NPR on Michael Moore

[RobBob]

Scott Simon says Moore uses innuendo and half-truths at the expense of accurate portrayal, and will therefore "never be a guest on his show." (today's Wall St Journal)

 

Thanks for speaking up Scott.

[JayB]

More commentary by Scott Simon

 

When Punchline Trumps Honesty

There's more McCarthy than Murrow in the work of Michael Moore.

 

BY SCOTT SIMON

Tuesday, July 27, 2004 12:01 a.m.

 

Michael Moore has won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival, and may win an Oscar for the kind of work that got Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, and Jack Kelly fired.

Trying to track the unproven innuendoes and conspiracies in a Michael Moore film or book is as futile as trying to count the flatulence jokes in one by Adam Sandler. Some journalists and critics have acted as if his wrenching of facts is no more serious than a movie continuity problem, like showing a 1963 Chevy in 1956 Santa Monica.

 

 

 

 

 

A documentary film doesn't have to be fair and balanced, to coin a phrase. But it ought to make an attempt to be accurate. It can certainly be pointed and opinionated. But it should not knowingly misrepresent the truth. Much of Michael Moore's films and books, however entertaining to his fans and enraging to his critics, seems to regard facts as mere nuisances to the story he wants to tell.

Back in 1991 that sharpest of film critics, the New Yorker's Pauline Kael, blunted some of the raves for Mr. Moore's "Roger and Me" by pointing out how the film misrepresented many facts about plant closings in Flint, Mich., and caricatured people it purported to feel for. "The film I saw was shallow and facetious," said Kael, "a piece of gonzo demagoguery that made me feel cheap for laughing."

 

His methods remain unrefined in "Fahrenheit 9/11." Mr. Moore ignores or misrepresents the truth, prefers innuendo to fact, edits with poetic license rather than accuracy, and strips existing news footage of its context to make events and real people say what he wants, even if they don't. As Kael observed back then, Mr. Moore's method is no more high-minded than "the work of a slick ad exec."

 

The main premise of Mr. Moore's recent work is that both Presidents Bush have been what amounts to Manchurian Candidates of the Saudi royal family. Mr. Moore suggests (he depends so much on innuendo that a simple, declarative verb like "says" is usually impossible) the Saudi government, having soured on their pawns for unstated reasons, launched the attacks of Sept. 11.

 

"What if these weren't wacko terrorists, but military pilots who signed onto a suicide mission?" Moore asks in the best-selling "Dude, Where's My Country?" "What if they were doing this at the behest of either the Saudi government or certain disgruntled members of the Saudi royal family?" Central to Mr. Moore's indictment of the current President Bush is his charge that the U.S. government secretly assisted the evacuation of bin Laden family members from the U.S. in the hours following the Sept. 11 attacks, when all other flights nationwide were grounded. He supports this with grainy images of indecipherable documents.

 

But on our show on Saturday, Richard Clarke, the government's former counter-terrorism adviser and no apologist for the Bush administration, told us that he had authorized those flights, but only after air travel had been restored and all the Saudis had been questioned. "I think Moore's making a mountain of a molehill," he said. Moreover, said Mr. Clarke, "He never interviewed me." Instead, Mr. Moore had simply lifted a clip from an ABC interview. Perhaps Mr. Moore just didn't want to get an answer that he didn't want to hear. (See how useful innuendoes can be?)

 

In what is perhaps the most wrenching scene in the film, an Iraqi woman is shown wailing amid the rubble caused by a bomb that killed members of her family. I do not doubt her account, or her sorrow. I have interviewed Iraqis about U.S. bombs that killed civilians. People who agree to wars should see the human damage bombs can do.

 

But reporters who were taken around to see the sites of civilian deaths during the bombing of Baghdad also observed that some of those errant bombs were fired by Iraqi anti-aircraft crews. Mr. Moore doesn't let the audience know when and where this bomb was dropped, or otherwise try to identify the culprit of the tragedy.

