Just got off CNN Newsnight with Jeff Greenfield and Aaron Brown and the, uh, charming email is starting already. Blogging from the cab. More later…
If you came in from CNN, here’s a link to the review that got me there.
It’s late. Good night.
80 responses to “Just got off CNN Newsnight”
-
hope that check from RNC was worth your mediawhoring.
-
Hi Jeff,
I couldn’t watch the show, but if you are getting charming email, I want to be the first to thank you for a terrific job. You must have been fantastic. Hang in there, your efforts are greatly appreciated. -
I did see it, and thought it went well. Jeff Greenfield and Aaron Brown can’t be as big of idiots as they seem, can they?
-
How does one distinguish between a propaganda film and a documentary?
Is that something that’s in the eye of the beholder?
In my ignorance, I would have catagorized Columbine as a propaganda film, and it sounds like F911 is even more slanted. I guess I figure that an award winning “documentary” would at least give a head nod towards an opposing view – which I gather F911 didn’t do.
Loren -
Greenfied made Jarvis look like an idiot by mentioning his chickenhawk background. Where do you get off saying Moore is exploiting the mother of the dead soldier have you asked her how she feels about the movie…how come she is currently organizing other mothers of dead soldiers and has become anti-bush…who says you can say Moore is expoiting her when even she doesn’t say it. Your obvious bias is showing.
-
Jeff, you’re a great blogger, but for the life of me I can’t understand your beefs with Moore. So he’s a propagandist? Who cares? His views aren’t that different than yours anyway; he just understands how tkaing the extreme and making a caricature out of someone makes them funnier.
-
I too question whether the mother was exploited. If Jeff thinks she was, he should get hold of her and find out before complaining about it.
I haven’t seen the movie, but I have no doubt that it was unfair to the war mongers …. see…i can be unfair too…but then Bush is unfair every time he opens his mouth. It wasn’t funny? Well I expect that Moore didn’t intend to be funny. Jeff…you’re a guy complaining that it is difficult to unscrew a screw with a hammer. If you want a light comedy about Iraq, Jeff, why don’t you do one.
But I was most disappointed with Jeff in that he spoke as if he thought Iraq (or maybe just SH) responsible for 9/11. Maybe he’s one of the 62 percent who still believe that. The problem is that in going into Iraq, taking our troops from where they were really needed, we have weakened the war on terrorism and this country. From what I’ve seen, it seems that Mr. Moore has made that point pretty well. And if he did it with a sledge hammer and not a feather, sobeit. -
David –
Nice. Truly a well-reasoned argument, worthy of the master himself: Socrates (actually Plato, if we want to be honest – and we all do, don’t we?). May I be the first to sign up for worship at the temple of Moore, the all-wise and all-knowing? Using those many cogent points, you have so thoroughly convinced me of the righteousness of your position that I must immediately convert from my ‘chickenhawking’ ways and go with you to your temple, so that I, along with you, may sacrifice my mind to the great god Propaganda.
/sarcasm
By the way, Dave – Booker T. Washington had no idea he was being exploited, either, until he was slammed for it by DuBois. Just because someone doesn’t realize they are being used (or is submitting to being used), doesn’t mean it isn’t happening (or isn’t wrong). -
Jeff–
I’m meeting you for the first time this evening via my favorite news show NewsNight (I must’ve been under a rock all these years), and though I completely disagree with your argument against the film Farenheit 9/11, I considered most of what you said well-reasoned and provocative– you’re a pleasure to listen to. I’m happy to have discovered this blog and look forward reading more on your point of view. -
Barry,
The problem is that in going into Iraq, taking our troops from where they were really needed, we have weakened the war on terrorism and this country.
That’s a very good critique, i’d say, but not one Moore is entitled to make as he opposed the
Afghanistan war as well.
For the record, I’d love an in-depth documentary about the Saudi ties to the Bush family and other powerful Americans – but I know this isn’t going to be it. -
Hi Jeff,
I watched your appearance on CNN tonight. I applaud you for attempting to provide some balance.
It is clear to me that the pro-Saddam camp is becoming increasingly more desperate.
Our system mandates civilian control of military and intelligence resources.
We are not, in my belief, required to give weight to the most clueless and partisan civilians we can find.
I think it is a mistake for the Democratic leadership to have gotten too close to this film.
By the way, I am an independant who has never voted Republican in my life.
I will now. -
Jeff I think it was great what you said and did and I applaud you for it. I see people posting on sites saying ‘ i was changed from this movie ‘. This shows the average american citizen who is fat and lazy who sits on their couch listening to CNN all day. Maybe if their were more people like you on CNN with open minds their wouldn’t be soo many idiots in the world.
http://conpush.com Conservative Push -
Believe it or not, Jonas Cord, Moore is now attempting to reach the mainstream by declaring himself dissatisfied by the Administration’s “half-hearted” attempt to catch Bin Laden. His earlier opposition to the Afghan campaign has changed – without explanation of when or why it changed – to a “centrist” declaration that:
“I think — and I think most Americans agree with this — that we should have seriously gone after anyone who was responsible for the murder of 3,000 people,” Moore told CNN anchor Daryn Kagan Friday on CNN’s “Live Today.” “But, as Richard Clarke so eloquently has pointed out, on September 12th the Bush administration wasn’t interested in going after the people who did this. They wanted to bomb Iraq.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/25/moore.film/index.html
He is now most dissatisfied that the U.S. sent fewer troops to Afghanistan than there are policemen in Manhattan.
Best guess is that Moore is in “say anything” mode, and that his real views are those he voiced in a sarcastic antiwar rant which he contributed to “alternet” just after the bombing began in October 2001:
“All I Am Saying Is Give War a Chance: Just in case you’re feeling a little conflicted about “America Strikes Back,” here’s six reasons to stop worrying and learn to love the War.”
