Fahrenheit 9/11

But what prime-time interrupting news that is...a Republican backing the Republian candidate, even if only barely. What are the odds?

BBC News World Edition Last Updated: Saturday, 26 June, 2004, 04:09 GMT 05:09

Bush film opens amid controversy

Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 has opened across the US amid growing political controversy. Republicans have had few kind words to say about the anti-George Bush, anti-Iraq war documentary, though it has been largely applauded by Democrats.

A conservative group has asked federal election officials to look at whether television adverts for the film violate presidential election law.

The film opened in more than 800 cinemas in the US on Friday.

It broke single-day box-office records at two New York cinemas where it opened on Wednesday, grossing $84,000 (£46,000).

Moore's film starts by recounting Mr Bush's disputed election victory and goes on to allege connections between Mr Bush and influential Saudi families, including the Bin Ladens.

However, it is Mr Bush's response to the 11 September attacks and the subsequent war in Iraq that forms the main focus of the film.

Mr Moore builds a case that Mr Bush stoked public fears to win widespread support for a needless invasion of Iraq.

Both positive and negative reviews have described the film as "propaganda".

Mr Moore himself has said he hoped the film would encourage people to vote in November.

"The reason why I believe I've had this very fortunate success... is because I actually put the entertainment and the art before the politics," insists Mr Moore.

"It's very hard for someone on the professional left to put anything ahead of the politics, and that's why they lose out.

"If you told me this movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, 'it's just an anti-Bush movie', I don't know if I would go see it. ... Why would I waste two hours in the theatre to learn that Bush is bad if I already feel that way?"

Television adverts for the film have prompted conservative advocacy group, Citizens United, to call for a ban on the grounds they are "electioneering communications".

In its complaint to the Federal Election Commission the group said: "Moore produced the work for use as a political weapon against President Bush in the November 2004 presidential election."

Mr Moore said he would "absolutely" fight the complaint.

He said: "It is a blatant attempt on the part of a right wing, Republican-sponsored group to stop people from seeing my movie."

Meanwhile, Mr Moore's critics are fighting back with a book and documentary which question his methods.

Authors David T Hardy and Jason Clarke are set to have their book, entitled Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man, published on Tuesday.

In it, they accuse Mr Moore of "serial mendacity".

Film-maker Michael Wilson also hopes to have his documentary Michael Moore Hates America in cinemas later this year.

i only hope citizens united will campaign for the removal of any advertising of books or videos (regnery press, stand up) in the run-up to the election which might be damaging to john kerry--and with as much tenacity as they've gone after fahrenheit 9/11!

oh, wait: they won't.

What I dont get is how any US citizen would vote KERRY. The only logic is "bushlite is better than bush". Look at Clintons disgraceful internal/foerign policy record- he is no bush, but not too far off it.

Originally posted by Clockwork C What I dont get is how any US citizen would vote KERRY. The only logic is "bushlite is better than bush". Look at Clintons disgraceful internal/foerign policy record- he is no bush, but not too far off it.

Because Ralph Nader doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning, even if every single American who agrees with him votes for him.

I understand what you're saying, but a Presidential election isn't just about foreign or domestic policy. It's also about how any given President shapes the future far beyond his administration. Ronald Reagan's legacy is still very much in effect, because Reagan's appointees to the federal judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, are still in place. Reagan appointed very young, very reactionary activists to the judiciary, with the purposeful intent of keeping reactionaries in the judiciary long after he was gone. George Herbert Hoover Bush tried to do the same thing.

The Supreme Court is divided 5-4 right now, along party lines. It's no secret that Justice O'Connor, who is the swing vote on the court, wants to retire; Chief Justice Rehnquist may want to retire as well. If Presdident Fuckwit wins re-election, he will appoint the youngest, most reactionary judges he can find. You probably don't follow our Supreme Court decisions over there, but trust me, they're terrible. The court manufactures new law out of the thin air of fascist ideology. The reactionaries on the court are pro-racist, anti-working people, anti-poor, anti-women, anti-gay and anti-environment. Whatever Kerry's shortcoming's may be in foreign policy, we can't afford another Bush term.

That's why progressives are voting for Kerry. It's not because they necessarily agree with everything Kerry stands for, but it's because come November 3, we'll either have President Kerry, or President Bush. Kerry is the only candidate in the race who can beat Bush, and there's too much at stake in this election to vote for a candidate who is clearly going to come in third.

