Comments on: Double standards

By: Anthony

Anthony — Sun, 04 Jul 2004 09:04:46 +0000

Also, how exactly do even the existing full-blown conspiracy theories – not Moore, the theories out there, in general – affect the political state of affairs in the US? The more important point is that these conspiracy theories are not confined to the US. They are recycled by extremists, as evidence that their views have truth. By inadvertently, or in some cases deliberately, re-enforcing the views of terrorists, the media legitimise extremist propaganda.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 13:39:50 +0000

In the context of politics, yes, Republican deviousness does excuse Democratic deviousness. In the context of a competitive game, both sides play by the same rules. If one side does it, the other side does. There is a specific demographic which the Republicans have cultivated very successfully: intuitive, gut thinkers who don’t pay close attention and don’t make up their minds carefully—I call them whim voters. The Democrats haven’t been talking to them, but Moore (not really a Democrat, BTW) knows how to do it. Ever since Mondale Democrats have been saying If You Talk Sense To The American People They Will Understand You. Didn’t work for Mondale, Dukakis, or Gore. Reagan and the Bushes had great luck with their anecdotes and innuendos. Moore is nowhere near as vicious and dishonest as Coulter, Limbaugh, or many other Republican surrogates. However, he is as polemical as they are, and like them he is quite willing to cast aspersions on his adversaries’ character and motives. That’s the way the game is played these days. Mainly, he works with images and innuendos rather than facts and logic. The demographic I mentioned can only be reached that way. For decades now I’ve been hearing to Democrats say “I’d rather not win at all than sink to that level”. Guess what—they’ve been getting their wish! I hope they’re happy.

By: David

David — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 21:48:07 +0000

Here’s a link to that Guardian piece on Carlyle: http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,583869,00.html

By: David

David — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 21:44:26 +0000

Here’s a noteworthy claim: “There is another famous investor in Carlyle whom Moore does not reveal: George Soros. (Oliver Burkeman & Julian Borger, “The Ex-Presidents’ Club,” The Guardian (London), Oct. 31, 2000.) But the fact that the anti-Bush billionaire has invested in Carlyle would detract from Moore’s simplistic conspiracy theory.” (my emphasis) http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 21:00:34 +0000

Extradite and Steve Carr: thank you for the follow up links. Steve Carr: “cash value” overestimate would be 1-2x off ($860 billion-$1 trillion versus $450 billion-$600 billion). The “percentage” overestimate would be (as you say) 5-6x off. I’d be curious to see what cash or percentage value investments other nations (or private individuals within given nations, to preserve some parity of cases) have in the United States economy. Of course, on the topic of “major factual error[s],” by my reckoning the Bush Administration might have just a couple on their record in building the case for war in Iraq.

By: Steve Carr

Steve Carr — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 20:39:30 +0000

Oh, and by the way, if you overestimate by 5-6 times the amount of money the Saudis have in the U.S., in order to create the impression that they are calling the tune in Washington, that is a “major factual error.”

By: xx

xx — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 20:38:22 +0000

Krugman certainly does endorse the film. What the hell is the matter with you people? It’s just a movie. Moore’s style has never changed over the last 15 years. It is a highly personal style that couldn’t be more mid western or of the lower middle class. He has never followed the protocols of reason. He has a deep, healthy skepticism of the rich and powerful. He is a PRANKSTER of the powerful and of corporate america. It’s all good cultural fun. The rich and powerful are approachable, they can be fooled, they are fools. When they get too comfortable or take power for granted or are rank incompetents, they are outright dangerous.