Some sample quotes from Moore’s October 8, 2001 antiwar satire:
“NOW we have resolution. NOW we know the ending — the bombing to smithereens of a country so advanced it has, to date, laid a total of 18 miles of railroad tracks throughout the entire country! How very 19th century of them! I hope our missiles were able to take them out. I don’t want this thing going on forever. Best that we obliterate them before they come up with some smart idea like the telegraph.”
and
“Really Cool War Footage. It’s been way too long since we’ve been able to watch those cruise missiles and smart bombs with their little cameras on them sail in and blow the crap out of a bunch of human beings. This time, let’s hope the video is in color and that it’s attached with a miniature set of Dolby speaker microphones so we can hear the screams and wails of those Afghanis as our shrapnel guts them into strips of bacon. Oh, and let’s pray the video can be loaded into my Sony Playstation!!”
http://www.alternet.org/story/11664/
Moore’s problem with honesty about his own position in the war against terror is just one reason why I won’t pay a penny to watch Farenheit 9/11. Another is his arrogance in assuming that no one would check up on him.
Congratulations to Mr. Jarvis on tonight’s interview segment. -
I just finished watching your CNN appearance. Don’t you think it’s a bit dishonest to cite your non-support of Bush to give yourself credibility as a critic, but not say a word about your apparent whole-hearted support for the war?
-
In the commercials, it was quoting the suspicious nature of the Bin Laden family being allowed out of the US, while in the same ad quoting Richard Clarke on another matter. It confused me.
-
General,
You’ve encountered Jeff Jarvis. Jeff, a proud critic of others (“no foible too small, no snark too spiteful”) is incapable of a critical thought about himself.
Jeff dishonest? Unpossible! -
I think its hilarious that some poster above applauds Jeff “for attempting to provide some balance.”
Balance?
I have not heard or read one journalist do anything but take potshots at Moore and his movie. Whining about what you didn’t like, what you would have done differently, how wrong it is to show an opinion in a movie, blah blah blah. Do you think Ophuls was unbiased in “Sorrow and the Pity”? What’s the difference?
Any American that bothers to see the film is probably not a complete moron. We hear what he has to say. He makes his pitch. We take it for what it is. Why can’t Jeff? Why can’t people who think of themselves as journalists accept this film?
How ironic that the press is leaning so obviously toward the right these days — Tucker Carlson on PBS now! — yet their number one gripe re: an independent filmmaker is that HE’s biased. -
Jeff – you were terrific. The cable cut out half way into Greenfield’s piece but was back in time for the panel with Greenfield, Brown and you. It was nice to see two grown men on a different side of an argument – you and Greenfield – disagree but not be disagreeable to each other. That’s what lacking from so many of the cable talking head shows.
They’d be smart to have you on more. -
Great job, Jeff, and very eloquent, as usual.
A refreshing change from Aaron Brown’s sloooow talking. -
Barry wrote:
The problem is that in going into Iraq, taking our troops from where they were really needed, we have weakened the war on terrorism and this country.
Jonas agreed, saying:
That’s a very good critique…
Actually, it a very poor critique, nothing more than a DNC talking point. Ostensibly the troops that went to Iraq were diverted from Afghanistan, where they were needed more. But this is demonstrably false. Check the DOD website. The troop levels in Afghanistan since December of 2002 have been relatively constant at around 15,000 men. Also keep in mind our mission in Afghanistan is to hunt down Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters who are on the run in remote locations. It is a task best suited to Special Forces working in small teams. Greater numbers do not ensure greater success, though they do present more targets.
Moreover, the troop comment is a false criticism, usually offered by those who didn’t support the war in Iraq and wouldn’t have no matter what the troop commitments were. You may have opposed the war for different reasons, but this “distraction from the war on terror” meme is just silly. Take a look at who we are killing every day in Iraq. Yep, terrorists. Wouldn’t you rather have them dead at the hands of our armed forces than alive and running around inside our borders? -
I have vistited this website after hearing Jeff mention it on CNN. Being an independent voter, and looking to make up my mind about the forthcoming election, I am looking for a candidate I can trust. After all, they are all politicians.
Judging a candidate can be influenced by how members of their party handle themselves. What the party line is. And after watching Jeff on CNN, and now visiting his website, I have reached a conclusion.
Jeff is just another lying right wing propagandist.
He said he on the program that he is not a Bush voter.
Liar !
It is clear that he has joined in on the propaganda party to try and discredit any and all of those that will tell the truth about Bush.
It is amazing how much time the right has had to spend defedending Bush, his lies, and his incompetence.
I thought it funny, that the left wing liberals tried to defend Clinton when he got caught redhanded lying.
But after a while, the overwhelming majority of them were able to admit the truth about his dishonesty.
The difference here seems to be, that the republicans will NEVER admit that their boy Bush has ever done anything wrong.
Looks to me that the lying hypocrits are republicans like Jeff.
I know that this post will be removed, as republicans hate the truth, and will not tolerate it.
One more thing, in your “Rules of Engagement” it states
“or comments will be killed along with commenters”
Are you making a threat ? Is this some typical republican bravado ? I think it is like Bushs “Bring em on” statement. You only make that statement because you arent face to face with them. Typical example of right winged bravery.
It is easy to make such a comment, from the safety of the White House or Jeffs office.
I guarantee that Jeffs postition (politically) depends on his postition (physically) because just like most republicans, he is willing to talk trash, so long as he isnt face to face with you. -
Moore’s film has been more fair than your blog comments. You claim that his film is one sided. Yet, you also support an illegal and unjust war (according to International law), as you bought into the lies of the Bush administration, which went unopposed by the media. Why haven’t you blogged about the media being one-sided?
The press has an OBLIGATION to be fair. Makers of documentaries DON’T have that obligation. -
Goodness. Remind me to never appear on CNN.
-
Jeff–
Thanks for taking down this execrable steaming pile left on America’s doorstep by Le Blimp. You are in great company with Hitchens on this one!
Hey, Jarvishater. Clever name. Think that one up on your own? If you aren’t busy doing brain surgery, why don’t you visit Mr. Jarvis’ earlier post today. You will see he says quite clearly he is not voting for Mr. Bush.
