I saw BFC, and that's the last time he gets any of my money. :p

I don't view money as filthey lucre. I love money. It's dang useful stuff.

I just find it incredibly amusing and hypocritical that Moore has become exactly that about which he rants - a rich, powerful white man. If he really were sincere, his profits would be donated to the causes he hawks. Instead, the causes are a shill game to line his own pockets.

Michael Moore is NOT a servant of the people. Michael's Moore's work may actually be more of a service to our people than the services provided by those WE PAY! Regardless if he is lining his own pockets is his business and he is exercising his right afforded by the 1st Ammendment.

Why can't people break down what he is saying/communicating in his work rather than attempting to assasinate his character?!?!?

oh come on -- he's getting paid for what he does just like everyone else. I certainly hope that he's giving a bunch of money to charity (just as i hope for all other wealthy people) and that he's cognoscente of his new economic status but i certainly can't fault the guy for making money. agree with his politics or not but he's done a lot of hard work to get where he is, he deserves the money just as much as the next political humorist.

I believe we already have a thread devoted to deconstructing the lies in Moore's films.

The purpose of this one is to discuss his stated agenda with the actual effects of his message. If his goal is to defeat Bush, then why isn't he throwing his weight behind Kerry, who is the only other candidate with a chance of prevailing?

There is a huge disconnect between what personally benefits Moore and the political stands he takes.

Moore is a hypocrit, and probably deep down wouldn't want things to get better because he'd lose a lot of money.

Same with Limbaugh, he would probably deep down prefer Kerry presidntor a dem house or senate so he can make more money. As it stands now when he can't attack the dems he feasts on his own party's moderates for being moderate.

I say we vote out Bush and make the country greater and get rid of both of them.

We need optimism and people wanting to get along and work together, we don't want men getting rich telling us how bad things are.

By the way, does Moore even try to start any rallies or protests or even go to any, besides those from his movies where he's making money and if he donates anything it's a tax deduction for him.

I'm sure he's the only one.

I agree with everything except the vote out Bush part. If there was a better alternative offered I'd be the first to vote for him. Unfortunately Kerry isn't it.

Kerry would be a somnambulent disaster.

Bush obviously doesn't believe in education, because he has money, and didn't give all his money to teachers.

Bush obviously doesn't believe in defence, because he has moeny, and didn't donate all his money to the military.

Kerry obviously isn't a Catholic because he has money, and hasn't given all of his money to the Church.

Strangely enough, you can support a cause without wanting to give every dime you own to the cause.

This is just ridiculous. :rolleyes:

I've seen countless Moore interviews and the last thing you could describe him as is some kind of selfish money grubber.

Take this interview for example:

Lamb asks him about money and this is part of his answer.
http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1754

His whole progressive political ideology is against it. He is steadfastly against the Bush tax cut, which gives most of the tax "relief" to the rich and even offers it away. He is also known to be highly critical of greedy corporations (see sig). He is, and is an advocate for, the average guy and the right-wing in this county is just unwilling to accept that.

All this backlash wouldn't be happening if the right wingers were not afraid of him or the ideas he represents.

it is beyond funny seeing the right, which has for years argued that lucre is in itself evidence of personal virtue, now claiming that money-making is now somehow problematic in the case of michael moore.

you would think that they would see moore as salutary---he has managed to survive the rights demolition of public funding for the arts, which has forced artists to shill on the market---he produced an interesting, conversation provoking film--maybe the underlying premise of trying to eliminate funding for the arts hasnt worked out as the right ideologues had hoped--maybe they figured that the "market" and its "discipline" would force artists to capitulate intellectually and creatively, and turn themselves into nice, subservient republicans---it didnt work----and now the right is all in a froth because moore's film is condensing discussions that have been happening everywhere--except of course within the purview of the sustained circle jerk that is right media----about the disaster that is george w bush and the politics for which he stands---boo hoo.

beyond that, i second kuthulu's sentiments--the right is afraid of michael moore because he shows the king is without clothes---
better to smear the messenger than to think about the message.

One entry found for rabble-rouser.


