[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
...but some of his harshest words are reserved for Clinton/Gore.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would love to see an example of this...I understand harshest is in the eye of the beholder, but I just don't see it. I may just read the book to tally all the jabs he makes...political, personal, religious, racial, whatever.
<strong>I do not find Moore's commentary intelligent or witty. He wants attention and that's basically all. That's probably the core motivation for most public figures like him...and Falwell.
It is quite clear Moore bends over backwards to find dirt where his bias leads him.
Elaborate on his ideas and I will tell you why they won't work. His ideas seem more like wisecracks designed to sell books and tapes to me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A deeply unfair comment if you haven't read the book, surely, Eugene?
A deeply unfair comment if you haven't read the book, surely, Eugene?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You accuse me of twisting Moore's words and then you complain about Eugene being unfair? Make up your mind. You can worry about being fair or you can be Moore's obedient little sycophant. You can't be both.
A deeply unfair comment if you haven't read the book, surely, Eugene?</strong><hr></blockquote>
How is this unfair? Moore's commentary extends past Stupid White Men. Moore has appeared on television (he had his own show,) written numerous articles, written *gasp* other books, made plenty of public speeches, etc. Or are you just being stupid?
The offer still stands. Elaborate on his ideas you find most intellectual and I will respond with logic.
[quote]He says Clinton was "one of the best Republican presidents we ever had", and Bush only "an uglier and somewhat meaner version of him".<hr></blockquote>
This is exactly my friggin' point, Moore thinks the Democrats are right because of his intellectual dishonesty.
He thinks that anything bad is Republican and refuses to view Clinton as a Democrat. He's a hypocrite, spouting "non-partisan and progressive" philosophy while being just as partisan as Rush Limbaugh.
You proved my point for me.
[edit]
[quote]he is no more a 'democrat' than he is a 'republican'<hr></blockquote>
This is pure, unmitigated bullshit. He KNOWS he shouldn't be but he can't help it because he has turned into a goddam idiot like most American liberals do, hating someone else more than they love what they believe.
Hes going to be in vancouvber this coming tuesday (1 week) touring his book and putting on a free show. I am SO There.
This guy rocks, ya hes leftist, thus, even though he doest like either side, he will favor a "more leftist" government over a blatently right wing government.
Also there is a hell of a lot to complain about in the government right now, and thus hes ranting more about government and less about everything else.
TONY JONES: Noam Chomsky, President Bush's position on the Middle East crisis is evolving fast now, but until recently there have been confusing and contradictory signals coming from his administration. What do you think has been happening?
PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY, AUTHOR: The confusion inside the Administration I think, is a confusion about goals.
I mean, the right wing, the hardline right wing, is in favour of escalating violence against the Palestinians until they're crushed. Others are concerned with the impact in the Arab world, which is complicated and within that framework, they're trying to find a policy.
The whole thing is so badly skewed it's hard to even discuss it. There's no symmetry in this situation. There's plenty of violence and terror on both sides, which is awful, and no way to justify it. But the fact is the Palestinians have been under military occupation for 35 years. It has been harsh and brutal and violent throughout - racist, humiliating, destructive. It has been backed entirely by the United States unilaterally. It includes expansion of settlement into the occupied territories. It was actually Barak in his last year, broke all records since Oslo, always supported by the United States. There's just no symmetry.
In the diplomatic scene, there is plenty of criticism you can make about the Arab states. In fact, it's hard to think of anything nice to say about them. But the fact of the matter is that what has been blocking what is now the Saudi Arabian plan, is unilateral US-Israeli opposition.
TONY JONES: Given what you're saying about the brutality of the occupation, do you think the Palestinian suicide bombers are freedom fighters or terrorists?
PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY: Terrorists - they're both, actually. They're trying to fight for freedom, but doing it in a totally unacceptable immoral way.
Of course they're terrorists and there's been Palestinian terrorism all the way through. I have always opposed it. I oppose it now. But it's very small as compared with the US-backed Israeli terrorism.
Quite typically, violence reflects the means of violence. It's not unusual. State terror is almost always much more extreme than retail terror and this is no exception.