 

Mr. Moore tries hard to identify himself with U.S. troops and their concerns. But he spends an awful lot of effort depicting them as dupes and brutes. At one point in "Fahrenheit 9/11," someone off-camera prods a U.S. soldier into singing a favorite hip-hop song with profane lyrics. Mr. Moore then runs the soldier's voice over combat footage, to make it seem as if the soldier were insensitively singing along with the destruction.

 

In another scene, U.S. soldiers make savage jokes about the awkward effects of rigor mortis on one part of the corpse of an Iraqi soldier. I do not doubt the authenticity of those pictures. But I also have no particular reason to trust it. A few basic details, like where and when the video was shot, are considered traditional reporting techniques (especially after the front-page photos of British soldiers brutalizing Iraqi prisoners turned out to be frauds). A few other basic facts might have informed the audience. Was the Iraqi killed in battle? By a suicide bomb? Moore says the U.S. soldiers are good boys turned coarse in an immoral war. But I have also heard those kind of ugly and anxious jokes about corpses from overstressed emergency room physicians.

 

 

 

 

 

In the New York Times, Paul Krugman wrote that, "Viewers may come away from Moore's movie believing some things that probably aren't true," and that he "uses association and innuendo to create false impressions." Try to imagine those phrases on a marquee. But that is his rave review! He lauds "Fahrenheit 9/11" for its "appeal to working-class Americans." Do we really want to believe that only innuendo, untruths, and conspiracy theories can reach working-class Americans?

Governments of both parties have assuaged Saudi interests for more than 50 years. (I wonder if Mr. Moore grasps how much the jobs of auto workers in Flint depended on cheap oil.) Sound questions about the course, costs, and grounds for the war in Iraq have been raised by voices across the political spectrum.

 

But when 9/11 Commission Chairman Kean has to take a minute at a press conference, as he did last Thursday, to knock down a proven falsehood like the secret flights of the bin Laden family, you wonder if those who urge people to see Moore's film are informing or contaminating the debate. I see more McCarthy than Murrow in the work of Michael Moore. No matter how hot a blowtorch burns, it doesn't shed much light.

Mr. Simon hosts NPR's "Weekend Edition Saturday" and is the author of theforthcoming "Pretty Birds," a novel about the siege of Sarajevo, from Random House.

[Fairweather]

Careful RobBob! Our local Bush-haters can get pretty grouchy when you try to awaken them from their Moore-induced sleep.

[b-rock]

"innuendo and half-truths at the expense of accurate portrayal"

 

Michael Moore, Fox News, WTF is the difference?

[cj001f]

"innuendo and half-truths at the expense of accurate portrayal"

 

Michael Moore, Fox News, WTF is the difference?

 

Only one has the slogan "We report, you decide?"

[willstrickland]

Careful RobBob! Our local Bush-haters can get pretty grouchy when you try to awaken them from their Moore-induced sleep.

 

That's right Fairweather! You're either with us, or you're against us

 

All of us who think that Bush administration are inept, arrogant, corrupt, corporate lapdogs are simply under Fatty Moore's spell of misinformation. I wonder how I got that impression of the administration years before Michael "More Food Please" Moore released his film?

 

I'll make this clear, my sour opinion of Bush and his cronies didn't begin with the Iraq invasion, nor with the Florida election wrangling. It began in the 2000 primaries when they unleased an unethical, cowardly, misinformation smear campaign against John McCain.

 

That bullshit worked in the primary and "Gee Carl, think we can use similar tactics to bring the populus around to supporting an Iraq invasion? The neocons want this one bad. I think it may just work Rove 'ol boy...get on it!"

[JayB]

There are people out there who are no friends of the Bush administration who also have reasonable grounds to criticize Moore's films.

 

Moore's assertion that the administration gave the Bin Laden family a free-pass out of the country after the attacks has been conclusively refuted by scores of reporters, and none other than Richard Clarke himself. This is just one of many false claims made in the film that his cheerleaders on this site and elsewhere have yet to address.