Main Entry: rab·ble-rous·er
Pronunciation: 'ra-b&l-"rau-z&r
Function: noun
: one that stirs up (as to hatred or violence) the masses of the people : DEMAGOGUE
- rab·ble-rous·ing /-zi[ng]/ noun or adjective

roachboy,

Your punctuation makes following your train of thought a bit difficult.

I've distilled your longrun on sentence into Moore Hates Bush so The Right Is Afraid.

I agree with the first part - but the second half is not accurate. The Right is actually well-served by Moore making a spectacular ass out of himself. The people to whom Moore appeals are not going to vote for Bush in any case - and his extreme viewpoints are just going to alienate any moderate undecideds.

I'm not saying he is BUT he screams how unfair things are but is probably one of the first people to make sure he gets his tax deductions.

Yes, the government can do more. Yes, Roger and Me was a great movie. But now he has totally let this fame and fortune go to his head and he is the left's Limbaugh. He makes good points and I agree at the beginning, but he takes everything to an extreme and it just becomes almost irrational.

First of all this is not an English class.
Second, if you are going to criticize and belittle someone's grammar and punctionation please make sure that your statements are gramatically perfect.

Back on topic, if Moore and his message don't scare the right wing, why are they attacking him so vicously. They are doing just about anything they can to stop the movie, discredit the movie, and bring Moore down. Looks like they did a great job.

Commenting that his sentence structure is difficult to follow is not belittling. If we are to have a meaningful discussion, it is better to communicate in an understandable fashion.

As to your comment on the topic. If the Right is so afraid, their tactics have been ineffective. The movie is being shown across the country and is drawing a substantial audience.

wonderwench---

i checked the grammar in the first sentence and changed a couple of words so it would be easier----thanks for pointing out that it was confusing.

fact is that it is only in the fantasy-world of conservatives that moore is "making an ass" of himself---rather he takes on the right in terms that are not theirs, makes arguments that run against their politics---and the people on the right are afraid of it.

of course, i do not think that the actually existing people on the right are afraid in a normal sense--rather their sources of infotainment on the order of limbaugh (but running across the gambit of mediocrities that operate as pundits in conservative-land) are worried, and they write columns about their worry, and naturally within a short time, their audience is also worried and they recycle the concerns issued by their pundits of choice pundits of choice, sometimes simply pasting them.

maybe, wonderwench, you should actually see the film.

and the initial post, which attempts to whine about moore's film being a success financially, is simple hypocrisy.

i hope that much was clear.

as for the arts funding linkage, it is an argument--i think the parallel interesting--but if you need me to simplify it for you, i'd be glad to.

I believe in voting with my dollars. I will not endorse Moore's politics and philosophy by putting money in his pocket. I know enough about his stances via the interviews he gave to promote the film.

if you won't see the film, they why are you talking about it?

as for the repetition of opinions generated by your authorized right-wing brand sources, it demonstrates only intellectual servility if you are not even willing to see the film. how can you be so sure that he is wrong if you have no bloody idea what the arguments are?

I watched a few interviews with Michael Moore speaking for himself. That's enough for me.

I don't need to see the film to know that he has an agenda with which I do not agree and that he has created fiction on several accounts.

a word of caution is always in order when addressing other members directly in ways that overgeneralize and tend to poorly characterize the member to whom one is speaking/typing.

If you don't want to give him money then download the movie.

Watch the movie and take note of his points. The facts he presents are real. You can look them up if you wish. His website even has a page devoted to replying to the attacks against his facts.

I also value my time. Why waste any of it when I have already heard his main message from his own lips? No thank you.

Then what are you doing here, starting a thread and attacking Moore, if you value your time so much?

Believe it or not, I find playing on a message board to be a better use of my time than watching Fahrenheit 9/11. Aint' freedom grand?

This is pointless. You can watch all his interviews, read all the BS for and against the movie but you won't really get it unless you see the movie. The guy cares about the little guy. He hasn't sold out yet.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. The people who work for him in whose unionizing efforts he interfered and the theatre staff in London whom he insulted would probably disagree with your assessment.

By all means, go see his movie. Enjoy!