TONY JONES: If you accept that the bombers are not justified, the argument then shifts to whether or not the victims of those terrorist bombings have the right to take whatever action they deem necessary to put an end to this, which has been Ariel Sharon's justification of his assault from the beginning.
PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY: They are certainly justified in defending themselves, but they are not justified in occupying another people in gross violation of international law with brutality and terror of their own. That's not justified and that's been going on for 35 years.
So if a political settlement, if there are moves towards a real political settlement, if the US and Israel will accept that, then they will be entirely justified in defending themselves. But you can't call it self-defense when you're carrying out a military occupation. That doesn't justify the terrorist acts but the concept of self-defense doesn't arise.
TONY JONES: Is there any comparison between the suicide bombers and the September 11 suicide bombers?
PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY: None whatsoever. Al Qaeda was not under US military occupation. They claim they were, like their justification is that the US was occupying Saudi Arabia. You can argue about their claim. It certainly doesn't justify their act.
What the right response was to the terrorist bombings on September 11 is another question. If we want to talk about that, we should be willing to establish some principles. So for example, one elementary principle is that if something is right for us, then it's right for others. If it's wrong for others, it's wrong for us. If we can't accept that principle, we can't even talk about right and wrong.
So if those who believe that the right way to respond to September 11 was by bombing Afghans, should also believe that the right way to respond to US terror is by bombing Washington. I don't know anybody who believes that. I certainly don't.
So therefore, almost the entire discussion of this topic that has taken place since September 11 can simply be excluded on the grounds that it does not even rise to the minimal moral level.
That does leave open the question of what the right response was to Al Qaeda terrorism, and I believe that there was a right response, not the one that was taken, but that has nothing to do with what's going on in Israel and Palestine.
TONY JONES: Israel's case is that precisely there are comparisons to be made and that therefore they're justified in applying the US remedies to terrorism, up to and including regime change?
PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY: The parallel is ridiculous. Israel has been carrying out, has carried out a 35-year occupation which has been brutal, violent, harsh, destructive from the start. There is just no comparison. It does not justify Palestinian terrorist acts or the more extreme Israeli terrorist acts which continue, but there's just no way to make, to compare it in any sensible fashion.
TONY JONES: Can we shift now to a broader focus and President Bush's plans to attack Iraq, which are critically affected obviously by what's happening in the Middle East? Now would the credible threat of a terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction justify a pre-emptive strike against Iraq?
PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY: Pre-emptive strikes need extremely strong evidence and there's a heavy burden of justification. There's nothing remotely like that.
It's extremely hard to take Bush and his advisers seriously when they talk about their reasons for wanting to depose Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein is a monster, there's no doubt about that. Getting rid of him would be a boon to the people of Iraq and the world. But Bush's advisers are not opposed to him because of his crimes or because of his efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction and we all know that.
When he committed his worst crimes, that was with the support of this President's father. The support continued, Britain as well, well after the worst crimes were committed. He was a loyal friend and ally.
Furthermore, both Britain and the United States continued to provide him with the means to develop weapons of mass destruction. He was much more dangerous then than he is now.
Furthermore, if you're looking at the people the United States is trying to gather to replace him, like the general who can't come to the meeting because he's under investigation in Denmark for participation in a massacre - does that indicate any effort to bring some decent outcome for the Iraqi people?
The question of what should be done about Saddam Hussein is a very serious question, but you cannot take these people seriously.
TONY JONES: What sort of proofs though would they have to supply, because those proofs appear to be beyond the scope of international agencies to provide? In the end won't they end up relying on their own intelligence agencies?
PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY: It's not trusting its own intelligence. It's trusting its own intentions, which is something quite different.
We do not have any reason to believe any state, certainly not one with the record of the United States, should be given any authorisation to act independently, violently, on the basis of its own leadership groups. That's ridiculous. We don't allow it to anyone else, why to the United States?
TONY JONES: What about a pre-emptive strike, that was suggested recently by a former CIA director, specifically aimed at facilities that create chemical, nuclear or biological weapons?
PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY: First of all, they certainly have made available no evidence about such facilities or any indication that they pose a threat or even that they're aware of attacking them.
That's not what they're aiming at.
What they're aiming at, as we all know, let's not be innocent, Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. One way or another, the US is going to attempt to regain control of them and deny them to its adversaries who have an inside track, primarily France and Russia, and they may think this is a good pretext for it.