[j_b]

So you guys have downgraded the charges of "lies" to "half-truths and innuendos"? You must be getting desperate. This Simon dude is a complete moron. F9/11 does not do any of the things mentioned in the article above. In fact said piece says more about Simon's politics than about Moore. So much for the "liberal" media.

 

The facts presented in f9/11:

 

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/index.php?id=18

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/index.php?id=19

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/index.php?id=17

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/index.php?id=16

[markinore]

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.

[j_b]

There are people out there who are no friends of the Bush administration who also have reasonable grounds to criticize Moore's films.

 

and even though *you* are a friend of the bush administration, you'll make use of any criticism of mmoore to try shooting him down, right?

 

Moore's assertion that the administration gave the Bin Laden family a free-pass out of the country after the attacks has been conclusively refuted by scores of reporters, and none other than Richard Clarke himself.

 

scores of reporters bought the administration's crap about imminent danger as well. Clarke didn't refute anything, he said that *some* interviews were given while others said that the interviews were not sufficient considering the ties of the bin laden family to the 9/11 perps.

 

This is just one of many false claims made in the film that his cheerleaders on this site and elsewhere have yet to address.

 

*you* are either lying or you haven't seen the movie (and you are repeating other people's lies).

[j_b]

One can take issue with F 9/11 for legitimate reasons.

 

which are? specifically?

 

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 not want mmoore? wtf? don't these people have any shame? what a farce!

[RobBob]

This is fucking priceless. Nowhere else could we find somebody attacking Scott Simon as a right-leaning idiot and hypocrite. J_b, are you posting from the Protestor's Corner in Boston?

[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.

[j_b]

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.

 

he does not gloss over it. he just does not even mention it (?) for 3 main reasons (imo) even though i have no doubt that mmoore is well aware of the role played by israel: 1) he'd loose 3/4 of his audience right off the bat for obvious reasons (it is a distorted debate in the usa, false charges of antisemitism, etc ...) and 2) because saudi arabia is more critical to retaining control of the wealth of the region. israel is our regional bulldog but they have nothing that we want, really; and 3) f9/11 discusses the bush admin response to 9/11 much more than it explains why arabs are pissed off. it is indeniable that the long-term relationship between the bushes and the house of saud, and the importance of saudi investment in the us (~7% of the wealth) played a crucial role in the response.

 

I think that is a subject far more worthy of discussion than the pipeline across Afghanistan that he makes such a big deal over.

 

it is likely that control of afghanistan and transfer of central asian oil played a critical role in *triggering* the 9/11 attack (even though it had been planned long before)

 

I also disagree that oil was a major reason for invading Iraq.

 

oil has been *the* motive for foreign policy in the middle east for 70 years. what has changed? nothing, except that cheap oil is gone and competition for energy is now much much greater.

 

I think more important factors included the unfinished business of Bush I and the neocon desire to "impose" democracy.

 

give me one piece of evidence that anyone among that bunch wants democracy in developing nations (i mean beside rhetoric)

 

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.

 

dwindling resources and reference currency

[RobBob]

This Simon dude is a complete moron. F9/11 does not do any of the things mentioned in the article above. In fact said piece says more about Simon's politics than about Moore.

 

j_b, this is a classic bit of penmanship on your part. While I would expect for you to do your usual 'go on the offense as a defense' by defaming NPR, I really am shocked at your morally-bankrupt claim that F911 "does not do any of the things mentioned in the article above." You are lying to yourself, dude. Yes, Michael Moore, is a self-promoting lying rascal. The fact that you and your ilk want to believe what he infers doesn't make him any less so.

 

Fucking-A, I'd hate to be relying on you out in the wild. I might find you face-to-face with a bear, mumbling to yourself that he wasn't really there.

[RobBob]

I'll make this clear, my sour opinion of Bush and his cronies didn't begin with the Iraq invasion, nor with the Florida election wrangling. It began in the 2000 primaries when they unleased an unethical, cowardly, misinformation smear campaign against John McCain.