I just do not care to see it myself.

I think it's more dangerous to keep talking about Moore.

He's obviously won if you are spending the time the to talk about how you don't like what he's doing.

If he wants money he's got it. If he wants the attention, he's defenitely got it.

Why is it dangerous to discuss the reality of Moore's agenda? I don't find it so.

wonderwench: i wouldn't ask you to see a movie which you have no interest in seeing especially when you obviously are not open to whatever facts or opinions are presented in said movie. however, it is not conducive to a discussion for you to express opinions about a film that you have not seen. furthermore, I do not understand why you seem so angry at a man whom you have not met and whose work you have not seen. it's perfectly acceptable to not like moore or his films but i don't see any reason for you to personally attack him or the people who are interested in what he has to say.

It's not dangerous to discuss his agenda. But when you are saying you won't care one bit about what he says but can keep bringing him up, I'm thinking there's much more beef to it than simply discussing an agenda.

I don't like to call it an enfatuation and I resisted in doing so in the first place, but that's what it feels like it is.

Unbelievable. Who isn't in it for the money? Bill O'Reilly? Sean Hannity? Rush Limbaugh, who signed the richest contract in radio history?

Absolutely ridiculous. Michael Moore could be ROLLING in dough if he'd clean up his image a little and tone down the "annoying" to a dull roar. Moore bashed Clinton, and Moore bashed Gore. Suddenly when Moore bashes Bush, he's a flaming liberal Democrat, come to overthrow the Republican dictator? Right.

This thread is quite entertaining. The hatred expressed towards Mr Moore by someone who obviously has little understanding of his message, or works is amazing to me. Mind you, I actually dislike Moores way of portraying his "reality" but I do see his reasoning for it. The "Facts" are of course tainted by hollywoodism, but that does not dismiss the core of said facts.
I have seen the latest film, and the vast majority of the information, seems to me accurate if played up. There IS fear in the eyes of the right, and with reason. There have been many obvious lies and mistakes by the administration, and this one movie could make them more clear to the millions who live in ignorant bliss.
Moore power to him, in my opinion.

You are misinterpreting disgust as anger. Given the fact that Terry McAuliffe and other members of the DNC have embraced Moore - this movie has become part of the political campaign. This is why I question Moore's motives and veracity.

Fascinating. You believe that millions of Americans live in ignorant bliss. So do I - but they are not the same millions.

The fantasy world is the one viewed by those who think America is the Evil Empire and that the despotic, totalitarian regimes which have killed untold millions of their citizens are some sort of proletariat Utopia.

As a response....let me just say.

Rather than get into the same nightmare exchange I have had in the past, with others of your inclination, I will simply bow to your powerful opinion and take my leave.

Hope you have a wonderful debate.

roflmao! You barely know me, but thanks!

This is an odd discussion, anger\disgust whatever you want to call it, , never seen his work, never seen this film in particular yet it's all lies ,I just don't know.

I downloaded and watched the film tonight and I have to say the man has a point, the facts are right there , but hey if you never see the film you'll never know.

Just my 2 cents.

Moore is for the Working Man!
Moore is for the Downtrodden!
Moore stands for the Repressed!
Moore stands against Corporate Greed!

Well, maybe. But he's also a mulitmillionaire capitalist (which is ok). But a mulitmillionaire folk hero who lives the life of a king? He spent $20 million just to promote the movie. He better be careful lest he becomes that which he mocks. He stands to make at least $50 million if the movie grosses more than $500 million worldwide. Is that a man of the working class? He is a great manipulator of the working class' emotions, thats for sure.

Moore's no dummy. He knows that he could never make a movie like this anywhere else BUT in America. For all his blustery indignation, you just know he would never choose to live anywhere else that couldn't provide him the standard of living that America does.

What makes this all so lame is the fact that there happens to be a presidential election in 5 months.

I fail to see where the movie debases "America", Bush is not America, Bush is a man.

If anything the movie is an attempt to help the country become a better democracy/republic, as there can be no healthy democratic process without adequate information.

As for the sarcasm you portray at the beginning of your post, he is certainly no longer downtrodden, but his movie does address much of the rest.

