Why Moore left stuff out

[txprog]

Moore has been taken to task for many things, including not telling us that SH was a bad guy and that England and Italy were in the coaliton of the willing and sent troops. In his interview with Katie Couric he told her he didn't talk about the evil SH because the media had done such a good job at it. He wanted to tell a different story.

This is clearly his strategy. Why say things everybody knows? Use the limited time in the film to show stuff that has been ignored or is not common knowledge.

[Toucano]

1. Exactly.

I never had a problem understanding that. I have a problem understanding how so many people can't seem to understand that.
:)

If it's my nickel, why would I play a song on the jukebox that I just heard on the radio for free?

[mzmolly]

2. Exactly. I felt like this was our version of truth! We get the Faux news

version every night. Moore gave us a voice in the wilderness, and I am greatful.

[jilln]

3. PNAC?

It did seem to me that the Project for a New American Century should have been mentioned, all he said was something like "all this was planned before the 2000 election" but without backing that up.

Who is SH?

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. Saddam Hussein, I would think. Welcome to DU :^)

[txprog]

8. I totally agree

He should have included the fact that key admin figures and advisers were planning this war ever since gulf war 1 ended.

[Bucky]

4. SH? Who's that?

[Eric J in MN]

5. Saddam Hussein (nt)

nt

[Fovea]

7. yeah

why pump up the Saddam RW propaganda?

Who doubts that Saddam was another ruthless dictator
in a region with a bumper crop of ruthless governments?

Moore said it on Air America. It's the fifty % that don't vote that needs to be woke up. For them, this movie is a cold slap.

[xray s]

9. Moore DID talk about Saddam being an evil guy

He also showed the clip of Rumsfeld and Hussein shaking hands.

[linazelle]

10. Less is more

I think that leaving out things was also important because it left little to refute. As has been noted here, the RW is railing against Moore, but like Clarke's book, they are not able to refute the truths told. If Moore had put additional material in, he would have opened himself up to the possibility of errors which they would hang him with.

[stopbush]

11. There will be plenty of "other stuff" in the DVD Director's Cut.

Count on it. It's just good marketing.

[misanthrope]

12. Of course...

...the most obvious is the least necessitated.

That said, I do believe there wer far more damning things, events that likely would have mobs pressing the gates at Pennsylvania Avenue, had Moore chosen to cast them into light.

The Sibel Edmonds incident would have taken less than 40 seconds to reveal had it been succinctly slipped in right next to Condi's quick remarks about the bin Laden memo title.

The fact that Shrub & friends all vacated Washington in the period leading up to 9/11 would have taken about 20 seconds of time while the Go-Gos were warbling away.

The lies about the downing of an aircraft in Pennsylvania would have taken less than a minute.

I think that 120 seconds could have completely changed things for a lot of people who will end up renting this down the line. There's a big difference between "oversight" and "culpability."

[Scairp]

13. Funny

The media expects Moore to be balanced in his movie, yet they as a whole are consistently unbalanced, mostly in favor of the conservative point of view. They should heed their own advise before deriding him.

[Eric J in MN]

14. It's a great movie, but I think he should have mentioned

It's a great movie, but I think Moore should have mentioned that the UK and Spain and Denmark sent troops before listing the other countries.

[chookie]

15. The criticisms are stupid

The flying monkeys say that in showing scenes of ordinary Iraqis enjoying their lives just prior to the invasion Moore is trying to make Hussein-ruled Iraq look like Disneyland.

Bullshit.

What Moore was trying to do was WAY more radical than that -- he was attempting to show that Iraqis are human beings, with the same kind of lives, the same sorts of families, as same kinds of emotions, that Americans have.

Yeah, I bet a lot of people found that offensive. If they are not reduced to cartoon caricatures, it's a lot harder justifying reducing their country to rubble in order to liberate them.

Just yesterday there was a "town hall meeting" on Iraq on CNN, and one of the flying monkey Republican women talked passionately about how the US was bringing suffrage and civil rights to Iraqi women. Ooops -- women lived quite freely in Iraqi society, employed all over the place, free to travel, able to drive, etc -- but they want us to get them confused with the burkha clad battered women of Taliban Afghanistan.

Have you noticed how all the GOP Stepford wives are crowing about how glorious it is to liberate Muslim women and allow them to fully participate in their societies? How ironic. Gotta love that the CPA was insisting that Iraqi government have a quota of 25% female representation, when here in America we have nothing even CLOSE to that, and that the GOP rails against quotas. Ironic at a time when they are crusading for America to become an authoritarian society based on Biblical law that they are crusading for Muslims to have "liberal" societies. Hypocrites....

[Eric J in MN]

16. That was my favorite part of the movie.

The rightwingers want us to believe that because Iraq was a dictatorhsip, people cowered in fear 24 hours a day.

The reality is that there was normal life under the Saddam dictatorship, and there is normal life under the American occupation.

There is also torture under both circumstances.