markinore
-
Posts
148 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by markinore
-
-
One can take issue with F 9/11 for legitimate reasons.
which are? specifically?
Well, as I stated above, I think Moore glosses over America's reluctance to behave in a more even-handed fashion toward the Palestinians as a factor that incited Arab hatred. I think that is a subject far more worthy of discussion than the pipeline across Afghanistan that he makes such a big deal over. I also disagree that oil was a major reason for invading Iraq. I think more important factors included the unfinished business of Bush I and the neocon desire to "impose" democracy. I also believe that the rupture of relations with European allies was not a side effect, but to some degree a goal of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc.
In the past, NPR has interviewed countless individuals who, in the opinion of at least some people, were liars, mountebanks, frauds, and worse. In recent times, these include George Bush, Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, Teddy Kennedy, Kenneth Starr, Kenneth Lay, and Oliver North. In days of yore, NPR talked to Watergate figures Richard Nixon, Bob Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, John Dean, Gordon Liddy, and John Mitchell. Outside the U.S., NPR has given voice to Slobodan Milosevic, Gerry Adams, Yitzhak Rabin, Anwar Sadat, Ariel Sharon, and Yassir Arafat. Interviews with convicted murderers, members of the Crips and Bloods street gangs, and drug smugglers can be heard as well.which clearly points to simon's hypocrisy. the dude would not blink an eye to have frist or cheney on the show, but he does want mmoore? wtf? don't these people have any shame? what a farce!
Totally with you on that point.
-
One can take issue with F 9/11 for legitimate reasons. Although it is difficult to identify specific factual errors in the movie (more on this below), Moore can be criticized for his methods of presentation as well as what he omits—most notably, how America’s unreserved support for Israel against the Palestinians has contributed to the Arab world’s animosity toward the U.S.
It is curious, however, that such criticisms serve as the basis for refusing to put Moore on Scott Simon’s NPR broadcast. If Simon believes that Moore is wrong, lying, distorting, or fabricating, wouldn’t an incisive interview by Simon expose Moore? Indeed, if the mantle of Edward R. Murrow is to be upheld, doesn’t exposure of Moore’s nefarious behavior permit, nay, demand, that Moore be invited on Simon’s show?
In the past, NPR has interviewed countless individuals who, in the opinion of at least some people, were liars, mountebanks, frauds, and worse. In recent times, these include George Bush, Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, Teddy Kennedy, Kenneth Starr, Kenneth Lay, and Oliver North. In days of yore, NPR talked to Watergate figures Richard Nixon, Bob Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, John Dean, Gordon Liddy, and John Mitchell. Outside the U.S., NPR has given voice to Slobodan Milosevic, Gerry Adams, Yitzhak Rabin, Anwar Sadat, Ariel Sharon, and Yassir Arafat. Interviews with convicted murderers, members of the Crips and Bloods street gangs, and drug smugglers can be heard as well.
How about the world of movies? NPR has reviewed such cultural landmarks as “Anchorman,” “Catwoman,” “I, Robot,” and “The Bourne Supremacy”—and that’s just in the past few weeks. Other cultural detritus about which NPR aired stories include the chefs (yes, chefs) of the world’s heads of state, lesser known actors from the Star Wars movies, comic book conventions, a poem to Derek Jeter, and the Helsinki based surf rock band Laika and the Cosmonauts.
So of all the knaves and fools, sinners and asses; of all the trivia in the world; is Michael Moore unique that NPR listeners should be protected from him? One could legitimately raise the question of whether Moore is persona non grata at NPR because he can be a tough and prickly interview subject. Consider the Hannah Storm interview on NBC. When Hannah tried to lean on Moore, Moore leaned right back, asking why the network news services didn’t ask appropriate questions before the Iraq invasion occurred. Storm didn’t look so good.
Now, as to the accuracy of the statements about the flight of Saudi nationals in the days immediately after 9/11. It is true that Richard Clarke approved their departure from the U.S., and it is also true that they did not fly out of the U.S. until 9/13, the day when other air traffic was partially resumed. However, on 9/12, a day that all commercial air traffic in the U.S. remained grounded, those Saudis were able to travel by air within the U.S. That step was necessary for them to have a complete evacuation on 9/13. If you go back and watch F 9/11 again, you will see that once more, Moore was accurate—the Saudis received extraordinarily special treatment that may have impaired investigations.