Hatred or violence aside (as I don't agree that those are his intentions)... I don't see a problem with stirring up the people...

Right or wrong, sometimes eyes need to be opened and attention focused... Sometimes you need to pay attention the "man behind the curtain."

Michael actually threw his support behind Clarke.. He will most likely support Joh Kerry as Clarke has

I heard he went to a Dean function intending to support his campaign but left quickly thinking that Dean was a real asshole.

The actual fantasy world is the one where people actually believe the crap you're throwing on the wall there. There are very few people that actually believe that totalitarian regimes are some paradise. That's just the conservative response that talk radio shows repeat day after day and then their parrots chirp it over and over again.

If that's what you really think the liberal opposition to this war is, then you have no idea what it really is.

At the same time, if you think that we American's are totally blameless you need to do some research.

Crap to some is fertilizer for thought to others.

The problem with the liberal outlook is that it often condemns America for not being perfect while excusing or ignoring far worse behavior in totalitarian regimes.

Case in point: the lamentation over the thousands of unintended civilian casualties at the hands of American in Iraq and Afghanistan and the long silence about the millions murdered by Saddam's regime.

Not true...many peace and justice advocates, as well as human rights groups, railed against the Hussein regime. As I've mentioned in other threads, such "bleeding hearts" groups get very little attention in America. If we look at the history of American aid and foreign policy, we can see that many times the money flows to some of the worst despots or buchers in the world (Duvalier, Somoza, Hussien, Mobutu, etc). Through all of this, "liberal" rights groups have screamed and shouted about the horror being wrought. Personally, I find it a little irritating to be accused of moral inaction by some American conservatives that have shown little interest in these issues in the past.

It was an unfortunate aspect of the Cold War that we aligned ourselves with totalitarian despots. It is, however, quite easy to condemn those alliances with the advantage of 20-20 hindsight. At the time, the spread of Communism was viewed as a more serious threat.

I agree that some liberal groups have been vocal about the horrors and atrocities commited by despotic regimes - but sadly, many of the so-called liberal leadership and media are not among them.

We aligned ourselves with despots long before the cold war, and we've continued to align ourselves after the fall of the Soviets. What we've seen is the triumph of realpolitick over ideology. Bush gave foreign aid to the Taliban pre 9-11 and Clinton wasn't shy about cozying up to butchers, either. Neither side is very concerned with the suffering of others around the globe. Our leaders aren't above using that suffering as a convenient smoke screen, though.

Edit: and to get back to the point of my previous response, you should use caution when accusing "liberals" of actions that your own side is guilty of.

Yes, we aligned ourselves with Stalin in order to defeat Hitler.

What we've seen is that the world is an imperfect place with many risks and dangers. Sometimes we have to associate with appalling people in order to combat even more appalling people.

You'll get not argument from me on ceasing the vast majority of foreign aid donations. Most of it ends up shoring up tyrants.

I think that we should shift the focus of our "foreign aid" to actual aid to real people. We don't really give much humanitarian foreign aid per capita...I believe that we are ranked somewhere around thirtieth among industrialized nations. We are number one in military aid, however, which tends to flow to the very tyrants that you mentioned. Why not give that money to some non-tyrants? It's not as if we can't control who we give it to. We are also the number one arms merchant in the world, but I digress....

It seems that you agree with the bipartisan tendency to overlook atrocitites for economic/political motives. As such, it is a bit unfair to accuse Democrats of looking the other way when the party that you support does the very same thing. This triumph of realpolitick is one of the many reasons why I cannot call myself a member of either party and why many Americans are quite suspicious of humanitarian justifications for the war.

Maybe we should all just use that rationale. :rolleyes:

So people shouldn't care about the civillians killed by American's in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the one's that Saddam killed should be the focus.


America has lied in bed with more than Stalin to beat Hitler, they funded Ho-Chi-Minh during and after WW2, then went to war, funded the mujahadeen during their fight with the Soviets, then invaded Afghanistan, fundede Saddam during his war with Iran, now occupying Iraq, seems if the American's suppport your cause you'd better be ready for war a few years down the road.

