White House 'tried to ban film'

See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3719261.stm

Quoting:

The White House tried to halt the making and release of Michael Moore's new film Fahrenheit 9/11, the film-maker alleged in Cannes on Sunday.
...
He has given no evidence to substantiate his allegations, but he said that "someone connected to the White House" and a "top Republican" had put pressure on film companies not to release the film.

jeb bush?

michael powell?

This is so beautiful, and FAUX and CNN and MSNBC hasn't even started yet. Yipee!

No such thing as bad publicity, after all.

Maybe Chuck Heston can help out here . . .

Otherwise this is just grandstanding.

No good can come from harming his own film.

This is mild compared to what the Sex Pistols did for publicity.

...he was never about the music, and unfortunately, he gave the world the impression that the band wasn't about it, either.

a person quoting someone in a band for which there was just about nothing they would not do to promote themselves, from saying fuck dozens of times on breakfast television, to booking concerts in Texas bars with the sole purpose of getting in fights.

The movie of that tour is called what? The Great Rock'n'Roll Swindle?

And Johnny Rotten's second band? Public Image Ltd -- an ironic statement about marketing. He still thought of himself as a product that was packaged for the public.

And you're critical of Moore for promoting himself with statement that is most likely true?

The right wing grandstands all day long.

Finally, a liberal gets a chance to grandstand.

So long as he's not lying, I'm glad he's saying this.

Even if it's quadruple hearsay, scream it from the mountaintops, if you believe it's true.

Who doubts that it is true, anyway?

1. We should be more ethical than out slimeball opponents

2. We represent those who do not have wealth or power. We do not control the media. They do. They can get away with telling lies. We can't.

Saying things we believe to be true?

and when we are assuming or theorizing about possible events, we make it clear this is what we are doing (speculating about what could have happened, instead of stating what DID happen).

If Michael Moore pulled the business about the RNC trying to stop this film out of thin air, this would be absolutely inexcusable. I hope he's not doing this, and would display the reasons why he believes this to be the case.

You clearly don't want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

There are thousands of posts at DU where it would be more appropriate to question the veracity of the source of a statement about a fact.

It's very funny that this is the ONE where it suddenly becomes an issue.

I really want this to be true. It is plausible enough to be true. I wish he would present his evidence.

I mean Sy Hersh did an excellent job of exposing the facts about Iraq. Couldn't Michael Moore give us a bit more like that?

But what ethics must you be talking about? Certainly ethical behaviour has long since died in our politics.

Fuck em, they won't listen to the truth. Try something new lie, cheat, and steal, them maybe, just maybe, we will get somewhere. Hate to hurt your feelings but the good guys NEVER win.

If we lie, cheat, and steal, we are liars, cheats, and thieves. It's that simple. I don't call that winning. Right now, we have enough "real facts" as they say; lying will simply undermine them. I have no idea if Moore is fabricating, exagerating, or telling absolute truth. But even if you don't like the ethical arguement, as someone else noted, we don't own the media-they do. Anything we can't back up loses us credibility and will be endlessly used against us.

If we don't hold ourselves to a higher standard than our opponents, we'll soon think that the best Democratic ticket has to have a Republican on it in order to succeed. If that's not intellectual bankruptcy, I don't know what is. Speaking of bankruptcy, I recall a certain Republican friend of Kerry's who was involved in some shady S&L stuff a while back... We don't have to worry about such people in our neck of the woods, do we?

You want to act like our opponents, you will build a world as screwed up as theirs.

I don't have a power base to protect at all costs by being here at DU. I do this because it is the right thing to do.

I'm here for justice, not to gain power at all costs.

Lying to gain power is inherently fascist. It denies the basis of democracy, the ability of people to make rational choice based on the truth.

I agree
If we are going to have for ourselves a spokesperson who is going to operate without evidence, all we have is a a more talented version of Rush Limbaugh.

There are enough known facts about the right wing and the Bush administration to sink them.

There is no need to make something up, or present supposition as fact. The real facts of what they are doing are worse than anything we could make up.

Our job is to tell the truth and get people to believe it. This job is made impossible if we tell lies when we think we can get away with it.

Very well said- thanks.
Also, it's too late to edit my other post, but now that I think about it, it seems that the word "more" should be stricken from that sentence.

Are you accusing Moore of lying?

Why do so many pro-corporate apologists who claim to be "liberal" bash Moore?

