EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Another WikiLeaks Cable from the Bush Administration About My Movies
Twice within four days, my name has popped up in the Bush-era secret cables uncovered by WikiLeaks. Lucky me. Though nowhere near as earth-shattering as the uncovering of American misdeeds in Iraq and Afghanistan, these classified cables provide a stunning and bizarre peek into the paranoid minds of the Bush White House when it came to the subject of one Michael Francis Moore.
And considering how WikiLeaks has released only 1,826 cables of its planned drop of 251,287 -- and I've already played a starring role twice -- I can only say I await with bemused anticipation how the moi-storyline will play itself out.
The most recent secret cable revelation is in today's Guardian newspaper of London. It's entitled, "US Intervened in Michael Moore NZ Screening." Oh yeah, baby! New Zealand! That's where we'll stop Moore and his band of evildoers!
The date was July 30, 2004. 'Fahrenheit 9/11' was already a huge hit in the United States. Just to give you an idea how huge, it had hit #1 at the box office, the only documentary to have ever accomplished this feat, and had made more on its opening weekend than 'Star Wars: Return of the Jedi.'
But it was no easy path to get there. Disney (which owned Miramax) was apoplectic when they saw the final cut. So they pulled the film from its theatrical schedule. Then they put a permanent block on its release, insuring no one would see it. But then the New York Times, in a front page story, reported that the real reason Disney hated 'Fahrenheit' was they were worried about the tax breaks it got in Jeb Bush's Florida for Disney World. This caused some embarrassment, so Disney then sold 'Fahrenheit' to the Weinstein Bros., who said they'd spend their own money to distribute it.
The release of the film caused concern at the White House, as this was the re-election year. They hired a pollster who told them the film might tip the election. That was enough for them to swing into action. Much of July was a nonstop barrage of attacks on me and the movie. But that just resulted in more tickets being sold.
Which brings us to Wellington, the capital of New Zealand. There are few nations on earth further away from us. A local chapter of the ruling Labor Party apparently had decided to do a fundraising screening of 'Fahrenheit 9/11.' It was to be hosted by the Prime Minister's Cabinet Secretary for the Environment.
Well, when the U.S. Embassy in Wellington got word of this, it was like all heck broke loose. America was offended! Phone calls were made to the Prime Minister! Then to the Cabinet Secretary! We ... are ... not ... happy!
Apparently, the Kiwis backed down and the Cabinet Secretary withdrew as the host. A sigh of relief whiffed its way through the American embassy. Moore stopped! The cable back to Washington showed the embassy had no problem taking credit for putting the kabosh on yours truly:
"... it is probable that this potential fiasco may only have been averted because of our phone calls -- it is apparent to us that neither the Minister nor anyone else in the Labour government seems to have thought there was anything wrong with a senior Minister hosting such an event."
So here's my question:
Really?
I mean, seriously -- really? This is how the Bush State Department was spending its time -- on a single screening of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' in freakin' New Zealand? Or maybe ... was this kind of interference happening just to New Zealand? Call me crazy, but I gotta feelin' it doesn't stop there. Just as a health insurance executive has now come forward as a whistleblower to reveal the millions spent to smear 'Sicko,' I can't help wait for that day when the whistleblower from the Bush White House comes forward to tell the fascinating tale of how the Bush team believed they had to do something -- anything -- to stop 'Fahrenheit.' Or worse (like the "Plan B" the health insurance companies discussed -- to "push Michael Moore off a cliff."). I didn't want to think about what the Bush Plan B would be. Just wasn't worth the crazy-making. So I ignored the things I'd hear, kept my head down and motored on.
But, it does make you wonder. And I ask you, is it fair to pose the question: If they were this focused on some insignificant screening in New Zealand, what else were they up to? And I don't mean in regards to me. I mean anyone who was on their enemies list ...
I can't wait to read more classified cables.
P.S. Of course, given the false claims the State Department made in the other "secret" cable about my movie 'Sicko,' I guess anything was possible.