We don't pay totalitarian regimes (although our tax dollars most probably do in reality. We pay our government. It is our right to scrutinize our government. We have no right to police the world.

Watching to see that things don't get out of hand.


So far you guys have been walking the edge and then drawing back.


That's ok, so long as you don't lose your balance and fall headlong into flaming.


Good luck, Jim!

Yes, we made alliances with some appalling people in order to stop the spread of Communism, which we deemed to be a more serious threat.

You are neglecting the vast numbers of countries we have helped with whom we are not at war, btw.

As I've stated in other posts, our dalliances with despicable powers have occured before, during and after the cold war. Let's not pretend that all of America's international faults are the result of responding to communism.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$

*edited by analog because it was all on one long line and messes with the format*

Can we get back to the topic?

I love how no one questions the agenda of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, etc, etc, etc. Only leftists have "agendas."

Really, the question is a no-brainer. He, like any other political pundit type, wants to influence the politics and culture of his country. Not exactly a controversial thought if you believe in free speech. OF all the things that you could accuse M Moore of, coyness isn't one of them.

Oh puh-leeeeze. Criticism of the rightwing pundits is rather an abundant commodity - although I have yet to see a documented critique showing that they are in the same class of Liar as is Moore.

Even his own comrades are concerned:

Baloney, Moore or Less

By Richard Cohen

I brought a notebook with me when I went to see Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and in the dark made notes before I gave up, defeated by the utter stupidity of the movie. One of my notes says "John Ellis," who is a cousin of George W. Bush and the fellow who called the election for Fox News that dark and infamous night when the presidency -- or so the myth goes -- was stolen from Al Gore, delivering the nation to Halliburton, the Carlyle Group and Saudi Arabia, and plunging it into war. A better synopsis of the movie you're not likely to read.


Ellis appears early in the film, which is not only appropriate but inevitable. He is the personification of the Moore method, which combines guilt by association with the stunning revelation of a stunning fact that has already been revealed countless times before. If, for instance, you did a Lexis-Nexis database search for "John Ellis" and "election," you would be told: "This search has been interrupted because it will return more than 1,000 documents." The Ellis story is no secret.

But more than that, what does it mean? Ellis is a Bush cousin, Moore tells us. A close cousin? We are not told. A cousin from the side of the family that did not get invited to Aunt Rivka's wedding? Could be. A cousin who has not forgiven his relative for a slight at a family gathering -- the cheap gift, the tardy entrance, the seat next to a deaf uncle? No info. And even if Ellis loved Bush truly and passionately, as a cousin should, how did he manage to change the election results? To quote the King of Siam, is a puzzlement.

I go on about Moore and Ellis because the stunning box-office success of "Fahrenheit 9/11" is not, as proclaimed, a sure sign that Bush is on his way out but is instead a warning to the Democrats to keep the loony left at a safe distance. Speaking just for myself, not only was I dismayed by how prosaic and boring the movie was -- nothing new and utterly predictable -- but I recoiled from Moore's methodology, if it can be called that. For a time, I hated his approach more than I opposed the cartoonishly portrayed Bush.

The case against Bush is too hard and too serious to turn into some sort of joke, as Moore has done. The danger of that is twofold: It can send fence-sitters moving, either out of revulsion or sympathy, the other way, and it leads to an easy and facile dismissal of arguments critical of Bush. During the Vietnam War, it seemed to me that some people supported Richard Nixon not because they thought he was right but because they loathed the war protesters. Beware history repeating itself.

Moore's depiction of why Bush went to war is so silly and so incomprehensible that it is easily dismissed. As far as I can tell, it is a farrago of conspiracy theories. But nothing is said about multiple U.N. resolutions violated by Iraq or the depredations of Saddam Hussein. In fact, prewar Iraq is depicted as some sort of Arab folk festival -- lots of happy, smiling, indigenous people. Was there no footage of a Kurdish village that had been gassed? This is obscenity by omission.

