I’d actually love to hear Bush repudiate some of the suggestions in F911. Obviously, Republican strategists decided to let their minions do the dirty work rather than have the president give Moore any credence by commenting. But I think that ship has sailed and he should call Moore on any distortions he can dispel. However, there was almost zero politicization of 9-11 at the Democratic Convention and you know it.

Yes, Rosemary. I'd love to hear some specific examples of how 9/11 was politicized during the Democratic Convention. Specifics, please. That shouldn't be hard, since apparently they spent a "whole convention doing it."

Yeah, well it's too late, for both sides, to stop politicizing 9/11. Bush already uses 9/11 as a reason for practically EVERYTHING he does (hyperbole, fyi, but true) and its impossible for the Dems to not do it as well, lest they be left in the rhetorical dust. The problem i have is the ignorance, again on BOTH sides about the use of 9/11 as political fodder. And i thought that the DNC wasn't particularly heavy-handed about 9/11.

But there is a problem of semantics here; theres a difference (i believe) between politicizing an issue, and taking advatage of an issue. Politicization is simply the act of putting something into political terms; taking advantage of something is using it inappropriately for personal/political gain. For example: i think Moore is NOT using 9/11 for personal gain (though i admit he is gaining quite a lot from it) I simply think Moore wants to bring up certain points of discussion; he is more of an idealogue than a greedy fat (real fat) cat. Why else would he allow, even promote downloading F9/11 off the internet?

However, IMHO, President Bush has used 9/11 a few times (not ALL the time, mind you) in fairly inappropriate circumstances; His TV ads that ran awhile ago with images of 9/11, using 9/11 to justify, among other things (WaPo, 9/11/2003: "In the past six weeks, Bush has cited "9/11" or Sept. 11, 2001, in arguing for his energy policy and in response to questions about campaign fundraising, tax cuts, unemployment, the deficit, airport security, Afghanistan and the length, cost and death toll of the Iraq occupation"). I would term these things (not afghanistan/airport security, btw) inappropriate ways to use 9/11. What does 9/11 really have to do with his energy policy, campaign fundraising, etc? Mostly, i can recall him using 9/11 to dodge questions. There was a live speech he gave (possibly a SotU) where, when questions were asked of him, gave nearly an identical answer about freedom, terrorists and 9/11. I personally expect more from my president than that; if he's going to be making 9/11 an issue, instead of using 9/11 like that, use it purely on the basis of strengthening homeland security and protecting the people, which is a primary directive of government? Even if you consider Moore to be capitalizing off of 9/11, he is only doing it with a movie- he's small fry and isn't making policy for the country. Bush is. And there is the difference.

Who cannot see how the Al Quaeda attacks on this country that fateful day had to affect our energy policy, unemployment rates, the deficits, airport security, Afghanistan and Iraq? You destroy the world trade center, blow up a chunk of the Pentagon, and kill 3,000 people all on the same day, and like a boulder dropped into a puddle, the effects are felt everywhere.

What's dishonest about this is that it isn't really about the President or the Republicans politicizing 9/11. Rather it's about a Democratic party that fears the President and the RNC using it to remind people of that time and what we went through. It’s about their fear that such remembrance will help the Republicans gin up support for Bush’s reelection. They're right, it will. By addressing both parties Spitzer attempts to camouflage his intent, to aide his candidate and his party by preempting the President from using the most significant event of his term, or of the last 50 years for that matter, in his reelection efforts. Of course he can count on his team to agree, since they gain the most by avoiding the topic all together, while the Republicans would rightly balk at the very idea. Thus Elliot Spitzer is effectively politicizing 9/11 by asking others to not politicize it. Too clever by half.

Oh, and Moore is just capitalizing on 9/11? No. Moore is a maggot who feeds off the dead. Personally I would like to arrange a little one on one time with Mr. Moor, just me and mike and a ball peen hammer.

shep, for Bush to refute the "suggestions" of F911 he would have to take them seriously. To his credit, he doesn't.

September 11, 2001: Never forget. Never forgive. NEVER AGAIN.

September 11, 2001 is _the_ most crucial issue of this election. We are at War, at War for our very survival as a free nation and civilization. Therefore we must elect the strongest Commander in Chief, the man with the firmest resolve to win this War. Nothing less will do.