Just in case you think there's no meaningful difference between Bush and Kerry:

Last Updated: Jun 12th, 2004 - 19:17:16 Bush Leagues

Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides By DOUG THOMPSON & TERESA HAMPTON Jun 4, 2004, 06:15

President George W. Bush’s increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader’s state of mind.

In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as “enemies of the state.”

Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home.

“It reminds me of the Nixon days,” says a longtime GOP political consultant with contacts in the White House. “Everybody is an enemy; everybody is out to get him. That’s the mood over there.”

In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing to talk off the record, a picture of an administration under siege has emerged, led by a man who declares his decisions to be “God’s will” and then tells aides to “fuck over” anyone they consider to be an opponent of the administration.

“We’re at war, there’s no doubt about it. What I don’t know anymore is just who the enemy might be,” says one troubled White House aide. “We seem to spend more time trying to destroy John Kerry than al Qaeda and our enemies list just keeps growing and growing.”

Aides say the President gets “hung up on minor details,” micromanaging to the extreme while ignoring the bigger picture. He will spend hours personally reviewing and approving every attack ad against his Democratic opponent and then kiss off a meeting on economic issues.

“This is what is killing us on Iraq,” one aide says. “We lost focus. The President got hung up on the weapons of mass destruction and an unproven link to al Qaeda. We could have found other justifiable reasons for the war but the President insisted the focus stay on those two, tenuous items.”

Aides who raise questions quickly find themselves shut out of access to the President or other top advisors. Among top officials, Bush’s inner circle is shrinking. Secretary of State Colin Powell has fallen out of favor because of his growing doubts about the administration’s war against Iraq.

The President's abrupt dismissal of CIA Directory George Tenet Wednesday night is, aides say, an example of how he works.

"Tenet wanted to quit last year but the President got his back up and wouldn't hear of it," says an aide. "That would have been the opportune time to make a change, not in the middle of an election campaign but when the director challenged the President during the meeting Wednesday, the President cut him off by saying 'that's it George. I cannot abide disloyalty. I want your resignation and I want it now."

Tenet was allowed to resign "voluntarily" and Bush informed his shocked staff of the decision Thursday morning. One aide says the President actually described the decision as "God's will."

God may also be the reason Attorney General John Ashcroft, the administration’s lightning rod because of his questionable actions that critics argue threatens freedoms granted by the Constitution, remains part of the power elite. West Wing staffers call Bush and Ashcroft “the Blues Brothers” because “they’re on a mission from God.”

“The Attorney General is tight with the President because of religion,” says one aide. “They both believe any action is justifiable in the name of God.”

But the President who says he rules at the behest of God can also tongue-lash those he perceives as disloyal, calling them “fucking assholes” in front of other staff, berating one cabinet official in front of others and labeling anyone who disagrees with him “unpatriotic” or “anti-American.”

“The mood here is that we’re under siege, there’s no doubt about it,” says one troubled aide who admits he is looking for work elsewhere. “In this administration, you don’t have to wear a turban or speak Farsi to be an enemy of the United States. All you have to do is disagree with the President.”

The White House did not respond to requests for comment on the record.

© Copyright 2004 by Capitol Hill Blue

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article\_4636.shtml

And you know it's a bad day for Bush when the CIA says he's a fuckup:

CIA insider slams Bush antiterror policies Sunday, June 27, 2004 Posted: 2:53 PM EDT (1853 GMT)

(CNN) -- A book written by a top CIA counterterrorism official alleges that the Bush administration has bungled the war on terror, and because of poor decisions the United States faces a choice in Iraq and Afghanistan "between war and endless war."

Written by a high-level counterterrorism expert and published under the name "Anonymous," the book "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror" is unique in that it was written by an official still working for the CIA.

And with the book slated to be released next week, the author has already appeared -- in shadow -- on a Sunday political talk show to defend his work.

On ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopolous," the author accused some senior officials in the U.S. intelligence community of "a great deal of moral or bureaucratic cowardice" in dealing with the war on terror.

Although he was relatively muted on the topic of George Tenet, the outgoing director of the CIA, the author was unsparing in his criticism of the Bush administration's decision to wait a month after the September 11, 2001, attacks before going to war in Afghanistan.