The case against Bush need not and should not rest on guilt by association or half-baked conspiracy theories, which collapse at the first double take but reinforce the fervor of those already convinced. The success of Moore's movie, though, suggests this is happening -- a dialogue in which anti-Bush forces talk to themselves and do so in a way that puts off others. I found that happening to me in the run-up to the war, when I spent more time and energy arguing with those who said the war was about oil (no!) or Israel (no!) or something just as silly than I did questioning the stated reasons for invading Iraq -- weapons of mass destruction and Hussein's links to Osama bin Laden. This was stupid of me, but human nature nonetheless.

Some of that old feeling returned while watching Moore's assault on the documentary form. It is so juvenile in its approach, so awful in its journalism, such an inside joke for people who already hate Bush, that I found myself feeling a bit sorry for a president who is depicted mostly as a befuddled dope. I fear how it will play to the undecided.

For them, I recommend "Spider-Man 2."

Have you seen the movie yet Wonderwench?

Here you go!

http://www.fair.org/media-outlets/limbaugh.html
http://slannder.homestead.com/files/slanndermain.html
http://www.whoslying.org
http://mediamatters.org/items/200406300010

There are plenty more sources if you want them....these are just what I could find in two minutes. Like I said before, I fail to see what is so shocking or unusual about Moore's propaganda.

Response to hammer: Absolutely not. I refuse to waste my hard earned cash and time on Moore's Mockumentary.

cthulhu: I am lazy. Would you mind posting the germaine bits?

We can all sit and speculate about the agenda of moore, but really, none of us knows. We can pretend we know based on hearsay but it doesn't really amount to anything. We have one camp whose perspective on moore is derived solely from people who don't agree with him because anyone who sympathises with him is obviously in some sort of ignorant haze. If you can't even begin to grasp anything valid about moore's filmography and motivations, other than a pithy remark here and there than you're not really trying.

I think a more relevant question here is what is wonderwench's agenda? If it is to bash moore based only on what you've heard about him from anywhere except the horse's mouth then i think the mission is accomplished.

It seems to me that a few people like to paint the picture of liberals/moore supporters as being naive, soft and unable to do what it takes to get the job done. I hope the folly of such generalizations is understood, especially when dealing with real people on an interpersonal level.

I think moore is a tool, but i also think that he raises many relevant and pertinent facts about the bush administration. Hear the facts as he presents them, then decide what you believe and what you don't. Then decide what you agree with and what you don't.

Moore is rich? So? Frankly, i don't see what the problem is. He's rich, so what? Tangentially, mel gibson is rich, and he exploited a story about one of the impoverished's most prominent supporters, namely jesus, to get even richer. I heard little about his greedy agenda during the onslaught of the christ.

ok, then we can assume that everything you post is just a reiterations of opinions already posted in the press. You are not capable of making your own judgements since you haven't seen the film. i completely support your decisions not to see it but making that decision removes you from being able to make an objective assessment of the material in question.

You sure do spend an awful lot of time discussing Moore's "Mockumentary" for someone who refuses to waste his time on it.

I have seen enough clips and interviews with Moore himself to have a fairly well-informed opinion about the film. As to my interest, the film is part of the DNC propaganda portfolio leading up to the election. If it were merely entertainment, I couldn't care less about it. Moore being embraced by the "bright lights" of the DNC give the film importance it shouldn't have.

this is an interesting development---i copied it from an e-list i am on......so download the film and watch it, folks. any argument against seeing it would seem to me shot to hell. conservatives might even be able to talk themselves into doing it as an act of protest.

ho ho ho.
===========
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5342052/

NEW YORK - The war between Michael Moore and his critics has escalated
as a Web site targeting the ?Fahrenheit 9/11? director posted a link to
an illegal Fahrenheit file download. In the process, it also attacked
the filmmaker"s stance on copyright law.

A June 27 posting on the site MooreWatch.com invites visitors to
download the film. It quotes Moore, though it doesn't cite a source, as
encouraging such downloading by saying: ?I don't agree with the
copyright laws, and I don't have a problem with people downloading the
movie and sharing it with people. As long as they're not doing it to
make a profit, you know, as long as they?re not trying to make a profit
off my labor. I would oppose that."