It isn't an issue of politicizing 9/11. It's the other way around. The fact is that our politics has been irrevocably "9/11-ized".

As for Michael Moore, he is a Communist who has about as much credibility with me as a Holocaust denier. His lies about our country have been exposed and refuted many times in Dean's World.

SMA: That's rich. Dean's World is such a fountain of truth, light and non-partisan investigation. I suggest Mr. Liberal take Moore's $10,000 challenge or move past his vein-bursting, obsessive hatred of a guy with a movie camera. I'm just worried for Dean - he must be hurting his health.

Rosemary: Any specifics to share? You made a pretty harsh charge in your original post.

Actually, I didn't post it. Someone else did using my name...

He's already been refuted, effectively and for any honest person left, right, or center. Right here. And Michael Moore, fascist pig scumbag that he is, has issued a "challenge" pretty much identical to the offer made by Holocaust Deniers, i.e. in a way that would make it impossible to collect.

Honest people admit that willfully and intentionally quoting things out of context and intentionally leaving out crucial information is a form of lying. But I don't need to explain that to any honest leftist. Thank God at least a few still exist.

By the way, my veins don't pop when I feel disgust and loathing for maggots. Some people's veins pop when I rightly call them what they are though. :-)

And I'm sorry, Democrats mentioned 9/11 repeatedly through the entire event. You cannot not politicize such an event. The question is only how you will do so: with explanations for how you think we should have responded, and how you will either prevent a recurrence or respond if there is one.

Which, of course, is exactly what Kerry did, and not a thing wrong with it. But the call then for Republicans not to do the same thing is just silly horseshit.

Ack, did I post that in your account? Sorry, I got confused.

(The Queen asks me to post stuff to her blog when she's busy. I meant to post under my name.)

I thought about writing a detailed debunking of Dean's favorite link, "56 or 59 Deceits." But I have better things to do, like refill my ice-cube trays. That polemic amazingly flimsy for taking up 256K of text. Here's a couple to give you a taste:

Deceit 1: Moore makes it seem like the "Florida Victory" scene is after the election. Oh yeah? Does he say that, either in text or speech? And what does it matter either way?

Deceit 5: Moore says Bush's limo was pelted with eggs. Actually (horrors!) it was *only one egg.* And the republic soldiers on.

Unnumbered "deceit": Moore makes fun of Bush for the "Pet Goat" incident. Kopel's rebuttal is that the school principal said he did the right thing. Good one, Dave.

Unnumbered "deceit," this one called a "cheap shot": Paul Wolfowitz is shown licking his comb! Call in the National Guard to imprison Michael Moore IMMEDIATELY. Boy, those right-wingers have thin skins.

I cxould go on all day, but you get the idea. This is what you want to hang your Moore hatred on? (As an aside, why does Kopel use the pussified [tm Kim du Toit] word "deceit," and not "lie"? Hmmmm.) There's tons of stuff tossed in here that's not about the film at all, but other comments Moore has made, etc. A lot of it is in the vein of "but he didn't include the Republican talking points! Waaah!" Make your own movie, crybabies. That's not a "lie" or a "deceit."

This stuff is bloviating trash. I would encourage all the "Moore haters" on this board to really read it, the whole thing - every tortured word. And decide for yourself what you think. And why not see the movie, too. That would be "fair and balanced."

As for mentioning 9/11 at the convention, you mean the candlelight memorial? Yeah, that was *vicious.* I think the 9/11 families, who had to shame GWB into having an investigation into the largest attack on American soil years after the fact, are probably spitting mad about that vicious partisan display.

Just one more: leaving out crucial information is "a form of lying." Hmmmm. Who does that remind me of?

I'll give you this, Dean. You can shovel it with the best of them.

How to politicize (exploit) 9/11

The president's ad team, led by Austin, Texas-based media maven Mark McKinnon, had carefully road-tested the spots in focus groups, and Bush himself signed off. But the rollout of the ads, which argue that Bush has made the country "safer, stronger," was quickly marred by charges from some 9/11 families that the Bush team was seeking to exploit the attacks for political gain. One scene shows footage of a flag-draped coffin of a terror victim; another has an American flag waving in front of World Trade Center wreckage. Publicly, Bush aides were dismissive and insisted the flap had only strengthened their plan to make 9/11 "a central topic of the campaign."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4467791

By leaving out that there is no suggestion for what would have been a better thing to do, and that so many people present said it was the right thing to do... oh never mind. There's no point in arguing with people who already believe a hateful polemic that's been debunked. Kopel acknowledges his critics may disagree with things like this; convenient to leave out the really inarguable stuff.