Reading Mr. Simon’s article carefully, one sees that he is guilty of the same things that, with some justifications, he accuses Moore of. According to Simon, Moore “prefers innuendo to fact,” and “edits with poetic license.” Simon, then proceeds to use Moore’s rhetorical question, "What if these weren't wacko terrorists, but military pilots who signed onto a suicide mission?" to suggest that Moore believes the Saudi government was behind the attack. That is quite a stretch, and what is worse, that question was taken from one of Moore’s books, not from the movie. Simon criticizes the depiction of a woman in Iraq who was the victim of a bombing because it is not clear whether the particular bomb that fell on her family was from a U.S. plane or an antiaircraft missle gone astray. Does it really matter?
I have enjoyed listening to NPR over the years not because it mirrors what I believe, but because I am able to hear a diversity that is sadly lacking from all commercial radio. I do not think NPR listeners benefit from declaring anyone off limits—not George Bush, not Saddam Hussein, not Bill O’Reilly—and not Michael Moore.
-
Bubba (cellmate) says,
"Put on yo' best dress, homey.
Tonight is prom night."
-
Martha got five months.
What's that mean for me? You know
She's not a real blond.
This is addicting.
-
"Don't sweat it, Saddam,
Iraq's fighters are the best."
What was I thinking?
-
"Jesus is coming. And he's really pissed."
"My child's self-esteem does not require my advertising his minor academic achievements."
-
PATRIOT ACT
in Spray
Sailboi makes a good point about Democrats supporting the Patriot Act. The Dems—including Kerry and Edwards—were cravenly afraid to stand up against the paranoid infringement on civil liberties (such as the ability to search library records) that the Patriot Act represents. This is not to say that all aspects of the Patriot Act are evil. Certainly, the provisions that allow greater sharing of information among intelligence services are unexceptionable. However, there were no legal obstacles to that sharing before, only some bureaucratic customs.
The episode regarding the plane flight, on the other hand, is a bizarre example of how some people’s paranoia can run rampant. To summarize: 1) Some individuals of Middle Eastern extraction got on an airplane. 2) Their behavior was odd, although not threatening or hostile. 3) The plane landed without incident.
What should have been done? Should those passengers have been taken off the plane? Should they have been arrested after the plane landed? If they are foreign nationals, should they be deported? Sent to Guantanamo? Abu Ghraib?
It was speculated that those passengers may have been rehearsing for a 9/11-type hijacking. Really? How would you know? Do you think that just maybe, any Al Qaeda operatives would be smart enough not to try the same exact thing twice? Do you think that after 9/11, any plane full of passengers and crew would respond a little bit differently than before 9/11?
If you want to defend the Patriot Act, defend it on its merits, rather than by citing the fevered product of somebody’s imagination.
-
What a damn cool president!! Yeehaw… Maybe next year he'll take up climbing!
This is an intriguing thought. Let's consider Bush's track record in life thus far and extrapolate to what kind of a climber he would be:
Track record: Until forty years old, spent a lot of time drinking hard and doing cocaine. Now wants to enforce draconian drug laws.
Type of climber: Wouldn’t show up on time due to hangover. Then bitch about others drinking or doing drugs.
Track record: Got into Yale on family pull, not merit. Didn’t do well academically.
Type of climber: Would get to go on Himalayan expeditions because of connections. Wouldn’t summit.
Track record: Miserable failure in Texas oil business. Bailed out by his daddy’s friends.
Type of climber: Would get stuck a lot on 5.8s. Would call on his cellphone for rescue.
Track record: Appointed President by Supreme Court following manipulation of voting count.
Type of climber: Would chip holds.
Track record: Started war claiming that Iraq had WMD and supported Al Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks.
Type of climber: Would chip AND glue holds.
Track record: Iraq a mess, civil war ready to break out; the U.S. more feared and disliked than ever, Americans less safe than ever.
Type of climber: After failing to climb a route, would dynamite the crag and build a landfill.
Maybe next year he'll take up climbing? Let's hope he sticks with golf. Even he can't fuck that up any worse than it already is.
-
Actually, Lance specfically said he was against the war in Iraq. Bush's pathetic attempt to identify with Lance is reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's quoting from Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA," which Reagan obviously never bothered to listen to.
-
Regardless of how you feel about Kerry or Bush, isn't it frustrating that we keep reading about the reactions to Whoopi's remarks, but we can't read the remarks themselves? If she said something that was funny, we should be able to read it, because it's probably the first funny thing she said in years. Anybody know a link?
By the way, does anyone remember a few years back when Whoopi and Ted Danson had a thing going? Ted showed up at a Friar's Club roast wearing blackface and made some remarks that generated a huge outroar. You couldn't find out what he actually said for the longest time. Finally, his words were published in Spy Magazine, and they turned out to be both racist and funny as hell.