"We were facing a government, the Taliban, which was basically a rural insurgency trying to govern cities, and al Qaeda, which is a 20-year-old insurgency. If you were going to hit them, sir, you had to hit them on the 11th or the 12th or the 13th."

"By the time the 7th of October rolled along, most of those forces had been dispersed into the countryside, into Pakistan, into Iran, overseas to other countries. There was no 'there' left when we went there," he said.

In his book, the author labeled the invasion of Iraq a "Christmas gift" to Osama bin Laden and said the country has become a "Mujahadeen magnet" attracting Muslims from around the world to fight the occupying U.S. forces.

In an interview on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer," Secretary of State Colin Powell refused to comment on the author, but said that while there is an insurgency in Iraq, "I think what we are also seeing is that the world is coming together" and developing an "understanding that we have to deal with these kinds of terrorist organizations and not just write it all off to Muslim extremism."

Also appearing on "This Week," national security advisor Condoleezza Rice refused to comment specifically on "Anonymous" because, "I don't know who Anonymous is."

However Rice offered a defense of Bush administration policies in the war on terror and in Iraq.

"What I can say is that a free Iraq, an Iraq in which these killers realize that we're moving toward a democratic future for Iraq which can be the linchpin for a different kind of Middle East, is going to frustrate, not improve, their plans."

The book charges that Saddam Hussein posed no immediate threat to the United States; that the war in Iraq undermined the overall war against terror and actually played into bin Laden's hands; and that the United States is losing that war on terror.

The author also predicts al Qaeda will again attack the continental United States and that it will be even more damaging than the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.

The author says the biggest mistake made after 9/11 was that top intelligence community leaders were not fired.

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, who serves on the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, agreed.

"As we try to prepare ourselves in this new era of terrorism, we have to just assume that we're going to have an attack," Nelson said. "And the only way that we prevent it is to have accurate and timely intelligence."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/27/cia.book/index.html

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr > Originally posted by Clockwork C> What I dont get is how any US citizen would vote KERRY. The only logic is "bushlite is better than bush". Look at Clintons disgraceful internal/foerign policy record- he is no bush, but not too far off it.

Because Ralph Nader doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning, even if every single American who agrees with him votes for him.

I understand what you're saying, but a Presidential election isn't just about foreign or domestic policy. It's also about how any given President shapes the future far beyond his administration. Ronald Reagan's legacy is still very much in effect, because Reagan's appointees to the federal judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, are still in place. Reagan appointed very young, very reactionary activists to the judiciary, with the purposeful intent of keeping reactionaries in the judiciary long after he was gone. George Herbert Hoover Bush tried to do the same thing.

The Supreme Court is divided 5-4 right now, along party lines. It's no secret that Justice O'Connor, who is the swing vote on the court, wants to retire; Chief Justice Rehnquist may want to retire as well. If Presdident Fuckwit wins re-election, he will appoint the youngest, most reactionary judges he can find. You probably don't follow our Supreme Court decisions over there, but trust me, they're terrible. The court manufactures new law out of the thin air of fascist ideology. The reactionaries on the court are pro-racist, anti-working people, anti-poor, anti-women, anti-gay and anti-environment. Whatever Kerry's shortcoming's may be in foreign policy, we can't afford another Bush term.

That's why progressives are voting for Kerry. It's not because they necessarily agree with everything Kerry stands for, but it's because come November 3, we'll either have President Kerry, or President Bush. Kerry is the only candidate in the race who can beat Bush, and there's too much at stake in this election to vote for a candidate who is clearly going to come in third.

Im sure any decisions along any lines (including appointment of judges, etc) would be better under Naider than Kerry.

I always thought that in a "democracy" you voted for who you WANTED to win an election, not who you thought would win, or stand a chance.

kerry and bush represent the same interests-and those are not the working mans.

Clinton was as good a fascist as bush. NO "progressive" would have voted for the man who murdered Rickey Ray Rector, but they did.

Clintons legacy is not far off regans, Kerrys wont be far off bush.

America doesnt deserve Ralph Naider, the rest of the world does.

Originally posted by Clockwork C > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> > > > Originally posted by Clockwork C> > What I dont get is how any US citizen would vote KERRY. The only logic is "bushlite is better than bush". Look at Clintons disgraceful internal/foerign policy record- he is no bush, but not too far off it.>

Because Ralph Nader doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning, even if every single American who agrees with him votes for him.

