July 16, 2004

FAHRENHYPE

Credit Michael Moore with this: he knows how to make a film. Specifically, one film. Throw him a topic -- any topic -- and he’ll add some voiceovers, a few slabs of archival cheese, way-obvious song selections, buncha clips of his ideological foes looking dumb, and come up with the same film every time.

Fahrenheit 9/11 (I saw it last night, thanks to tickets from the Today Show) follows the same cheap, cynical, disingenuous formula as Bowling for Columbine. Moore’s only got one set of tricks, and he works 'em like a thrice-divorced carny trying to keep up with the alimony payments.

A longer piece on Moore's latest atrocity will follow. Meanwhile, because this was the film’s Sydney premiere, lots of prominent folk turned up. Here are their instant reviews:

• ABC newsreader Tony Eastley rated Fahrenheit 9/11 as "pretty good" and said he hoped "lots of non-Democrats in the US watch it." He noted several cheap shots, however, and admitted Moore’s attempts to link Bush to a widespread Saudi conspiracy were "tenuous". Eastley was also uncomfortable with Moore’s lampooning of several nations that joined the Coalition of the Willing: "They didn’t deserve to be lampooned."

60 Minutes reporter Richard Carleton declared the film to be "pure propaganda, and I fully support it because I oppose the war." Carleton excused Fahrenheit 9/11’s hamfisted style on the grounds that "propaganda has to make strong points."

• "It preys on the prejudices of the bleeding hearts," said former One Nation puppetmaster and NSW Parliamentarian David Oldfield. "It isn’t difficult to make war look terrible."

• Actor John Howard said it was "the best movie I’ve seen in ten years, non-fiction or otherwise", but allowed, following questioning on some of the film’s more obviously dubious aspects, that Moore had "manipulated things a little." Then he referred me to a George Bernard Shaw line which I’ve forgotten.

• Comedian Peter Berner declined to offer an opinion: "I need more time to come up with an off-the-cuff response."

• Activist Andrew Wilkie thought Australians should see Moore’s movie because it will force them to question "the Australian Prime Minister’s obsessive relationship with the US President." Asked about Moore’s blank-screen presentation of the September 11 attacks compared with his graphic depiction of fatalities in Iraq, Wilkie said that this was "just filmmaker’s art." He also called me Jim.

• Author Thomas Keneally was in the audience, but a female reporter from the Daily Telegraph warned me off approaching him: "It’s not a good idea."

• Outgoing ALP member for Kingsford Smith Laurie Brereton didn’t want to talk about the film at all, preferring to discuss the upcoming Australian election and New York Post editor Col Allan. Laurie looks years younger after quitting politics.

• And the CNNNN gang argued with me for a couple of hours; I hope the cars I keyed in the carpark afterwards were theirs. The Today Show will run a few minutes with me after the 7.30am news update.

Posted by Tim Blair at July 16, 2004 03:15 AM
Comments

Oooh, review! We wants it we wants it we wants it!

Apropos of nothing, what is this with all the Australian shows and things that have the same name as American shows and things? Now there is an Australian Today show. I had to hover over the link to assure myself that I wouldn't be able to get up in the morning and watch Tim on my teevee, wah!

It's all too confusing. You guys need to change the names of your shows to something Uniquely Australian™. For starters, I suggest the name of the Today show be changed to "Tucker." Then they could have an America-bashing section on American politics called "Bush Tucker."

I just kill myself sometimes...

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 16, 2004 at 03:24 AM

"..the film’s Sydney premier"

That would be "premiere" wouldn't it?

Unless of course Bob Carr's become more of a blank screen than usual.

Posted by: Nabakov at July 16, 2004 at 03:27 AM

Author Thomas Keneally was in the audience, but a female reporter from the Daily Telegraph warned me off approaching him: "It’s not a good idea."

Since when has that ever deterred you from doing anything?

Posted by: Harry at July 16, 2004 at 04:15 AM

Tim, you sure it wasn't Margo, masquerading as Tom Keneally ?

Posted by: jafa at July 16, 2004 at 04:23 AM

Looking forward to your review, Tim. I'm going on Sunday (to support an activist organisation) and Tuesday (thanks to free tickets from the ABC).

Posted by: Robert at July 16, 2004 at 04:27 AM

Carleton excused Fahrenheit 9/11’s hamfisted style on the grounds that "propaganda has to make strong points".


Well he must have LOVED "The Eternal Jew".

Posted by: PJ at July 16, 2004 at 04:32 AM

Yeah Tim, get to work! I need another link to include in the email I get from friends who have seen the movie and think it's just the greatest thing ever. Between Hitchens, Lileks, Kopel and you, that's a withering counterattack.

I'm shocked at how gullible so many of my friends are.

Posted by: Matt in Denver at July 16, 2004 at 04:51 AM

Damn PJ, reading about 911 made me think about "The Eternal Jew" as well. Its a much better analogy that "Triumph of the Will" since TOTW is a real documentary. If you want stupid voice overs, archival footage and half assed facts designed to inflame emotion, its Der ewige Jude

URL is:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/stills.shtml

Posted by: monkeyboy at July 16, 2004 at 06:25 AM

today, at little green footballs,3rd story
down,is about one pissed off family of a
dead soldiers funeral in the movie,that they
did not know about. this man makes me,well,sick.
moorewatch.com
moorelies.com
mooreexposed.com
and a film do out soon
michaelmoorehatesamerica.com
click on filmmakers journey.

Posted by: andrea/minnesota at July 16, 2004 at 06:45 AM

I ike how your mate from the Telegraph told you not to approach Thomas Keneally, like he's an Aussie Norman Mailer.