I actually dislike Bush a great deal myself. It's really too bad that the Democrats have fielded such a poor alternative. But, will, thank God that McCain didn't get elected president. As the US is finding out how we've been duped into NAFTA and other lopsided 'free trade' initiatives, McCain rolls on with his mission of increasing that giant sucking sound in this country.

 

I think McCain has a psychological problem stemming from his Vietnam experience---"soldier's guilt." He seems bound and determined to support unrestricted trade with Vietnam, for instance, even when it's apparent that the Vietnamese government is subsidizing trade in order to import $.

[j_b]

While I would expect for you to do your usual 'go on the offense as a defense' by defaming NPR,

 

well at least i am being consistent. it's not like i have ever claimed npr to be anything other than a center-right organization (liberal on social issues but conservative on the economy and foreign policy). which is more than what could be said about you, who goes on whining about the big bad "liberal" media and then innocently gloats about "liberal" reporters defending poor bush from big bad michael moore. give me a f*ing break.

 

I really am shocked at your morally-bankrupt claim that F911 "does not do any of the things mentioned in the article above." You are lying to yourself, dude. Yes, Michael Moore, is a self-promoting lying rascal. The fact that you and your ilk want to believe what he infers doesn't make him any less so.

 

110 million dollars pal, that's a lot of entry tickets. don't have a stroke on that account though.

 

Fucking-A, I'd hate to be relying on you out in the wild. I might find you face-to-face with a bear, mumbling to yourself that he wasn't really there.

 

pathetic.

[RobBob]

j_b, face up to it. With you and this Michael Moore thing, it's really about the ends justifying the means, isn't it. Talk about the one who sounds pathetic here.

[Fairweather]

There are people out there who are no friends of the Bush administration who also have reasonable grounds to criticize Moore's films.

 

 

This is very true! But I find it rather strange the only time "politically neutral" WillStrickland comes out to play is when defense of a left-wing cause or cook is required.

 

Will, please spare us all the anger over John McCain's rough treatment by GW in 2000. It's called politics, my friend. Were McCain back in the spotlight for the Republicans (or as an Independent) there would no doubt be a Democrat onslaught with such skeletons as Keeting Five S&L scandal, Manchurian Candidate dirtbombs, etc. If you wish to maintain your non partisan/Libertarian label you'll have to at least pretend to abhore the lefties now and then.

 

 

 

[Stonehead]

I'll make this clear, my sour opinion of Bush and his cronies didn't begin with the Iraq invasion, nor with the Florida election wrangling. It began in the 2000 primaries when they unleased an unethical, cowardly, misinformation smear campaign against John McCain.

I actually dislike Bush a great deal myself. It's really too bad that the Democrats have fielded such a poor alternative.

 

Tens reasons to fire George W. Bush and nine reasons why Kerry won't be much better.

excerpt:

 

Yet I find myself hoping the guy [Kerry] wins. Not because I'm sure he'll be better than the current executive, but because the incumbent so richly deserves to be punished at the polls. Making me root for a sanctimonious statist blowhard like Kerry isn't the worst thing Bush has done to the country. But it's the offense that I take most personally.

 

 

 

Also McCain speaks of the Democratic opposition:

 

"I believe my party has gone astray ... I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and their philosophy ... You can't fly on an aircraft carrier and declare victory and have the deaths continue ... you can't do that. I do not believe that [sen. Kerry] is necessarily weak on defense."

 

-- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), on his colleague Sen. John Kerry.

 

"In [his book] Four Trials, John Edwards has written movingly of people who were terribly wronged, and whom he helped seek some measure of justice with great skill, determination and genuine compassion. He shows a perceptive appreciation in those accounts for the strength of his clients' character. And, in the loving portrait of his son Wade, and the deeply touching account of his loss, John reveals the strength of his own character and gives the reader a look beyond a political biography into the heart of a good man."

 

-- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), on his colleague Sen. John Edwards, in a blurb on Edwards' book Four Trials.

 

"He's got the ambition, the talent and the brains to go very far, to be president of the United States."