There's of course nothing wrong with using 9/11 in ads and carefully testing to see what people think of what you've done to see if it's respectful. And the "9/11 families" who objected were all shown to be Democratic activists. Try again.

The Wolfowitz thing was a cheap shot, so of course it's unnumbered. It was just a low blow. And who said anything about calling in the national guard?

By the way: I should mention that defending and applauding Michael Moore automatically means you're using 9/11 for political purposes. Because you are.

Me hate Michael Moore? I don't hate maggots who feed on the dead. But I certainly loathe him, as I loathe his supporters, who really are no better in my eyes than KKK supporters, David Duke supporters, or supporters of Holocaust Revisionists. And certainly, Moore's tactics are no different from any of theirs.

Hating hatemongers, this is okay? Yeah maybe. Although I usually reserve my hatreds for people who fully deserve it, you know, fascist dictators, mass murderers, child molesters, etc. But you know, to each his own. You hate Bush, I hate fascist apologists, we'll all go our own way.

Um, Adam, care to deal with the Caspian pipeline, or the Saudi greased exodus? You know, the serious doo doo? Or should we worry ourselves with Wolfowitz and a comb?

Then there's the false claim that Fox News called the election for Bush when in fact they called it for Gore and were one of the very last to switch to call it for Bush. Or not mentioning all the work the President did while on his "vacations." The claim that the President didn't read the security briefing. The claim that the Saudi embassy has special protection. Not mentioning that Bush had sold his Harken stock long before the events Moore describes. The false claim about the administration's "friendly" ties to the Taliban.

No, let's skip those and dozens more so we can talk about the fact that Kopel mentions the cheap shot about Wolfowitz and the comb.

This man uses the same exact methods as holocaust deniers and Nazi propagandists. No honorable person on the left would ever try to excuse such things. And certainly no one--no one--who I would ever respect as a human being.

Dean: I don't hate Bush, and I've never said or written that I did. So when you say I do, is that a lie? Is that libel? Is that leaving out crucial information? Hmmmmm. Points to ponder.

Dave: As I said, I'm not going to go point-by-point - there are sweaters to be de-linted.

But I will say, the criticism of the Saudi flights seems to be that Moore "implied" (lots of that around the web) that the flights happened when no other planes could fly. Well the VO says "in the days after 9/11," and the screen says 9/13. He also doesn't hide that Clarke was involved - his name is shown clearly in a news clip.

And in a larger sense, are all you hawks really comfortable with the way the Saudi exodus was handled? Really? Because I would think that that would be a point of agreement between you and Moore. Silly me. But I'm a queer guy, so I get over-emotional sometimes. (Couldn't resist.)

Going to bed. Enjoy.

Dean Esmay:
“But I certainly loathe him, as I loathe his supporters, who really are no better in my eyes than KKK supporters, David Duke supporters, or supporters of Holocaust Revisionists.”

Dean, let me get this straight: you believe that Moore’s belief that George Bush has questionable interests in the Saudi Family and questionable motives for the Iraq war makes him the equivalent of a white supremacist or genocide apologist. Am I understanding you correctly?

I had to deal with people outside of an AMC Theater saying that I shouldn't watch "The Manchurian Candidate" because it was liberal lies. LIBERAL LIES! I must now be political in my movie choices? Hell no!

Michael Moore doesn't boil my blood in the slightest. I see him as a product of American sensationalism and high-stakes politics. Everything that people hate or love about Michael Moore is projected across our television screens in the form of reality TV, risque cartoons, talk shows, and sports broadcasting. Hard-driving, nerve-wracking, loud talking, mud slinging, name calling, in-your-face, attack dog Americanism. This is what Michael Moore is eating and many of us partake in it also.

Someone once told me that America's strength is its divison. We agree-to-disagree so much that it keeps folks in check. But the downside of that is inflamed passions with no outlet. We keep playing with fire, we're going to get burned.