To be fair, Keneally wrote something truly worthwhile--Schindler's List--while Mailer has been a literati laughing stock for like 34 decades.

Posted by: rod at July 16, 2004 at 06:56 AM

Spelling mistake fixed, Nab.

Posted by: tim at July 16, 2004 at 07:31 AM

A little off-topic, but Moore may be charged with violating Canadian election laws. According to a CBC story,

"Controversial American filmmaker Michael Moore should be charged with violating Canada's Election Act, a Calgary lawyer says.

Jonathan Denis says Moore defied a section that prohibits a non-resident foreign national from inducing Canadians to vote for or against any candidate.
In the days before the June 30 election, Moore ­ whose critical film about U.S. President George Bush's response to 9/11 and his decision to go to war in Iraq is breaking boxoffice records for documentaries ­ said Canadians shouldn't vote for Conservative Leader Stephen Harper."


Full story

Posted by: tom at July 16, 2004 at 07:36 AM

Author Thomas Keneally was in the audience, but a female reporter from the Daily Telegraph warned me off approaching him: "It’s not a good idea."

Good old Tom. You should know with Tom (for you only have to look) that it's "jaw jaw, not war war."

Posted by: horse dentist at July 16, 2004 at 07:37 AM

I apologize for that previous rash comment.

Posted by: horse dentist at July 16, 2004 at 08:08 AM

Yeah ... can't wait to read your review Tim ... surprise us all by sledging it as a pack-a-lies.

Or you gonna be big enough to acknowledge Moore makes salient points?

C'mon mate ... have a crack ... remember when you were a young journo, striving for balance? Keen like a young pup to present both sides of an argument, to let the reader make up their own mind? Or is this tabloid shock-jock make-it-easy-for-em stuff too ingrained now, the love you get from the acolytes too alluring? Has the dark-side of the Right taken over? Are you like Darth ... "it is too late for me, my son"?

Posted by: Steve at July 16, 2004 at 08:10 AM

uh oh... sounds like someone hasn't had LUNCH yet.

Posted by: Bruce at July 16, 2004 at 08:44 AM

..remember when you were a young journo, striving for balance?..

Direct that one to Richard Carleton, Steve.

Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at July 16, 2004 at 09:56 AM

...at little green footballs,3rd story
down,is about one pissed off family of a
dead soldiers funeral in the movie,that they
did not know about...

That's Moore's schtick, Andrea. Exploiting the dead of Columbine, exploiting the dead of Iraq...maybe a shrink could explain what motivates such vindictive manipulation. My guess is, he's driven by a craving, for payback against all the kids back in Flint who called him a fat loser.

Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at July 16, 2004 at 10:04 AM

What, you wouldn't direct it Tim's way? You think he's balanced? Fair?? That he equally sums up both sides of an argument giving the reader a balanced read that sums up both points of view? I mean ... fair dinkum do ya?

Hey Tim ... pretty crap on telly mate ... not really much in the way of a killer blow about the movie. The clown from One Nation was more lucid. Did you need more time to think? Maybe you could make your own documentary ... espousing Dubya and his fishing holidays. I mean ... that is if as you said on the Today Show, that you really fair dinkum reckon showing Dubya on fishing and golf holidays will make more people vote for him? Hey? Do ya?

And jeez mate - you're a lot fatter than your picture in the Bulletin. You want to watch who you're sledging about their weight, big fellah. Few more Doritos and weeks sitting on your arse writing your polemic bagging F9/11 and you and Moorey will be on the same coronary-waiting-to-happen list.

Posted by: Steve at July 16, 2004 at 10:15 AM

It's always interesting to see how the people who think al-Moore makes "salient points" don't actually have any salient points to make themselves. Instead it's just the same old whinewhinewhine about how people dare not to take Moore seriously and how we're all idiots for not falling in lockstep and then comes the thread hijacking, blahblahblah. Are you here to make a coherent argument, or just to fling around your own feces, Steve?

Posted by: PW at July 16, 2004 at 10:49 AM

Steve, you could be helpful and get the ball rolling by illustrating a single "salient point" Moore has made. You know what, let's open it up. Not just Fake-and-hype 911. Anything ever filmed or written by that Deep-thinking Downtrodden Underprivileged Man-of-the-People. Show a single instance where Moore has shown both sides of an issue and made a "salient point".

(Hint - it's a trick question)

Posted by: Crispytoast at July 16, 2004 at 10:50 AM

After Crispytoast's comments, what else needs to said to Steve?

Posted by: zzx375 at July 16, 2004 at 11:06 AM

ah ... what's the point? there's no talking to you people. I mean, you've seen your hero George Dubya fishing and playing golf and flippantly talking shit about the war on terror before saying 'no watch me hit this drive', i mean, the prick goes on holiday while the world's at war, he sends the dumb poor kids to Iraq and shoots pheasant or something ... and you guys'll see all this ... y'know, on screen, in front of you ... and still Dubya's da man.

And as for salient ... depends what you mean by it ... the thesaurus says it's "outstanding, prominent, spectacular, striking ... having a quality that thrusts itself into attention".

Is there any more attention-seeking prominent-assed salient muthafucka on the planet? With such striking & spectacular box office receipts?

Hey Tim ... you should debate him! You're fantastic on telly ... you bloody dribbler.

Posted by: Steve at July 16, 2004 at 11:21 AM

The journalists not troubled by inaccuracies are a worry.