P.P.S. Don't miss the REAL revelations from just the first batch of WikiLeaks cables. For instance, the Obama administration worked together with Republicans to kill an investigation by Spain into Bush's torture. Pfizer hired a private investigator to dig up dirt on the Attorney General of Nigeria. Bush's ambassador to France planned to "retaliate" against the country for standing up to Monsanto. And we're less than 1% of the way through ...
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

115 Comments so far
Show AllMike, it bothers me that we don't hear a lot about AIPAC in WikiLeaks.
What's up with that?
On the other hand, I'll bet this stuff has been a really good boost for your movie sales.
I'm anxiously awaiting the WikiLeak releases concerning Roger & Me.
Hell, if that happens, your whole catalog ought to take off.
The prospective commissions ought to make Ari Emanuel happy.
God, I love ShowBiz!!
and on it continues...
non placet,
How I wish I have your talent to write such beautiful piece and hit home?
Well done mate:-)
Because AIPAC is a political lobby group, and this entails working with politicians in DC, not State Dept. diplomats in embassies.
Please learn a little about how governments are organized.
I just visited Wikileaks and found 28 cables from Embassy Tel Aviv and one from consulate Jerusalem. I've only read a few, and they are rather mundane, while some contain a lot of information both general and specific in nature. Given the low security level, I rather doubt anything remakable will be forthcoming, such as collusion between BushCo and GOI regarding the latter's invasion of Leabanon, or GOI's involvement in Hariri's assassination. The cable detailing "U/S BURNS' AUGUST 17 MEETING WITH ISRAELI MOSSAD" is very educational, but reveals little that isn't now public knowledege. There's even a non-classified cable detailing the strength and actions of Bigtime organized crime within Israel that's rather fascinating and even has redactions despite its non-classified nature.
As a historian, the collection's content is like several archives I've examined. And like you I do not trust corporate media to publish what MUST be published.
EDIT: Assange has given another interview to al-Jazerra that was translated and broadcast in Arabic. In retranslation, Assange admits thare are many more files relating to Israel, which you can read here, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27119.htm
"I would like an independent group to assess the material in the entire batch of cables and at least offer an indication of where they come from, and the basic subjects covered."
Then register visitingprofessorleaks.org and set up an anonymous delivery system which you have secretly corrupted to reveal the contributors, then recruit a group of people who everyone will agree is "independent," index and then publish everything. Do all of this as soon as the information comes in, and pay for much of it out of your own pocket while dodging sketchy international rape charges and worrying about assassination.
If anybody wants to make an Assange statue I'll help them cast it in bronze, and I ain't shittin'.
This is a bit off topic, but I'd also like to erect a bronze statue of Brian Lamb.
Perhaps those in power see Moore as a serious threat...
...while CDers pile on attacking him.
CDers see Mike as a DLC pimp
Can you prove otherwise?
Of course that would be impossible to prove - you cannot prove a negative under any circumstances on any topic - so your challenge is meaningless. If Moore is a "DLC pimp," based on the "evidence" you have offered, so are millions of people in the country. However, unlike millions of other people in the country Moore has been a relentless critic of Capitalism and of those in power, a supporter of Labor, an opponent of the war and other government policies, a critic of Wall Street, and a supporter of Wikileaks.
People in this country have an obsession - mass media induced - with partisan electoral politics as the ultimate political expression, Given that, people are in the public eye are going to be asked about that, and are going to give answers. Were that not the case, I doubt that Moore would ever talk about partisan politics at all.
What we have is millions of "partisan electoral politics pimps," including many people right here. That is the root problem, not whether or not someone expresses the precise correct position on electoral politics that some here are demanding we all express. Notions about the "duopoly" are rooted in a naive faith in the illusions about "American democracy" and a hope that the system can be made to work, if only we all made "the right choices." That is a far bigger obstacle to serious political and social change than what someone says or fails to say about the Democratic party.
Impossible to prove?
Please explain Mike's support of Wesley Clark--that's a positive fact.
How does an opponent of war back a guy like Clark?