Geez, Jeff. You show up on CNN and suddently all the trolls show up and want to play Billy Goat’s Gruff!
Oh and Dorothy, I’m sure Jeff “accepts” that Mr. Moore is an independent filmmaker. But Mr. Moore is also a charlatan. Believe it or not, it is a healthy exercise for sentient beings with the power of speech to call a fake a fake. As hard as it may be to believe, quite a few Americans seem to have trouble telling the difference between fact and fiction. Ever heard of Roswell, New Mexico? -
Dorothy – Tucker didn’t get his show til he decided to go against the war. Then PBS welcomed him with open arms! And yes, there really is a lean right what with one hour of Bill Moyers and several hours of Tavis Smiley and Charlie Rose vs. the measly half hour of Tucker, who is continually shouted down on Crossfire in his day job. Yes, let’s weep for the right-leaning media…
Kevin – Independent voters are usually open-minded, but you showed your closed mind by calling Jeff a “Republican” (an outright lie to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention) because he dared to criticize the great media/DNC darling Michael Moore.
And TCO, documentaries have an obligation to TELL THE TRUTH. Moore flunked on this one, AGAIN. Take your “illegal and unjust war” talking points back to Indymedia where people will swallow them. -
As long as we’re making comparisons like who’s more fair, etc…. Jeff, you were more fair-minded than Aaron Brown and Jeff Greenfield have ever been and these people call themselves balanced journalists. Good job.
-
Kevin McWilliams–
You are a fool. You have parachuted into this comments section and you know nothing. You can’t spell. Your grammar is atrocious. And furthermore I declare YOU to be diabolical REPUBLICAN plant!
That’s right! You sir are Dick Cheney’s EVIL TWIN! How do I know? Because no one who has read this blog for any length of time is unaware that Jeff Jarvis is a DEMOCRAT. I mean it’s all over his blog, which has been up and running since 2001.
And what you are doing is far too clever for a Democrat. You are impersonating an over-the-top liberal critic of Jeff Jarvis in hopes of deliberately generating sympathy for his pro-war position and thereby CLEVERLY MANIPULATING THE REST OF US into agreeing with your boy, Bush.
Well it won’t work, Kevin McWilliams-Cheney or whatever your real name is, because we are on to you…and we will follow you wherever you go until The Truth comes out! -
Though I am a fan of Moore, if only for his attempt to try to change something (I do believe he is genuinely interested in having a positive impact on society), I do have to agree with Jeff’s assessment of the film and Moore’s style of film-making. Moore’s films do appear to resort to the same selective use of facts on their issues as the targets of their scrutiny (the NRA, big business, Bush and the Republicans).
However, I would argue that without resorting to an extreme viewpoint (not only in this film, but also in Bowling for Columbine), Moore would never be heard. Period. I’m not saying that’s a good thing – just the way it appears to work with US media audiences.
Speaking as a Canadian who only recently moved to the US, I have found the news and the viewpoints presented in the US media to be very insular, internally-focused. I didn’t have access to the CBC for four months and basically didn’t hear about anything except for local news, Washington news, or Iraq news. I’m pretty sure there was other stuff going on in the world that was just as bad, just as important, just as worthy of my attention.
The viewpoints being presented in the media are extreme, and complex issues are often distilled to sound-bites that depict difficult issues in black-and-white terms with no room for thoughtful consideration or analysis. They are not conversations. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone in the media present their viewpoint in a fashion that suggests they are interested in creating solutions or negotiating – no one has the guts to say “You know what, I’ve reconsidered what you’re saying, and I think you might have a point. Maybe I’m wrong on X.”
I am reminded of Moore’s segment in Bowling for Columbine, where he interviewed one of the producers of Cops. The producer said he couldn’t produce a similar show focusing on white-collar crime, because no one would watch it – it wouldn’t be interesting enough for the audience. Perhaps Moore came to a similar conclusion early in his film-making career – he freely admitted to putting his own spin on the facts on The Daily Show earlier this week. There is no doubt he is intelligent and creative, but perhaps providing a fair and balanced examination of the issues would win him no audience at all, no opportunity to shock us into thinking, to perform a cerebral resuscitation. Without resorting to extreme views, we would be left with only one point of view to consider.
That leaves the responsibility for thoughtful consideration up to us, the public. We have two extreme viewpoints – I believe the truth lies somewhere in between. If we’re going to talk, let’s talk – not just shout at each other. -
“Feds: Ban ads for Moore flick
By Noelle Straub
Saturday, June 26, 2004
WASHINGTON – TV ads for filmmaker Michael Moore’s Bush-bashing “Fahrenheit 9/11” should be barred from the airwaves after July 30 because they are political commercials, a top federal legal opinion says.
A draft opinion by the Federal Election Commission’s general counsel states that the Moore movie ads should come under the campaign law provision blocking companies and unions from advertising for or against political candidates 30 days before a primary election.
July 31 would mark 30 days before the Republican National Convention, when the GOP will formally choose President Bush [related, bio] as its nominee.
Moore’s film, which casts President Bush in a harsh light, opened nationwide yesterday.
A conservative group, Citizens United, filed a complaint with the FEC alleging that Moore and the companies involved in the marketing and distribution of the film are violating the law.
“We are insisting the law be applied equally to all who are involved in campaigns and elections,” said David Bossie, president of Citizens United.
Moore said he “absolutely” will fight the complaint as a violation of his First Amendment rights.
“For them to try and remove my ads from television because I want people to come see my movie – it is a blatant attempt on the part of a right wing, Republican-sponsored group to stop people from seeing my movie,” he said at a press conference.
Moore added that he is not a member of the Democratic Party and has not endorsed Sen. John F. Kerry [related, bio], although he has repeatedly called for Bush to leave office.
The FEC could take months to issue a ruling. “Jeff, as you are a champion of First Amendment rights, a film critic, and a watchdog of government censorship, I know you are incensed by this decision to keep Moore from showing his art.
