They are going to reintroduce the draft in the US. But it's such a vote loser, no one wants to mention it

John Sutherland Monday May 31, 2004 The Guardian

Last Wednesday, the American public was officially instructed to panic. Attorney general John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert Mueller - brows furrowed, faces grim - took over primetime TV to deliver a spine-chilling message to their fellow citizens: "Al-qaida attack imminent." When, where, and what form the outrage will take, is unknown. But something very, very awful is going to happen very, very soon.

Cynics will be sceptical. Was this another attempt by the administration, like those "orange alerts" last year, to divert attention from Iraq, the soaring price of gasoline, and Abu Ghraib?

On the same day that Ashcroft was terrifying his countrymen, I was emailed by an American student friend. He too is terrified. "The US legislature," he wrote, "is trying to bring back the draft asap. Check it out at www.congress.org. For some reason no major news networks or printed media in this country are carrying this story. If these bills go through, the only thing between me and military service is my asthma."

He's right. There is pending legislation in the American House of Representatives and Senate in the form of twin bills - S89 and HR163. These measures (currently approved and sitting in the committee for armed services) project legislation for spring 2005, with the draft to become operational as early as June 15.

There already exists a Selective Service System (SSS). All young Americans are obliged to "register for the draft". It has been a mere formality since conscription was abolished three decades ago, after Vietnam, together with the loathed (and much burned) draft card. SSS will be reactivated imminently. A $28m implementation fund has been added to the SSS budget. The Pentagon is discreetly recruiting for 10,350 draft board officers and 11,070 appeals board members nationwide.

Draft-dodging will be harder than in the 1960s. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a "smart border declaration", which, among other things, will prevent conscientious objectors (and cowards) from finding sanctuary across the northern border. There will be no deferment on higher-education grounds. Mexico does not appeal.

All this has been pushed ahead with an amazing lack of publicity. One can guess why. American newspapers are in a state of meltdown, distracted by war-reporting scandals at USA Today and the New York Times. There is an awareness in the press at large that the "embedding" system was just that - getting into bed with the military and reporting their pillow talk as "news from the frontline". The fourth estate has failed the American public and continues not to do its job.

The American public just wants the war to go away. One thing that would get their attention (but not their votes) would be their children being sent off to die in foreign lands. Best not disturb the electorate until after November, seems to be the thinking. There are, after all, more important things than wars: getting your man into the White House, for example. Kerry has clearly calculated that, as president, he too may have to bring in the draft. So his lips are also sealed.

Advertiser links Volunteer Internationally Experience a country from a whole new perspective by signing...

crossculturalsolutions.org $1 Can Help NYC Children Volunteer and help a charity build the confidence and...

learningleaders.org Volunteer on eBay Find volunteer items at low prices. With over 5 million...

ebay.com And, of course, the strategic case for the draft is overwhelming. If, as Rumsfeld promises, Iraq turns out to be "a long, hard slog", who will do the slogging? If others follow the Spaniards, and Tony Blair goes, the US may find itself a coalition of one. What then if something blows up in North Korea?

On how many fronts can America fight its global war on terror with a "professional" army of half a million? Half a million and shrinking fast. Reservists are not re-enlisting. They signed up for the occasional weekend playing soldiers and some useful income, not death or glory.

Panic Stations (which is where Ashcroft has placed America this summer) serves two purposes. It distracts the electorate and, like any state of emergency, it sanctions tough measures - like the draft. The advice to my student? Work on the asthma.

-- Winston Groome (ruby@hotmail.com), June 04, 2004

Answers

Does anybody need another reason to understand the bankruptcy of the two party system?

-- Winston Groome (ruby@hotmail.com), June 04, 2004.

where does this crap come from? i spent 21 years in the army, 14 with the recruiting command and i currently work as a civilin for the recruiting command. there is no plan to bring back the draft. what bill would congress need to pass? this is so far to the left.

-- roger (ro@yahh.com), June 04, 2004.

The old testament says that...there is a time for everything...peace, war, birth, death..etc.

This terrorist thing will come to and end soon. God will put and end to it. Amen.