How does an opponent of plutocracy back a guy like Clark?---do you know anything about Jackson Stephens?
How does an advocate for an equitable health care system back a guy like Clark--- to the detriment of an authentic advocate of health care reform, Howard Dean?
I could go on with the hypocrisies of Mike Moore. In fact, on previous threads elsewhere, I've enumerated them to you at absurd length. We've been round this argument too many times. Your evident purpose is one of advocacy, not discussion.
Not sure that is the reason. Secret deals done with lobbyists are probably a higher secrecy level than these silly cables. Lobbyists deals may even be just handshake agreements to keep us in the dark.
These cables indicate how very little useful work is done on behalf of the taxpayers and how much is done for election of political parasites. We overpay these political operative clowns, BIG TIME!
IT WOULD BE NAIVE TO ASSUME DIPLOMATS ARE NOT POLITICALLY ACTIVE CONSIDERING THE APPOINTED ONES OFTEN GET THAT JOB BY GETTING THE APPOINTER ELECTED.
AIPAC is more than that,it is an advocacy organization.
Given that, is it not unreasonable suspecting them of advancing a particular agenda?
Like the man said, we're less than 1% of the way through.
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m73202&hd=&size=1&l=e
Israeli and US Machinations to be Revealed Sooner or Later?
Jinjirrie
KADAITCHA, December 23, 2010
In an Al Jazeera interview conducted in Arabic, Julian Assange has revealed that it will take Wikileaks six months to release documents on Israel. This is confirmed by a post on the WL Central blog. Here’s a translation of the Al Jazeera story accompanying the interview provided to me by a fluent friend:
[...]
----
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m73192&hd=&size=1&l=e
'WikiLeaks to publish Israel cables on Second Lebanon War, Dubai assassination'
---
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m73175&hd=&size=1&l=e
Al Jazeera Interview: Wikileaks to release Israel documents in six months
The Peninsula
December 22, 2010
DOHA: WikiLeaks will release top secret American files concerning Israel in the next six months, its founder Julian Assange disclosed yesterday.
In an excusive interview with Al Jazeera, Assange said only a meagre number of files related to Israel had been published so far, because the newspapers in the West that were given exclusive rights to publish the secret documents were reluctant to publish many sensitive information about Israel.
[...]
What does that have to do with Moore? As another poster points out, much information is coming about Israel. You can hardly blame Assange - let alone Moore - for what the western pres will or will not publish, however.
Moore is not hurting for money and never expected his films to be so successful. I can assure you that wealth was never his motivation. His "catalog" has long since "taken off."
Your guilt by association hints and insinuations add nothing to constructive discourse. What's up with that?
It seems to me that if Mike was serious about effecting meaningful change, he'd be focusing his, and the public's, attention towards events that are transpiring, or about to transpire now.
Instead, we get this regurgitated tripe that has little bearing on the significant problems we face. In short, it serves as a distraction, misdirecting attention away from the substantive issues.
The Israeli government is presently stoking the fires of discontent in the region.
The atrocities now being committed, sanctioned and endorsed by the United States government through the continued expansion of aid and armaments is only going to guarantee a future of bloodshed.
So long as Mike remains professionally involved, as well as having a pecuniary stake dependent upon that involvement, with individuals intimately linked with AIPAC and other pro-Lukud interests his credibility shall be suspect.
One of the best things Mike could do to regain the confidence of his critics here, would be to sever his relationship with Ari Emmanuel. Barring that, the perception will always persist that Mike is nothing more than a mere pawn, manipulated by certain Machiavellian forces.
It seems to me that you follow a rather zealous course, one more adhering to personal axes being ground than absolute truths. To say that Moore is not serious about change says much about your own sense of the absurd and not much of import about Moore. The man has spent his professional life working for exactly that, a career you so easily dismiss without much claim to truth.
To ignore the responses above that speak to your claims of silence about Israel seems to speak to the shell within which you orate, especially when only a fraction of the cables have been released as yet.