By: Steve Carr

Steve Carr — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 20:34:17 +0000

Best estimates are that the Saudis have around $450-$600 billion in investments in the U.S., not $860 billion (which Craig Unger pulls out of the air) or a trillion (which Moore says): http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/Newsletters/SAF_Essay_22.htm http://www.drumbeat.mlaterz.net/2002%20August/Saudi%20pull%20out%20may%20go%20to%20Lebanon%20082702a.htm Most of that is from private individuals, not the government, though the distinction is probably not that important in S.A. The Saudi government owns less than $100 billion in foreign assets: http://www.samba.com.sa/investment/ economywatch/pdf/US_Crisis_Impacts.pdf. As for how big a part of the U.S. economy this is—Moore asks in the film what percentage of the U.S. economy Saudi wealth is—total wealth (ownable assets) in the U.S. is between $45-$50 trillion: http://www.pbs.org/wsw/news/fortunearticle_20031026_03.html So, the Saudis own between 1-2% of the U.S., and that’s even if you use Unger’s and Moore’s mistaken numbers. (One note: in the movie, Moore asks what percentage of the economy Saudi investment represents, and Unger says that it’s 6-7% of the U.S. stock market. This is a complete non sequitur, since the stock market is not the economy, and since in any case much of the Saudi money is not invested in the stock market (and in any case, even if it were it would represent less than 3% of the market, not 6-7%). But in typical Moore-fashion, it’s a useful deception, because it leaves the impression that the Saudis own 6-7% of the U.S. economy, when it’s nothing like that.)

By: yamamoto

yamamoto — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 20:19:48 +0000

Henry He [Krugman] describes the film as flawed, and says that he would take issue with several claims within it – but also makes the simple point that many of its critics have been giving Bush a free pass for the distortions and flat-out lies that he’s been responsible for.” It’s clear to me from the first paragraph that Krugman is taking “critics, especially the nervous liberals rushing to disassociate themselves from Michael Moore” to task. He does so by associating them with pundits soft on Bush.

By: Extradite the Neocons

Extradite the Neocons — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 20:14:14 +0000

Here’s another one: http://tinyurl.com/2y3nz

By: Extradite the Neocons

Extradite the Neocons — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 19:58:42 +0000

Actually, Dan, the claims on Saudi money are made by a Congressman in the film. The film’s detractors (and their echo-chamber) not only switch Moore for the speaker, they then change ‘Saudi’ for ‘Fahd’ and then claim Mooremustbelyingsonothingheeversayscaneverevereverbetrustedagaindon’tseethismovie, when they could have just written ‘CTRL-V’ and we would have gotten the point. par example http://www.lebanonwire.com/0208/02082002TGR.asp

By: David

David — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 19:42:07 +0000

Here’s a followup to that short MSNBC piece: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/site/newsweek

By: David

David — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 19:35:06 +0000

Here’s a response to one claim: “The Bush-bin Laden family connection. Moore’s film suggests that Bush has close family ties to the bin Laden family—principally through Bush’s father’s relationship with the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm. The president’s father, George H.W. Bush, was a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group’s Asian affiliate until recently; members of the bin Laden family—who own one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest construction firms—had invested $2 million in a Carlyle Group fund. Bush Sr. and the bin Ladens have since severed ties with the Carlyle Group, which in any case has a bipartisan roster of partners, including Bill Clinton’s former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt. The movie quotes author Dan Briody claiming that the Carlyle Group “gained” from September 11 because it owned United Defense, a military contractor. Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman notes that United Defense holds a special distinction among U.S. defense contractors that is not mentioned in Moore’s movie: the firm’s $11 billion Crusader artillery rocket system developed for the U.S. Army is one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration.” http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5251769/site/newsweek/ I hope Spinsanity (who’ve written quite a bit about Moore’s inaccuracies) will devote a piece or two to the topic. http://www.spinsanity.org/

By: Extradite the Neocons

Extradite the Neocons — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 19:34:25 +0000

It’s a tu quoque. Wrong: there’s a third party being addressed.

By: Extradite the Neocons

Extradite the Neocons — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 19:31:28 +0000

If you’re a leftie, you don’t criticize Moore’s film. Funny, a tour of left Blogistan dispatches that assumption pretty quickly.