-- Henri (kxhenri@yahoo.com), June 04, 2004.

first of all, the site www.congress.org is a mockup. governmental bodies use the address .gov to indicate that they are niether non profit websites or commericial websites. whoever created this "source" did a pretty good job fooling Snr. Winston.

second, there is no plan to reenstate the draft. at this point our military is stressed, but we turn away enough people so that we arent even expanding. in essence, there are more people applying to join than there is space. there is no reason to reinstitute the draft. also, there is no way that an impending draft would go unnoticed by the national press... its too hot a story to let go, and we all know the media wants a buck for their paper more than a moral system of reporting.

if anything this is a conspiracy theorists attempt at trying to throw a few election points. its not like there hasnt been a steady flow of draft doom and gloomers ever since conscription was made innactive three decades ago.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 04, 2004.

Besides the fact that this has nothing to do with the topic of this forum.....

The only thing they're looking at right now is keeping some past their initial enlistment (it's called "stop-loss", I believe), which anyone who READ what they were signing KNEW could happen.

"On how many fronts can America fight its global war on terror with a "professional" army of half a million? Half a million and shrinking fast. Reservists are not re-enlisting. They signed up for the occasional weekend playing soldiers and some useful income, not death or glory."

They should have read what they were signing, no one deceived them, if they were only in it for the money and the other bennies then they signed up under false pretenses and should be dealt with accordingly.

As far as death, those people in the draft age group are far more likely to die as a result of a drunk driving accident (through being drunk themselves or being the victim of someone else driving drunk) than they are to die in armed conflict..... Please put things in perspective here.

Besides, active reservists who have already completed their inital 2 or 3 or 4 year active duty can also be called back in certain cases, as well as retirees. All old news.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), June 04, 2004.

Paul,

Did you actualy go to the site? It doesn't claim to be the official website of the United States Congress. The site makes it perfectly clear that it is run by a nonprofit organization to educate citizens on what is going on in Congress.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 05, 2004.

dont need to go to the site to tell you its wrong anti bush. i happen to work for the military and there is no plan to reinstate the draft. end of story, end of conspiracy theory.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 05, 2004.

I don;t need the website. The Guardian is a UK Tabloid that slants all news s gories far left. They hailed the Gay Jesus play and mocked Christaisn and forcebely told them it was not blasphemous, then hated the Passion of the Christ.

The Guardian looks for ways to mock and berate anyone not liberal and to glorify liberal causes. Its not a rleiable source since its not intereste din Objective news, and often resorts to sacre tactics. the above article is just that, a scare tactic to get peopel afraid of the conservitives.

Anythign to push their agenda.

Why not read a credible UK source likt eh times or the Gazzette?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 05, 2004.

Well, you've got propaganda in FOX News, so I guess we gotta have something ;)

Paul,

I know that no draft bills are being propaosed in Congress. Come on, even I know that the Guardian is trash. There's been a little bit of talk about it from a few Senators, but no actual bills floating around.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 06, 2004.

Actually there was one bill submitted in the House a year or so ago by a couple of liberal Democrates (go figure), but it is languishing because no one wants it, not even the Pentagon.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 06, 2004.

AB we do not have Fox, thats a Yankee company...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 06, 2004.

Because Selective Service purchases mailing lists from DMV and a number of other sources (birthday lists from restaurants incl), they know that my son recently turned 18. Shortly after his birthday, I received a postcard telling him to register. I misplaced it, but no worries...they sent another last week, then came the phone calls. Last night, he proudly admitted he registered. He said they make it real easy....just punch some numbers into the phone. This makes me sick!

-- Diane Hellmer (sharkygirll@yahoo.com), June 30, 2004.

Diane, All of us have to sooner or later do our duty to try to keep this country free. If something really blows up in our faces and we have a huge mess on our hands, we will have no choice but to resort to a draft. When that happens, if that happens it is good preparation to have the registration list.

And before anyone says anything, my son has already enlisted.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 30, 2004.

Bill,

Good luck and best wishes to your son. If he's found a cause he's willing to risk his life for, I admire him.

When I find a cause worth dying for (it'll have to be something worth a little more than oil profits), you better beleive I'll enlist. When our government (democrat or republican) decides to take a turn for the bizzare and actualy fight the good fight, I'll be the first in line. Until then, I'm not marching an inch. If they reinstated the draft today, I'd already be halfway to Canada (or the U.K., or Germany, or Austria, ect. as the case may be...).