I understand what you're saying, but a Presidential election isn't just about foreign or domestic policy. It's also about how any given President shapes the future far beyond his administration. Ronald Reagan's legacy is still very much in effect, because Reagan's appointees to the federal judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, are still in place. Reagan appointed very young, very reactionary activists to the judiciary, with the purposeful intent of keeping reactionaries in the judiciary long after he was gone. George Herbert Hoover Bush tried to do the same thing.

The Supreme Court is divided 5-4 right now, along party lines. It's no secret that Justice O'Connor, who is the swing vote on the court, wants to retire; Chief Justice Rehnquist may want to retire as well. If Presdident Fuckwit wins re-election, he will appoint the youngest, most reactionary judges he can find. You probably don't follow our Supreme Court decisions over there, but trust me, they're terrible. The court manufactures new law out of the thin air of fascist ideology. The reactionaries on the court are pro-racist, anti-working people, anti-poor, anti-women, anti-gay and anti-environment. Whatever Kerry's shortcoming's may be in foreign policy, we can't afford another Bush term.

That's why progressives are voting for Kerry. It's not because they necessarily agree with everything Kerry stands for, but it's because come November 3, we'll either have President Kerry, or President Bush. Kerry is the only candidate in the race who can beat Bush, and there's too much at stake in this election to vote for a candidate who is clearly going to come in third.

Im sure any decisions along any lines (including appointment of judges, etc) would be better under Naider than Kerry.

I always thought that in a "democracy" you voted for who you WANTED to win an election, not who you thought would win, or stand a chance.

kerry and bush represent the same interests-and those are not the working mans.

Clinton was as good a fascist as bush. NO "progressive" would have voted for the man who murdered Rickey Ray Rector, but they did.

Clintons legacy is not far off regans, Kerrys wont be far off bush.

America doesnt deserve Ralph Naider, the rest of the world does.

True, more or less.

But Ralph Nader will never be President.

Unlike Europe's parliamentary democracies, we have a two-party system; winner takes all. The next President will either be a Democrat, or a Republican.

In the 2000 election, Nader pulled 2.74% of the vote, and that was when he was running as the Green Party candidate. This time around, the Greens have refused to endorse Nader, and are staying out of the race in competitive states (and by the way, I'm a Green, not a Democrat, and I would vote for Kerry even if Nader was running as a Green). So what chance does Nader have of winning? None. What if Nader had the complete, undivided support of every liberal voter in this country? He'd still lose. That's why the Democrats and Republicans both run to the center; they both need the swing voters at the center to win an election. It's how Reagan managed to win-- the "Reagan Democrats." It's how Clnton won. Nader's appeal is to the left, and only the left, and neither the left nor the right are large enough to win an election in a winner-take-all system. Nader will never be President.

And he knows it. Contrary to his bullshit "reason" for running-- that he wants to tilt the election to Kerry by drawing Bush supporters-- his real reason for running is to pull Kerry to the left. So Nader pulls Kerry to the left, and the center goes to Bush, and we have a fascist in the White House for another four years. And fascists running the judiciary for another 40 years. And fascists in the legislature giving Bush whatever fascist legislation he wants. All for what-- so the left can say that it voted for someone who had no chance of winning?

Kerry's run to the center does indeed have him sounding like Bush-- just like Gore's run in 2000 did. It's why Democrats talk about fiscal responsibility and a strong defense, and a cold heartless bastard like Bush runs as a "compassionate conservative." But they're not the same. One issue: Kerry is against gay marriage, but for civil unions. Bush will push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. So Kerry's stand isn't the best possible stand, but it's a hell of a lot better than Bush's. It will be like that across the board. The time to pull Kerry to the left isn't now, before the election. Now is the time for the left to support Kerry. And to let him know where his support lies. After the election, if President Kerry strays to the right, is when the left has the duty to pull him left.

in a perfect world id be able to vote for nader, i agree with him more than kerry.....its just a shame that a two party system is forcing us to have to choose between the "lesser of two evils"..that cliched phrase...i think the presence of a third party is crucial, but i think its even more crucial that this year bush be removed from office..

agreed. i'm a green, as well, but it's more important to me to get bush out of office. i'll vote for nader if kerry has a nice lead in florida. considering what happened in florida in 2000, and who our governor is, i don't see that happening. so kerry it is (most likely).

if hell froze over and nader became president he'd be pretty ineffective, mind you. he's a good advocate, but to lead a country (any country) you have to have more balls, and being a bit of a wanker or wankette doesn't hurt, either. and what's he going to do: ride his bicycle to meetings in europe or asia?

