Michael Moore at RNC — Page 4

Do the majority of NYCers tend to be pro- or anti-Bush? It should've seemed obvious by the 100 000+ demonstrators yesterday, but when I was going through security at JFK Airport recently with my friend who was wearing a (not so well thought-out) tee-shirt with Bush's face labelled "American Psycho". The airport employees by and large were not amused, and I wasn't sure if this was because they are Bush supporters, or because by wearing this shirt, my friend comes off as being "Anti-American."

For the record, to quote Colin Mochrie (Who's Line Is It Anyway)'s Canadian Apology To The United States:

I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron, but it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any consolation, the fact that he is a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the people of America. After all, it's not like you actually elected him.
If you want to see the decal my friend was wearing (I got a kick out of it.).

---

Updated On: 8/31/04 at 10:45 PM

Papa, to make things clear, I'm in support of the troops. I have no idea what I said to convince you otherwise, but it doesn't really matter.

As I said, the soldiers in Iraq are my age. Just kids, relatively speaking, being ordered by their superiors into a war that should never have happened. If we're going to risk the lives of American children, the least we can do is dispatch them where they're really needed. Like Afghanistan.

I don't think a pre-emptive invasion is ever, in the eyes of history, going to prove itself as necessary and right...maybe things will work out positively for that country, but I kind of like to think that, the minute we turn our backs, that country will sink right back into what it does best.
Oh, who am I kidding? We've stuck ourselves into quite the quagmire; our army will be planted there for next few generations at least.
And it will take a Democrat to balance the GD budget and try to get rid of the massive deficit that Republicans are so good at creating.

True Plum. Bush has really only done a mediocre job on the actual "war on terrorists". He bombed Afghanistan, and broke up the Taliban. But he didn't get the ringleader of the group that actually killed 3,000 Americans and promptly abandoned the troops, cutting their forces to pursue the war of his heart. He left the capture of our worst enemy to the borderland tribal leaders of a neighboring country, who mostly sympathize with bin Laden. I honestly believe the President we had BEFORE or the President we were SUPPOSED to have would easily have done better. Just because you don't strut around with your balls in a sling doesn't mean you don't have resolve, can't develop effective strategy, or use the GOOD WILL OF THE WORLD to better advantage. Hell, I'm one of the wimpiest pacifists on the face of the earth but after September 11th *I* had the resolve to develop a more on-target, focused and effective attack, using the full talent of the dimplomatic team as well as the experience of the military leaders, which is something Bush neglected to do. He botched the whole thing terribly. Why he is considered strong on terror is beyond me. (Well, he DOES terrify, that's true......his own citizens.)

Linkage, Sam? Pleease? :)

Papa, you should find a source that isn't so pathetic. Farenheit?

They have some great editors.

---

So as of this morning (re nuclear weapons in development), Iran is far more dangerous than Iraq was a year and a half ago. Bush tells Matt Lauer, who asked if war looms: "Oh no--we always exhaust diplomatic channels first -- war is a last resort. Always." He said that about a last resort with a straight face. So big surprise, board friends, such sentiments piss me off far more than that fat guy crashing the Republican convention, ego-maniac that he may be. But folks, love Moore or hate him--he's the lightning rod, not the lightening. His movie didn't make 120 million because people were "curious." He tapped into widespread disapproval of the status quo in the White House.

But watching Katie Couric treat him like the chubby geek she wouldn'tbe seen with this a.m. was off-putting. The media sucks up to Moore when he's A-list sound bite (when his movie was number one, he was,like, oooh the cool guest to have). Now that Rudy and Arnie are dissin' the other side of the aisle, Ms. Couric's fairweather "journalism" blows far chillier toward Moore--whom she so needed two months ago to get her TODAY numbers up. My personal low -- Couric's on MY list -- was her telling us today how amused she was by the Bush girls' remarks last night. Oh, Katie, you do enjoy a good convention, don't you? Blah, blah, atching the two conventions play out as dualing propaganda machines would make me more cynical than ever. But I can't afford to be. A regime change is too critical.

---

Updated On: 9/1/04 at 12:03 PM

Katie's interviw BUGGED me this morning....

Katie's behavior was outrageous in that interview. I kept waiting for her to fall off that fence that she was straddling. Her attempts at maintaining journalistic neutrality had her contradicting herself with every sentence. Rather than coming off neutral, she came across as someone who was desperate to remain within Moore's good graces while supporting his opponents complaints. Her attempt not to take sides ended in her taking both sides. Then, of course, Katie isn't anything more than a fluff journalist most of the time.