Saddam Hussein remains the same monster he was when the US and Britain actively and happily supported him right through his worst crimes, right through the period when he was dangerous and developing weapons of mass destruction. That remains true. But let's not delude ourselves about the reasons that might be used as a pretext, the actual reasons for what will be described under other pretexts.
TONY JONES: But there is a growing momentum in statements by American political leaders and in the press and in statements leaked by intelligence agencies, to provide proofs to at least convince the US public that an attack on Iraq is necessary?
NOAM CHOMSKY: There's no doubt that, I would drop the word proofs, but there's no doubt that serious efforts are being made to construct pretexts which will justify an attack against Iraq in an effort to regain control over the world's second largest oil reserves.
An attack I mean, to get rid of Saddam Hussein, that would be a boon, as I said, but that's not the goal.
The goal, as was described pretty accurately - remember that right after the Gulf War, when the US had total control over the region, there was an uprising in the south, a Shi'ite uprising, which might very well have toppled Saddam Hussein except that George Bush effectively authorised Saddam Hussein to crush it by using military helicopters and other means. That was explained publicly.
Thomas Friedman, who was then the diplomatic correspondent of the 'New York Times', wrote that this was necessary because as he put it, the best of all worlds for the United States would be an iron-fisted military junta which would rule Iraq the same way Saddam Hussein did, much to the pleasure of US allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia and of course, though he didn't mention it, the boss in Washington.
That was the attitude then when Bush permitted Saddam Hussein to crush a Shi'ite rebellion. There's been no change. If the US does do something to try to regain control of Iraq by force, it has to maintain that condition.
It cannot allow a democratic regime to emerge, even limited democracy, because the majority of the population is Shi'ite and if there is any democratic participation, chances are quite strong that it will move towards an alliance with Iran or at least towards connections with Iran, which the US will certainly block, which is exactly why the US is now trying to organise Iraqi generals who were involved in some of the worst atrocities, to be the iron-fisted military junta, which will be a Sunni military junta, to rule Iraq the way Saddam Hussein did, just as Thomas Friedman described and indeed advocated.
TONY JONES: We'll have to leave it there, Noam Chomsky. Thanks for taking the time to join us tonight.
You accuse me of twisting Moore's words and then you complain about Eugene being unfair? Make up your mind. You can worry about being fair or you can be Moore's obedient little sycophant. You can't be both.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Due to various technical glitches, I've only just come back to this post. But sorry rog, I've no idea what you mean. Anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of Moore's comment is automatically being unfair??
How is this unfair? Moore's commentary extends past Stupid White Men. Moore has appeared on television (he had his own show,) written numerous articles, written *gasp* other books, made plenty of public speeches, etc. Or are you just being stupid?
The offer still stands. Elaborate on his ideas you find most intellectual and I will respond with logic.
Due to various technical glitches, I've only just come back to this post. But sorry rog, I've no idea what you mean. Anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of Moore's comment is automatically being unfair??
I think not...</strong><hr></blockquote>
What crap. You didn't just disagree with me. You said I was twisting his words. I don't know if you are deliberately being this dense or not. At this point I don't really care. Some people I make a point of reading and some I don't. Maybe you belong in the latter group.
A San Francisco activist claims she's the originator of Michael Moore's unsourced list of dubious Bush achievements in his bestselling "Stupid White Men"
By Ben Fritz
[quote][First published on Salon.com (Salon Premium subscription required)]
A list of 48 dubious achievements of President Bush appears in Michael Moore's bestselling "Stupid White Men," without footnotes or citations of any kind. A reader might assume that they are accumulated nuggets from Moore's own research.
But a San Francisco activist says she came up with the list, and she's not too happy about the way Moore is using it.
Kirsten Selberg contacted Spinsanity following a piece detailing the numerous errors and factual distortions in "Stupid White Men" to say she compiled that list for a wall that was displayed at the "Voters March West" that took place nearly a year ago in San Francisco, on May 19.
Still posted on the Voters March Web site, Selberg's list contains 47 of the 48 facts about Bush mentioned in Moore's book -- in the exactly the same order and with very similar wording. The only difference is that, unlike Moore, Selberg provides sources for almost all of her facts.