Originally posted by AgentWood and what's he going to do: ride his bicycle to meetings in europe or asia?

I wont bother.

Democracy my arse.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html

Oh and I won't be voting; one Republican vote in California is worth didly squat.

I went to see this film, and it was as i expected. More of a "vote democrat" campaign video than "this is what is fucked up with your psuedo democracy". he is very selective with the truth (not a patch on most reactionaries mind!). the best parts are when he follows army recruiters around a shopping centre, it shows the perversity of militarism up really well. He is at his best with "the man on the street", chatting with families of dead soldiers,doing "vox pops" . His other strengths are editing and splicing in old "lets smoke him out" cop bmovie footage for comedic effect.

His weakness is writing.the film comes off as a collection of thoughts on neocons rather than an articulate counteract tot their rethoric. He also descends to NeoCons levels of selective reportage - for instance , the coalition of the willing is shown as a collection of south pacific islands, complete with images of ridicule, rather than saying “heres Britain, Poland, Spain, Australia, Japan” listing their respective motivations for going to war, showing the 90%disapproval in Spain prior to the war, the actual percentage of nato states willing to commit troops, etc.

Blair is continently let off too. I figure all this is an effort to concentrate on the USA war effort and US soldiers rather than blair&other NeoCons, but this sequence summed up the selective nature of the Film.

Nothing about Bushs disastrous economic policy either. The part about him being on holiday 40%of the time and missing intelligence briefings as a result prior to September 11 was interesting. There could have been a better follow up to the relationship between the Saudis and US Republicans too by pointing out what a brutal country it really is.

The truth is on the side of the anti war/leftist movement. The facts, the figures, and the anecdotes too, theres no need to delve into the bullshit negative campaigning that the right wing have perfected down through the decades.

It’s a pity to see Moore back Kerry and not Naider. Its good to see John Edwards picked as his running mate – best of a bad bunch.

There was a hilarious send-up of "Fahrenheit" on Conan last night, about "the worst Bush of them all".......Billy Bush, from Access Hollywood. (MM was even in it, apologizing that he didn't recognize Billy was the real threat of the family).

Apparently the Bushes' ties to the Saudi Royal Family mean that Access, and all other entertainment-news shows, are owned by the Saudis, meaning that Billy was able to get a job there. I'm not doing it justice, but it was funny as hell (The weird gunplay during the Will Ferrell interview had me in fits as well)

Almost makes me forget the absence of the "Walker Texas Ranger" lever....almost

i saw the movie on monday, and im planning to go see it again, it was great , but my seats werent that great and there was a little bit i missed, i was in the front section of seats, to read something on the screen you really had to turn your head

Originally posted by Clockwork C I wont bother.Democracy my arse.

July 2, 2004

Suicide Right on the Stage The Demise of the Green Party By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

"Ignorance of remote causes disposeth men to attribute all events to the causes immediate and instrumental: for these are all the causes they perceive."

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651)

So this is what alternative politics in America has degenerated to: Pat LaMarche, the newly minted vice-presidential candidate of the Green Party, has announced that she might not even vote for herself in the fall elections. The Greens, always a skittish bunch, are so traumatized by the specter of Bush and Cheney that they've offered up their own party-born out of rage at decades of betrayal by Democrats from Carter to Clinton-as a kind of private contractor for the benefit of those very same Democratic Party power brokers.

Take a close look at what LaMarche, a not-ready-for-primetime radio "personality", had to say to say to her hometown newspaper in Maine only days after winning the nomination in Milwaukee.

"If the race is tight, I'll vote for Kerry," LaMarche said. "I love my country. But we should ask them that, because if Dick Cheney loved his country, he wouldn't be voting for himself."

This is the sound a political party makes as it commits suicide.

LaMarche's running mate, David Cobb, is no better. The obscure lawyer from Texas is a dull and spiritless candidate, handled by some truly unsavory advisors (more on them in future columns). In action, he functions as a kind of bland political zombie from a Roger Corman flick, lumbering across the progressive landscape from Oregon to Wisconsin and back again, to the tune of his liberal political masters. The tune? The familiar refrain of "Anybody But Bush."