Tom Ortenberg, president of Lions Gate Films Releasing, which is
distributing the film with IFC Films and Harvey and Bob Weinstein's
Fellowship Adventure Group, said Wednesday that his company is
exploring legal action.

"I think it?s deplorable what enemies of ?Fahrenheit 9/11? are doing,"
he said. "We are currently looking into our legal options. We are not
going to tolerate anybody trying to infringe on (this film's release."

Since May, there have been reports of downloadable versions of Moore's
movie on such file-sharing networks as Limewire and eDonkey, concurrent
with ?Fahrenheit?s? premiere at the Cannes Film Festival. But according
to BigChampagne, an online media measurement firm, ?Fahrenheit? took
the file-sharing networks by storm Sunday evening.

"The first copies of ?Fahrenheit?, quite good-quality in the
estimation of people who track these things began to leak on Sunday
night," BigChampagne founder and CEO Eric Garland said. "It's
noteworthy that it took so long to show up in a big way in the
file-sharing network, which is probably attributable to the fact that
the film was on relatively few screens. The copy in circulation is a
CAM version (a camcorder copy captured from an actual theater
projection of the film)."

Not easy to access copy
The file posted at MooreWatch.com is in BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer
file-sharing client. For anyone to watch the movie, a series of complex
steps is required to access it.

One person who posted on the site complained about the amount of time
spent trying to download the file. "After downloading all night, I am
at 11%," the Web poster said. "Should it take over a week to download;
or is this part of the DDoS (distributed denial of service) attack"

....

-- http://moorewatch.com/index.php/webl...nts/764/#29621

Wonderwrench, will you vote Bush in the upcoming election? Do you support what Bush has done in his 4 years of presidency? Do you think that America has become a better country in the last 4 years of Bush's presidency? Do you think that the worlds outlook on America has improved over the past 4 years of Bush's presidency? Do you agree with going to war with a country with no threat to your own? Do you agree with US Kids going to war with a country that has no threat to the United States? I could ask hundreds and hundreds of questions; Please answer these.
I know this is off topic, but it is just out of curiosity...

Yeah, that sounds like a guy that is all about the money.

- Most likely yes.

Not everything by a long shot. I am quite distressed over the growth in federal spending.

Yes. I am relieved that the era of the Big Liar is behind us. Bush has had to maneuvre through a recession brought about by the bursting of the phony bubble economy (it is quite fitting that the excessive growth was fraudulent), the aftermath of corporate scandals and 9/11. Given the risk to the nation, we are better off now than if Gore had been the one to handle these problems.

I personally do not give a shit (pardon my vulgarity - I rarely use such language; this is a case in which it is appropriate to make my point) what the vast majority of the world thinks of us. The decandent elites of Europe and despotic authoritarian regimes are not people whose favor I wish to curry. Doing what is right often makes one unpopular. So be it.

This is a "Do you still beat your wife" type of question. Of course I don't. I dispute your implication that Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. It did. And now it doesn't. Good.

See the response to the other "Do you still beat your wife question". The same answer applies here.

You have opinions, I have opinions, Michael Moore has opinions. I will respect yours, now you respect mine, and maybe even try respecting his. It is an easy concept to grasp.

Is there a link for the movie d/l? or has it been taken down?

Respect is something that is earned, not owed.

Michael Moore has not earned my respect. The fact that he publicizes his movie as a Documentary and not a Political Commentary renders his opinions suspect.

As for you and I respecting each other's opinions; as members in good standing, we have each earned a bit. Let us not, however, confuse respect with agreement. Nor should we mistakenly label disagreement as disrespect.

Whether Moore is lying or not or in it just to make a quick buck. I think his message is clear. In the wise words of Maynard. "Think for yourself and question authority."