Lastly, that you negate Moore's importance because his agent happens to be the brother of Rhamm Emmanuel, as if that was the reason for choosing Ari or proves conclusively that Moore is 'in league with" the forces of "world wide Zionism" is a final nail in the coffin of your zealotry I fear.
My thrust in this post is not to insult you but to make a more far reaching comment regarding the manner in which so-called activists fail miserably to understand how to reach goals. That the Left is silent and impotent has much to do with the penchant one sees here for self immolation and separatism , the constant witch hunting of potential and real allies in our struggle. I have never understood why this happens but note that when the Right chose to put aside differences and join together over common interests we saw a resurgence of right wing dominance of American politics.
Conversely, during the protests over the coming invasion of Iraq during the heinous Bush/Cheney years, the left disolved into bickering over the role of ANSWER in those demonstrations. That Marxist group did all the paperwork, all the legwork, obtained all the permits and made those demonstrations possible. Yet they received almost universal insult for their efforts. Thus ended the protests here. As one who worked with ANSWER, on behalf of my own little group and the demonstrations as a whole locally in the SF Bay Area, I found them quite reasonable and tolerant of other views and political directions. They did insist on barring speakers who had a history of critical comments regarding them, a rather petty but understandable position.
My point , however verbose, is simple. Stop shooting ourselves in the foot! We do not need complete agreement to work together, so stop seeking it.
Amen, brother
The Abolition movement and the Civil Rights movement and the Union movement never agonized over partisan politics or political figures - for or against this or that figure or party - let alone decide who was friend and who was foe upon that basis. It is a shallow and irrelevant litmus test, only of interest to a very small part of the population.
"The Abolition movement and the Civil Rights movement and the Union movement never agonized over partisan politics or political figures"---no, they just expected, and depended upon consistency from their allies.
What is the movement that you, Moore and I are members of?
I am in the pursuit of truth---perhaps I was generous by including you and Mike?
I asked what political movement you were talking about.
Claiming to be "in pursuit of the truth" and implying that those who disagree with you are not is itself dishonest.
You are in the pursuit of enforcing a particular worldview that you have on others, and are calling that "the truth" as a tactic to advance that effort. Anyone who questions your assertions can immediately be tarred and feathered, then, as an enemy of the truth, or an agent for the dark force. That is not pursuit of truth, it is dishonest in the extreme, and it is not possible to pursue the truth through dishonest means.
Explain then, how one migrates from avid support of Ralph Nader to endorsement of Wesley Clark?
Clark's function in '04 was to torpedo the campaign of Governor Howard Dean, which had been gathering considerable momentum in New England in the months prior to the primaries. That accomplished, Clark melted back into the scenery
As for what you and I have in common, I say very little. Yours seems to be a commitment to defending the status quo of Democratic conciliation with Republicans. If memory serves, wasn't it you who stated that thirty years ago they were a Republican, now claiming affiliation with the Democrats?
By your logic, we should pay no attention to what Zinn has to say. After all, he didn't just support someone who was in the service, he was in the military himself!
You ask how one migrates from one candidate to another. Simple - not everyone thinks the world hinges on parties and candidates for electoral office, not everyone thinks that is the ultimate test of where someone stands, nor the most important form of political expression. One would need a pretty deep and profound belief in the system, as well as an exaggerated sense of the importance of one's own personal decisions in the voting booth in order to concoct the comic book fantasy - with larger than life all-or-nothing heroes and villains and simple-minded good versus evil plots - that you are asking us all to believe in here.
So Dean was a hero of yours? Why does the phrase "people who live in glass houses..." keep coming to mind?
You have absolutely no basis for your statement that I seem to have a commitment to defending the status quo of Democratic conciliation with Republicans. That is laughably inaccurate.
No, I am not the person "who stated that thirty years ago they were a Republican." I have been a Socialist since the mid 1960's. Could you be any farther off in your various assertions? Yet you would have us believe that you are the one to be making final judgments for us on all things political, and telling us all whom we should and should not listen to?
There seems to be an implication that somehow Clark had evolved into something different.
I, as many others, never bought into that premise.
