1 Michael Moore's new documentary on the war in Iraq and Bush lies is a real eye opener. If only the media had shown as much courage a year ago as Moore does in this film our soldiers would probably not be sacrificing their lives in vain today.

2 You're kidding, right?

3 Why does dc have to be kidding? Tons of conservatives are feeling this way. Lew Rockwell published a good piece on his site, for instance. Click on the URL I left to check it out.

4 No, I am not kidding. I am surprised that you would think a search for the truth is something to kid about though, especially with a husband serving in the military. See the film. Think about the propaganda we where deluged with from the mainstream media leading up to this war. It is not disrespectful to your husband to distrust the administration and the media and any others whose hand put him his untenable situation.

5 bos, just out of curiosity, are you talking about Fahrenheit 9/11: A Conservative Critique on Lew Rockwell's site?

6 There's some interesting discussion about Moore's movie going on over at slashdot.org, and you can get to it here. (The link I gave is threshold of 5 to remove a bunch of the junk comments... the default conversation is here and is huge.)

7 cj, yes, I was talking about that conservative critique. The link was connected to my name. What do you think? I know it made me a lot more open-minded about the film. There a lot of stories going around about Republicans changing their minds after seeing the film.

8 bos, It is interesting... I can't say too much, as I haven't done much reading on Rockwell or Grigg, nor have I seen the film (yet), but I'm more motivated to see it now, especially after having read all of the comments on slashdot. And sarah, that is an interesting film that you link to, and I'm wondering what I'd have to do to see it (unless I missed an obvious link somewhere?).

9 Seems like an infestation......

10 Hmmm, I just read that 'conservative critique'. Seemed pretty empty of content other than to say "Bush is bad, and oh, I'm a conservative so it means more when I say it." No substantial discussion of the movie, it's pros or cons. The fact that the movie is provably pushing deliberate falsehoods. Oh, and if you want to cite this as an impartial, or even conservative writer who was swayed by the movie, try to find someone who doesn't already think of the president as a "Bu'ushist" (an oh-so-witty take off of Ba'athist. Michael Moore has produced a work of propaganda. This is not truth, nor a documentary. It is selected clips, selected facts, and selected interviews, not presented because they represent a wide sample of American opinion or history, but because they fit the mindset he wants to perpetuate. Anyone who sees this movie and thinks that it resembles the truth and uses at a basis for their worldview has a serious wake-up call coming. The pure hypocrisy to claim that Bush lied to get us into this misbegottenwar, all the while lying to his audience is astounding. Anyone who can use google to find out that Richard Clarke signed the order to let the Bin Laden's leave the US can demonstrate that this movie is flat out bullshit. My 5 year old newphew can prove this movie is crap, yet there are apparently loads of people out there who don't have that same ability. Granted, he is home schooled so he is quite a bit more educated than average, but he's still 5. Pathetic. Oh, and it means more when I say it cause I'm an ultra-liberal.

11 So, John, have you seen the movie?

12 Wow, John, you sound angry. "Infestation"? Anyone who disagrees is vermin, is that it? So far, besides hairsplitting about the fact that Richard Clarke while a high official in the White House allowed the Bin Ladens to leave the US right after 9/11 (but this is somehow very different from the White House allowing it), the Move America Forward people haven't come up with much against this movie. Most reviewers across the board say its main points stand up. Fox news gave it a positive review! Speaking of lying, Move America Forward called itself a grassroots organization, but was caught as founded by GOP lawyers. Since I first wrote I have met two Republicans who are going to vote against Bush. Something is happening.

13 Do not presume to put words in my mouth, the term vermin comes from you, not me. If you do not understand the first post, ask and I will explain. I'm sure Sarah understands it on more than just a base level, and it is meant for her and not you, as this is her site. I do not need to see this movie. I have researced it, read reviews both pro and con. I understand what his point is without setting foot in the theater, his aims, views, and methods are pretty transparent and easily digested. To defend this movie as anything other than pure propaganda is really a stretch if not done at least tongue in cheek. I see you equate the media coverage before the war with propaganda: "Think about the propaganda we where deluged with from the mainstream media leading up to this war. It is not disrespectful to your husband to distrust the administration and the media and any others whose hand put him his untenable situation. " The term "Rush to War" is propaganda pushing a war? I seem to recall many conditions set not by the administration, but by the media, the public, indeed the world, that were met and surpassed. Yet you claim that Michael Moore is speaking the truth? Heh, wow.

14 Oh, I forgot to mention, I just met two Nader supporters who were disillusioned and are now going to vote Libertarian.

15 @John, via Atrios, from FAIR:Seventy-six percent of all sources were current or former officials, leaving little room for independent and grassroots views. Similarly, 75 percent of U.S. sources (199/267) were current or former officials.   At a time when 61 percent of U.S. respondents were telling pollsters that more time was needed for diplomacy and inspections (2/6/03), only 6 percent of U.S. sources on the four networks were skeptics regarding the need for war.   Sources affiliated with anti-war activism were nearly non-existent. On the four networks combined, just three of 393 sources were identified as being affiliated with anti-war activism-- less than 1 percent. Just one of 267 U.S. sources was affiliated with anti-war activism-- less than half a percent.   ...   Overall, 68 sources, or 17 percent of the total on-camera sources, represented skeptical or critical positions on the U.S.'s war policy-- ranging from Baghdad officials to people who had concerns about the timing of the Bush administration's war plans. The percentage of skeptical sources ranged from 21 percent at PBS (22 of 106) to 14 percent at NBC (18 of 125). ABC (16 of 92) and CBS (12 of 70) each had 17 percent skeptics. So 1.5 hours of a POV from the anti-war side pales in comparison to pre-war pro-war voices. And please, just go see the damn thing (download it from some p2p network if you don't want to give the man your money) and give your opinion (YOUR opinion) then.