I saw it last night, thanks to tickets from the Today Show

Were you ok with watching a film whose distributors were happy with hizb'allah support?

Actor John Howard said it was "the best movie I’ve seen in ten years, non-fiction or otherwise" (emph added)

LOL!

"the Australian Prime Minister’s obsessive relationship with the US President."

Who's obsessive about Bush?

Author Thomas Keneally was in the audience, but a female reporter from the Daily Telegraph warned me off approaching him: "It’s not a good idea."

I'd be interested, considering that he wrote a book that was at least partially about Saddam's regime.

Posted by: Andjam at July 16, 2004 at 11:22 AM

Steve, how about this from the 'socially aware' reviewer in the SMH (yes, the SMH)

"Michael Moore has assembled a great raft of accusations in his personal indictment of George Bush's presidency, enough to make the blood boil, but his arguments are often slippery, based on suggestion and innuendo rather than hard fact.

Moore is a polemicist, as ruthless in his pursuit of an agenda as those he accuses, and this leads him into murky waters where he translates suggestions into fact."

Posted by: nic at July 16, 2004 at 11:25 AM

I quite often read these threads but have never posted before. I never felt that I had anything interesting, useful or entertaining to contribute. I notice, however, that this doesn't stop Steve from posting so perhaps I should reconsider my position.

Posted by: Gregor at July 16, 2004 at 11:29 AM

What's wrong with fishing?

Leave fishing the HELL out of this, Steve!

Posted by: ilibcc at July 16, 2004 at 11:31 AM

Steve,

Current weight: 82 kilos (180 pounds). Same as it has been for five years. And about 120 pounds shy of massive Mike.

I am fantastic on television, aren't I? I should say yes to these invitations more often.

Posted by: tim at July 16, 2004 at 11:33 AM

Heavy weights like the late great John Candy die and obscenely fat, greasy, sweating liars like Moore profit on the blood and bravery of others. Truly life is not fair.

Posted by: Dog at July 16, 2004 at 11:56 AM

LOL Gregor.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 16, 2004 at 12:01 PM

I think what most of you have forgotten about M.Moore is that prior to the war in Afghanistan he did an expose on that country and in particular, the Taliban. I watched it.

He was screaming blue murder then that no-one in the west was doing anything to stop the oppressive regime. Now Bush has come to the party Moore has done a complete 180, albeit it took him the span of the pacific to turn his humungous carcass.

One would think that a filmmaker, an I use that term lightly, would not be able to lobby against any government of any country...

One would also think that to be called a documentary about so-called truth, he would have to make it a balanced argument for and against. Unfortunately for Morre he has only portrayed his biased opinion against Bush. Lets not forget also that he gave his undyng support to Nader.

Who's credibility is it that should be questioned now???

PS Saw you on the Today Show Tim.

Posted by: scott at July 16, 2004 at 12:01 PM

Andrea, re: Australian/American show titles. Clearly, the titles originated in Australia, the Americans just came up with the idea first. It all makes sense when you realise that the networks have simply adopted a policy akin to the Bush policy of pre-emptive strikes, ie: pre-emptive titling.
And a while back on the ABC (the post-emptive Australian channel, not the pre-emptive American one), there was actually a show called Bush Tucker man. Looks like we pre-empted you on that one.

Posted by: TimT at July 16, 2004 at 12:06 PM

Andrea, "Bush Tucker" is an interesting proposal. Special comments by Whoopi Goldberg?

Posted by: slatts at July 16, 2004 at 12:12 PM

Well, we'll just have to steal it then! How to do it... must plot...

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 16, 2004 at 12:14 PM

i can not stand what this man did to this family
at his funeral.look up GREGORY STONE. you should
find arrlington national cemetary siight,and the
family is pissed at michaelass moore,for using
him in the film. believe me people,there are
alot of lies in this film. and i can't wait
for michaelmoorehatesamerica.com come out
with this film.

Posted by: andrea/minnesota at July 16, 2004 at 12:21 PM

Steve, Gotta admit you seem to have a bead on Timothy Blair. Especially that bit about the opinions on the sleeve. That put him in his place. Didn't reckon Tim Blair as the opinionated sort, but Im a dumb yank.

I wonder though, dont you think we should pick up this thread when debunking Tim becomes as easy as debunking, well, Michael Moore?

Like I said, Im a dumb yank, and have to go watch my president fish.

Posted by: rod at July 16, 2004 at 12:30 PM

Steve

the prick goes on holiday while the world's at war, he sends the dumb poor kids to Iraq

Like the ADF, the US has an all volunteer army, so if those kids dont want to go to war then they should not have joined the army.

After ten years in the army one thing that truly annoys me is the misconception by retard leftoids that soldiers are victims, forced into the army against their will and hoping that they will not have to fight. I have news for you Princess, just because you are a morally bankrupt, mincing nancyboy do not assume that our soldiers are. We join the army of our own free will and relish the all too rare opportunities to do our job for real and to make the world a better place. Do not project your own shortcomings onto those who choose to serve their country.

Posted by: Crusader at July 16, 2004 at 12:36 PM

You pathetic namedropping schmoozer. You'd go to the opening of an envelope. As for the Today Show talk about scrambling to aboard a sinking ship.

I knew Alan Jones. Alan Jones was a friend of mine. You, sir, are no Alan Jones.

Posted by: Miranda Divide at July 16, 2004 at 12:53 PM

oh, and the Sydney Morning Herald is quoting Laurie Brereton thus:

---
On the red carpet last night, the former Labor minister, Laurie Brereton, said: "The Iraq war was brought to us by warmongers and their cheer squad. They used propaganda to build the case for a war and I think it's good we've got Michael Moore who has answered that propaganda."