Representatives for Moore did not respond to requests for comment...<hr></blockquote>
A San Francisco activist claims she's the originator of Michael Moore's unsourced list of dubious Bush achievements in his bestselling "Stupid White Men"
By Ben Fritz
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh oh! He's in trouble now <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
What crap. You didn't just disagree with me. You said I was twisting his words. I don't know if you are deliberately being this dense or not. At this point I don't really care. Some people I make a point of reading and some I don't. Maybe you belong in the latter group.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, what did you mean then?
I stand by my earlier claim ? I still think you were twisting that particular comment by the big-boned, baseball cap-wearing, Bush-baiter ? but there's no need to take it so personally. How many tantrums can you throw in one thread? Take a chill pill, Rog!
Well, what did you mean then?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wrote:
[quote]You accuse me of twisting Moore's words and then you complain about Eugene being unfair? Make up your mind. You can worry about being fair or you can be Moore's obedient little sycophant. You can't be both.<hr></blockquote>
You wrote:
[quote]... Anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of Moore's comment is automatically being unfair??
I think not...<hr></blockquote>
I wrote:
[quote]You didn't just disagree with me. You said I was twisting his words.<hr></blockquote>
What don?t you understand?
[quote]... How many tantrums can you throw in one thread? Take a chill pill, Rog!<hr></blockquote>
Anyone who disagrees with you is just throwing a tantrum?
A journalist who winks at possible plagiarism... huh...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Spaceman Spiff?? Ah, Calvin & Hobbes...[gets dewy-eyed] But what happened to Roger Ramjet?
Anyway, I thought that particular <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> smiley was supposed to suggest surprise or confusion, not a wink like the smiley. Correct me if I'm wrong....
Comments
<strong>
...but some of his harshest words are reserved for Clinton/Gore.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would love to see an example of this...I understand harshest is in the eye of the beholder, but I just don't see it. I may just read the book to tally all the jabs he makes...political, personal, religious, racial, whatever.
<strong>I do not find Moore's commentary intelligent or witty. He wants attention and that's basically all. That's probably the core motivation for most public figures like him...and Falwell.
It is quite clear Moore bends over backwards to find dirt where his bias leads him.
Elaborate on his ideas and I will tell you why they won't work. His ideas seem more like wisecracks designed to sell books and tapes to me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A deeply unfair comment if you haven't read the book, surely, Eugene?
<strong>
A deeply unfair comment if you haven't read the book, surely, Eugene?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You accuse me of twisting Moore's words and then you complain about Eugene being unfair? Make up your mind. You can worry about being fair or you can be Moore's obedient little sycophant. You can't be both.
<strong>
A deeply unfair comment if you haven't read the book, surely, Eugene?</strong><hr></blockquote>
How is this unfair? Moore's commentary extends past Stupid White Men. Moore has appeared on television (he had his own show,) written numerous articles, written *gasp* other books, made plenty of public speeches, etc. Or are you just being stupid?
The offer still stands. Elaborate on his ideas you find most intellectual and I will respond with logic.
[ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
This is exactly my friggin' point, Moore thinks the Democrats are right because of his intellectual dishonesty.
He thinks that anything bad is Republican and refuses to view Clinton as a Democrat. He's a hypocrite, spouting "non-partisan and progressive" philosophy while being just as partisan as Rush Limbaugh.
You proved my point for me.
[edit]
[quote]he is no more a 'democrat' than he is a 'republican'<hr></blockquote>
This is pure, unmitigated bullshit. He KNOWS he shouldn't be but he can't help it because he has turned into a goddam idiot like most American liberals do, hating someone else more than they love what they believe.
[ 04-13-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
Hes going to be in vancouvber this coming tuesday (1 week) touring his book and putting on a free show. I am SO There.
This guy rocks, ya hes leftist, thus, even though he doest like either side, he will favor a "more leftist" government over a blatently right wing government.
Also there is a hell of a lot to complain about in the government right now, and thus hes ranting more about government and less about everything else.
TONY JONES: Noam Chomsky, President Bush's position on the Middle East crisis is evolving fast now, but until recently there have been confusing and contradictory signals coming from his administration. What do you think has been happening?
PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY, AUTHOR: The confusion inside the Administration I think, is a confusion about goals.
I mean, the right wing, the hardline right wing, is in favour of escalating violence against the Palestinians until they're crushed. Others are concerned with the impact in the Arab world, which is complicated and within that framework, they're trying to find a policy.
The whole thing is so badly skewed it's hard to even discuss it. There's no symmetry in this situation. There's plenty of violence and terror on both sides, which is awful, and no way to justify it. But the fact is the Palestinians have been under military occupation for 35 years. It has been harsh and brutal and violent throughout - racist, humiliating, destructive. It has been backed entirely by the United States unilaterally. It includes expansion of settlement into the occupied territories. It was actually Barak in his last year, broke all records since Oslo, always supported by the United States. There's just no symmetry.
In the diplomatic scene, there is plenty of criticism you can make about the Arab states. In fact, it's hard to think of anything nice to say about them. But the fact of the matter is that what has been blocking what is now the Saudi Arabian plan, is unilateral US-Israeli opposition.
TONY JONES: Given what you're saying about the brutality of the occupation, do you think the Palestinian suicide bombers are freedom fighters or terrorists?
PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY: Terrorists - they're both, actually. They're trying to fight for freedom, but doing it in a totally unacceptable immoral way.
Of course they're terrorists and there's been Palestinian terrorism all the way through. I have always opposed it. I oppose it now. But it's very small as compared with the US-backed Israeli terrorism.
Quite typically, violence reflects the means of violence. It's not unusual. State terror is almost always much more extreme than retail terror and this is no exception.
TONY JONES: If you accept that the bombers are not justified, the argument then shifts to whether or not the victims of those terrorist bombings have the right to take whatever action they deem necessary to put an end to this, which has been Ariel Sharon's justification of his assault from the beginning.
PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY: They are certainly justified in defending themselves, but they are not justified in occupying another people in gross violation of international law with brutality and terror of their own. That's not justified and that's been going on for 35 years.
So if a political settlement, if there are moves towards a real political settlement, if the US and Israel will accept that, then they will be entirely justified in defending themselves. But you can't call it self-defense when you're carrying out a military occupation. That doesn't justify the terrorist acts but the concept of self-defense doesn't arise.
TONY JONES: Is there any comparison between the suicide bombers and the September 11 suicide bombers?
PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY: None whatsoever. Al Qaeda was not under US military occupation. They claim they were, like their justification is that the US was occupying Saudi Arabia. You can argue about their claim. It certainly doesn't justify their act.
What the right response was to the terrorist bombings on September 11 is another question. If we want to talk about that, we should be willing to establish some principles. So for example, one elementary principle is that if something is right for us, then it's right for others. If it's wrong for others, it's wrong for us. If we can't accept that principle, we can't even talk about right and wrong.
So if those who believe that the right way to respond to September 11 was by bombing Afghans, should also believe that the right way to respond to US terror is by bombing Washington. I don't know anybody who believes that. I certainly don't.
So therefore, almost the entire discussion of this topic that has taken place since September 11 can simply be excluded on the grounds that it does not even rise to the minimal moral level.
That does leave open the question of what the right response was to Al Qaeda terrorism, and I believe that there was a right response, not the one that was taken, but that has nothing to do with what's going on in Israel and Palestine.
TONY JONES: Israel's case is that precisely there are comparisons to be made and that therefore they're justified in applying the US remedies to terrorism, up to and including regime change?
PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY: The parallel is ridiculous. Israel has been carrying out, has carried out a 35-year occupation which has been brutal, violent, harsh, destructive from the start. There is just no comparison. It does not justify Palestinian terrorist acts or the more extreme Israeli terrorist acts which continue, but there's just no way to make, to compare it in any sensible fashion.
TONY JONES: Can we shift now to a broader focus and President Bush's plans to attack Iraq, which are critically affected obviously by what's happening in the Middle East? Now would the credible threat of a terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction justify a pre-emptive strike against Iraq?
PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY: Pre-emptive strikes need extremely strong evidence and there's a heavy burden of justification. There's nothing remotely like that.