Will you have a “daily-Moore” in which you discuss how the Feds and Bush are trying to censor Moore? -
“And TCO, documentaries have an obligation to TELL THE TRUTH. Moore flunked on this one, AGAIN. Take your “illegal and unjust war” talking points back to Indymedia where people will swallow them.”
Documentaries use either photos or other articles to tell the truth. If you dispute what Moore shows, you are disputing the photos and articles used. If you think he’s doctored photos and doctored articles, then there is no help presently available to cure your illness.
It was an illegal and unjust war. Interesting that you didn’t care to debate that, because quite simply there is no debate. The law is clear, and the law has been broken. The only think you can debate is that the law hasn’t been broken, which means you would claim that the US did not invade Iraq.
Logic and common sense easily prevails, HH. How old are you? I mean, if that hasn’t sunk in by now…there’s no hope. -
Though I am a fan of Moore, if only for his attempt to try to change something (I do believe he is genuinely interested in having a positive impact on society), I do have to agree with Jeff’s assessment of the film and Moore’s style of film-making. Moore’s films do appear to resort to the same selective use of facts on their issues as the targets of their scrutiny (the NRA, big business, Bush and the Republicans).
However, I would argue that without resorting to an extreme viewpoint (not only in this film, but also in Bowling for Columbine), Moore would never be heard. Period. I’m not saying that’s a good thing – just the way it appears to work with US media audiences.
Speaking as a Canadian who only recently moved to the US, I have found the news and the viewpoints presented in the US media to be very insular, internally-focused. I didn’t have access to the CBC for four months and basically didn’t hear about anything except for local news, Washington news, or Iraq news. I’m pretty sure there was other stuff going on in the world that was just as bad, just as important, just as worthy of my attention.
The viewpoints being presented in the media are extreme, and complex issues are often distilled to sound-bites that depict difficult issues in black-and-white terms with no room for thoughtful consideration or analysis. They are not conversations. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone in the media present their viewpoint in a fashion that suggests they are interested in creating solutions or negotiating – no one has the guts to say “You know what, I’ve reconsidered what you’re saying, and I think you might have a point. Maybe I’m wrong on X.”
I am reminded of Moore’s segment in Bowling for Columbine, where he interviewed one of the producers of Cops. The producer said he couldn’t produce a similar show focusing on white-collar crime, because no one would watch it – it wouldn’t be interesting enough for the audience. Perhaps Moore came to a similar conclusion early in his film-making career – he freely admitted to putting his own spin on the facts on The Daily Show earlier this week. There is no doubt he is intelligent and creative, but perhaps providing a fair and balanced examination of the issues would win him no audience at all, no opportunity to shock us into thinking, to perform a cerebral resuscitation. Without resorting to extreme views, we would be left with only one point of view to consider.
That leaves the responsibility for thoughtful consideration up to us, the public. We have two extreme viewpoints – I believe the truth lies somewhere in between. If we’re going to talk, let’s talk – not just shout at each other. -
Whoops – think I hit submit twice. Jeff, feel free to the duplicate entry and this entry as well. Thanks!
-
TCO says–
1. The war was illegal. Wrong.
Ever hear of the concept of a cease-fire? Look it up. Saddam Hussein invaded a sovereign country in 1991. We pushed him out and agreed to stop killing his troops if he agreed to our terms. We have been technically at war with Iraq since 1991. Saddam repeatedly violated numerous terms of the cease-fire agreement. He fired on our jets. He posessed and used chemical and biological weapons. He hid information from weapons inspectors. He tried to assasinate the former President Bush. On and on. I won’t even go into the history of the 14 separate resolutions on Iraq passed by the United Nations Security Council.
2. The war was unjust. Depends upon your point of view.
For example, if your husband was abducted in the middle of the night, tortured to death and sent back to you in a box with a bill for services rendered, you would probably think the war was just. Or if, say, you were an Israeli who lost a brother to a suicide bomber whose family was paid $25,000 by Saddam, you would probably think the war was just. Or even if, say, you only had your tongue cut off and your left hand surgically removed by Saddam’s Fedayeen, you might think the war was just. Or say you were a member of the Iraqi Olympic team who was fed to Uday’s starved tigers… Well, I think you get the picture.
On the other hand, if you were a terrorist like Abu Nidal, living in luxury in Baghdad as a guest of the state; or a member of one of Saddam’s Ba’ath torture squads; or Kojo Annan, getting rich from the Oil for Food scam; well you might think the war was unjust.
Like I said, it depends upon your point of view.
But you should try extremely hard to remember everything you say today in defense of this madman, because five or 10 years from now, when you finally come to your senses, it will serve you well as an abject lesson of the sheer bankruptcy of modern-day liberalism.
You are heading over the cliff with all the rest TOC, and only you can save yourself. Detach yourself from hatred and THINK, man! -
Criticizing the film’s message, rather than its qualities as a film, is kind of dodgy. There’s plenty to say – the first and second half are too incongruent, Moore has no affirmative message, the criticisms are too scattershot. And portraying pre-war Iraq as happyland is kind of silly. But claiming that he should have presented the evils of Al Qaeda and Saddam seems to deliberately miss the point. Moore’s message is that Bush is manipulating and feeding people’s fears. It is possible to believe that and to also believe that Al Qaeda is a threat and Saddam was brutal. But that wasn’t what the movie was about.
-
Talk all you want to. It’s still about consumerism. In spite of his demagogic appeal, Michael Moore is part of what Armond White (about this movie) calls the entertainment-industrial complex. Get over it. You either like this movie or you don’t. Or perhaps your passions run deeper? As DePalma says, “The camera lies 24 times a second.” Take your heads out of you asses.
BTW-Jeff did a good job on CNN, but I think Greenfield was dunbstruck when Jeff said that it was “our” fault (meaning “we” in the media). Greenfield thinks about politics the way they teach it in high school civics classes, as he should, because it gives him job security. Are Americans really that dumb about politics? Is Michael Moore Gospel text? Perhaps. My response is that we must have good media criticism. One again, “The camera lies 24 times a second.” -
McWilliams: You’re an idiot. Popping in here and supposedly taking a look around and decreeing Jeff Jarvis a Republican is the most asinine conclusion any sentient being could surmise. I like Jeff, but half the time he drives me nuts…mostly his abject devotion to Howard Stern and infatuation with that other media whore, Wonkette.