-
The new Iraq government has introduced legislation allowing martial law, curfews, a ban on demonstrations, the restriction of movement, tapping phones, opening mail, and freezing bank accounts without any sort of judicial progress.
Well, Bush never found any weapons of mass destruction and he never proved Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, but at least he realized his dream of bringing democracy to Iraq--at least, you know, the right kind of democracy.
-
1) At some point, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
2) Iraq was a brutal dictatorship; those who challenged the dictatorship were routinely imprisoned or killed.
3) Iraq had no democracy, no freedom of the press, no freedom of speech.
4) Iraq engaged in harsh anti-American rhetoric.
We can all agree on these, right? Where we seem to differ is on the point of whether those things justified an invasion and occupation. Because if those things do justify that action, which of the following countries that meet the above criteria are next: North Korea, China, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Pakistan? If you don't think we should invade those countries, why not?
-
This is an interesting question that we should all take seriously. I think that both Clinton and Bush elicited a visceral response from their opponents that far surpassed the political differences.
Consider Clinton. His most fully realized accomplishments, such as a balanced budget and throwing millions off welfare, were fundamentally Republican goals. His most traditionally Democratic efforts, notably a national health plan, were disastrous failures. Nevertheless, he was hated by Republicans more than any Democrat since Roosevelt, perhaps.
With Bush it is more complex, because the Iraq war can be a honest cause for extreme hostility. I think those of us on the left would not be honest, however, if we did not admit that Bush really does annoy us on a gut level. Maybe that is due to what we regard as his illegitimate seizure of the office or his intellectual limitations; maybe it's payback for Clinton; or maybe it is just (just?) the war.
A hopeful view would be that partisans can take out their animus at the politicians at the polls, in the media, and on bulletin boards, while living, and most importantly, climbing, in a state of civility. A less hopeful view would be that partisanship invades other aspects of public life, with serious consequences for social cohesion.
-
If you like Hitchens's comments on Moore so much, you'll probably love what he said about Reagan just after his death:
Not Even a Hedgehog
The stupidity of Ronald Reagan.
Not long ago, I was invited to be the specter at the feast during "Ronald Reagan Appreciation Week" at Wabash College in Indiana. One of my opponents was Dinesh D'Souza: He wasn't the only one who maintained that Reagan had been historically vindicated by the wreckage of the Soviet Union. Some of us on the left had also been very glad indeed to see the end of the Russian empire and the Cold War. But nothing could make me forget what the Reagan years had actually been like.
Ronald Reagan claimed that the Russian language had no word for "freedom." (The word is "svoboda"; it's quite well attested in Russian literature.) Ronald Reagan said that intercontinental ballistic missiles (not that there are any non-ballistic missiles—a corruption of language that isn't his fault) could be recalled once launched. Ronald Reagan said that he sought a "Star Wars" defense only in order to share the technology with the tyrants of the U.S.S.R. Ronald Reagan professed to be annoyed when people called it "Star Wars," even though he had ended his speech on the subject with the lame quip, "May the force be with you." Ronald Reagan used to alarm his Soviet counterparts by saying that surely they'd both unite against an invasion from Mars. Ronald Reagan used to alarm other constituencies by speaking freely about the "End Times" foreshadowed in the Bible. In the Oval Office, Ronald Reagan told Yitzhak Shamir and Simon Wiesenthal, on two separate occasions, that he himself had assisted personally at the liberation of the Nazi death camps.
There was more to Ronald Reagan than that. Reagan announced that apartheid South Africa had "stood beside us in every war we've ever fought," when the South African leadership had been on the other side in the most recent world war. Reagan allowed Alexander Haig to greenlight the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, fired him when that went too far and led to mayhem in Beirut, then ran away from Lebanon altogether when the Marine barracks were bombed, and then unbelievably accused Tip O'Neill and the Democrats of "scuttling." Reagan sold heavy weapons to the Iranian mullahs and lied about it, saying that all the weapons he hadn't sold them (and hadn't traded for hostages in any case) would, all the same, have fit on a small truck. Reagan then diverted the profits of this criminal trade to an illegal war in Nicaragua and lied unceasingly about that, too. Reagan then modestly let his underlings maintain that he was too dense to understand the connection between the two impeachable crimes. He then switched without any apparent strain to a policy of backing Saddam Hussein against Iran. (If Margaret Thatcher's intelligence services had not bugged Oliver North in London and become infuriated because all European nations were boycotting Iran at Reagan's request, we might still not know about this.)