Oh. That's why! They are liberal on a few "social issues" but when it comes to working people and labor unions they are clones of right-wing reactionary Republican union bashers!

That's one reason why they love "right-to-work-for-less McCain.

Calling oneself a "Dem," "moderate," or "centrist" is meaningless; it all comes down to positions on the issues.

Just look at those espousing DLC politics: pro-corporate, anti-regulatory, pro-invasion, "bipartisan." They'll cut you slack on an abortion or two, but in return, you're supposed to march to their right wing drum on everything else.

see here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=51101&mesg_id=51101

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and if he is not he needs to come up with something to back up his statements.

Does a concern for the truth make me a "pro-corporate apologist" and a Lieberman supporter?

What has Moore ever lied about?
And what has BushCo ever told the truth about?
And we liberals do tell the truth. It is our best (and only) weapon.

If Dylan wrote propaganda, it was truthful propaganda. Were you listening carefully?

that relates to the poster's name - it's not a comment on bob dylan.

You're effectively telling Democrats to play by the rules of the Marquis of Queensbury while the Republicans are playing by the rules of the Marquis de Sade.

you are effectively employing the Rumsfeld, Limbaugh, oreilly Imhoffe defense. You seem outraged at the outrage.

They feel that it is OK to abuse Iraqis because the terrorists are so bad. Their defense is the Berg murder, etc. as proof that these abuses are called for.

I say that Bushco are the terrorists, but that it is indefensible to abuse the truth and ethics to bring them down. They will fall of their own weight and because they cant stand the harsh light of day.

Our weapon IS the truth.

There is nothing wrong with me.

My politics reflect my sense of ethics, which, unlike the current administration do NOT come from Machiavelli via Leo Strauss.

He's full of hyperbole, but the evidence always goes against him. He stops just short of lying. There might be a kernel of truth somewhere, but given Moore's record, he's at least exagerating.

Why does it matter? Because if I condemn the other side for doing it, I have to condemn mine, too. If ethics don't matter to you, then try this practical side: if he's proven to be lying, or even grandstanding beyond what should be claimed, then it undermines ALL his work, and his points of view along with them, and that hurts, not helps us.

And Rove is good at laying traps to spring on such people. Remember "Unfortunate Son?"

Accusing Moore of "stop(ping) just short of lying" and "at least exagerating" (sic) is a sad bit of ad hominem. Nice Freeping!

would now believe any allegation against them and US

Right wing politicians don't exactly write down their crimes!

He can have high up sources, just like any reporter.

How much "evidence" does a source give you? None much of the time.

A lot of them do, that is what happened with a lot of crimes by comitted in Nazi Germanany, it is also how Nixon got caught. More important the evidence many are bringing to light is that many institutions imbued with holding firm rules have gone amock as is shown in full color



Iraqi In Custody Tortured To Death

Der Spiegel/Information Clearing House | May 15 2004

After the shock of the abuse photos, there's a worse new allegation against US troops. Spiegel TV has acquired written and oral documentation indicating that a 47 year old Iraqi was tortured to death in American custody. The Americans are alleged to have attempted to cover the case up.

Spiegel TV Exclusive (Translated by S.B.)
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,299964,00.html

05/15/04 -- Berlin - The case of Asad Abdul Kareem Abdul Jaleel was pure routine for the American troops. After the 47 year old family father died on the US military base Al Asad west of the town of Khan al Baghdad in US custody on January 9th 2004, an American doctor filled out a death certificate. Apparently without doing an examination, and according to the documents, without performing an autopsy, the pathologist Luis A. Santiago wrote that the man had died in his sleep. The US troops handed the body, including the death certificate, over to the International Red Cross shortly thereafter.

American troops had previously arrested the respected family patriarch on an open road and taken him to the American military base Al Asad west of the town of Khan al Baghdad. Ostensibly there was suspicion that he belonged to the Iraqi resistance. The soldiers are alleged to have put enormous pressure on Asad Abdul Kareem Abdul Jaleel in the base prison. Another prisoner gave Spiegel TV a detailed description of how the 47 year old was tortured in a sadistic manner for five days. The witness says that the soldiers also took photographs of the abuse.

Asad Abdul Kareem Abdul Jaleel died in US detention on January 9th of this year. However, there are grave doubts about the version that claims his death to have been from natural causes. An Iraqi forensic pathologist who took the body over from the US armed forces confirmed to Spiegel TV in Baghdad that he diagnosed definite torture marks on the body of the deceased. In addition, photos of the deceased confirm that contrary to the US documentation, an autopsy had been performed on the man. The scars on the torso indicate that Western doctors did the autopsy.

