egafd.com

"If you know the producer's bend...why must one see it to comment on it?"

Feel free to comment on it - but any such comment will clearly be prejudiced and ill-informed.

"I have not listened to most Madonna albums, but have heard enough to know what 99% of her recordings are going to be like...right?"

Wrong - I don't like most of Madonna's music, some has been rubbish but some has been perfectly adequate IMO. Therefore I wouldn't pass any definitive comment on her next record before hearing it.

Saying that, I can be fairly certain that I won't like J-Lo's next musical attempt. But that is through-away pop music you either like or dislike - so you're comparing very different things.

I can be fairly certain that I won't agree with Andrew Roberts' (a right-wing UK historian) next TV programme. But it would, at least, have the benefits of being competently made and thought-provoking (as f911 appears to be) so I wouldn't condemn it without seeing it and would be happy to watch it.

I liked Moore's TV Nation and the Downsize This book. I didn't particularly like Stupid White Men. I have no idea whether or not I'd like F911, but I assume from his past work and from the generally postive reviews that F911 is at least thought provoking.

"So, why can't I comment on Moore's latest film?"

Again - you could comment - but it would be uninformed and prejudiced comment. So far you've linked to a review which comes out against the film (a review clearly in the minority) and have compared Moore to Goebells. You have expressed an excessive opinion about a film you've not seen based on reading highly selective reviews. So don't be surprised if people don't take your comments seriously.

"I have no problems with viewing ficticious movies, but have a problem when the producer states "we've got truth on our side" in interviews, when it can be proven he is an outright liar."

I'm not aware of any outright lies in Moore's work - I am aware of the fact that he formulates arguments from selective use of data. But these are 2 different things. If comment is to be restricted to the telling of "facts" that everyone agrees are true and which incontrovertibly reflect all available information - then no-one will ever make a comment again.

Mel Gibson's the Passion of Christ told "the truth" in his eyes. The fact that I'm an atheist didn't put me off going to see what was, in some ways, a good, thought-provoking film.

"Its too bad that criticism of the president always has to come from the people blinded by the opposite ideology, instead of those that could provide only the facts. I'd really like to know the truth,"

There is no single, simple, truth that someones going to tell you. The best you can do is work out your own truth from the information available. Clearly Moore's film isn't 100% factually untrue and its received extremely good reviews, so why not go along and watch it to see which bits you discard out of hand and which bits give you cause for concern. You would then have more chance of expressing a reasoned, considered opinion.

So Bush got us into a situation where there is no clear exit strategy - but we shouldn't criticise him if we can't extract him from this problem of his own making?

If Bush could have persuaded the world that his war on Iraq was purely a humanitarian act to oust a brutal dictator then he may have had much more international support. The high level of international co-operation and support given to the US during the Afghan war proves that countries do not have a knee-jerk anti-American response.

Bush didn't present the war in this way - the justification was muddled, the pre-war diplomacy was hopeless and no-one believes that the US suddenly loves the Iraqis and hates brutal dictators. It worked with Saddam in the past and is working with brutal dictators now - so people were and are deeply suspicious of the motives for the war, particularly given the WMD and Al-Q links that were claimed.

The best way to solve the Iraq problem is now to promote a genuine international effort. the fact that this is proving so difficult is Bush's fault because of his past policies, and it would require the US to drop all but the most extremely short-term of its economic, military and political interests in Iraq. Bush must also clearly define what he means by democratic government - and then radically alter his diplomatic stance to all "non-democratic" states to prove that he is serious about "spreading freedom and democracy" so that Iraq is not inexplicable in these terms.

I cannot see that Bush is going to take the steps necessary to garner the international support that would help the Iraqi situation. To get this support Bush would have to all but admit that the whole enterprise was ill-conceived and mismanaged - and he's hardly likely to do that, not least because he presumably wouldn't agree with this analysis.

So the way out is to say - "we did this thing, we got it wrong, its in everybody's interests if we all now work together to put it right". Its admitting the "we got it wrong" part, and the steps that are needed to prove the honesty of this statement to the international community, that is difficult.

"Ok, but is John Kerry the answer?"

I have no idea.

But then, to be fair, my answer is so unrealistic that he probably couldn't come up with anything worse.

"John Kerry? We're supposed to trade the far right for the far left?"

Well I don't know that much about him - but I'd be amazed if he is part of the far left. I realise that "left" and "right" are matters of perspective when it comes to politics - but do you really classify Kelly as far left? Would he "flip-flop" if he held such an extreme, radical, socialist viewpoint? Surely he'd be steadfast in his calls to nationalise the means of production and distribution.

"the "anybody but Bush" folks need to be careful what they wish for. It is entirely possible in the mad rush to ditch Dubya, to wind up with someone much worse than Bush."

Well thats for your electorate to decide. But its possible to point to many instances where the incumbent has lost an election by messing up so that whoever stands against him is elected by default. This is the fault of the encumbent because, other things being equal, he should have an advantage in any election.

I have no idea if Americans are deciding to vote for Kelly simply because he's not Bush - but if they are then that is Bush's fault. Or it possibly points to a pitfall in your democratic system, but then all democratic systems come with their own particular problems.

Channel 4 did an insight type programme a few weeks back, with some journo speaking to people involved on both sides, gauging the public opinion of some Americans to Tone, and so on. The Americans spoken to like Blair. The worrying conclusion reached was that Tone and Dubya share the same strong Christian beliefs, and Tone sees himself as a moderating influence on Bushy. Is it any wonder so many Muslims saw the action as a crusade?

Someone posted a link a while back to a conspiracy theory type site which alleged that the FBI had the dirt on some of Tone's mates of the kiddy-fiddling brigade.

Mart