It's extremely hard to take Bush and his advisers seriously when they talk about their reasons for wanting to depose Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein is a monster, there's no doubt about that. Getting rid of him would be a boon to the people of Iraq and the world. But Bush's advisers are not opposed to him because of his crimes or because of his efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction and we all know that.
When he committed his worst crimes, that was with the support of this President's father. The support continued, Britain as well, well after the worst crimes were committed. He was a loyal friend and ally.
Furthermore, both Britain and the United States continued to provide him with the means to develop weapons of mass destruction. He was much more dangerous then than he is now.
Furthermore, if you're looking at the people the United States is trying to gather to replace him, like the general who can't come to the meeting because he's under investigation in Denmark for participation in a massacre - does that indicate any effort to bring some decent outcome for the Iraqi people?
The question of what should be done about Saddam Hussein is a very serious question, but you cannot take these people seriously.
TONY JONES: What sort of proofs though would they have to supply, because those proofs appear to be beyond the scope of international agencies to provide? In the end won't they end up relying on their own intelligence agencies?
PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY: It's not trusting its own intelligence. It's trusting its own intentions, which is something quite different.
We do not have any reason to believe any state, certainly not one with the record of the United States, should be given any authorisation to act independently, violently, on the basis of its own leadership groups. That's ridiculous. We don't allow it to anyone else, why to the United States?
TONY JONES: What about a pre-emptive strike, that was suggested recently by a former CIA director, specifically aimed at facilities that create chemical, nuclear or biological weapons?
PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY: First of all, they certainly have made available no evidence about such facilities or any indication that they pose a threat or even that they're aware of attacking them.
That's not what they're aiming at.
What they're aiming at, as we all know, let's not be innocent, Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. One way or another, the US is going to attempt to regain control of them and deny them to its adversaries who have an inside track, primarily France and Russia, and they may think this is a good pretext for it.
Saddam Hussein remains the same monster he was when the US and Britain actively and happily supported him right through his worst crimes, right through the period when he was dangerous and developing weapons of mass destruction. That remains true. But let's not delude ourselves about the reasons that might be used as a pretext, the actual reasons for what will be described under other pretexts.
TONY JONES: But there is a growing momentum in statements by American political leaders and in the press and in statements leaked by intelligence agencies, to provide proofs to at least convince the US public that an attack on Iraq is necessary?
NOAM CHOMSKY: There's no doubt that, I would drop the word proofs, but there's no doubt that serious efforts are being made to construct pretexts which will justify an attack against Iraq in an effort to regain control over the world's second largest oil reserves.
An attack I mean, to get rid of Saddam Hussein, that would be a boon, as I said, but that's not the goal.
The goal, as was described pretty accurately - remember that right after the Gulf War, when the US had total control over the region, there was an uprising in the south, a Shi'ite uprising, which might very well have toppled Saddam Hussein except that George Bush effectively authorised Saddam Hussein to crush it by using military helicopters and other means. That was explained publicly.
Thomas Friedman, who was then the diplomatic correspondent of the 'New York Times', wrote that this was necessary because as he put it, the best of all worlds for the United States would be an iron-fisted military junta which would rule Iraq the same way Saddam Hussein did, much to the pleasure of US allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia and of course, though he didn't mention it, the boss in Washington.
That was the attitude then when Bush permitted Saddam Hussein to crush a Shi'ite rebellion. There's been no change. If the US does do something to try to regain control of Iraq by force, it has to maintain that condition.
It cannot allow a democratic regime to emerge, even limited democracy, because the majority of the population is Shi'ite and if there is any democratic participation, chances are quite strong that it will move towards an alliance with Iran or at least towards connections with Iran, which the US will certainly block, which is exactly why the US is now trying to organise Iraqi generals who were involved in some of the worst atrocities, to be the iron-fisted military junta, which will be a Sunni military junta, to rule Iraq the way Saddam Hussein did, just as Thomas Friedman described and indeed advocated.
TONY JONES: We'll have to leave it there, Noam Chomsky. Thanks for taking the time to join us tonight.
NOAM CHOMSKY: OK. Glad to be with you.
[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: Mac Freak ]</p>
Will there be a sequel about "stupid white Jews" or "stupid black women?"
