MICHAEL MOORE'S MISSION

New York Post ^ | 6/23/04

[kattracks]

[snip]

Our concern is with another aspect of Moore's movie: It's basically a two-hour attack ad on President Bush.

"I hope this country will be back in our hands in a very short period of time," Moore says. That is, he hopes that his movie will make John Kerry president.

Moore certainly has the right to pursue such a goal as he pleases. America prizes freedom of speech, Exhibit A being all the tendentiously conspiratorial — and just plain stupid — movies that Michael Moore has churned out over the years.

But should this unapologetically partisan piece of "art" count as an explicit contribution to the Kerry campaign?

After all, the McCain-Feingold campaign-reform law imposes a moratorium on much explicit political advertising in the weeks before Election Day.

[snip]

[Fenris6]

Let it run. Like the Wellstone Funeral/Campaign Rally, it will backfire in their faces.

I just spoke to a Democrat today who's so disgusted by this that he's sitting out in Novemeber.

[beyond the sea]

Perhaps we will be helped by these creations by such loathsome people as Moore. Maybe the only Americans who will swallow the essence of Moore's assertions are already in the stupid line. I'm hoping the rest of the Americans will be repulsed by this guy's pure misplaced hatred and anger..... an anger at the country itself, not just for George Bush.

Then again, most Americans are easily manipulated these days. Afterall, there was a poll just the other day (in this booming economy) that said that MOST Americans think the economy is on the downslide. Brilliant!

[Benrand]

"I'm John Kerry and I approved this lying fatass' movie."

[oblomov]

Welcome to FR.

I agree that Moore is not explicitly pro-Kerry, but he is by implication. It's a documentary that people are paying to see, so Moore can't seriously be accused of campaign advertising, no matter the timing.

I hope you'll stick around here and learn as much as you can about the two major candidates from this and other sites. I'm confident that an objective assessment would lead to a vote for Bush, but it's your decision...

[oblomov]

F&B-

You are doing the right thing. You should explore ideas across the political spectrum, especially when you are younger.

I read magazines and visit sites on both the left and right, but I am definitely libertarian/conservative in my views. As a libertarian I have many problems with Bush, but I am willing to put these issues aside.

Good luck.

[arthurus]

We do not know yet whether Sada was involved or not. "There is no evidence" means only that evidence has not been found. Sadam's involvement is not even relevant. The war is not just a law enforcement action against a gang of criminals and it is not just an act of revenge. The Islamists have declared and are pursuing a war of extermination against Western Civilization and the US is the designated defender of WC.

Iraq is the central real estate of the Islamists' domain and gives us a proximal base that moves the killing to the enemy's doorstep and away from ours. It gives us leverage against Iran and Arabia and Syria which are the shief sponsors and homes of our enemies. Iraq was also much easier to invade than these others would be and we had the "right" to go after Iraq in the eyes of the Arabs because Sadam was our avowed enemy and had attacked our former president. The last item pretty much legitimizes the invasion in the eyes of the arabs if not in the words of their press.

[Dane]

Yes, but don't leave out their gullibility for the other side as well. Polls also conclude that huge majority of Americans thought that Saddam had links to the 9/11 attacks, when we first invaded Iraq. And now that it's been proven that that is false, recent polls still show a majority, albeit a smaller majority, of Americans still think Saddam was involved.

So little skull full of mush, I surmise to you saddam was just a poor benign entity full of sweetness.

Got some news for you, saddam was not a good guy, no matter how much you want to beleive it.

[leprechaun9]

My vote is decided very easily. I have a list of the issues that are important to me. There are two columns, one labeled Bush and the other labeled Kerry. I then mark which candidate better supports the issues that are important to me.

Each voter should have a list (probably much commonality on some of the issues).

For me, an election is NOT who do I want in office, but of those whose names appear on the ballot, which one scores better?

[johncatl]

Where they stand is only part of the decision-making process. Who they are is also important.

John Kerry's political career started with false accusations of his former comrades-in-arms, while they were still engaged with the enemy.

I see no integrity nor honor in Mr. Kerry.

[Dane]

I never said Saddam was a "great guy." I just simply stated that the American people still think Saddam is responsible for 9/11 when there is no evidence that he is.

First if you want me to know that you replied to me, you must put my name in the ping line.

Second, F&B people know that al-queda were behind the 9/11 attacks. Saddam, IMO, was in concert with many terrorists covertly. Saddam was not a benign entity as michael moore is trying to propagandize. Below are some pictures that a person will not see in his piece of crap propaganda.

Kurds gassed by saddam hussein in 1988.

People jumping out of the WTC because of the murderous terrorists michael moore is in love with.

Or the beheading of Nick Berg by the murderous bastards who michael moore basically gives a cinematic Monica towards.

[ought-six]

Cite your source that says a huge majority of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

[arthurus]

Invading Iraq is justified in the inds of the others in the area because of, ultimately, Iraq's first move invasion of Kuwait, recognized as being under the protection of the US and then by Sadam's attempt to kill GHWB. The personal attack on Bush Sr., in the ME fully justifies any sort of attack on Sadam and his family and his domain. The invasion of Iraq is easier to pull off without truly upsetting the neighbors because it is "legitimate" to tribal mentalities. It gives us more leverage on Iran than invading Iran would give us on Iraq. Iran also has and has had its own indigenous opposition that probably is a majority of the population and can be expected to fall to that opposition at some point with encouragement from the CIA, Spec Forces, etc. And Iraq is CENTRAL, right in the middle.

The enemy "cells" are and were proliferating regardless of what we do. If we were not in the ME slapping the ones that get close enough, they would be much more active in Europe and America. Iraq acts as a magnet for them. Go there to smite the Great Satan. Their own sense of potency hinges on defeating us where we have hit them in their own front yard.

Choosing a limited target area for maximum effect rather than going in with great armies and cleaning out the whole area allows us to operate as if this is a border war rather than a central war-for-survival. We do not have to trash our economy to produce the military and munitions and the bureaucracy necessary to fight an all out war a la WWII. If we made the full effort and the government were to take over the economy to redirect all to the war effort we would go into depression quickly and if it lasted very long this economy would not be able to put out the required amount of materiel to continue a high tech war. That kind of mobilization worked in WWII because the economy had tremendous unused potential because of the government maintained depression that still continued. With an economy producing much closer to potential productivity a Declaration Of War mobilization would trigger a decline in the ability to produce those things made necessary by that Declaration.