 

-Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), on his colleague Sen. John Edwards, in the Charlotte Observer, February 26, 2001.

[j_b]

j_b, face up to it. With you and this Michael Moore thing, it's really about the ends justifying the means, isn't it.

 

not really. i have a few problems with the movie but it is minor. the movie raises lots of questions and it does a great job at countering the propaganda we are being submitted to 24/7, and i can't ask for more. as mmoore said, these are ficticious times and nothing is what it seems. all that we see on the "news" is scripted but you don't have a problem with it. for once we have a movie that shows the other side (how fake they are), and you guys cry bias/unfair/lie. you guys are lame.

 

Talk about the one who sounds pathetic here.

 

i don't go about attacking your person, now, do i?

[b-rock]

It's called politics, my friend.

 

Yes in a particulary disgusting, disheartening new way pioneered by the GOP. Those personal attacks, just like the ones against Max Cleland and others takes it all to a whole new level. Apparently one you are proud to be associated with.

[JayB]

Here's another one - Moore's claim that one of the administrations prime motivationsn for mounting the invasion of Afghanistan was motivated by the immediate prospect of building an oil pipeline through the country.

 

There were plans to do this at one time - during the Clinton administration - but they were discarded by the oil company prior to the Bush's innauguration. Such plans could always be revived at some point, but the guy has no evidence whatsoever to support the assertion that such considerations motivated the attack.

 

There's also the larger problems in the movie, such as the complete absence of any consideration of the motives underlying Brittain, Spain, Italy and the Netherland's participation. All dupes of the dark cabal of Texans? How about some consideration of facts of life under Saddam and the implications of doing nothing?Then there's the intellectual incoherence that runs throughout the entire premise in which he simultaneously argues that the administration consists of a bunch of incompetent ideologues who are too dense to be entrusted with the responsibilities of their respective offices AND a sinister bunch of puppetmasters intent on and capable of subverting the entire apparatus of government to serve their particular ends. Which is it? The sinister cabal or the pack of clowns?

 

You were on stronger ground when you were singing the praises of Kim Jong Il there, amigo.

[j_b]

There were plans to do this at one time - during the Clinton administration - but they were discarded by the oil company prior to the Bush's innauguration. Such plans could always be revived at some point, but the guy has no evidence whatsoever to support the assertion that such considerations motivated the attack.

 

except for the negotiating that took place with the taliban up to August 01, when the bushies told them to behave or be ready to get squashed

 

There's also the larger problems in the movie, such as the complete absence of any consideration of the motives underlying Brittain, Spain, Italy and the Netherland's participation. All dupes of the dark cabal of Texans?

 

gee, it'd be the first time that the brits and others wanted the crumbs from the spoil

 

How about some consideration of facts of life under Saddam and the implications of doing nothing?

 

as if you cared about iraqis ... please spare us the hypocrisy.

 

Then there's the intellectual incoherence that runs throughout the entire premise in which he simultaneously argues that the administration consists of a bunch of incompetent ideologues who are too dense to be entrusted with the responsibilities of their respective offices AND a sinister bunch of puppetmasters intent on and capable of subverting the entire apparatus of government to serve their particular ends. Which is it? The sinister cabal or the pack of clowns?

 

go see the movie, you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

 

You were on stronger ground when you were singing the praises of Kim Jong Il there, amigo.

 

foul! back to smearing your opponent with underhanded tactics, huh? you'd do joe mccarthy proud.

[Fairweather]

It's called politics, my friend.

 

Yes in a particulary disgusting, disheartening new way pioneered by the GOP. Those personal attacks, just like the ones against Max Cleland and others takes it all to a whole new level. Apparently one you are proud to be associated with.

 

Your grasp of our nations political history is weak. The political arena is much tamer now than it was between, say, 1860 and 1930. I would even add 1968 and 1972 to the "less civil" column. If you believe the Republicans are more disposed to "dirty politics" than your Democrat friends, you are simply wrong... or wearing some pretty dark blinders..