Here's some detailed debunking of Kopel:

http://anton-sirius.dailykos.com/

Those not bleary-eyed by this point might want to also check out:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

The point I'm trying to make is: take a look at all the evidence and make up your own mind. See the movie. Read up on the issues. Don't just take Dean's word for it. This is the future of our country we're talking about here.

Shep: Yes. Dean really believes I am no different from a Holocaust denier. (And sub-human, too, to judge from his comments here.) That's how crazy he's gotten in his obsession with Michael Moore.

"And in a larger sense, are all you hawks really comfortable with the way the Saudi exodus was handled? Really?"

Absolutely not. I'm against Bush's coddling of Saudi Arabia and the "Religion of Peace". But that's because I'm a Politically Incorrect fire-breathing hawk to the Far Right of President Bush. I'm a Western Imperialist Zionist Warmonger -- proudly.

While I am done trying to answer the Holocaust Apologist types, I will answer this:

Dean, let me get this straight: you believe that Moore’s belief that George Bush has questionable interests in the Saudi Family and questionable motives for the Iraq war makes him the equivalent of a white supremacist or genocide apologist.

Certainly not.

But if you believe Michael Moore's hate-propaganda movie Fahrenheit 9/11, you are certaintly guilty of believing something no less dishonest and hateful than The Turner Diaries.

The only question left being whether you're just an idiot or a hate-filled asshole.

By the way, I love that "debunking of Kopel" which doesn't link Kopel or answer 90% of his criticisms directly.

Holocaust revisionists, white supremacists, Moore apologists--they're all the same.

But why bother saying it? It's like arguing with people who think the Zionist Occupation Government is stealing our precious bodily fluids.

"And in a larger sense, are all you hawks really comfortable with the way the Saudi exodus was handled? Really?"

See, here's the dishonesty of the white supremacist types: carefully change the subject so you don't have to answer for the lies directly.

So you know, if you refute the Turner Diaries, they always come back with questions like, "so you're really comfortable with all the policies of the Israli state?"

So you know, if you question the fucktards who claim that the Jews secretly manipulate world politics, this means you're just "in denial" or some stupid bullshit.

White supremacists, anti-semites, KKK apologists, Michael Moore apologists, communist apologists, closet Hitler lovers, fag-bashers---they're all the fucking same.

Just arguing with them gives them a credibility they don't deserve.

Now I'm a white supremacist, huh? And a Holocaust apologist. I sure do get around. I am an evil, evil bastard. Why aren't I in jail or dead? Actually, either would be too good for my traitorous queer fucktard ass. I see that now.

Wow. Just, wow.

Dean,
Step back from this Michael Moore stuff and take a deep breath. You don't hate people, you just loathe them. Alrighty then. He's a propagandist and he appeals to people with a high school level of political understanding. Big deal. All of America doesn't have the time or money to be political scientists in their spare time. I really don't understand how you can get so angry about it. In addition, tune into Rush on any given day and you hear the same half stories and appeals to emotion that old Mikey uses. The people who take this stuff seriously either aren't going to vote or they are locked in left or right.

I don't know who you are trying to persuade when you go around calling people fucktards and what not. If you are trying to actually change attitudes, you have chosen the wrong way to go about it. If you are just blowing off steam, why don't you go over to the Slate Fray or MSN Political discussion groups? There are plenty of people over there who spend all day calling each other fucktards and every other name in the book. It's great fun but it shouldn't be confused with meaningful political discourse.

I'm pefectly calm, Ralph. You seem to think that by pointing out the obvious fact about the Michael Moore apologists sometimes makes me angry. Certainly not. Irritated at first, depressed for a while, but now over it.

Any rational person who cares to look knows that tthis movie is horribly dishonest and slanted, and that it's filled with half-truths and innuendo all to create an Iraq that was peaceful and happy unil the American came in.

The movie having a devastating on morale overseas. This goes beyond Rush, who's only here, and it's been seen by countless numbers of them. Making him now an enemy propagandist.

He's scum, he should be treated liked scum. Furthermore his defenders should be able to look side by side at the criticisms.

If I were a man of the left (I was once but am no longer) I'd be mortifeid that we'd allowed him to be part of the convention.

Dean,
I seriously doubt his movie has had a devestating effect on moral. If you know a soldier over there, email him and give him your support and point out that Michael Moore is an anti-war propagandist. Whenever I email my nephew I always stress how many people support his effort and appreciate what he is doing. I don't make this up off the top of my head either. Many of my friends have told me to specifically convey that message to him and his fellow soldiers. It's the best way to combat the Moore hyperbole.