I went and saw Farenheit 911 last night, and one scene more than all the others really moved me. There's a soldier who has just gotten back from Iraq, and Michael Moore asks him if he'd go back to Iraq. He says "No. I will not go back to that country just to kill more poor people who pose no threat to me, my family, or my country. I might go to jail, but I'm not going back."

The whole theater started clapping.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 30, 2004.

Because Selective Service purchases mailing lists from DMV and a number of other sources (birthday lists from restaurants incl)

BZZZZZTT... incorrect and incorrect. your son is actually tracked through his social security record, not restaurants with free deserts on your birthday. when he turns 18 it is already new information. they access the dmv mailing list (they don't pay for it, they arent spammers, they are another federal service) and they send the mail.

they know that my son recently turned 18.

yeah, thats their job.

Shortly after his birthday, I received a postcard telling him to register. I misplaced it, but no worries...they sent another last week, then came the phone calls.

just so you know, your carelessness could have gotten your son into alot of trouble. failing to register for selective service is a felony criminal offense and is punishable by fines and other penalties. as a mother, i would think that you would have taken the time to learn this and not made it so difficult for your son.

Last night, he proudly admitted he registered. He said they make it real easy....just punch some numbers into the phone.

good. he should be proud. he is willing to serve his country if the need arises, as every male in this country is expected to do, and SHOULD do if that time comes. as much as anti bush talks about running for the border, if it was a fight with china and america could be wiped out, i believe he'd stick around and fight... and i'm glad your son has what it takes to accept that responsibility too. YOU need to be a good parent by supporting your son in his choosing to do his duty. YOU know very well that that draft won't be reenstated unless it is greatly needed, so YOU also know that your son isnt likely to get drafted at all. it wouldnt kill you to be supportive of your son, then, for having done the right thing.

This makes me sick!

what sickens me is a bunch of people who take the privileges they get by living in a free country on others sweat and blood. they vote, and drive, and speak poorly of their governments, without ever thinking of the duty that they owe to their country and fellow men. if your son has done the right thing, and offered to serve if he is needed, you should be PROUD. not sick.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), July 01, 2004.

"as much as anti bush talks about running for the border, if it was a fight with china and america could be wiped out, i believe he'd stick around and fight... "

Like I said before...if it's to defend my family, my country, my honor...I'll be the first one in line. Since none of the wars we;ve fought since the end of world war two have defended either of the three, I doubt that will happen any time soon.

"YOU know very well that that draft won't be reenstated unless it is greatly needed,"

Like in Vietnam, right?

"what sickens me is a bunch of people who take the privileges they get by living in a free country on others sweat and blood. they vote, and drive, and speak poorly of their governments, without ever thinking of the duty that they owe to their country and fellow men."

So first you talk about protecting freedom for all Americans, and then you say that no one should be critical of our government. Don't you understand that a critical view of the government is what keeps democracy alive?

Paul, you perplex me. You're just a few years older than me, yet you seem to think you've got all the answers. I know there's a lot I don't know, and my beleifs end up changing a lot as a result of it, because I apporoach things with an open mind. I know I wouldn't agree with myself a year ago. But you seem to be blindly confident in your position, in the Republican Party, and in the inherent goodness of of leaders...and that scares me.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

I don't suppose anyone will bother explaining how Nazi Germany or even Imperial Japan posed a direct and imminent threat to the US homeland to me will they?

In December 1941, after Pearl Harbor was attacked but not occupied...how likely was it that Japan would or even COULD pose a direct threat to "my family, country, honor"? Nazi Germany had an even smaller navy and their airforce didn't have any forward bases with which to threaten Manhattan or any city on the East Coast...

So, given the "just war" theory in vogue today in 2004, in which only an imminent threat to the US homeland itself (for some reason 9/11 doesn't count) could prompt the US to defend itself...but only if we limit our "defense" to first responders and not go on the offense.

But the thing is... even in WW2 there wasn't this great and certain threat to our physical security! And we went on the offense in 1942! If you can justify WW2, then how come you can't justify the war in Afganistan and Iraq? Or is it OK to go to some faraway country only if the other guy you're shooting at isn't "poor"? I don't suppose alot of the Japs and Jerries were from the upper classes were they? Yet we killed them enroute to victory.