---

The bloghead must have been off buying his Fantails at that point.

Posted by: Miranda Divide at July 16, 2004 at 01:09 PM

Tim, about Andrew Wilkie calling you Jim, are sure you didn't call him Allan?

Posted by: Gerry at July 16, 2004 at 01:11 PM

So, remember the 500,000 dead Iraqi children (attributed to UN/US sanctions and US bombs) that Moore was so worked up about prior to the invasion? I wonder why they didn't make it in to F/911? I guess it turned out that the kids were killed by Saddam so it's ok.

Posted by: Daniel at July 16, 2004 at 01:14 PM

Steve,

Bush said "Now watch me drive" off the record, after giving a statement condemning Palestinian suicide bombings when asked about Israel by a handful of journos who followed him to the links. Flimmaker Moore didn't give you the context, though, did he?

Since you don't like him looking casual on the golf course, would you feel better about Bush's Iraq War if GW wore fatigues and a combat helmet and gave press interviews from behind a lot of sand bags, (those journalists are a bit hostile, anyway)? He could always drive in an armored Hummer with "I brake for Marines, not animals" on the rear bumper and be photographed each day with concerned looks on his face. Each Sunday in church he could make a public show of praying and letting a manly tear flow, so that we would know he is very sad over the human costs of war.

A cautionary note: Bush never should be photographed wearing a flight suit or carrying mess hall presentation turkeys when he is interfacing with troops and looking like a CINC. The press and Dem's won't stand for that.

Posted by: Martial Mathers at July 16, 2004 at 01:16 PM

Steve and Michael Moore obviously prefer a president who gets blow jobs from interns before going off to war, rather than one who plays golf.

Posted by: George at July 16, 2004 at 01:47 PM

some of you should go to IRAQTHEMODEL.BLOGSPOT.COM
REAL IRAQI'S talking about things almost dailey.
and other links,wake up!!!!! we must stop the
thugs!!!i watched 9-11 live.its time now,to say
the hell with the fucking thugs!!!!!

Posted by: andrea/minnesota at July 16, 2004 at 01:50 PM

"I knew Alan Jones. Alan Jones was a friend of mine. You, sir, are no Alan Jones."

Miranda,

I think Tim may well be eternally grateful. Besides, your lavatorial conquests are really none of our business, seeing from your comment that names are not the only thing that you seem to drop.

Posted by: nic at July 16, 2004 at 01:59 PM

Come off it Miranda! Laurie Brereton: intellect, man of peace. Heh. Do you actually know anything about Australian politics? If you did you'd know that on both sides of the party divide, Danger Man is comedically regarded as the corrupt, morally inept, time-serving moron par excellence of the formerly great NSW Right. A kind of ethically vacuous Tammany/Armani hybrid gone terribly wrong.

Bush was playing golf one day while the war was raging, eh Steve? And Churchill once had a relaxing nude bath, with cognac and cigar, in the bathroom of FDR's White House. Had a conference with the President while he did so. Truman would happily go for a stroll and speak amiably with citizens about the weather - even if he did just nuke Hiroshima. LBJ conducted impromptu national security meetings while on the bog. Kennedy was bonking a gangster's moll while saving the world from armageddon. Clinton, of course, was playing 'close but no cigar' with Monica in between ordering missile strikes on herds of innocent camel in the dead of the night, to no strategic end.

So this is what some of today's liberal 'intellects' find oh-so revealing and devastating?

Posted by: CurrencyLad at July 16, 2004 at 02:39 PM

You guys should love Moore cos:
- he's a midwesterner of humble origins (no 'elite' there)
- he's an incredibly successful entrepreneur (made millions from the sweat of his own brow)
- he's a propagandist/entertainer (he doesnt have to be 'fair' or 'objective' - just like that old junkie Rush Limbaugh)
As Tim would say -
JUST GET OVER IT

Posted by: Kimbo at July 16, 2004 at 02:42 PM

...he's a propagandist/entertainer (he doesnt have to be 'fair' or 'objective' - just like that old junkie Rush Limbaugh)...

When did Rush Limbaugh exploit the death of an American soldier and cause distress to his grieving parents, Kimbo?

Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at July 16, 2004 at 02:55 PM

Wow! Miranda and Steve....two trolls together, and in one thread after that long break. Miranda remains the same negative intellect as before her long vacation; perhaps her doctor ordered away from computers, to no avail? And Steve is striving to drop below her amazingly low standards, something that I had not thought humanly possible.

Wait. Did I say humanly? My mistake -- please strike that.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at July 16, 2004 at 03:20 PM

I'm a supporter of the Liberal party, but I'm more than happy to go into seeing Moore's film with an open mind.

What's the point in seeing the film Tim, if we already know what you're going to say aftewards? It's the Andrew Bolt style of journalism, and it is tiring.

Posted by: Ben at July 16, 2004 at 03:29 PM

Wow - Micheal Moore exploited the death of an american soldier...
I bet no conservative politician has ever done that!!

Posted by: Kimbo at July 16, 2004 at 03:35 PM

Ben, I would be careful with that open minded stuff if I was you, keep too open a mind and your brains will out. And as a prime example I present Kimbo.

Posted by: Just Another Bloody Lawyer at July 16, 2004 at 03:38 PM

That is of course 'fall out'.

Posted by: Just Another Bloody Lawyer at July 16, 2004 at 03:40 PM

"Wow - Micheal Moore exploited the death of an american soldier...I bet no conservative politician has ever done that!!

