Fahrenheit 9/11

[Roy_Whyte]

The Greater Vancouver Canadian Action Party candidates came out in force to the premier of the new Michael Moore film - Fahrenheit 9/11.

After watching the film, most of the candidates came away saying mostly the same thing - we already knew that. But for those Americans so sheltered by their lousy media, they are in for a rude awakening.

The Canadian documentary that has been showing on CBC Newsworld goes into more depth on the Bush-Saudi links than Moores film does - not to mention more on Sept 11. But that aside, Moore's film did hit home with some personal touchs and some light humour mixed in.

To see a woman go from pro-war to anti-war because of the death of her own son in Iraq was the most touching and the hardest hitting aspect of the film for me. When Moore says that its the poorest that fight and die for the richest, he is dead on. The elite in America just reassured themselves another generation of wealth because of Bush and his little illegal war based on a whopper of a lie.

Questions remain - will it change the election and will Bush be impeached? Hard to say on the first one, but on the second - not a chance - Americans it seems have given up on accountability of their elite.

Will Canadians not vote Conservative because of this film - I doubt that also. Canadians are too short sighted and too pissed at the Liberals to care that we have our own Bush in waiting - his name is Harper.

Its live and learn folks - the media, the elite and the establishment have other plans for us that don't include what you want - but YOU can change that by paying attention and demanding accountability.

June 28 vote ABLOC - Anybody But Liberal or Conservative - and I mean ANYBODY!

 

[American Voice]

Questions remain - will it change the election and will Bush be impeached? Hard to say on the first one, but on the second - not a chance - Americans it seems have given up on accountability of their elite.

On your first point, I think you are asking will the Michael Moore film have any effect on the outcome of the U.S. presidential election? No. I would have to ask--because there obviously is a market for Moore's work--when he becomes a fat, rich white man, will someone make a documentary about him?

Second point, and I find it rather demeaning: that Bush will not be impeached because "Americans it seems have given up on accountability of their elite." For Bush, as president, to be impeached he would first have to be re-elected. Second, there would have to be, simultaneously, a substantial increase in the number of seats held by the Democratic Party in the U.S. House of Representatives, where impeachments of presidents are initiated. Even were that to occur--an unlikely event, but anyway--there would need to be another substantial gain by the Democrats at the mid-term election in 2006. Maybe, in 2007, there might be committee hearings. In short, an impeachment of Bush is not practicable, regardless of what he's done.

In my view, the man I would like to see run for president is Rep. Jim Leach, of Iowa. I think he'd make an excellent president. He was urged to run for the Republican nomination in 2000, but he declined, saying that he could do more for the people in his district as chairman of the House Banking Committee, than he could ever do for them as president.

Another good choice would be, I believe, the former Senator from Nebraska, Bob Kerrey. I believe he will run in 2008.

A lot of people in this country, I believe, are fed up with George W. Bush. A lot of people in the Republican Party would have preferred to have seen his brother Jed, the governor of Florida, run as the party nominee in 2000. No one realy comes out and says it, but I think Jed wasn't the candidate because his wife is Hispanic, and there were serious misgivings whether the right-wing of the party would accept an Hispanic First Lady. Do people make decisions based on consideration like that? Sure they do.

As for the election in 2000. It was Al Gore's to lose, and he did. It never should have been that close. He didn't even carry his own home state of Tennessee!

Will Bush be re-elected? Probably. What alternative is there? The only way to check him that I can see would be to elect Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate.

 

[Roy_Whyte]

Questions remain - will it change the election and will Bush be impeached? Hard to say on the first one, but on the second - not a chance - Americans it seems have given up on accountability of their elite.

Second point, and I find it rather demeaning: that Bush will not be impeached because "Americans it seems have given up on accountability of their elite." For Bush, as president, to be impeached he would first have to be re-elected. Second, there would have to be, simultaneously, a substantial increase in the number of seats held by the Democratic Party in the U.S. House of Representatives, where impeachments of presidents are initiated. Even were that to occur--an unlikely event, but anyway--there would need to be another substantial gain by the Democrats at the mid-term election in 2006. Maybe, in 2007, there might be committee hearings. In short, an impeachment of Bush is not practicable, regardless of what he's done.

.

No intention to be demeaning but look at the Enron BS. Kenneth Lay rips off billions and gets not a single day in court yet a poor black kid will steal a $15 CD and go to jail for a year. How is that for justice? If you are rich and connected in America you have nothing to fear from the justice system.

Bush could have been impeached all along and can still be - why should the action have to come from Democrats? If Republicans are true Americans they would be putting the best interests of the nation before party politics. But alas they are not. No accountability. There has been little to no mention by the mainstream media of the lies and con job done over Iraq. Again no accountability. Yet Clinton has sex and the world comes crashing down! A witch hunt ensued over a sexual act, yet nobody was killed like the 850 Americans in Iraq.

Moore himself will not come out an outright endorse Kerry because he knows as well as most of us - Kerry is just another cog in the establishments plan to keep the people poor and stupid. That way the cream can continue to engorge themselves at everyone else's expense.