One could go on. I only saw him once up close, which happened to be when he got a question he didn't like. Was it true that his staff in the 1980 debates had stolen President Carter's briefing book? (They had.) The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard. His reply was that maybe his staff had, and maybe they hadn't, but what about the leak of the Pentagon Papers? Thus, a secret theft of presidential documents was equated with the public disclosure of needful information. This was a man never short of a cheap jibe or the sort of falsehood that would, however laughable, buy him some time.
The fox, as has been pointed out by more than one philosopher, knows many small things, whereas the hedgehog knows one big thing. Ronald Reagan was neither a fox nor a hedgehog. He was as dumb as a stump. He could have had anyone in the world to dinner, any night of the week, but took most of his meals on a White House TV tray. He had no friends, only cronies. His children didn't like him all that much. He met his second wife—the one that you remember—because she needed to get off a Hollywood blacklist and he was the man to see. Year in and year out in Washington, I could not believe that such a man had even been a poor governor of California in a bad year, let alone that such a smart country would put up with such an obvious phony and loon.
However, there came a day when Mikhail Gorbachev visited Washington and when the Marriott Hotel—host of the summit press conferences—turned its restaurant into the "Glasnost Cafe." On the sidewalk, LaRouche supporters wearing Reagan masks paraded with umbrellas, in mimicry of Neville Chamberlain. I huddled from dawn to dusk with friends, wondering if it could be real. Many of those friends had twice my IQ, or let's say six times that of the then-chief executive. These friends had all deeply wanted either Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale to be, presumably successively, the president instead of Reagan. They would go on to put Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen bumper stickers on their vehicles. No doubt they wish that Mondale had been in the White House when the U.S.S.R. threw in the towel, just as they presumably yearn to have had Dukakis on watch when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. I have been wondering ever since not just about the stupidity of American politics, but about the need of so many American intellectuals to prove themselves clever by showing that they are smarter than the latest idiot in power, or the latest Republican at any rate.
Sen. John Kerry waited until the first week of June 2004 to tell us that he met Ahmad Chalabi in London in 1998 and that he didn't care for him then. That makes six intervening years in which the senator could have alerted us to this lurking danger to national security. But something kept him quiet. One must hope that that something wasn't the tendency to pile on. Cheer up, though. At least this shows that Kerry has no pre-emptive capacity.
Hitchens does have some legitimate criticisms of Moore, most notably the fact that the Bush family's links with Saudi Arabia do not prove that that was the reason Bush let the Saudis out so quickly after 9/11. In my opinion, all world leaders tend to stick together, and I think President Al Gore or John Kerry would have let them out as well. Many of Hitchens other criticisms ("Moore is fat" is a valid debating point?) are simply ad hominem arguments. Perhaps Hitchens, who is witty and incisive, takes umbrage at the success of someone who may be less well read, less urbane, less, well, English than he is.
Moore has done interviews, most recently on the CBS morning show, where he made that flatulent bitch interviewing him look bad.
-
markinore said:
... no American was ever killed by Iraq prior to our invasion there.
I guess you're just too young to remember Gulf War I.?? A few hundred American and coalition troops KIA...or the USS Stark before that??? I believe it was 37 sailors killed by an Iraqi pilot...in a Russian-built Mig....with a French-made Exocet missile.
Sorry, but...what a stupid statement!
You're right, I should have been more specific. In the context of the discussion of terrorist acts that occurred during Clinton's presidency my statement was absolutely correct.
-
Under Clinton there was one terror act against the US after another !
That's true. But how many of them were committed by Iraq? None! Not one! Despite the administration's assertions about "ties" and "connections" and "contacts" (Rumsfeld had contacts with Saddam), no American was ever killed by Iraq prior to our invasion there.
-
INFIDELS WE
in Spray
The bending of perceptions to sell a news story or influence an election is a contrived form of sedition. I believe the penalty for sedition is the death penalty.More precisely, the penalty for treason is the death penalty. That is why it is defined in the Constitution. The founding fathers wisely anticipated that charges of treason can be thrown around lightly, as many of the above posters are doing.
-
It is interesting to contrast Clinton's actions toward Iraq with those of Bush. Clinton enforced a rigid no-fly zone. In the north of Iraq, the Kurdish zone, U.S. and U.K. planes patrolled about one day out of two, nearly always firing missiles or dropping bombs in response to threatening actions by the Iraqis. The larger operation was in southern Iraq, with U.S. planes entering Iraqi airspace an average of 15,000 times a year.
In other words, under Clinton, Saddam was kept on an extremely short leash, under close surveillance and unable to mount any sort of air operations. Under Clinton, not a single U.S. pilot was lost.
-
Gotterdamerung, if you have evidence for anything you are saying, please reveal it. Otherwise, you have no more credibility than the administration. The Vice President tells us that he has access to some information that the 9/11 Commission did not. So why didn't he share it?