Bland, yes, but it worked, thanks to the likes of Medea Benjamin and the pompous Ted Glick. At their recent convention in Milwaukee, the Green Party, heavily infiltrated by Democratic Party operatives, rejected the ticket of Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo in favor of the sour campaign of Cobb and LaMarche.

This won't harm Nader much. Indeed, it may liberate him. Free of the Green Party's encyclopedic platform, Nader can now distill the themes of his campaign to the most potent elements (war, jobs, corruption and the environment) and, unburdened by the concern of party building, Nader can, if he chooses (and he should), focus his efforts only on the battleground states, where Kerry must either confront Nader's issues or lose the election. It's as simple as that.

The fatal damage in Milwaukee was done to the Green Party itself, where Cobb and his cohort sabotaged the aspirations of thousands of Greens who had labored for more than a decade to build their party into a national political force, capable of winning a few seats here and there and, even more importantly, defeating Democrats who behave like Republicans (cf: Al Gore). The fruits of all that intense grassroots organizing were destroyed in an instant.

But behold: the rebuffed Nader continues to poll nearly 6 percent without the Green Party behind him. Yet, you can't discern Cobb's numbers with an electron microscope. Of course, the pungent irony is that's precisely the way Cobb and his backers want it.

So, the Greens have succeeded in doing what seemed impossible only months ago: they've made the quixotic campaign of Dennis Kucinich, which still chugs along claiming micro-victory after micro-victory long after the close of the primaries (indeed there have been more victories after the polls closed than before), seem like a credible political endeavor. Of course, Cobb and Kucinich share the same objective function: to lure progressives away from Nader and back into the plantation house of the Democratic Party.

But at least Kucinich remained a Democrat. Cobb and LaMarche were supposedly leaders of a political party that formed not in opposition to Republicans, but from outrage at the rightward and irredeemable drift of the Democratic Party. Apparently, the Green Party has not only lost its mind, it's lost its entire central nervous system, including the spine--especially its spine. They've surrendered to the politics of fear. And once the white flag is raised there's little chance of recovering the ground you've given up.

Always nearly immobilized by an asphyxiating devotion to political correctness, the Green Party has now taken this obsession to its logical extreme by nominating a pair of political cretins at the top of its ticket. Under the false banner of the Cobb/Lamarche campaign, the Green Party is instructing its members to vote for its candidates only in states where their vote doesn't matter. This is the so-called safe state strategy.

Safe? Safe for whom? Not for Afghan or Iraqi citizens. Not for US troops. Not for the detainees at Gitmo, Bagram or Abu Ghraib. Not for migrant farm laborers or steelworkers. Not for the welfare mother or the 2 million souls rotting in American prisons. Not for the spotted owl, the streams of Appalachia or the rainforests of Alaska. Not for the residents of Cancer Alley or the peasants of Colombia or teen age girls slaving away in Nike's toxic Indonesia sneaker mills. Not for the Palestinians, the Lakota of Pine Ridge or elementary school students from the hard streets of Oakland. Not for the hopeless denizens of death row or three strikers in for life for a gram of crack or gays hoping to unite in marriage or even cancer patients seeking simple herbal relief from excruciating pain.

A crucial player in this unsavory affair was Medea Benjamin, the diva of Global Exchange. In rationalizing her decisive vote backing the Cobb/Lamarche ticket, Benjamin emitted this profundity: "John Kerry is not George Bush." Apparently, that tiny sliver of genetic variation is all it comes down to these days.

Yes, Medea, you're right. Kerry is simply Kerry, a bona fide war criminal, with a record of political infamy that is just as malodorous as that of George Bush-only it's longer. Over the past four years, Kerry has been complicit in the enactment of some of Bush's most disgusting policies. Indeed, these days Kerry offers himself up mainly as a more competent manager of the Bush agenda, a steadier hand on the helm of the Empire.

Kerry stands unapologetically for nearly every issue that caused the Greens to bolt the Democratic Party. He was present at the founding of the Democratic Leadership Council, the claque of neo-liberals that seeks to purge the Democratic Party of every last vestige of progressivism and reshape it as a hawkish and pro-business party with a soft spot for abortion-essentially a stingier version of the Rockefeller Republicans.

Kerry enthusiastically backed both of Bush's wars and now, at the very moment Bush is signaling a desire to retreat, the senator is calling for 25,000 new troops to be sent to Iraq, where under his plan the US military will remain entrenched for at least the next four years.