Jeff’s rage at Moore and pro-war stance, to me, comes out of the same place mine does after seeing F911: the fat load took something very personal to me and used it as a launching point for a political hit piece. I watched the second plane hit and everything after that from my bedroom window; JEFF LIVED IT ALL FROM THE STREET AT THE BASE OF THE TOWERS.
And the bit about “killing the commenter” isn’t a “threat,” you rube: it refers to IP blocking. Look it up, numbnuts.
anne.elk: The FEC case was put in motion because of a different documentary film whose creators wanted to know what their film’s status would be under the ridiculous McCain-Feingold rules. Some hard core Republicans got wind of it and demanded that his flick be included.
Again, look it up, numbnuts. -
Glad to come into your blog as a result of seeing you last nite. It was a mostly refreshing and informed dialogue between you, Jeff, and Aaron. Appreciate it.
-
That POS Moore has gotten a lot of airplay because the movie is a direct attack which the liberal networks as biased as they are cannot kick under the belt. What goes around comes around and when you purposely piss of at least 1/2 of all Americans you are in a word screwed for life. I have always been taught choose your battles and lets face it the idiot Moore probably has set himself up for some serious backlash. He should hire some serious security because he will have defnitly pissed of at least half of the wackos in the United States if you split wackos down party lines. Probably more like 30/70 as their are defnitley more liberal wackos out there than conservative
-
“1. The war was illegal. Wrong.”
Actually that is true, at least if one pays attention to the “14 separate resolutions on Iraq passed by the United Nations Security Council” including the most recent – UNSCR 1441. Nothing in the text allowed for any party to begin military action without explicit authorization from the Security Council. The “cease fire” resolution 687 clearly states: “The Security Council…Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.” No authorization there. The US attack on Iraq without SC authorization is therefore a violation of UNSCR 687 and 1441 and many other binding international agreements for that matter. Of course, unlike weak states, the US is free to break international law and violate Security Council resolutions and its own Constitution with impunity because there is no way to enforce lawful behavior except from within by voting out those who have made the US an outlaw state. That includes every modern president, republican and democrat, and most members of Congress. -
anne.elk,
Jeff, as you are a champion of First Amendment rights, a film critic, and a watchdog of government censorship, I know you are incensed by this decision to keep Moore from showing his art.
Agreed. Let’s repeal McCain-Feingold. -
Jeff,
I wanted to watch you last night, but my wife and I were, uhhh, busy. Gotta have priorities! -
You poor pathetic loosers. I barged into your little love fest, where a supposed Democrat is loved and adored by the RW idiots hanging around.
Yeah, I popped in, because he gave out his web address.
And I know that you right wingers just love Jeff and his propaganda.
Poooooooorrrrr pathetic George Bush.
Meeeeannn old Michael Moore picking on him.
Geeze, what a bunch of whiners and criers. It is getting where you cant tell the republicans from the democrats. Except for my aforementioned differece. Democrats eventually admit the truth, the republicans lie, and stick to their lies, no matter what.
Why dont all of you RW’s save all of us a lot of time ?
If someone says something “Good ” about Bush, he is a good guy, the salt of the earth, and a good christian, loved and blessed by GOD.
If anyone dare to say anything “Remotely critical” of Bush, he is a lying piece of crap. HE is a communist and going straight to hell. ”
Now see, that saves alot of time, and keeps your lies straight.
And to the Grammer / Spelling police above. When you cant refute any of my arguments, go straight for the grammer attack. That is the best you got ?
And as far as Jeff being a Democrat, if he is, maybe that is why the democrats have been in such a disaray politically as of late. With friends and allies like Jeff, who needs republicans.
But the republicans have PROVEN themselves to be lying hypocrits and without any moral high ground. See how they have reacted to all of the different people that have exposed the truths about Bush. The republican response to them has been the same. Deny everything, attack the person saying the things, and then ignore all of the facts and the truth. There have been many people telling us the truth about Bush, his lies and his imcompetence, and everytime, the GOP sicks their attack dogs like Jeff on them.
I believe I will hang out for a while, at least until after the election. This should be fun. -
I’ve heard a lot in the past several decades of how the schools were failing us, how our children were not being educated anymore. How when they grew into adulthood, these children would be unable to apply critical thinking skills since they hadn’t been taught how to do so, how to distinguish accusation from argument, fact from fiction.
It starting to look as though those observations were correct. What is it about Michael Moore that brings out the venom and stridency in the uninformed-yet-deeply-opinionated crowd? That would make a very interesting study in abnormal psychology.
“Grammer”.
Heh. -
Read the transcript. Solid. Fair. Illuminating. Worth thought. …
Now if we can only get zealots on both sides to do that… because extremism in the defense of their position is nothing more than “the end justifies the means.” It doesn’t and, what’s more, its dangerous. -
Fresh Air:
I beg your pardon. I am the diabolical Republican plant.
Jeez. -
Anne, re the FEC vs Moore — I don’t like it either, but the test is “would you say the same thing if?”
Say if the NRA and Focus on the Family were pushing an equally fair documentary about Kerry’s treasonous collaboration with North Viet Nam?
(I’m not saying it’s a fact, by the way: but using the same sorts of techniques Moore used, you could sure make a helluva polemic on that thesis. Hell, given his willingness to manipulate things, you could probably use Moore’s techniques to make a helluva polemic about Kerry’s willingness to conspire with Darth Vader and the Palpatine Emerpor.)