Kimbo, your sarcasm tags are pretty obvious. But you agree that Moore openly exploits a soldiers' death; specifically he earned money or gained fame from this act (F9/11 is making money and giving Moore fame, after all).

So let's see some links or listings of when a conservative politician did a similar act: made money or gained fame directly through the brazen exploitation of the death of an American soldier. You know -- proof.

For simplicity, let's keep this since 1988, but it need not be a President of the United States.

Otherwise, I'll just assume that you are another leftoid troll dropping crap because you have nothing better to say, being a leftoid troll and all.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at July 16, 2004 at 04:13 PM

Oh dear
Getting elected:
1) Earns you money
2) Gains you fame
Too easy Jeffboy
PS What's a "leftoid troll"?

Posted by: Kimbo at July 16, 2004 at 04:59 PM

No, Kimbo, that's a non-response. Proof, not your opinion or whatever you are calling it this month. That's not even a nice try. Pretty sad, in fact.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at July 16, 2004 at 05:07 PM

Real Jeffs,
I gotta standard witticism. You can drop it in just about anywhere and it gets yucks (or shocks) as a double-entendre. Try it: "That's what my wife says".

Say someone says (apropos the office function) "Are you coming?" just drop it in. Or a co-worker looks at a task and says "thats too hard" just drop it in. No-brainer, always gets a result. Good for any situation.

And I know I would succeed as a leftoid troll 'cause any RWDB complaint of ANY behaviour (Moore, Saddam, Stalin, etc) can be countered with "I bet no conservative/fascist/radio shock-jock ever did propaganda/concentration camps/ethnic cleansing". No-brainer, always gets a result. Good for any situation.

Posted by: Robert Blair at July 16, 2004 at 05:10 PM

Jeffboy,
Every time any politician who hasn't served(left, right or otherwise) wraps himself in the flag to commemorate some war he is hoping that a little bit of the karma of those who sacrificed their lives will rub off on him - to his electoral (and hence personal) benefit. That's exploiting the dead. However, pols who did their duty (Eisenhower, Kennedy, Bush Snr)seem to be a little more reticent - they don't have to bang the drum so loudly.

Posted by: Kimbo at July 16, 2004 at 05:42 PM

Hey Byron the Aussie-
Rush Limbaugh equated the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal as soldiers just 'blowing off steam.'
Battery acid, beatings to death, poles up asses...
just blowing off some steam, that's all.
Yay for Rush!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/06/opinion/meyer/main616021.shtml

Posted by: Jack at July 16, 2004 at 06:04 PM

Hey Bush Supporters - put some spin on this, please.
http://www.bushflash.com/gta.html
How can you defend these methods?
Just 'mistakes' huh? How many more 'mistakes' are you willing to swallow?

Posted by: Jack at July 16, 2004 at 06:09 PM

Awww come on.....
Are you telling me there's not one right wing article out there debunking the whole katherine Harris/voting machine/Florida debacle?
Not one?
Uh well, keep looking, I guess. That must be what you are doing. By now I expected SOMETHING, at least an insult like 'you love Saddam' or something clever like that.

Posted by: Jack at July 16, 2004 at 06:40 PM

Tim,
In future please do not ask lefties like Keneally a question(radio national).You know they will spin out a response and not truly answer you.Masters of filling a space without edification. A little less reasoning and a bit more bite.Think Anne Coulter.

Posted by: gubbaboy at July 16, 2004 at 06:50 PM

..hey Bush Supporters - put some spin on this, please...

Checked it out Jack, and it doesn't add up. 'DBT expanded the list to scrub voters who shared a birthday with these (8000) felons'? Come off it, that would add up to millions. PS now *you* check out *our* flash presentation:

http://members.cox.net/macallan_the/GW/GWBush1_Start.htm

We've got better music.

Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at July 16, 2004 at 07:16 PM

Moore - War Profiteer ??!!

The war on terror has proved to be very profitable for MM (Michael Moore). How many millions will MM make from exploiting this war for his own gain?

Did he compensate, via money or anything else, the images of people he used in his film? Was he sensitive to their sufferings -or- just intent on making a point and making money?

Nothing wrong with making money. But it *is* rather crude to twice make money on the sufferings of others. He seems to enjoy doing this. Columbine is another example where he exploits people's sufferings to make a point and make money.

I'd have a tad more respect for him if he were to take ALL profits and donate them to the people he is supposed to care about. He supposed caring for the soldiers who are 'forced' to go to Iraq ring very hollow. He cares only for attention and the money he can make.

(Interesting that MM used 9/11 in the title of his latest exploitation. How many images from the terrorist attack on the US that day did he use? How many comments did he make about the suffering of ordinary people impacted by the terrorists' actions against the US on 9/11?)

Posted by: Chris Josephson at July 16, 2004 at 07:18 PM

..Rush Limbaugh equated the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal as soldiers just 'blowing off steam.'
Battery acid, beatings to death, poles up asses...
just blowing off some steam, that's all...

What you America haters can't understand is that Pfc England et al have been charged with prisoner abuse, and will pay for their crimes. But until US troops arrived in Iraq, far worse prisoner abuse was official government policy. PS WHAT 'beatings to death'? Spleenville isn't a Mike Moore film, Jack. Here, you're going to called to account, for your lies.

Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at July 16, 2004 at 07:19 PM

..how many millions will MM make from exploiting this war for his own gain?...

Dunno. More than Halliburton?

Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at July 16, 2004 at 07:22 PM

"What you America haters can't understand is that Pfc England et al have been charged with prisoner abuse, and will pay for their crimes. But until US troops arrived in Iraq, far worse prisoner abuse was official government policy." - Byron_the_Aussie.
Excuse me Byron, I hate to break the news to you but prisoner abuse is also uh, American policy.

Posted by: carlos at July 16, 2004 at 07:57 PM

"What's the point in seeing the film Tim, if we already know what you're going to say aftewards? It's the Andrew Bolt style of journalism, and it is tiring."

choose a different blog?


"Every time any politician who hasn't served(left, right or otherwise) wraps himself in the flag to commemorate some war he is hoping that a little bit of the karma of those who sacrificed their lives will rub off on him - to his electoral (and hence personal) benefit."

and what would you have them do instead of "wrapping themselves in the flag?" burn it instead?

Posted by: samkit at July 16, 2004 at 07:59 PM

Carlos, are you seriously comparing the prisoner abuse which those US MPs have been charged with, to this?

Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at July 16, 2004 at 08:10 PM

That was a choice bit in the film wasn't it, when the Marine recruiters are cruising round inner-city Buttfuck, Buttfuck, wherever, trying to convince the dopey unemployed kids to get off the street by telling them it's cool to enlist and go fight in Iraq against terrorism. They're volunteers, I spose, but when the choice is ... nothin, a life of crime, or begging ... and the shiny men in the uniforms come tell ya to enlist cos it's yo duty ... well. I'd still tell them to fuck off but lotsa kids over there fighting terrorism, but not many ... indeed fucking fuck all of them ... are related to the pricks who sent them, no?

And whether Dubya was off-the-record or not when he flippantly derided the most dangerous ... it's a fucking war ... with this watch this drive schtick ... he was off-the-record? He was off-the-record ... he'd just given this ... what ... big fuckin serious address to the nation ... and in the blink of an eye, he's switched off the President Face for the good-time golfing guy who wants to get a laugh from the journalists, face ... fuck. This is the bloke you want in charge of the missiles and weapons and whatever horrible WMD shit the US military machine has at its disposal ... this fucking ... good-time guy, this college boy, piss-head ... this fuckin dumb-arse puppy, is the president of the USA, god-damn! that's hard to believe.

And you's vote for this dumb-ass? Hell ... your country ... bummer is it's our world, and these fuckin idiot crazies in charge of your country with their missile defence shields and nuclear bunker busting weapons - fuck! - are keen on the USA being the no.1 force for themselves in the world and will do whatever it takes for the USA to apparently defend the USA by invading Iraq, a country with seriously no WMDs or links with Al Queda but with a fuck load of oil and an arsehole in charge and ... a fuck load of oil.

And would I prefer a President who got blow jobs instead of one who plays golf when the war on terror rages?

ah ... yes. you? prefer a reformed drunk golfing fisherman...

ha - one of you dudes says: lay off fishing!

ah, that's brilliant. ok.

no longer will i sledge fishing.

Dubya and Blair and the fat bastard who edits this site y'all are so enamoured with, however....

Posted by: Steve at July 16, 2004 at 08:38 PM

Byron,
you are avoiding admitting that prisoner abuse has been the policy of the US.

Posted by: carlos at July 16, 2004 at 08:40 PM

..Byron,
you are avoiding admitting that prisoner abuse has been the policy of the US...

I don't 'admit' something that's untrue, Carlos. Cheers, Byron

Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at July 16, 2004 at 08:58 PM

...are keen on the USA being the no.1 force for themselves in the world and will do whatever it takes for the USA to apparently defend the USA by invading Iraq...

What's wrong with that, Steve?

Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at July 16, 2004 at 09:00 PM

And another thing! ha ... this mad ranting is quite good fun isn't it ... it's sorta ... liberating to let it all hang out ... anyway, ahem.

yes - and another thing. You people are upset that Moore 'spins' his arguments ... and jump on the review in the SMH that says "Michael Moore has assembled a great raft of accusations in his personal indictment of George Bush's presidency, enough to make the blood boil, but his arguments are often slippery, based on suggestion and innuendo rather than hard fact."

And yet George Bush can say, in the State of the Union address (which I'm led to believe is like a sacred sort of ... thing ... anyway Dubay says: "Chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes."

Pretty powerful (scary) stuff, no?

Too bad their were no weapons, or links with Al Queda ... but that don't matter to you guys does it ... cos it's a very scary thought that Osama has a mate in Saddam, and if it was suggested by your President in a time of great fear and war, well, fair enough, you wanted to believe your president and go get the bad guys.

But you have been deceived. Iraq was not a nice place and Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of citizens and was an arsehole of the earth.

But he wasn't a threat to you.

Osama is but. And he's still out there, in his cave, concocting plans to fuck with you.

You have caught Saddam though. So ... good.

But the war on terrorism is against terrorists, ie Al Queda, ie Osama, ie not fucking Saddam Hussein or the Baath party or any other fuckin oiled-up moustached person within coo-ee.

it's Al Queda who's the enemy, and the war in Iraq aint fighting Al Queda.

Posted by: Steve at July 16, 2004 at 09:02 PM

What's wrong with that Byron? Well, we all share the earth mate. The US is fighting a war and we're all involved, and it's stirring up more anti-Western hate than anything ... well anything ... and we being Westerners ... and fighting in Iraq supporting this ill-considered cluster-fuck of a war that's growing terrorists by the day, not killing them, and even if it does kill them they think they're going to heaven and root the 72 virgins and they're a martyr and for every one you kill there's another hundred fuckwits that want to be a martyr and root the virgins, so killing people who want to be dead which in turn inspires other fuckwits who want to die in this manner, ie taking as many of us white fuckwits with them, well it doesn't make much fucking sense to me buddy!