Kerry supported the Patriot Act without reservation or even much contemplation. Lest you conclude that this was a momentary aberration sparked by the post-9/11 hysteria, consider the fact that Kerry also voted for the two Clinton-era predecessors to the Patriot Act, the 1994 Crime Bill and the 1996 CounterTerrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which were just as bad if not worse.

Although he regularly hams it up in photo-ops with the barons of big labor, Kerry voted for NAFTA, the WTO and virtually every other job-slashing trade pact that has come before the senate. Kerry, who has courted and won the endorsement of nearly every police association in the nation, regularly calls for putting another 100,000 cops on the streets and even tougher criminal sanctions against victimless crimes. He refused to reconsider his fervid support for the insane war on drug users, which has destroyed families and clogged our prisons with more than 2 million people, many of them young black men, whom the draconian drug laws specifically target without mercy. Kerry backs the racist death penalty and minimum mandatory sentences.

A couple of weeks ago the Congressional Black Caucus jeered Ralph Nader when he spoke to them about his campaign, a bizarre reception for a man who has been a tireless advocate for civil rights and poor people. If this group of legislators actually cared about the welfare of their constituents, instead of merely their sinecure within the party, they would hire the twin Dominatrixes of Abu Ghraib, Lynddie England and Sabrina Harman, to clip a dogleash on Kerry (who disgustingly said he'd like to become the second black president) to interrogate him about his dreadful record on civil rights when he comes calling seeking their support. Of course, they won't. The Congressional Black Caucus is perhaps the only political conclave with clout as vaporous as the Greens.

Kerry, and his top advisor Rand Beers (a veteran of the Clinton and Bush National Security Council), crafted Plan Colombia, the brutal and toxic war on Andean peasants, waged for the benefit of oil companies under the phoney rubric of drug eradication. His scrawny energy plan, devoid of any real emphasis on conservation or solar power, calls for more off-shore oil leasing, widespread natural gas drilling, transcontinental pipelines and strip-mining for coal. His deficit-fixated economic policy, scripted by Wall Street bond tycoon Robert Rubin, is even more austere than Clinton's.

Like Joe Lieberman, Kerry markets himself as a cultural prude, regularly chiding teens about the kind of clothes they wear, the music they listen to and the movies they watch. But even Lieberman didn't go so far as to support the censorious Communications Decency Act. Kerry did. Fortunately, even this Supreme Court had the sense to strike the law down, ruling that it trampled across the First Amendment.

All of this is standard fare for contemporary Democrats. But Kerry always goes the extra mile. The senator cast a crucial vote for Clinton's wretched bill to dismantle welfare for poor mothers and their children and, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, he continues to hail the mean-spirited measure as a tremendous success.

This is merely a precis of the grim resumé of the man the Green Party now supports through the proxy candidacy of David Cobb. The message of the Cobb campaign is: a vote for Cobb is a vote for Kerry. Translation: a vote for Cobb is a vote for war, and everything that goes along with it.

It's also a vote for political self-annihilation. David Cobb is the Jim Jones of the Green Party. Form a line and pass the Kool-Aid.

Risk free voting? I wouldn't bet your life on it.

**************************** and for a differing viewpoint from the Greens... ****************************

IN MY OPINION Xander Patterson Tuesday, July 06, 2004 Greens chose pragmatism over protest

At the national Green Convention in June, I joined the majority of Greens in Oregon and nationally in choosing to nominate David Cobb for president rather than endorse Ralph Nader. I did so not for lack of appreciation for what Nader has done for the country over decades or what he has done to grow the Green Party in 1996 and 2000.

I and many Greens chose David Cobb because we and Nader have very different visions of the role of minor parties in our political system, especially in this crucial election year.

That differences would arise is not surprising because our antiquated electoral system puts minor parties in a very difficult position: It renders them either irrelevant or spoilers. It is very difficult for minor parties to grow into winners because the more votes they get, the more they alienate their most likely supporters.

This system has given two parties, no matter how grossly inadequate they may be, a lock on power for 150 years. The positive role that minor parties have played is to introduce new ideas and to pressure a major party to adopt them. For example, much of the New Deal was dreamed up by the Socialists and appropriated by Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Nader's potential to follow this model is very appealing to many Greens. He has the unrivaled stature to get the progressive agenda into the debate and the threat of spoiling to pressure the Democrats into adopting portions of it.