Deep Dark Bruises on the Entire Body

Even a layman can easily recognize the obvious effects of violence on the pictures of the body: Large, dark bruises that could come from beatings can be seen on both sides of the body. On the wrists and ankles there are bruises, which presumably date back to many days of captivity. There are bruises from beatings or other forms of violent impact on the back. Other lacerations on the upper body point to injuries which can hardly be called "natural".

If the suspicious facts against the US troops turn out to be true, the US torture scandal would take a dramatic turn. If the charges hitherto were about violent abuses of prisoners and humiliating methods of interrogation, the investigation would now have to include failure to give assistance, manslaughter, or even murder. The participating soldiers and their commanding officers could be harshly punished, and the US army in Iraq would be exposed to even more hate and desire for revenge than they already are. Although there are already a number of investigations being carried out about unclarified deaths in Iraq, and also in Afghanistan, - the army insists that in none of the cases can the guilt of the soldiers be proven.
(snip)
I am sure this is been posted everywhere many times, but in case someone missed it :shrug:

"Even a layman can easily recognize the obvious effects of violence on the pictures of the body: Large, dark bruises that could come from beatings can be seen on both sides of the body. On the wrists and ankles there are bruises, which presumably date back to many days of captivity. There are bruises from beatings or other forms of violent impact on the back."

What a layman doesn't necessarily know is that once the heart is stopped beating, the blood pools up in whatever part of the body gravity pulls it to. If the corpse is on its back, the back will bruise. I'm not saying there's nothing to this story, I just think it's irresponsible not to note that.

The pictures seem very mild as compared to people who got dismembered, maimed and killed, but the problems they pose are much larger.

They point to what must have been a systematic study of that particular culture to find it weak points in an effort to break people down. To people living in western world it must seem different and strange. From what I can draw from reactions I heard from the Iraqi side it is pretty bad.

The point is not how bad or inhumane, but that it is torture and very incendiary (not to mention illegal in what some would term "civilized" nations of the world)



http://thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/

Lastly any short term gains will eventually eclipsed by the collapse of any moral legitimacy

(snip)
They knew one thing. They knew they were not criminals.

And they learned another thing. They learned they could prevail and could win under ANY circumstances - miserable and scared to death, beaten and hammered, stripped to the bone in bare cells with their own excrement on the walls, and worse. The monsters were faced down by seemingly ordinary men and women.

Britain will never recover what it lost in Long Kesh and Armagh Jail and it will never recover from what it inadvertently made. It rejuvenated a movement and gave it a revolutionary vision.

The British regime crushed them, raw rabble like black coal pressed between the walls of its prisons, and turned them into diamonds.

Hard focused and perfect. Eternal.

New Hope for Human Dignity

The Republican prisoner protests from 1976 through 1981 made the whole world question British motives and hegemony in Ireland. But agonizingly slowly. The death on Hunger Strike of ten young Irish men made the essentially uninterested world finally understand. Criminals and terrorists do not willingly die slow deaths to bring "an end to Ireland's agony; New Hope for human dignity" as the Francie Brolly song goes.

Saints do things like that. Sometimes lovers. Criminals? Never.

It also opened up avenues of revolutionary struggle that would lead to Irish Republican "criminals" elected to the London Parliament and the Dublin Dial, an indestructible IRA, the electoral phenomenon of Sinn Fein in the north and growing strength in the south, the abolition of visa denial and censorship, the Republican movement assuming the moral highground in a peace process that is seeing the unionist/loyalist establishment self-destructing, and the British government's political maneuverings more and more transparent to the world.
(snip)
http://www.inac.org/irishpows/hungerstrikes/chapter1.html

on edit: a little miscue on puntuation

Btw not really that much of a point of doing the moral high horse thing but others invest heavy in their religion and culture. Doing the math with moral terms being given certain values in the equations, it would not be that hard to figure out. Just remember when doing it, for some a belief has a infinite value.

Sometimes Moore can be a tad hyperbolic.

After the 2000 coup, THE GLOVES ARE OFF


Go Michael!!

of course it's true that Bush wouldn't want this film coming out, duh, but does Moore really know of specific people and their attempts to kill it, very doubtful.

apologists - and many of his apologists are here on DU in this forum.