I dont know if he is doing it just to earn as much money as possible.
If you dont want to pay for the movie, download it:

Moore: pirate my film, no problem

More evidence of Moore's "real agenda":

60 percent of the movie's net profit will ultimately go to charity. :hmm:

Most of "Fahrenheit 9/11" profits will be given away

Being somewhat familiar with the accounting practises of the entertainment industry, net profit is calculated after the application of an enormous amount of overhead. The distributors will personally proft via the overhead allocations.

you accuse a lot of people of posting personal conspiracy theories as fact -- so if you want to make a statement implying that moore is lying about giving money to charity you better follow your own advice and give us some proof beyond your supposed expertise.

no one is denying that moore is going to make some profit off of his work on this film but he is hardly the hypocrite that you accuse him of being (an uninformed accusation that you still continue to make despite not having seen the film in question). He is putting his views out for people to see, apparently A LOT of people are interested and, lucky him, he gets to make a profit while doing something he's passionate about -- would that all of us were so lucky.

I did not say he was lying. I just pointed out that entertainment accounting, especially that of movies, is extremely complicated. Nobody with any saavy accepts a cut of the net - they always try to go for a percentage of the gross.

Donating a portion of the gross would be pretty stupid. What if the movie didn't even make it's money back?

The truth is that you strted this thread as an attempt to bring Moore down and say he's all about the money. 3 pages later we've proved you wrong over and over again. Why not just admit that you were full of it?

LOL!

I don't think I have been refuted. What I am full of is righteous contentment in my opinion that Moore is a hypocritical windbag.

Kutulu said it best, you have got nothing, you tried to make Moore look bad, but he is going to be giving millions and millions away to charities...You need to know when to admit that you don't know everything in the world..you need to know when you are wrong...

Hahahaha!

You have no idea what the Net Profit will be. I hope it is millions and millions. One thing is for certain, however; none of us will have the opportunity to see what expenses are charged to the P&L in order to calculate the net profit.

This is also why....I now just sit and watch.....more the pity.

tecoyah: it is a pity, i can relate completly -- though i'd love to have you back in the game all the same.

I agree. It is a pity when people decide not to participate because differing opinions are expressed.

Seeing as how the movie has made 60 million at the box office in only the first two weeks..add on the next month or so of box office, add on dvd sales, and this movie will easily gross 100 million..probably alot more.
I can not see this movie costing anymore more then 10 milion to make(no cast etc) , and various expensive ile say 10 million( I do not know anything about movie budgets or expenses so these sums could be totally off)... hmm that leaves 80 million..60 percent of 80 million is 48 million... that is most certainly "millions and millions" even if my estimates were off by millions..there would still be alot of money generated to charities..

Snide!

Well informed about the film because you saw a couple of 30 second trailers and saw Mr. Moore on a few TV shows. I beg to differ. Watch the whole film instead of some trailers maybe then your argument will hold water but as for now all you seem to be doing is regurgitating the opinions of a few different news agencies, and people who didn't like Mr. Moore in the first place.

Oh yeah stopping the spread of communism, that was the "conflict" in Vietnam, which then spread to Cambodia, and Laos. That went real well, as I remember. Started with another false aquisation the Tonkin Gulf Incident, much like WMD, but that is another topic altogether

Yes, as a matter of fact, we were quite successful.

The U.S.S.R. has been dissolved. The Berlin Wall came down. Democracy is spreading.

I, for one, applaud the trend.

Where is democracy spreading Iraq and Afghanistan? With two puppet governments, not likely. Vietnam didn't do what it intended to do which was to stop the spread of communism throughout SE Asia. The USSR may have been dissolved and the Berlin Wall did come down, but those are old news do you have anything new?

I still am not sure how you can base your opinion on this movie by watching some trailers and intrerviews, with all the time you have spent arguing about it you could have just watched the movie and made your own valid opinion, instead of taking what news agencies have already said.

As you see Iraq and Afghanistan as merely puppet governments, there is no way to convince you. Fortunately, the process towards sovereignity is moving forward in each of these.

Eastern Europe is filled with newly free countries, btw.

wonderwench, the US may be spreading democracy, but that doesn't detract from the fact that you cannot be well-informed about this film without seeing it.

What are the governments in Iraq and Afghanistan then?
Much along the same lines as you see Mr. Moore as a money grubber, and three pages of people providing truth to the contrary hasn't convinced you of anything.

Name some please, back up your information.

so true