Given that McCain-Feingold does say that independently-funded speech must be restricted close to an election, what do you expect? -
Jeff: You were very good on CNN. I don’t have the time right now to surf through the comments, except the first couple. The RNC? You definitely called yourself anti-Bush many times, what else do people want? To have you compare Bush to Hitler? Would that satisfy? BTW, Aaron Brown is a Democratic partisan, so is Greenfield. Where was the token Republican defending Bush. To those who don’t know Brown from his southern broadcasting past, he very frequently commented on issues on TV from the left; in previous broadcasting incarnations, Greenfield was hired by give-and-take political shows as the left commentator. Hiding political partisanship of hosts is now very much a CNN modus operandi, which is why Fox is creaming them. Hannity and Colmes is very clear about its hosts political biases, so too is the panel on Brit Hume’s show. It is refreshing. So too is the media analysis show on the weekend on Fox with Jim Pinkerton and Neal Gabler, the latter an outspoken lifelong very left Democrat. Only you made it clear on CNN that you were being upfront and honest about your political affiliation. Kudos.
-
Sorry to double post, but had to mention Moore’s claim about troops in Afghanistan. If we had fewer troops than the number who died in WTC II, than it is proof of the ease and enthusian with which the Afghans accepted their liberation. Plus, at one point the Brits, Irish, Aussies and Germans far outnumbered the Americans. Afghanistan is a great success story totally ignored by the mass media since it doesn’t promote its agenda. Fewer people currently die per capita in Afghanistan via violence than in NYC. Isn’t that a great success?
-
To those who’ve accused Jeff Jarvis of being a right winger:
“Your proctologist called. They found your head.”
-
As a Bush supporter and one who understands what is at stake militarily and strategically in the ME, I would like to point out that Moore’s film is very likely going to be a plus for the Bush campaign. Why? Well, it is so over-the-top it will simply backfire. Americans may be gullible to some extent, but they are not that gullible. Most are over three years of age and remember 9/11.
If Bush had not lifted a finger to deal with Saddam and Putin’s comments recently about Russia’s large body of intelligence involving numerous Iraqi/Al Qaeda, these same left wingers would be screaming bloody murder about how Bush allowed this man to stay in power.
Then we have Al Gore testifying to Congress in February 2002 saying he thinks we will need to deal with Saddam sooner than later in a military fashion and recommended regime change as the desireable outcome. Some on the left would just as soon make all these comments from their favorite critics simply disappear. Certainly you won’t hear them reported on CNN or PBS but thank the stars for the Internet.
To that Canadian ex-pat who complained about our insular news, um, even my local local newspaper has an internation news section. Surely you have access to a computer (I mean, you posted a message for crying out loud…) I would agree that watching the 6:00 news for thirty minutes once a twice a week will not give one a well-rounded view of what is going on but to criticize our media for being insular is a bit strange. Where do you think the Internet was invented anyway? What country has had more news channels, more stations, more garbage, more everything? I just fail to see your point. -
Geez, Kevin, displeasing the corrupt thugs at the UN, how can Americans sleep at night?
……the US is free to break international law and violate Security Council resolutions and the US is free to break international law and violate Security Council resolutions and its own Constitution with impunity because there is no way to enforce lawful behavior except from within by voting out those who have made the US an outlaw state.
How so, my friend, did the US break its own constitution? On 10/10/02, Congress passed two resolutions, HJ 114(296 to 133 in the House) and SJ 45(77 to 23 in the Senate) giving broad authority to the President to wage unilateral and pre-emptive war at his discretion. It seems as if these elected representatives voted as their constituents dictated.
Kevin, you may have pledged your allegience to the UN, but many of us haven’t. The UN hasn’t done squat in the past 50 years in making the world a better place. Does Ruwanda come to mind? The emerging oil for food scandal? Sure they begrudgingly send a few peacekeepers into an area at international request, but only after everyone else has done the heavy lifting(Bosnia). Got any supreme examples where they dealt decisively with rogue states?
What made the world a more orderly place in the last 60 years, Kevin, were the actions of individual countries as in fascism and communism being defeated. You think the UN achieved this?
Kevin McWilliams(same person?),
I believe I will hang out for a while, at least until after the election. This should be fun.
Or narcissistic stupidity. -
It seems that teh UN has assumed the role once held by the Vatican. They grant the moral authority for others to commit violence that single countries alone lack.
Kofi as Pope-?
I guess we need certain institutions and will recreate them in whatever color or guise to serve some animistic purpose. -
Kevin McWilliams-Cheney–
As to George W. Bush’s lies:
Please identify, if you would, just one provable (i.e. demonstrably false) thing George Bush has said in public since taking office. Please provide support for the statement and the irrefutable proof that Bush deliberately sought to mislead because he knew what he was saying was a lie.
For example–just to take a case–you could use Bill Clinton. You could link the transcript of his press conference where he said, “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.” And then you could reference the Starr Report that comprehensively listed his various sex acts with Ms. Lewinsky. That would be an example of how you would construct your case that “Bush lied.”
Note to other posters: Please let Kevin answer this one on his own. It’s a test of Kevin’s capacity for argument, and I have a strong suspicion that he will fail.
I’m waiting… -
One can easily imagine Moorian techniques used in 1944. Let’s time travel to the hypothetical, shall we?
Celcius 12/7 opens with a 30 minute expose’ on the Roosevelt Administration’s ties to Germany. American companies, aided by the Administration, do business with the Nazi’s. They sell them IBM adding machines. They buy German-made goods. Roosevelt is shown shaking hands with various European officials in the 30’s. This is all very sinister, of course.
A long segment is now done on how American oil companies froze Japan out of Asian markets, greatly harming their economy. Cut to Roosevelt signing a bill that tangentially enables these American firms to put a further stranglehold on the Asian oil markets. This is all very sinister, of course.
Ten minutes is given to the USA shipping military supplies to Great Britain, even though Germany had not done anything to the USA and Britain was killing Germans every day. The companies that build the ships that transport these goods are of course getting special deals from the Roosevelt Administration. This is, of course, very sinister indeed.
Now spend about two minutes on Pearl Harbor, mainly going on about how we brought this on ourselves with our anti-Japanese trade policy. Cut to our response – declaring war on Germany and attack countries in Africa, where our racism is of course obvious to all (the Declaration of War Japan is not mentioned in this segment…) This is simply irrational on the part of the Roosevelt Administration. And sinister. The fact that Germany declared war on the USA is dismissed with easily by the provocation we gave her by shipping supplies to her mortal enemy. No wonder the German people hate us!