Show some respect for the Queen or you'll be kicked off this blog.

Politicians are going to politicize anything they possibly can get away with. That is life.

The problem comes when someone says that an opponent is unpatriotic or unAmerican or unChristian merely based on the fact that the opponent disagrees with him or her.

The race against Max Cleland irked me, the time and place of the convention does not. If there are attacks on anyone's patriotism or Americanism or personal values at the convention, that I am opposed. As long as that does not happen, I do not care.

There must be some secret master GOP operatives here, Your Majesty. A couple of writers make me, at least temporarily, forget my natural dislike of Bush and some in his Administration. It must be magic! :-)

No, Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete, I oppose censorship, and Her Majesty prefers commenters that help her side.

Hey Bob,

You don't know me or what I think - and you obviously didn't read all the comments either.

Fuck off!

Edmond the Libertarian:

I oppose censorship, too, but kicking somebody off your own property isn't censorship. If he wants to go troll somewhere else, I won't stop him, and if he sets up his own blog, I'll certainly oppose the government shutting it down. I'll leave it entirely up to Her Majesty to do as she sees fit here.

Good point, Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete. My error in using the term "censorship".

I should have said that Her Majesty should permit such ranting to continue. It serves a purpose to allow Her Subjects to see certain people for what they are, rather than protect them from seeing certain personages and some of their more base qualities.

It helps me to remember, Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete, that the far left has their own Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson equivalent segment. Black Helicopter watchers are not just amongst the far right. Without prompting, without any right wing conspiracy to get such comments out, some people serve to remind us of certain realities about the political spectrum.

Her Majesty could block certain comments, but I advise against it.

Your Majesty, keep up the good work. I find you a reasonable, fair, and decent person.

Thank you.

I only block really stupid and not on topic commenst. I've let lots slide and most of my Liberal readers come here because they know I will let them speak and say what they will. Ask Shep, Tim, Ara, Mark, Adam, cul, Maria, etc...

I won't put up with disrespect from someone I don't know - though...

Can't we all just get along? C'mon hug a republican...get in your car, drive down to your nearest minimum security prison, and hug a conservative. Or, there's probably a conservative trying to exploit American workers, avoid taxes through offshore "banks." Find one and hug him.
It will be easy to find a conservative because there will be NO BLACK PEOPLE ANYWHERE NEAR THEM.
Also, they are really hung up on this guy named Jesus (or George Bush, he seems to have the same affect on conservatives). Oh, and if you are gay, DO NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO HUG A CONSERVATIVE!! They will shoot you with an assault rifle!! (Even though Rick Santorum is extremely gay, he won't admit it.)

Looking for a Democrat to hug? We're out trying to save the world by stomping on the evil Bush clan, either that or hugging trees, smoking pot, confiscating guns, renting Michael Moore films, and throwing darts at Ann Coulter (not a poster, actually the real live Ann Coulter). We are also easy to spot in our birkenstocks, lack of neckties, and sometimes lack of deodorant.
Even if we are almost 38 years old, we don't trust anyone over the age of 30, unless they have a capital "D" next to their name. If they have a capital "R" next to their name, we want to shoot them, but we can't, we don't believe in guns. In this case, we are forced to hurl our chunky birkenstocks at them. Oh, and we love Jesse Jackson.

Hope this clears things up. I'm here to help.

Hey, I like gay people. I hug them all the time!

Roesmary:
"I've let lots slide and most of my Liberal readers come here because they know I will let them speak and say what they will. Ask Shep, Tim, Ara, Mark, Adam, cul, Maria, etc..."

If she'll let me rant on, Her Majesty is obviously of the most tolerant nature.

Well put, Tim ;-)

Thank you, Shep.

I must say, as much as I disagree with the Queen on pretty much anything political, I do appreciate her attitude about commenters. She has a calm and a humor that's rare on the political web. I've never felt stifled or unfairly attacked here, and she deserves praise for that.

And although the Queen is wrong on almost every issue (I think she just wants to be different), she is right on nearly every SOCIAL issue. She's the republican that your mother warned you about. She's the Detroit Guiliani, and she know Rick Sanitorium is a punk, a novice, and a digressive mother fucker (not literally though).