<strong>
You accuse me of twisting Moore's words and then you complain about Eugene being unfair? Make up your mind. You can worry about being fair or you can be Moore's obedient little sycophant. You can't be both.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Due to various technical glitches, I've only just come back to this post. But sorry rog, I've no idea what you mean. Anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of Moore's comment is automatically being unfair??
I think not...
<strong>
How is this unfair? Moore's commentary extends past Stupid White Men. Moore has appeared on television (he had his own show,) written numerous articles, written *gasp* other books, made plenty of public speeches, etc. Or are you just being stupid?
The offer still stands. Elaborate on his ideas you find most intellectual and I will respond with logic.
[ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay Eugene, it's a fair cop. Point taken
[ 04-22-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
<strong>
Due to various technical glitches, I've only just come back to this post. But sorry rog, I've no idea what you mean. Anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of Moore's comment is automatically being unfair??
I think not...</strong><hr></blockquote>
What crap. You didn't just disagree with me. You said I was twisting his words. I don't know if you are deliberately being this dense or not. At this point I don't really care. Some people I make a point of reading and some I don't. Maybe you belong in the latter group.
<a href="http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_04_07_archive.html#75241524"; target="_blank">Moore problems</a> (4/10)
A San Francisco activist claims she's the originator of Michael Moore's unsourced list of dubious Bush achievements in his bestselling "Stupid White Men"
By Ben Fritz
[quote][First published on Salon.com (Salon Premium subscription required)]
A list of 48 dubious achievements of President Bush appears in Michael Moore's bestselling "Stupid White Men," without footnotes or citations of any kind. A reader might assume that they are accumulated nuggets from Moore's own research.
But a San Francisco activist says she came up with the list, and she's not too happy about the way Moore is using it.
Kirsten Selberg contacted Spinsanity following a piece detailing the numerous errors and factual distortions in "Stupid White Men" to say she compiled that list for a wall that was displayed at the "Voters March West" that took place nearly a year ago in San Francisco, on May 19.
Still posted on the Voters March Web site, Selberg's list contains 47 of the 48 facts about Bush mentioned in Moore's book -- in the exactly the same order and with very similar wording. The only difference is that, unlike Moore, Selberg provides sources for almost all of her facts.
Representatives for Moore did not respond to requests for comment...<hr></blockquote>
<strong>This article was originally on Salon.com.
<a href="http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_04_07_archive.html#75241524"; target="_blank">Moore problems</a> (4/10)
A San Francisco activist claims she's the originator of Michael Moore's unsourced list of dubious Bush achievements in his bestselling "Stupid White Men"
By Ben Fritz
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh oh! He's in trouble now <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>
What crap. You didn't just disagree with me. You said I was twisting his words. I don't know if you are deliberately being this dense or not. At this point I don't really care. Some people I make a point of reading and some I don't. Maybe you belong in the latter group.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, what did you mean then?
I stand by my earlier claim ? I still think you were twisting that particular comment by the big-boned, baseball cap-wearing, Bush-baiter ? but there's no need to take it so personally. How many tantrums can you throw in one thread? Take a chill pill, Rog!
<strong>
Uh oh! He's in trouble now <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
A journalist who winks at possible plagiarism... huh...
<strong>
Well, what did you mean then?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wrote:
[quote]You accuse me of twisting Moore's words and then you complain about Eugene being unfair? Make up your mind. You can worry about being fair or you can be Moore's obedient little sycophant. You can't be both.<hr></blockquote>
You wrote:
[quote]... Anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of Moore's comment is automatically being unfair??
I think not...<hr></blockquote>
I wrote:
[quote]You didn't just disagree with me. You said I was twisting his words.<hr></blockquote>
What don?t you understand?
[quote]... How many tantrums can you throw in one thread? Take a chill pill, Rog!<hr></blockquote>
Anyone who disagrees with you is just throwing a tantrum?
<strong>
A journalist who winks at possible plagiarism... huh...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Spaceman Spiff?? Ah, Calvin & Hobbes...[gets dewy-eyed] But what happened to Roger Ramjet?
Anyway, I thought that particular <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> smiley was supposed to suggest surprise or confusion, not a wink like the
<strong>
Anyone who disagrees with you is just throwing a tantrum?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was referring to the over-heated, name-calling tone of your recent posts - I already knew that we don't see eye to eye on some issues...