Spend 20 minutes discussing the possibility that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor and yet did nothing, all so he could enrichen his corporate fat cat buddies with a nice little war. Show pictures of a sparkling pre-war Berlin and Tokyo. Show them now, after our clumsy bombers have wrecked havoc.
Now comes a long segment on the families of the D-Day debacle, which just happended a few weeks before C12/7 hit the theaters. A war widow is shown in excruciating sorrow as she laments this wicked Administration who sent her young husband off to die on some God-forsaken beach in France, another country who bears us no animosity and has a sovereign government based in Vichey.
The Administration claims that we are trying to “liberate” Europe because – get this – we were attacked in Hawaii, which isn’t even part of the real United States anyway, are ridiculed with interwoven pictures of dead civilians in France, Africa, Turkey, and Italy.
Government programs that encourage Victor Gardens are mocked, as are hyped-up claims that conserving fuel, rubber, sugar, or steel will in any way improve our miserable chances of defeating our noble enemy.
Now we are treated to the Japanese theater. First are shown the internment camps where Japanese-Americans are being held. Dead Japanese soldiers, killed on some island that isn’t a threat to America even remotely are shown. They are skinny. They are dirty. They are scared. We killed them.
The film wraps up with reports that we will have to invade the Japan and Germany to end this war, and this will take at least 5 million American lives. And these countries will then have to be occupied for decades while armed resistance is smashed. This only bolsters the claims of incompitence in the Roosevelt Administration, which, by the way, is by now of course objectively proven to be quite evil.
OK, now we time travel back to the 21st century. C12/7 was shown at two theaters. Michael Moore’s grandfather, the film maker, was arrested and for treason or propaganda or something, but arrested he was. And the people of that time thought it was the right thing to do because although some of his facts were true, the twisting of reality and lack of honesty in dealing with the nature of what we faced were simply unacceptable to them. This little film faded into history. Occasionally a historian will make mention of it, usually when discussing the Japanese internment situation.
And people today bitch because Michael Moore’s tactics are being discussed critically. Oh well, I hope you have enjoyed this little trip to the past. -
MortifiedPenguin,
That’s wonderful, you should make the movie. Except, uh, there’s probably plenty of folks who would believe it. -
Hey, McWilliams? I have 2K$ to put on the table if you walk in a public square and argue your position. No threats, just get the hell away from your troll rock and put some light on how stupid you are.
You think you’re right. Prove it, you numbnut. -
Onecent,
Breaking international treaties and other agreements to which we are party such as the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles, Kellog-Briand Pact, and the UNSC resolutions mentioned violates Article VI clause II of the US Constitution. Whatever one thinks of the UN, it is a rather dubious practice to argue that we are going to enforce UNSC resolutions by breaking them. -
“Whatever one thinks of the UN, it is a rather dubious practice to argue that we are going to enforce UNSC resolutions by breaking them.”
Could I suppose then, that you also condemned the NATO bombing of Belgrade? Let us know, just for the record. -
Jeff, as you are a champion of First Amendment rights, a film critic, and a watchdog of government censorship, I know you are incensed by this decision to keep Moore from showing his art.
Well it doesn’t prevent Moore from showing his art- the movie is in theaters now you know. It simply prevents him from telling people about it via broadcast advertisements purchased by him.
(Note that this doesn’t seem to stop CNN, Fox and other news organizations from, you know, talking about the existance of this movie in the first place.)
Glad to see Anne is on board with repealing the BRCA passed last year. -
MortifiedPenguin,
What a load. Do you really think that the Iraq war is at all comparable to WWII? -
Hey, Kevin, there was no UNSC resolution broken. UNSCR 1441 offered Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” that had been set out in several previous resolutions. On January 30, 2003 Hans Blix said that Iraq had not fully accepted its obligation to disarm. Got that.
You still don’t get it. As you’re so tenaciously focused on rule breaking. The hilarity of which is that UN rules have been broken by every third world thug since its inception. Here’s something to think about: 9/11 broke a big rule. You don’t kill 3000 of a nation’s civilians in a morning. Think you can grasp that? And any nation who is satisfied to whimper and moan to the UN for redress is as stupid as you.
So, Kevin, try to stay focused. And get back to Fresh Air and me with some correctly factual rebuttal. Sorry, Kevin, drivel won’t cut it.
I’m waiting too…. -
Do you really think that the Iraq war is at all comparable to WWII?
Patriot Boy, you know anything about the rise of fascism in the 1930’s? Its characteristics? How it encompassed countries besides Germany? Its central themes? Any parallels to Islamic religious fascism? Hitlers/Nazi rise in power as basically terrorists against the state? The genocide of Jews, the wrong race, versus today’s genocide of Sudanese and Nigerian Christians, the wrong religion? Kristalnacht? Pearl Harbor?
I’m just curious?
We’d all love to be enlightened by a student of history of your caliber. -
“You still don’t get it. As you’re so tenaciously focused on rule breaking.”
Sorry to be so hung up on pesky “rules” such as the US Constitution.
“So, Kevin, try to stay focused. And get back to Fresh Air and me with some correctly factual rebuttal.”
Everything I have written here has been “correctly factual” which is why you haven’t been able to show why Article VI is invalid nor have you refered to language in a relevant UNSC resolution that authorized the Iraq invasion. Your only way out is to argue that the US need not be bound by domestic or international law, a depraved position that is about as worthy of a response as the position that terrorism is a legitimate tactic. -
Onecent–
Let’s leave Kevin be. He can’t answer pointed questions or defend himself, except by making unsubstantiated allegations and spraying generalities. Even if he doesn’t know it yet, he is merely a troll, and not even a very effective one at that. -
Kevin, how was the US Constitution violated?
For the third time, the US neither broke a UN resolution(read my post again with the facts – then go to Google), nor the US Constitution in invading Iraq.