Bunkerboy has lied ALL THE TIME ON EVERYTHING - that's 100% of the time - name one thing that he has been proven to be telling the truth about, just one.

Based on their respective records, MM wins it hands down = along with Al Jezera, too!

Disney accused Moore of engineering a dispute about the film's release to gain maximum publicity. It said it had blocked the film because it wanted to be impartial during the election, but strongly denied coming under any outside pressure.

They why did Disney allow Mirimax to finance the film--did they WANT to lose their money? Did they honestly expect Mike to pout and go away? And shouldn't they stop distributing Rush Limbaugh's radio show if they're so worried about appearing impartial?

:headbang:
rocknation

Clearly that is still their way.

If they do, someone should bring that to Michael Moore's attention - he would have a field day with it in the media.

The bushistas have been very proactive in attacking this film. They perceive, rightly in my estimation, that it will be quite harmful to Mr. Bush.

Today, I read in the editorial section of the local corporate fish wrapper this direct, unbalanced, and unanswered attack on Moore's credibility:

Michael Moore doesn`t deal in truth

By Kay Hymowitz/May 12

Michael Moore announced last week that Disney had refused to distribute his new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." As with all of Moore's pronouncements, you might want to season this one liberally with salt.

Moore - who poses as a heroic truth-teller and who in a speech last year after winning an Oscar for his documentary "Bowling for Columbine" bemoaned these "fictitious times" - is a virtuoso of fictions himself.

...

Moore justifies his fictions by pleading comic license:

"How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?" he once asked Lou Dobbs.

When "Fahrenheit 9/11" does finally open, you may be able to call it funny.

Just don't assume that it is true - or, for that matter, a documentary.

had fanned out to boards like this to demonize michael moore and anything having to do with a film the bush bunch is obviously terrified of.

but i'm sure that's not really the case......

perhaps all this controversy is the only thing guaranteeing michael moore safe passage between now and the election. if the rock weren't being raised right now and the light being shined on the slithering bastards that are the republicans, mr. moore would stand an awfully good chance of dying in a plane crash or having a heart attack in a hotel room.

remember -- republicans will stop at absolutely nothing. that's why the further bush's poll numbers fall, the greater the number of lives that will be lost when we have our own little 'october surprise.'

Just Hatfield, you know the guy who wrote "Fortunate Son," his book was warmly greeted by the BUshes and there was never attempt to ban it...


Of course Bush/Wh did...come on...its their MO.

and I know I shouldn't and I know I'm going to say things I regret and I'm going to get flamed, but right now at this moment I'm so sick of this morality schtick that I could scream. Those who squack the most about morals seem to be the most lacking in them. Morals morals morals what a bunch of bullshit. Michael Moore has always spoken the truth as he saw it and if he does not have the proof to back it up tough *hit. Since when do we need to prove everything. Let them disprove it. I trust him and what he says for the most part. Sometimes he is full of it, but he has never presented himself as anything other than someone trying to make a difference.

This country is in a whole lot of trouble partly because of the moral majority. And they are not moral in any sense of the word. They refer to themselves as moral and that is where it ends. I can see being honest, doing the right thing, caring about others, all that, but morality. No one is entirely moral. It is a load of crap to think of oneself as moral. As soon as a person thinks that, they probably should look in the mirror again. I just think we need to do our best. I'm tired of people talking it up, but I would rather see it in action. Moral people are awfully critical of others and in my eyes, that is not moral. Well, flame away *LOL*....I feel better. And you are all probably right! I'll concede now, rather than later.

Books on best seller lists, record breaking box office for documentaries, Oscar winner, darling of Cannes film festival, popular web site, on and on... I think people who watch his stuff are mostly smart enough to seperate the hyperbole from the substance. I wouldn't sweat how his message reflects on the rest of us. I see him as a positive force.

one of the Encore cable channels.

Early Moore, silly & light but--what else is on right now? And it does have its good parts.

has anyone heard of any audience reactions to the film? good? bad?

" The director has already shown the film at test screenings in the Midwest of the US.

"The reaction was overwhelming," he said. "People who were on the fence - undecided voters - suddenly weren't on the fence." "

I think while at Cannes it cannot be shown elsewhere.


http://www.festival-cannes.fr/films/fiche_film.php?langue=6002&id_film=4201423

Michael Moore, 21st Century American Patriot!

:thumbsup:

are "totally f*cked...."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x559956
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1218376,00.html

dp