Dennis Kunnich or however you spell it would be the prime candidate and he would help tear down the establishment, but alas the media and big money will never allow that to happen.

 

[American Voice]

Kucinich? "Dennis, the menace?" Don't get me wrong, I had some radical ideas when I was younger, but revolution is a young man's game. I was trying to figure out what Kucinich was after, running in the primaries. What's his angle? He'll run until his American Express card maxes out, then what? Is he attempting to leverage better committee assignments? You've got to have known him when was the mayor of Cleveland. He's all about self-promotion. He's the quintessential bottom-feeder, really.

 

[Karlin]

American Voice :
"Second point, and I find it rather demeaning: that Bush will not be impeached because Americans it seems have given up on accountability of their elite. "
[end quote]


K - I am sure he didn't mean you personally.
And I hope don't feel too bad about this either, but I agree that F9-11 [the MM movie , Farenheit 9-11] is doing what American media has not done, and thats tell "a lot more of the story".

It is a bit scary when you think of it, that the American people are possibly the least aware of what their government is doing in the rest of the world. There are indications* that its true, that Americans are in fact taking their TV "slant" on the war at face value.
That can easily happen, with busy lives and domestic issues, even the war in Iraq is just another news story. We see military men in lots of news items , it just fades into the background after the first day.


*One of those indications is that poll after poll shows that the American public, bless their souls, still believes that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9-11 , which is not true.
It ever been actually stated that way by the White house or Bush. They did , however, present a 'package' of ideas that gave the slant to things that said "WE SHOULD GO TO WAR". its very slick, it is very subtle and it works very well .

This mass media subtle propaganada works on any nation, not just America. Don't feel bad, and don't think that Canadins will think poorly of you, we do not. We love America people , more than we love their government. {eh?

One thing we need is for people everywhere to recognise that some things are wrong, that they were tricked,, or could be, = but not to get defensive and too full of pride to not admit it.

Or it will go on, more and more each time they get away with it. It will start to resemble Nazi Germany in some ways. We should have laws against any nation who starts looking too similiar to 1930's Germany! [ha ha, just joking buddy.

Saddam never had anything to do with Al Queda - He probably had to keep them from his power base.... They moved into Iraq right away after Saddam was gone, to fight the American invaders.

How does this relate to the Elites of America that are so un-accountable? [which p's off AV to hear it]
This is where is gets really interesting to watch the American's reaction to some of the explanations, like this one:
"The Elites have 90% of America's money, they are just 5% of the population. They need to invest and grow their huge wads, and they will create the right conditions for that money if nothing else is happening.
They elites were able to use the 9-11 situation [or create it, some say] to invest and grow that money. The largest of industries would all get a lot of work now, and the elites have their money in all these ones: Pharmacy, Petroleum, Weapons making, [.....] .
They all got a lot of contracts. They all are suddenly urgently needed for the securtiy of America. Its good for everyone.
And that is un-accountable at this point. There is no way to know how much of the Trillion dollars spent since 9-11 went to the elites, but most of it does.
there is hard evidence that a lot of work was PAID FOR BY GOVERNMENT, but NEVER THE WORK WAS NEVER DONE.

Now we know that story up here in canada too - the Sponsorship programme. Money paid for nothing, or maybe $5000 to an invoice that was merely forwarded. Thats what happened, it is fact known to everyone now.

So what? - This means that governemtn money is transferred directly to the Elites. there is PLENTY of money to deleiver education to our kids, but it isn't done, it is given to the elites.

I call that un-accountable.

And for MM's film, F9-11, I want to see it but I know it will affect the vote for some Americans.
It should also affect the Canadian vote, it will a bit, but its hard to scare people all the way over to the NDP if they are disgrunteld Conservatives worried about Bush having Harper's full consent to anything America wants of Canada. And Liberal is just soo ikky this time around.
Heck, why not give the NDP a chance - they have never ruled and they deserve one term. lets do it for them.

Karlin

 

[American Voice]

First of all Karlin, I wasn't pissed-off; I only felt demeaned. There are things that do make me angry, like hearing incorrect usage and grammar proceeding from the mouth of a broadcast news reporter. There is no excuse for that! And on a sly note, if they are getting wrong what you can confirm, what are they getting wrong that you cannot? It's a question of standards. It's a question of credibility.

You make reference to an "NDP." What is that precisely, a political party? Where is it strong? How many seats do they currently hold in Parliament? Has it ever participated in a governing coalition?

 

[peapod]

Speaking as a canadian, I like moore's movies. They remind me alot of candid camera. Alot of his stuff is over the top and some of it is actually based on facts. He has a way of shuffling things around so you don't get the whole picture, and is very good at stirring the pot.

I feel, and I only speak for myself, but its seems that in the United States the person who has the most money can become president. Bush is the worst example of this I have ever seen. Our last prime minister took alot ribing in regards to the way he spoke, but come on listen to the way this guy talks. You would think that the president of the united states would be someone highly intelligent, highly educated, and a resume that would befit such a postion. This guy thinks he is riding into the alamo.