So, you still haven't provided a reasonable explanation for Mike's endorsement of Clark.
Are you at all familiar with Jackson Stephens?
Know anything about his activities?
His connections to the DLC?
His connections to Tyson?
His connections to Wal-Mart?
His connections to the financing of the Clintons?
His connections ti the CIA?
Clark's close association with Stephens, and the Stephens Group?
As for Governor Dean, yes, I hold a measure of respect for the man. I was in Burlington the day he announced his candidacy for president. Living in neighboring New Hampshire, I had been well aware of his accomplishments for some time. Yes, I actively campaigned for Dean, even as people such as Moore embraced the Trojan Horse, Clark.
Having also resided for years in the Great Heartland, I was all too familiar with Clark, Stephens, Tyson, Walton, and especially, the Clintons.
All one has to do is compare the two states, Arkansas and Vermont, if they want some glimmer of political truth. Consider what the Clintons wrought in the 'natural state' versus the quality of life experienced in Vermont.
Here in the Bay Area it was an across the board condemnation of that group, though they had done all the necessary, time consuming and back breaking work obtaining permits et al. Perhaps your own experience or judgment leads you to your own conclusions.
I find your condemnation sans examples to be a sloppy criticism. Perhaps, as you are the veteran of "so many" demonstrations that included ANSWER, you might deign to give some examples of this "breaking agreements". I included the chief criticism of that group here in Northern California, that they refused to allow speakers who had a history of critical comments about them. I found, in my own dealings with them, that once an agreement had been reached, they kept to it. If your own experience shows otherwise why not enlighten us?
As to your comments about what Moore has to do to win your trust ( and your assumption that your own opinion that a "resurgence of support" is both required and depends upon Moore following your own guidelines) you seem deaf to many of his current comments regarding the hopelessness of this current administration and the negativity of the Democratic Party these last two years. You seem stuck in a Moore time warp....;-)
Yes, I am zealously opposed to AIPAC.
How about you? Just how do you feel about AIPAC, and it's activities here in the United States?
As a point of clarification before you try to distort the issue, I happen to be very much pro-Judaism, and believe in an adherence to the Judeo-Christian ethic actually expressed in the scripture.
Peace to you my brother---may you find your way to the light
Ah, so he is in league with the Jews. I see.
Hollywood, the media, Israel, AIPAC, an agent with a Jewish name, a grand conspiracy behind the scenes to undermine "us"...
The imperialist ambitions of the United States predate the existence of Israel by a few decades.
Being in league with AIPAC has little or nothing to do with advancing Jewish values. Their's is a political agenda to advance the interests of a secular government, and stands in stark contradiction to the efforts of the many ethical Jewish organizations striving for justice and equitable solutions in the Middle East. As one who supports the works of Rabbis For Human Rights; Jewish Voice for Peace; Peace Now; Americans for Peace Now; J Street; and the New Israel Fund, construing my positions as being somehow 'anti-Semitic' reveals much about your own limits of imagination and openness of mind.
The present Likud government in Israel traces its roots to the infamous Irgun and Stern Gang.
In a famous 1948 letter of warning, Albert Einstein had this to say about them:
"Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the
emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party"
(Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization,
methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist
parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the
former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist
organization in Palestine."
He goes on to add:
"Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of
ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like
other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have
themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their
stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.
During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and
Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish
community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults
were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster
methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the
terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.
The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive
achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no
settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their
much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to
bringing in Fascist compatriots."
And concludes with:
"In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the
truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It
is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has
refused to campaign against Begin’s efforts, or even to expose to its
own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin. "
So, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Well non placet, I found out more about Michael after reading your false accusations of him being in bed with the policies of Israel.
I thought something was wrong with your thinking when you used Einstein's words to defend your rant.
Einstein did not jump on the Michael Moores of his day like you are so I found out much more about Moore.
Check out the views he promotes on his own web site.
Or just look up "Michael Moore on Israel".
Here is a good one that proves how wrong you are.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/
mike-friends-blog/audacity-israel
You must be new here because we verify what we read.