None of the crap you keep repeating has changed that fact. Standing with your thumbs in your ears, chanting “I can’t hear you” just makes you look stupid.
Again, nothing you have written is factually accurate regarding broken rules, treaties, or constitutions.
One more time, waiting on the factual rebuttal… -
Do you really think that the Iraq war is at all comparable to WWII?
No, thank God, because enough of us learned the lessons of WWII to take preemptive action this time to prevent things getting out of control. I just hope and pray that we don’t undo all the progress to date by electing “Cut-n-Run” Kerry to be President. -
The hilarity of which is that UN rules have been broken by every third world thug since its inception. Here’s something to think about: 9/11 broke a big rule. You don’t kill 3000 of a nation’s civilians in a morning. Think you can grasp that? And any nation who is satisfied to whimper and moan to the UN for redress is as stupid as you.
And the Iraqi involvement in 9/11 was… what, exactly?
Quite. -
Patriot Boy, you know anything about the rise of fascism in the 1930’s? Its characteristics? How it encompassed countries besides Germany? Its central themes? Any parallels to Islamic religious fascism?
And how is this relevant to the secular Ba’athist Iraq, exactly?
You’ve got a bad case of conflation goin’ on there. Take some Windeze. -
“Will you have a “daily-Moore” in which you discuss how the Feds and Bush are trying to censor Moore?”
The authors of any Moore “censorship” would be onetime Dem veep hopeful McCain and hero to Michael Moore and many on the left, Feingold. Barking up the wrong tree as usual… and of course, it’s hardly “censorship” as Moore’s lie-fest of a film will still be in theatres… Meanwhile independent groups without the financing for a movie but with the financing for an ad were targeted in this legislation and will have to fight all the harder even to be heard over the 24/7 Moore love-fest in the media. -
“Interesting that you didn’t care to debate that, because quite simply there is no debate.”
And that’s where you’re wrong of course, as for every scholar dragged out to declare it unlawful there’s another to say it’s lawful… and this attitude is exactly what is wrong with the likes of Michael Moore.
Moore’s falsehoods are mostly lies of omission, whether they be omitting the comments of Mark Kennedy which knock down his thesis about politicians’ kids, his false premise that 18+ age adults can be “made” to go to war by their parents or the fact that “EEEVIL” conservatives like John Ashcroft have kids serving right now. And that’s only his falsehoods about one portion of the film. -
US Constitution – Article VI clause II:
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Nuremberg Charter Principle VI:
“The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.”
UN Charter Article 2 Paragraph 4:
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
UN Charter Article 24 Paragraph 1:
“In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.”
UN Charter Article 25:
“The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”
UN Charter Article 39
“The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
UN Charter Article 46:
“Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.”
UN Charter Article 48 Paragraph 1:
“The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.”
UN Security Council Resolution 1441 Paragraph 14:
“The Security Council…Decides to remain seized of the matter.”
Therefore, treaties signed by the US government such as the Nuremberg Charter, the UN Charter, and UN Security Council resolutions are, according to Article VI of the US Constitution “the supreme law of the land” which the President swears to “preserve, protect and defend” when he takes the oath of office. Violation of such treaties, such as the act of invading Iraq without authority under UNSCR 1441, would be a violation of “the supreme law of the land” and a violation of the oath of office. That is the law, and unless you can show the constitutional basis permitting the violation of treaty obligations the case is closed and no amount of legal “relativism or equivalence” or snarky verbal abuse will make it otherwise. -
blah
Got a problem with context? In attempting to hijack the discussion to your so obvious agenda that invading Iraq was wrong, Iraq had no connection to 9/11, forge an better entry than the lame distinction that the Baathist as fascists are secular versus the religious Islamic fascists I mentioned. Both shared the same zip code.
Got any relevant context of your own or is being a trolling one-sentence-wonder about the extent of your repetoire? -
Sorry, Kevin, but just because I can make a list of the Ten Commandments and present them to my mailman doesn’t prove he has broken any of them.
You haven’t proved your point. -
onecent
Come off it – Kevin’s right and you know it. The US didn’t have authorization from the Security Council to invade Iraq. WE were in violation of 1441 by attacking without this authorization REQUIRED by the resolution we signed and the broader framework of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles. And as he pointed out, such a violation also violates Article VI of the Constitution because it says that treaties we have signed are “the supreme law of the land.” You can’t refute it so now you argue in bad faith that Kevin hasn’t proven his case. Clearly he has, and if you had any integrity you would admit it.
Kevin
Thanks for the effort – but you are wasting your time trying to convince people who are too cowardly to admit when they have been proven wrong. -
I watched you! You were good, and you answered them good, I guess I have to watch the movie to see if you are right or not.
-
Kevin’s right and you know it….
Really? -
Wow, you found someone in the Administration willing to claim the legality of the invasion, too bad it is utter bullshit. Nowhere in the resolutions he cites is the authority granted for attack. They explicitly say that the SC remains “seized of the matter.” Did you not read 1441?
-
Billy or recycled kevin?
“Seized of the matter” has no ramifications because by the UN’s own by-laws a sovereign nation can act unilaterally in its own defense. Given the intelligence Bush had, since bolstered by a recent remark by Putin, the US was within its rights to act alone. (Add Clinton’s comments on WDM’s too)
Maybe you could address your concerns to Gaddafi, now on the Human Rights Commission at the UN. Now that would be an irony. -
“Seized of the matter” has no ramifications because by the UN’s own by-laws a sovereign nation can act unilaterally in its own defense.”
Wrong. Article 51 of the UN Charter states:
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
The US did not invoke the right of “individual or collective self defense” under Article 51. Iraq did not attack the US, and the US agreed to have the matter of the alleged threat of Iraqi WMD settled by the Security Council which resulted in resolution 1441. Again, 1441 did not authorize military action and states that the SC remained “seized of the matter” to ensure that the SC would decide the action taken in the event of non-compliance. -
This sums up what I think of Moore:
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/5355/Moore_Fahrenheit911_2b.jpg