Besides Mr. moore's take on bush, check out some of the programs on PBS, especially frontline. Years ago I saw a program on Bush when he was govener of Texas, and he refused to stay an exection for someone that frontline clearly showed was not guilty. I always wondered after that how the guy slept at night.

Frankly just based on my own gut feeling I find Mr. Bush a very sinister person. He reminds me the guy that was running for president in the steven king move coma....

 

[Darkgrammer]

First of all read my post in the thread "Do you feel Threaten"

Second, I liked Michael moores movie Bowling for Columbine because it showed the real victims which where the killer themselves. Annoyed and poke fun of by the school until they snapped! While everyone was blaming it on Violent Television, Violent Games, and Marilyn Manson (One of my fav. rock musicians), they were to stupidly blinded by the real provokers which were in fact those who made them snap.

 

[American Voice]

Peapod, are you familiar with George W. Bush's "brain," Karl Rove? Now there's sinister, like a big, black, ugly spider lurking behind the throne, whispering poison into the otherwise harmless king's ear.

Which is :king: ?

And who is :joker: ?

Some say the is king.

Some say the king is :joker: .

 

[Karlin]

Accountability of America's elite would include an accounting of their wealth, where it came from, and why do they deserve such huge favours for doing nothing [Haliburton's billing fo Iraq services].
Such an accounting would reveal clrearly that Governemtns, both Canada's and America's, are purposefully shevlelling money to the elites at the expense of the poor.

Henry Moore said"the poor have allways been a great source of wealth".
And so it goes.
There is plenty of money in government that they could actually MAKE LIFE FAIR. But they have no intenetion or desire to do that, and instead they are building up the wealth of the elite.

We could ask why...
Karlin

 

[American Voice]

I don't think its so much of a building up the wealth of the elite as it is an insulated, incestuous recirculation of the old money. I may get some flak for saying this, but it's the old Anglo-Saxon money as runs things here, in Canada, and in Britain. Through the Commonwealth and the invisible American empire of multinational corporations, that money circulates, and recirculates. The task appears to be a maintenace of the elite, rather than a creation of one. In the wake of the Industrial Revolution, in the 19th century, in the West we began to see the rise of the middle class, but then that was done largely by means of colonial exploitation.

Oy, got to get down from this soapbox. I feel like an undergraduate, again, writing an exam.

Oh, and as for the question why? Because they can. :wink:

 

[Numure]

Accountability of America's elite would include an accounting of their wealth, where it came from, and why do they deserve such huge favours for doing nothing [Haliburton's billing fo Iraq services].
Such an accounting would reveal clrearly that Governemtns, both Canada's and America's, are purposefully shevlelling money to the elites at the expense of the poor.

Henry Moore said"the poor have allways been a great source of wealth".
And so it goes.
There is plenty of money in government that they could actually MAKE LIFE FAIR. But they have no intenetion or desire to do that, and instead they are building up the wealth of the elite.

We could ask why...
Karlin

You know what the difference is between both countries? It probably won't cost the US goverment anything because they over payed for services to halliburton. Here, it cost the Liberals the elections. They did the same thing, threw the sponsership(sp?) program. Over paying certain "friendly" firms.

 

[Andem]

I actually just watched Fahrenheit 9.11 yesterday, since every other time we tried to get out and see it -- we were turned away because of soldout shows. That was all over Toronto. Anyways, this show was sold out, but we made it in.

My first thoughts at the end of the movie were that it was one sided and typical propaganda for Michael Moore's political beliefs. But!! It was also at last, the chance to use mainstream media to analyse and show the American public what Bush is really about. His history, his administration's history. It couldn't have been released at a better time since there is a big chance of an election later on this year.

There were a lot of facts and conspiracy theories in this film that I'm already familiar with. But there were also somethings that I really had no idea about. I didn't know the connections to Cheney's corporation to Iraq, I wasn't aware of some of the contracts handed out and I didn't know Bush's record in the military was manipulated from it's original version.

There is not one American who should go without seeing this movie, and that goes for Canadians too. It's good to hear both sides of the story so that one can make their own judgements on the whole situation with oil+Iraq+Bush+Administration.

 

[researchok]

Theres been a backlash down here in the states to moore-- even from the Dems. See the newsweek article today, for example.

Also, moore isnt quite right on Cheney and Halliburton-- in fact, his connection was severed before he took office. Moore neglected to mention that after he was informed.

Also, Bush's record was ALLEGEDLY tampered with-- so far, that has come up blank in the real world.

But I agree, people should see it.

Interestingly, some have threatened to sue Moore for libel. His response was that the movie was not journalism, per se, but opinion.

They came up with an interview moore did with the Toronto Star where he is quoted and taped as saying it was NOT opinion, but journalism! He said the same thing overseas.

Bottom line-- stay tuned!