God bless Cindy Sheehan. And what does her post from six months ago have to do with anything stated here about current events?
Shouldn't our attention be focused on what is now, or what will soon transpire?
Hasn't that, been the real thrust of my comments?
The point is that Moore is more than willing to publish and disseminate critical essays about Israel.
Well done, and thanks for the light shed upon that agendized poster and his suspect motivations.
So, 'doubledee', just what are your feelings regarding AIPAC?
My contempt for the organization is hardly disguised. However, there dose seen to exist a measure of uncertainty regarding your own sympathies towards them. So, do we take your comments as a defense of AIPAC? Simple question, a mere yes or no shall suffice.
At least then, we'll have some indication as to your motivations.
Cheers!
and best regards
You seem a propagandist of the first water. Are you? Your debating techniques are dishonest , and that is a gentle definition by the by. When others are critical of your position and post links (as to the Moore website in which he posts Cindy Sheehan's commentary) you sidestep any further discussion of that particular issue and make absurd and unfounded accusations.
Here's a clue little person, disagreeing with the crap you shovel does not place one in the camp of AIPAC, only on the side of honest debate and sincere efforts to progress. You are a hindrance to progress, you are so wrapped up in your own little world that you fail utterly any legitimate smell test. I doubt that you are as young as your naive and childlike nonsense indicates, but you are worthless to discourse and honesty.
Perhaps this forum would be better served by talking around you, as talking to you is a waste of time. grow the fuck up.
And what exactly is the perceived propaganda you believe I am disseminating?
You actually believe that opposition voices to AIPAC receive a fair hearing in the United States? You actually believe that Michael Moore's site serves as some sort of conduit for those voices? Can you really identify anything of substance where Mike has done something other than validate the status quo, of late? And you call me a propagandist? May I quote Tommy Lasorda here?---Jesus Christ! Wow.
Come on confess, you've got to be on the payroll WME, Entertainment---yes or no?
Tell me, are the Brokaw brothers still wondering around the halls there?
Give my regards to David and Sandy---err Sanford, that's it these days, isn't it?
As I've already said from the outset, You gotta love showbiz!
and for your extra credit report, look up the term 'misdirection'
maybe we can eventually talk about that, and how it may tie into WikiLeaks, DLC agenda, and a distracted populace.
CHEERS!
and on it continues...
Small mind, small world view, large overwhelming ego. Your resume in a nutshell.
God bless you, brother
May you find peace, and peace in your heart.
Cheesy crap to hide behind.
“I can’t help wait for that day when the whistleblower from the Bush White House comes forward to tell the fascinating tale…”
You have it a little mixed up Michael. Whistleblowers that reveal the unlawful and corrupt actions of government and corporate are usually targeted for prosecution to the full extent of the law. Those that directed or participated in the unlawful and/or corrupt actions brag about it in their books, and are enriched for it. I thought you understood that.
Dubya's first Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was fired by Karl Rove in December 2002 and blew the whistle but nobody listened. Most Americans are too consumed with pop culture and technogadgets to pay much attention to whistleblowers.
That's the very reason why Moore is so important. He's become pop culture, at least for those not totally given to sucking off the conservatives or democrats. He's the only whistleblower that a good percentage of this country listens to. I agree that pointing out his faults is important, but the hatred that a lot of progressives have for him is desturbing.
I don't hate the man--he's probably a nice guy. That isn't the point.
Moore's hypocrisy is the point.
Thoreau would call you a true patriot Michael. This Country owes you a lot.
Michael, you are in good company - they were also concerned with sitcoms shown on the CBC.
Odd that there as been nothing on CD yet about the cables describing how the US diplomats in Paris, at the behest of Monsanto, were looking for ways to punish the EU, particularly France, for their ban on GMO's.
SaboCat,
I'm waiting for that too.
Ok Michael, please stop shilling for Obama and the Dimocraps. They are the same worthless POS as the Republicans.
Thank you. And I would also say get over yourself. Yes, you have done some great movies, but most articles seem to be more about you.