Cobb supporters have a different goal for the Green Party, however. We aren't simply trying to make the Democrats more progressive. We are trying to release America from the two-party headlock on power and to open a political free market in which any party with popular support may meaningfully participate.

To grow as a party and achieve this goal, Greens need to be a pragmatic choice, not merely a symbolic protest vote. We need to show that we care about the real-world consequences of our actions.

For this presidential election, that means we must acknowledge that, as much as we deplore Kerry Democrats' stance on many fundamental issues (Iraq, the Patriot Act, the World Trade Organization, to name a few), Bush is not some Tweedledee. By choosing Cobb over Nader, Greens planted themselves firmly in the Anybody But Bush coalition, for the good of the country -- and the party.

In 2000, Greens hoped to get 5 percent of the vote in order to get federal campaign funds in 2004. This year, Cobb will concentrate on building the party and supporting local candidates in the 35 to 40 states where the convolutions of our system make a vote for him "safe." Most importantly, Cobb will aggressively promote electoral reforms such as Instant Runoff Voting (see fairvote.org) that allow voters to rank their preferences, to vote their consciences without throwing their votes away or inadvertently supporting candidates they view as the greater of two evils.

Each of the past three election cycles Greens have doubled the number of states with party organizations (now 44), with ballot access (now 22) and elected officials (now more than 200). Even in this difficult election year we continue to be Green and growing.

Xander Patterson of Portland served as an Oregon state delegate to the Green Party convention in Milwaukee, Wis.

well can anyone whos seen this docu/film ,hand on heart say that they was shocked or suprised at what was/is going on. i personally think that voting for any politician in any country is bordering upon a futile act,yes the faces and the names may change but in reality nothing does,the same market forces that drive the world we live in are ever present no matter what. and it is that alone that governs world politics,if people get killed in the process then tough shit thats the politician way of thinking. i could rant on all night about politicians ect but im tired and will rise to the fighjt in the morn.

I enjoyed the film. Yes, it is "selective" but if it wasn't the film would be about 6 hours long.

It just confirmed everything I thought about Bush - a complete idiot with a lot of power... scary...

i dunno if any of yall are reading the 9/11 report but but bush is quoted in it saying something like all the sudden he noticed all the photographers and reporters beepers and phones lighting up and going off and he wanted to project an image of calmness to them ....

in the dallas morning news they had a thing on fahrenheit 9/11, and it said the footage shown of him in the film while recieving word of the attack in the classroom was slowed down for dramatic effect in the editing room dunno if thats true, again, i need to see the movie again..

my uncle is in the film industry, and when we went to see it he told me about this one movie that everyones expecting to bring up just as much controversy(if not more) than fahrenheit 9/11, i cant remember the title of the movie, but its about the republican party turning a complete idiot into a candidate for governor of texas and then going on to the big election for president... we saw a trailer for it before fahrenheit 9/11, you guys may have seen it... but the talk within the industry is that its going to be really controversial when its released before the actual election..

its not necessarily a biography, but its not hard to tell what real-life politician's career the story is playing off of when you see the trailer

well i finally found the title and some info on the movie.. its called silver city, and its not in texas and previously recalled, its in colorado..

the actor playing the dubya-esque character is chris cooper..

this is the description of the plot on IMDB.com

"The discovery of a corpse threatens to unravel a bumbling local politician's campaign for governor of Colorado."

Originally posted by mike powell well can anyone whos seen this docu/film ,hand on heart say that they was shocked or suprised at what was/is going on.i personally think that voting for any politician in any country is bordering upon a futile act,yes the faces and the names may change but in reality nothing does,the same market forces that drive the world we live in are ever present no matter what.and it is that alone that governs world politics,if people get killed in the process then tough shit thats the politician way of thinking.i could rant on all night about politicians ect but im tired and will rise to the fighjt in the morn.

if you don't vote for somebody, then those you disagree with will, and then what right have you to complain? if you don't stand up for what you believe in, you can't expect anyone to listen to and act on your wants and needs.

also, if nobody votes, we might as well live in a dictatorship or oligarchy. remember how south african blacks stood in line for up to four days when they were given the right to vote? we complain how there's no one to vote for; how there's no point in voting. yet people in some countries would literally die for this right. it upsets me when people take the right to vote for granted.