In the words of our Commander in Chief, "Fool me once, shame on . . . you . . . . I won't get fooled again." In fairness, he was listening to The Who just before that speech.
-
Most of the WMD evidence was moved into Syria prior to the war and Damascus and Tehran made plans with elements inside of Iraq for a prolonged guerrilla war. Syria and Iran blew smoke up the UN's ass to appear as if they were at odds over the Iraqi deal, when in reality they were both planning the insurgency in tandem.
I wonder what the basis is for those assertions. Hmm, could they have come from the same people who said that WMD were in Iraq? The ones who gave us the Powerpoint slides with the circles and arrows showing all the chemical and biological weapons factories? The ones who had proof of Iraq's support of al Qaeda? The ones who said our troops would be greeted with flowers?
Look, there's no question that Iran and Syria are controlled by scumbags. I would hope, however, that one thing we have learned from the Iraq debacle is that our "intelligence" gathering is questionable, both because of the limited capabilities of the CIA and others and because they are susceptible to political pressure to come up with the answers that the administration wants.
-
I was in Phoenix for work this weekend, and on Saturday it was too hot to do anything outside, so I thought I would catch the 1 pm showing at a local theater. It was sold out. I bought a ticket for the 4 pm show and went out for lunch. When I came back at 3:30, the 4 pm show was sold out, the 7 pm show was sold out, and they added an unscheduled 7:30 show--which was also sold out.
Obviously, not everyone who sees F9/11 agrees with Moore. But if I were Bush, and I knew that people were coming out in droves like this to see a movie that made me look that bad on a 108 degree day in a conservative bastion like Phoenix--I would be afraid. Very, very afraid.
-
Bronco’s rules are a good start, but he’s leaving a few people off the hook. I propose the following additions:
15) The next time you’re on a bus or a train and somebody is talking too loud on a cell phone—kick their ass.
16) If they’re talking on their cell phone about being on the bus or train and they’ll be meeting the person they’re talking to in a few minutes anyway—kick their ass again.
17) If you stop at a red light and somebody is playing their stereo so loud that your car is vibrating—kick their ass.
18) If their car stereo is playing anything by Duran Duran—kick their ass AND burn their car.
19) If somebody driving a 6000 pound SUV who bragged about how they could write it off on their taxes starts complaining about the cost of gas—kick their ass.
20) If somebody tries to tell you why the designated hitter is good for baseball—kick their ass. Same if they try to defend artificial turf.
I hope this helps to close some of the loopholes. Feel free to suggest more.
-
There was a fascinating interview last night on NBC news with a senior CIA official who is extremely critical of both the Bush and Clinton administrations actions regarding bin Laden. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/
Among his compelling observations:
The war against Iraq is "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat.”
Bin Laden is not merely a psycho who hates us because we have a free and open society. "[H]e's not a man who rants against our freedoms, our liberties, our voting, our — the fact that our women go to school. . . .To think that he's trying to rob us of our liberties and freedom is, I think, a gross mistake. What he has done, his genius, is identify particular American foreign policies that are offensive to Muslims whether they support these martial actions or not — our support for Israel, our presence on the Arabian Peninsula, our activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, our support for governments that Muslims believe oppress Muslims. . . ."
"The major problem with the Iraq war is that it distracted us from the war against terrorism."
"I think someone should have gone to the president when the, when the discussion of going to Iraq was broached and have said, Mr. President, this is something that can only help Osama bin Laden. Whatever the danger posed by Saddam, whatever weapons he had, is almost irrelevant in that the boost it would give to al-Qaida was easily seen."
"Bin Laden, I think, and al-Qaida and other of America's enemies in the Islamic world certainly saw the invasion of Iraq as a, if you would, a Christmas gift they always wanted and never expected to get."
This interview for me sums up what is so dangerous about Bush's Mideast policies in general and the Iraq war in particular. Not only do we not go after America's real enemies, not only do we reduce our ability to after our real enemies, we actually contribute to the generation of more enemies.
-
When we last left our hero, Dubya was telling us that he "could not recall" receiving the memo from Justice Department lawyers saying that he was authorized to unilaterally violate the Geneva Convention regarding torture of prisoners.
Now, it turns out that he not only received the memo, he agreed with it in writing: “I accept the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5259200/
Although we can take some comfort from the fact that he did not order torture "at this time," how does he reconcile that with his statement just two weeks ago that he couldn't remember it?
Is he that stupid or does he think we are?
Real or Fake?
in Spray
Posted
I object to the misleading title of this thread. I thought it was going to be about breasts.