Posted by: Steve at July 16, 2004 at 09:07 PM

..the US is fighting a war and we're all involved...

...and why shouldn't we be?

You know what you need to do, Steve? Take the chip off your shoulder and get your whinging complaint ridden arse up to Cardwell, North Queensland. To the Battle of the Coral Sea memorial, there. Read the inscriptions, then sit down on the grass, looking out to sea. Spend ten minutes thinking about all the young Americans that died fighting the Japanese and, in their sacrifice, saved our country from the same sort of tyranny these damned Islamic terrorists impose wherever they're able to. Maybe, just maybe, instead of fretting about Bush and Halliburton and all the rest of the crap you bastards constantly spew forth, you'll realise we Aussies have a debt. A blood debt, to the Americans. One that we have barely acknowledged, let alone repaid.

Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at July 16, 2004 at 09:25 PM

C'mon Byron, admit it....It may be the 1st tentative steps towards reality. When you can say something like, "Our government(s) invaded Iraq for power and profit...Democracy and justice for the people have nothing to do with it. It has no problems with brutal dictators as long as they do what we tell them. We have in fact gotten rid of true democracies when they didn't follow our script." ..or to that effect.

Posted by: carlos at July 16, 2004 at 09:25 PM

Tim Blair and Tom Keneally have discussed F 9/11 on "The World Today" today.

Posted by: Andjam at July 16, 2004 at 09:27 PM

..how many millions will MM make from exploiting this war for his own gain?...

Byron:
"Dunno. More than Halliburton?"

I dislike what Halliburton may be doing as much as I dislike what Moore has done.

It seems to me that those who are the most enamored of MM are also those who think what Halliburton is doing to be pure evil. To me they *may* be one in the same. I keep reading different stories about Halliburton and I haven't bothered researching much myself. So, I'm granting they are guilty of a lot just for argument's sake here. (Note: I don't believe the 'all about oil' crap. Nor do I believe that profits for Halliburton entered into the discussions about going to war in Iraq.)

I'm not against anyone making money, honestly, in Iraq. The soldiers for hire, the firms rebuilding the infrastructure, any group or individual that has honestly sold their services is fine by me. If I had a service to sell for rebuilding Iraq, I would bid for a job there myself. Iraq needs help rebuilding. You have a service to help this along? Fine by me if you make a profit.

If MM portrayed himself as a person out to make a buck and nothing more, he would be more palatable to me. But he's been portrayed as this huge, caring crusader out to expose all the wrongs that Bush has done. I've never been a 'Bush cheerleader', but I find MM's gross manipulation of the facts disgusting at best. I view MM as this insensitive limousine-lefty who profits by twisting the facts and pretending to care. I see his care extending as far as his bank account.

The propaganda that MM has made can harm the Iraqis, if enough people believe him. The Iraqis have been victims of a regime that tortured a great many of them for decades. I try and put myself in the shoes of an Iraqi family whose members have been brutalized or killed by Saddam & Sons. What would I think viewing MM's latest 'creation'? The Iraqis deserve much more than this trash of a film by MM. The victims of 9/11, other terrorist murders, military and their families deserve better treatment.

Criticize Bush. Criticize the war in Iraq. Criticize people who are dishonestly profiting from Iraq's misery. But do it honestly. There is honest criticism to be leveled. People like MM detract from the honest criticism there is to be made.

Posted by: Chris Josephson at July 16, 2004 at 09:34 PM

..c'mon Byron, admit it....It may be the 1st tentative steps towards reality...

The reality is, your side of politics has given these tyrants a permanent free pass, Carlos. The only time you guys show concern about the underdog is when it benefits you politically. That's why you focus on Abu Ghraib, Gaza, Gitmo, Nauru and the like- because you can turn the suffering you find in those places, to your political benefit. Meantime real suffering that's been going on for decades, in places like the Sudan, the DPRK, Cuba and Zim isn't even on your radar. George W. Bush comes along and takes out the Taliban and Saddam, neutralises Libya and Syria, puts pressure on North Korea, Zim, and Iran, and all you bunch can do is, find fault. Bush is actually doing something about tyranny. Tyrants fear him. He's accomplishing something, thereby exposing the Left's record of inactivity. That's what your crew doesn't like.

Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at July 16, 2004 at 09:42 PM

Byron, next year I'll be railing against Kerry who will be monotoning things like.."as President of this great country, I cannot allow these terrorists to drive our troops out of Iraq...blah blah". - Politics has nothing to do with it. You mentioned Cuba. It has a dictator. Before him was another dictator. He was very popular with the US business sector. Why was he overthrown by the Cubans?

Posted by: carlos at July 16, 2004 at 10:19 PM

i'm not sure what rock you live under, steve, but there were lots of links between saddam and al q.
and we've killed lots of a-q in iraq, just like we killed osama and lots of a-q in afganyland.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at July 16, 2004 at 10:32 PM

got my copy of 'mike is a stupid fat white turd' yesterday; will read it next week on vacation.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at July 16, 2004 at 10:33 PM

..he was very popular with the US business sector. Why was he overthrown by the Cubans?...

I'd hardly call Mafia-controlled gambling a 'US business sector', Carlos. But I'm sure those Leftists watching our exchange appreciate your desperate effort to smear a traditional target.