16 John, Yes, please do explain your first post ("Seems like an infestation..."), if that is alright; I am also curious as to its meaning.

17 Isn't Lew Rockwell a LaRouchie or a Buchannite? Isn't he one of those people who believes that Jews are in control of American foreign policy? Not any kind of conservative I'm familliar with...

18 >>>I see you equate the media coverage before the war with propaganda: "Think about the propaganda we where deluged with from the mainstream media leading up to this war. It is not disrespectful to your husband to distrust the administration and the media and any others whose hand put him his untenable situation. "<<< The New York Times recently offered a semi-apology for it's shoddy reporting on WMD leading up to the war. The source for it's false reports turns out to have been Chalabi, with confirmations from the Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz crowd in the administration. The stories were all false, not a shred of truth among them. The CIA warned the administration that Chalabi was not to be trusted. But it seems he served the purpose of the war crowd to well to be dismissed. I think it is safe to call those stories and others like them 'propaganda'. They certainly were not the truth and they served the interests of the admininstration who wanted to go to war with Iraq and needed to convince the public to follow. BTW Chalabi it turns out, along with being a convicted felon in Syria for bank fraud, was an agent for Iran. After given top secret briefings by high level administration figures he passed this information to Iran. Now Iran knows we cracked their encryption and knows how our military strategist deploy forces in the face of an uprising.

19 bos, cjstevens and dc, it means you are trolls.... Why you choose to comment here otherwise is beyond me. I have seen no attempts at rational discussion, nor any give and take, only attempts to club sarah and other over the head with your worldview. Get your own blog.... Atrios... yeah, there is a non biased source of information. Show me the raw numbers you cite, not the extracts that Atrios pushes.

20 Why you choose to comment here otherwise is beyond me. This is the Internet. I first arrived at this block from a Google Search for "grok the vote" (a spin on MTV's Rock The Vote), which I thought would be a good name for a website designed to motivate the tech or "geek" communities to become politically involved. No website with such a name existed, and Sarah's blog came out as the top-ranked search result. It interested me, so I decided to stay and read. I'd make the analogy of someone standing at a street corner with a sign and leaflets. Some passers-by will invariably pick up a handout even if no attempt is made to give them one. Word will get around; discussions will start. This is, in my opinion, A Good Thing (TM). I have seen no attempts at rational discussion . . . Fine: dc used the word "propaganda" first, then eventually followed up with a mention of a publication in the New York Times. Sure, I'd also like to see a link to an article. You used the word "propaganda" and offered nothing. When sander gave information on news outlets skeptical to U.S. war policy, you struck down his source. Fine, I'd like to see "raw numbers" as well... from him and you. Let's all hold one another to the same standard. . . . nor any give and take . . . Well, I can speak for myself: I offered no rational discussion, nor did I pretend to; I gave only links and questions. You admit that you have not seen the movie (at least you are honest here) and then state that it is "not truth, nor a documentary" and give no reasons why. How does that allow for "give and take?" Perhaps we aren't as enlighened as your 5-year old. Help us along; that's how knowledge is spread. . . . only attempts to club sarah and other over the head with your worldview. Would you point out where we have "clubbed" sarah over the head? This is part of the problem with a pure-text medium: oftentimes, words alone aren't sufficient to convey a good sense of meaning or intent, like vocal cues or body language would in an in-person conversation. When I asked Sarah if she knew more information about Gunner Palace, I was being serious and honestly curious; I meant no malice at all. Perhaps you took my question as sarcasm? And now that you mention it, explain what my worldview is. Get your own blog.... And from earlier: If you do not understand the first post, ask and I will explain. I'm sure Sarah understands it on more than just a base level, and it is meant for her and not you, as this is her site. I'll repeat it: this is the Internet. In posting something on a web server, you make it public; you share it with the connected world. You -allow- people to read it. To assume otherwise is to invite disappointment; I presume you understand this already, as you have your own blog. If a bunch of kiddies filled your page with obscene language and senseless yelling, I'd expect you to get angry. The other people in this thread have done nothing comparable, however. We may be heated, but your comments suggest that you top us all currently in the thermal department. What's the point of having a discussion with only those who agree with you? I'm glad that I found sarah's blog; I frequent it because it challenges me to think, and I have found other interesting and mind-challenging sites through it. Yes, I and others will say things that will miff her and others as well, but we can deal with that; are we not adults? You even voluntarily linked to your blog right in this thread; is that an invitation to visit it? I can't quite imagine how furious you would get if we "trolls" mentioned our "worldview" in your very own comments pages. There are publishing mediums on the Internet that allow users to control access to their posts. Livejournal is one of these, and I'm sure there are others that give more features and flexibility. I don't know if sarah expected or was prepared for the popularity her site has begun to receive. And for the record, sarah: if you want me to stop visiting your site, I will respect your wishes, no questions asked. Just be aware that your site's popularity may continue to increase, bringing surprises both good and bad. But enough of me; I depart from this thread.

21 @John & cjstevens, I didn't even link to Atrios, only the Fair report. The frequency tables are in there. On sources, of course Atrios is biased (so are you and so is almost everybody else), but being biased doesn't necessarily mean you peddle in untruths, but does mean you often report what you find interesting. Now if you can find a counterpoint to this report I'm happy to hear it.

22 CJ, thanks for laying it all out so politely and succintly. I hope that you get good responses from the laptop warriors in your efforts out there. From what I have seen they usually get belligerent, defensive or just run and hide after yelling "troll".