So I just wonder, Anti-Bush... WOULD YOU REALLY defend "America" if attacked? It seems, if I read the posts and unspoken criteria correctly, that you think military force can only be reactionary.

So by late afternoon on December 7th, we had beaten off the 3rd wave of Japanese planes... that should have been enough right? What moral right did we have, what "international legal authority" gave us the right to invade Japan's territorial waters?

I just wish people showed a little more coherence in their beliefs...if you think WW2 was UNJUST and we shouldn't have beaten Japan or Germany, then it would make alot of sense to also be against our defending ourselves by taking over Afganistan and Iraq.

-- joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

Like in Vietnam, right?

if i really believed that you were silly enough to believe that statement i'd laugh. you and i both know that vietnam was a continuation of an active draft capability on the part of the government, whereas to reestablish the draft today would be a whole different ball game. also, with the change in political climate, you and i both know that if congress passed a draft bill that it would be political suicide for every congressman who voted for it. as such, we both know that the only way the draft is going to be reenstated is if we reach an integral point where it would have popular support. i know you know these facts, so why pretend otherwise?

So first you talk about protecting freedom for all Americans, and then you say that no one should be critical of our government. Don't you understand that a critical view of the government is what keeps democracy alive?

incorrect. i never advocated that no one should be critical of the government. in fact, im a staunch cynic whenever the chance arises. if it makes you feel better, i think bush is a clumsy leader at best. in fact, the only reason i support him is because 1) he has the backbone to at least stand up for what he personally believes in and 2) because the alternative (kerry) is so much worse. when it comes to the military, i think our officer corps has alot of structural problems that need to be worked out soon. when it comes to taxation, i think both the democrats and the republicans are robbing the people blind. when it comes to laws, i think we have too many (here i refer to the bycicle helmet laws... let parents enforce that, not the state). i'm much more critical than you know...

but at the same time, i recognize that that right to criticize is a PRIVILAGE. it's not something that i have the right to do because i was born within the continental united states. its something that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of men have died to give to me. when i see someone say that they shouldnt have any duty to their country, but they want full excercise of the rights and privilages, it disgusts me. why? becuase my family was involved in every front at WWII, i have family members who fought and some who died in korea, vietnam, cambodia, the mexican american war, the civil war, and i'm sure several others. why is it offensive, because my family, my flesh and blood, have died, have bled, and have killed to secure those rights which some people arent even willing to pay the possibility of duty for. yes, it is a sickening fact that we live in an entitlement society.

Paul, you perplex me.

stick around, i've only just begun.

You're just a few years older than me, yet you seem to think you've got all the answers. I know there's a lot I don't know, and my beleifs end up changing a lot as a result of it, because I apporoach things with an open mind.

again, incorrect. i dont think i have all the answers. in fact, i know i don't. what i have is an accumulation of experience from my life, and a mountain of knowledge past on to me by those i encounter (sometimes even yourself). Do i have all the answers? no. but i am sure of what i do know, and that has come from experiencing alot of things with an open mind. more to come on this in a moment.

I know I wouldn't agree with myself a year ago. But you seem to be blindly confident in your position, in the Republican Party, and in the inherent goodness of of leaders...and that scares me.

again, i reiterate the fact that i think bush is not a great candidate for leadership, nor have i ever expressed such sentiment. i have, however, advocated fulfilling one's duty to their country as the need may be. we live in a flawed system, but having travelled to many countries, i can tell you that its the best one out there right now, and so i work with what i can get, and i support those whoes ideals come somewhat close to what i believe. i have learned that there isnt going to be a perfect candidate for me, so i have learned to accept who is, and to hope they will do well. you will learn, given some more years, that the world isnt ever going to be the way you wish it, so you accept some failures to gain some victories.

as to following blindly, it may interest you to know that a few years ago, i was pro gay rights. a few years ago, i was 100% against abortion in all circumstances, regardless of whether or not the mothers life was on the line. a few years ago, i thought massive taxation and social programs was a good thing. a few years ago i believed that communism could possibly become a better system than capitalism. a few years ago i thought that contraception and premarital sex could be okay, if not abused too badly. that open mind you say i dont have taught me a few new facts about the world, and i have learned. i dont support anything blindly. i am doubting thomas.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), July 01, 2004.