BTW, are you using a computer made by the 'US business sector'? Or one made by the Cubans, or Palestinians, or the French? Just hoping you're as PC in your shopping as you are with your posting. All the best, Byron

Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at July 16, 2004 at 10:34 PM

Ok guys the old, open mind, brain falling out, line wasn't either original or that funny but, you didn't have to go and prove my point ad infinitum LOL in short to use a great Australian colloquialisim piss off trolls

Posted by: Just Another Bloody Lawyer at July 16, 2004 at 10:47 PM

Steve

You've got waaaay too much time on your hands

Posted by: chap at July 16, 2004 at 11:18 PM

The US is fighting a war and we're all involved, and it's stirring up more anti-Western hate than anything

Steve-a-rino; Bali happened before Iraq.

Posted by: Robert Crawford at July 16, 2004 at 11:44 PM

"Actor John Howard said it was "the best movie I’ve seen in ten years, non-fiction or otherwise"

So let me get this straight - he's an actor now, and a Michael Moore fan to boot?

Jeez, you go on holidays for a week...

(Sorry, bad joke, I know. But it's late and this comments thread is getting way too intense and acrimonious, even by Spleenville's usual standard.)

Posted by: tim g at July 16, 2004 at 11:49 PM

Everyone's favourite antiBlair witch has had a bit of a spray over TB's comments on ol' tub o' guts' filmic flim-flam. Maybe with Niall it's not just the content, Mikey may be a body image aspiration.

Posted by: Habib at July 17, 2004 at 12:07 AM

Mr. Bingley:

I just finished reading "Micheal Moore is a stupid fat white man" -- good book. Well researched, well written. You'll enjoy it.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at July 17, 2004 at 02:00 AM

Kimbo, you keep on evading my original question -- where's your proof? Where has a conservative politician gained financially or through personal famed by deliberately exploiting the death of an American soldier, a la Michael The Moor. You only repeat your opinions.

Yep, another brainless leftoid troll, repeating what Moonbat Central has commanded you to speak.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at July 17, 2004 at 02:07 AM

Cool thread:

Thread droppings from lefties high on meth and Chomsky are far superior entertainment to watching videos of ex-Republican Guard draftees taking the shaft and Michael Moore sharting every time a flock of "Minutemen" are roasted by those poor, uneducated, deluded chumps known as Marines.

Posted by: Tongue Boy at July 17, 2004 at 02:13 AM

"But the war on terrorism is against terrorists, ie Al Queda, ie Osama, ie not fucking Saddam Hussein or the Baath party or any other fuckin oiled-up moustached person within coo-ee."

Actually the war on terror is a war on all terrorists, not just a war on Al Queda. Otherwise it would be called the "War on Al Queda". So guys who hi-jack boats and commit murder, or set off bombs in buildings or pay people to stap on explosives and blow up buses are terroists but might not be members of Al Queda. See how this works? Al Queda is a terroists organization, but not all terroists are members of Al Queda.

Posted by: Daniel at July 17, 2004 at 02:39 AM


Steve-

Bali was bombed because you decadent Australian hedonists were polluting a Muslim country with your drinking, dancing and fucking. Have you stopped this offensive behavior yet? Or do you just drink, dance, fuck and blame the Yanks?

And if the "salient point" of Fahrenscheisse 9-11 is that Bush takes too many vacations and doesn't bite his lower lip 24-7 in grave concern - well, hell, thank God we have Michael Moore to expose this monster.

Posted by: Dave S. at July 17, 2004 at 03:30 AM

People like Steve and Carlos above only confirm the rapid decline of the education system in western countries.

Very rapid.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at July 17, 2004 at 06:35 AM

Hmm, did carlos' mask slip for a moment?

next year I'll be railing against Kerry who will be monotoning things like.."as President of this great country, I cannot allow these terrorists to drive our troops out of Iraq...blah blah".

Glad to know you'd be railing against any U.S. president who dares to defy the terrorists, carlos. Glad to know you've finally admitted as much, too.

Posted by: PW at July 17, 2004 at 11:15 AM

Pff, WHAT mask, PW? It's not like the crankspanker ever tried to deny his allegence.

Posted by: Sortelli at July 17, 2004 at 11:37 AM

Perhaps I shouldn't be applying the rhactive standard (who really lets it all hang out), but compared to him, carlos usually seems to make the effort to hide behind lame sarcasm so you can't nail him down with his own words...I don't think I'd seen him quite so upfront before.

Posted by: PW at July 17, 2004 at 11:46 AM

"...I don't think I'd seen him [carlos] quite so upfront before."

Maybe carlos had his medication reduced?

Posted by: The Real JeffS at July 17, 2004 at 12:26 PM

I don't think I'd seen him quite so upfront before.

You've got a point, actually. He's got to play it low so that other folks can keep on blissfully denying that part of the Angry Left really is genuinely pro-terrorist.

It is kind of shocking when you see it for the first time, after all, like when I saw the comments from a genuine neo-Nazi Holocaust Denier on Michael Totten's board. I tend to think that most people operate with some amount of good faith, and it's pretty damn scary when you find out the truth about some folks.

Posted by: Sortelli at July 17, 2004 at 04:59 PM

Fascinating.
Group Delusion.

Posted by: carlos at July 17, 2004 at 06:22 PM

Carlos, you're not really Mr. Spock. Time for the pink pill.

Posted by: ushie at July 18, 2004 at 01:02 AM

Perhaps we need to give Carlos a new term: "Chickenterrorist". He'll rail angrily at the enemies of terrorism but he'll never strap an explosive belt on himself to help wage the battle against Israel and the US.

Posted by: Sortelli at July 19, 2004 at 10:16 AM