Afghanistan was justified (although very poorly conducted). I've said that before. They were harboring bin Laden and Al Quaeda, who had attacked us on 9/11. Japan was responsible for Pearl Harbor. Iraq was not behind 9/11. Iraq did not take part in the planning, arming, training, or execution of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. World War Two was a battle against an alliance of nations that actualy threatened to conquer the world. Saddam was a Hitler wannabe with delusions of granduer. He couldn't pull off a decicive victory against Iran, even WITH our weapons! Do you really think he was going to threaten the security of the free world?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

" he has the backbone to at least stand up for what he personally believes in."

Or what big buisiness beleives in.

"when it comes to the military, i think our officer corps has alot of structural problems that need to be worked out soon. when it comes to taxation, i think both the democrats and the republicans are robbing the people blind. when it comes to laws, i think we have too many (here i refer to the bycicle helmet laws... let parents enforce that, not the state). i'm much more critical than you know..."

Amen to that. I was talking to a very liberal friend of mine (yes, more liberal even than me), and she was trying to convice me that gun control was needed to stop kids like Eric Harris and Dylan Kleebold from getting ahold of guns when their parents weren't looking...I told her that if we have come to the point where the state has to mandate good parenting, we have a far bigger problem on our hands than gun control...I think that same theory applies to a lot of social issues today.

"when i see someone say that they shouldnt have any duty to their country, but they want full excercise of the rights and privilages, it disgusts me. why? becuase my family was involved in every front at WWII, i have family members who fought and some who died in korea, vietnam, cambodia, the mexican american war, the civil war, and i'm sure several others."

My family has served too. I understand that we all have a duty to our country, but our leaders have time and again abused that duty. I know I've been quoting Michael Moore excessively lately, but here's one more quote from his new movie that I think is very relevant:

"Our soldiers have gone overseas and risked their lives to protect us. They've seen things that no one should ever have to see. And all they ask in return is that we never send them to war unless it's absolutely necessary. Will they ever trust us again?"

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

Also, since we women wanted equal rights, we need to take the good with the bad, whether that means registering for the draft or getting hit with paying child support and alimony in a divorce. Yes, you could have gotten your son in trouble for making him avoid the draft. Not to mention yourself. Interfering with mail delivery to someone is a crime, last time I checked....

I repeat, there are worse things than the draft. Dying in a drive-by shooting, or in a drunk driving accident. People are blowing the statistics all out of proportion here. Registering does not automatically mean he will be called up, but it will interfere with things like getting federal student loans. Why not discuss the Peace Corps or some other option with your son?

I am sure that for every bad thing we hear about Iraq, there are plenty of good things happening that we don't hear about.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), July 01, 2004.

I told her that if we have come to the point where the state has to mandate good parenting, we have a far bigger problem on our hands than gun control...I think that same theory applies to a lot of social issues today.

you know, anti-bush, you and i agree on alot more issues than you think... its like, same methodology, with a different outcome in mind.

My family has served too. I understand that we all have a duty to our country, but our leaders have time and again abused that duty.

a leaders failures do no alleviate the mandate of integrity to serve one's country if it is needed or required by the state. we will probably never have a perfect government... because it is a government made up by men. but if we wish to partake in the privilages, we still owe that government our service and our allegiance.

I know I've been quoting Michael Moore excessively lately, but here's one more quote from his new movie that I think is very relevant:

nothing michael moore says is particularly relevant. his documentary's have been shown to contain large discrepencies with truth, and parced speaches to change the meaning of people's words. i wouldnt trust the man as far as i could throw him... or as far as i could throw him when i was five years old for that matter.

"Our soldiers have gone overseas and risked their lives to protect us. They've seen things that no one should ever have to see. And all they ask in return is that we never send them to war unless it's absolutely necessary. Will they ever trust us again?"

again, michael moore is an idiot. he presumes to speak for soldiers? so what? most soldiers recognize the fact that deposing saddam was a GOOD thing. most soldiers recognize their duty that they willingly volunteered for, and dont distrust the government over iraq. moore parses some soldier's words and very likely just got him courtmarshalled or even dishonorably discharged... WAY TO CARE ABOUT THE TROOPS MOORE!!! he has an agenda, he spits it like a snake with no concern over who his lies and half truths hurt, so long as he can trick someone into believe his sick paradigm of conspiracy theories amuck in a world of happy flowers where bin laden isnt the bad guy.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), July 02, 2004.

"a leaders failures do no alleviate the mandate of integrity to serve one's country if it is needed or required by the state. "

Very funny and very dangerous. "mandate of integrity to serve?" How do you mandate integrity? Integrity may cause a person to go in the oposite direction. Thank God the value of integrity I taught to my adult children did not include the blindness that this statement suggests.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), July 02, 2004.

first things first ... there.

now:

"mandate of integrity to serve?" How do you mandate integrity?

well, Jesus says "be holy as I am holy." this means that we have a command to be moral creatures. as moral creatures, we are required to have integrity in our moral character. THAT is how all of humanity, not just america, has a mandate of integrity. it isnt imposed by governments, it is imposed by humanity. everything else is barbaric.

Thank God the value of integrity I taught to my adult children did not include the blindness that this statement suggests.

the very fact that you tought your children principles of integrity suggests that you agree with me about the importance of its precepts. you call it blindness, but as i've said, i don't support blind faith in any way so please cut out the very untrue ad hominem attacks. Have you actualy seen or read any of his stuff? He doesn't present any "conspiracy theories".

yes, i've read enough by him, and about him, to know that he's a skeezball. he even plaguerized his title, recieved phone calls from the author who's title he ripped off, and chose to ignore the calls until it was too late to change the movie title, forcing the issue by breaking the law, willfully. he does present a conspiracy theory. the bushes have never been active supporters of nazis or of hitler, and yet moore has made (and purports to believe this claim) this claim.

His books all have large sections in the back that point to all the notes and sources he used, and everything he says can be verified.

sources arent hard to come by. da vinci code has "sources." jack chick has "sources." every protestant who comes here to tell us what they KNOW catholics believe has "sources." that doesnt make moore right, and it doesnt make his sources right... especially if he and his sources disagree with reality.

Yeah, he does tend to misrepresent statistics, but so does everybody. That's the thing about statistics. They can be easily manipulated to say what you want. Bill O'Reilly does his share of it too (when he's not just making stuff up).

i dont watch the o'reilly show for the same reasons i stay away from moores work. i refuse to listen to the news of someone who has to lie and skew facts to suit their agenda... i'll take my information from a source who is at least comparatively honest.

as to statistics, i rarely take them with more than a grain of salt. as mark twain said, "there are three kinds of lies in this world: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

And he's never claimed that bin Laden wasn't the bad guy. Farenheit was all about the connections between the Bushes and the bin Ladens and the Sauds, and how he may have neglected to follow up on important leads in the war on terror because of this conflict of interest.

but again, this is contradictory to the real world, in which bush announced that al quada and bin laden were the prime suspects VERY shortly after 9/11 occurred. but i digress... how does this relate to a woman who would rather have her son guilty of a felony offense than allow him to register for the current non-existant draft?

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), July 02, 2004.

Anti-Bush,
Here Christopher Hitchens references a review he had with Moore where Moore said he didn't know, (a year after bin Laden admitted to killing 3,000 Americans on September 11), if bin Laden was guilty of 9/11 or not:

HITCHENS: I feel I have to press you on that. You regard it as an open question, the responsibility of Osama bin Laden?
MOORE: Until anyone is convicted of any crime, no matter how horrific the crime, they are innocent until proven guilty. And as Americans...

For a full review of the movie by Christopher Hitchens go "You know, I look at this movie as a journalist, and as a journalist I have this affection for facts and accuracy. And even though there are facts in this movie, on whole it's not accurate. Michael Moore is guilty of the same thing that he and a lot of Democrats say that the Republicans are guilty of." By which she means that Moore juxtaposes one set of facts with another and says they must be related — precisely the complaint the Left makes about ties between al Qaeda and Iraq.

William Raspberry of the Washington Post:"It is a masterful job of connecting the dots between Saudi money and the business interests of the president and his friends. And it is an overwrought piece of propaganda -- a 110-minute hatchet job that doesn't even bother to pretend to be fair."

Richard Cohen in the Washington Post: I brought a notebook with me when I went to see Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and in the dark made notes before I gave up, defeated by the utter stupidity of the movie.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 02, 2004.

Christopher Hitchen's article on the movie is here

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 02, 2004.