No signs of a cease-fire in written war on Bush
By Bob Minzesheimer, USA TODAY
After books critical of President Bush, including
Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies and Ron Suskind's
The Price of Loyalty, topped the best-seller lists
this year, Bush joked to reporters: "It really gets me
when the critics say I haven't done enough for the
economy. Look what I've done for the book publishing
industry."
Another five major releases are due before the
November elections.
USA TODAY
In the first half of the year, publishers released at
least 25 books bashing Bush. And that was just the
first wave. By Election Day, there will be about 50
more.
Some are as tough on the media as on Bush's decision
to go to war in Iraq. They include All the President's
Spin by the editors of Spinsanity.org (out this week),
which critiques "the most aggressive White House PR
team ever assembled," and James Wolcott's Attack
Poodles and Other Media Mutants (Aug. 25), which
describes Bill O'Reilly and other TV commentators as
"watchdogs for George Bush, tail-waggers for war."
In 25 years in publishing, "I've never seen anything
like this, in terms of the volume and energy of books
attacking a sitting president in an election year,"
says Jeff Zaleski, an editor at Publishers Weekly.
Part of the reason, he says, is that "Bush is less
centrist than any president since Reagan," and that
after 9/11, "the stakes are higher."
The barrage is "unprecedented," says Brad Miner,
former literary editor of The National Review who runs
American Compass, a book club aimed at conservatives.
Although Miner says most book editors are liberal, he
sees the books less as a left-wing conspiracy than as
a result of the disputed 2000 vote count. That
"energized the left" even more than the Clinton
administration energized the right in the '90s and
inspired conservative best sellers, he says.
Will books affect votes?
"I suspect many will be bought by people who never
intended to vote for Bush," Miner says. "What we don't
know: What are the undecideds reading?"
Five of this fall's biggest political books take on
Bush:
•Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His
Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and
Hijacking Our Democracy (this week), by environmental
lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
•Bushworld: Enter at Your Own Risk (Aug. 6), columns
by The New York Times' Maureen Dowd.
•What We've Lost: America Under the Bush
Administration (Sept. 8), by Vanity Fair editor
Graydon Carter.
•The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty (Sept.
14), by Kitty Kelley, a biographer who specializes in
dishing the dirt.
•Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib
(Sept. 21), by The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, who
exposed the U.S. military's abuse of Iraqi prisoners.
Read More:http://tinyurl.com/5sm9g
Bill Clinton: "I think every American ought to see
it." (Rolling Stone, 7/13)
Joan Baez:
"In the end, if we manage to get out of this without
either World War III happening or whatever other
scenarios this administration has for us, it'll be
because people kept doing things like making
statements, signing petitions. It'll be because the
Michael Moore's out there didn't quit." (San Diego
Union-Tribune, 6/17)
Drew Barrymore:
"I never come to premieres, but I'm so here on this
one. I'm looking forward to this more than anything in
the world." (USA Today 6/10)
Tony Bennett:
"For a documentary to win over every other film in the
Cannes Film Festival is unheard of, so he's quite a
genius." (KXAN-TV, 6/15)
Mary J. Blige:
"I have to vote this year. After seeing that movie, I
can't do anything else." (NY Times, 7/6)
Big Boi of "Outkast":
"... urged people 'to take time to catch Michael
Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.'" (Africana.com, 7/15)
Princess Caroline of Monaco to Michael Moore:
"My mother would have been so proud of your movie."
(Detroit Free Press, 5/21)
Bill Clinton:
"I think every American ought to see it." (Rolling
Stone, 7/13)
"As far as I know, none of the facts in the movie have
been refuted. That is, I think the evidence in the
movie is accurate." (Nova TV (Dutch), 7/14)
Mario Cuomo after watching Fahrenheit 9/11 3 times:
"I was convinced that it should be viewed and
reflected upon by as many Americans as possible...
especially young people who, in a few years, might be
part of our military forces. I'm committed personally
to the proposition, as more than just a lawyer, that
everybody should see this film." (Chicago Sun-Times,
6/17)
Carson Daly:
"I think it's important that there's something that's
provocative out there for younger people. I'm 30 so
for anybody that doesn't think about what's important
to the country, at least there's something provocative
that they can go see, make up their own mind."
(KXAN-TV, 6/15)
Patti Davis, daughter of Ronald Reagan:
"Seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 made me think deeply about
love of country, how it molds us, drives and emboldens
us and how it can sometimes make us so angry we want
to shout out to the world: 'No, this is wrong.' Many
things have been said about the movie, and of course
about its director, Michael Moore. But I don't think
I've heard anyone comment on Moore's love for America.
It seemed evident to me that the film was born from
that love." (Newsweek, 7/20)
Leonardo DiCaprio:
"I think a lot of people are going to be talking about
this film. And I think a lot more people who are on
the fence about who to vote for, after they see the
film, they'll be solidified in their vote." (NY
Observer, 6/21)
Dale Earnhardt Jr.:
said that he had taken his buddies to see Fahrenheit
9/11 and that "it's a good thing as an American to go
see." (The Guardian, 7/10)
Frances Fisher:
"Every American has to see this movie." (USA Today
6/10)
John Fogerty:
"With the Michael Moore movie, certain conservative
talk show hosts call him un-American. Him and anybody
else who says anything about the war... To question
your country's policy, especially in a war that kills
people, is definitely not un-American. It's probably
the most patriotic thing you can do." (Scripps Howard
News Service, 7/14)
Tom Hanks:
"I want Michael Moore to have my seven bucks for that
movie." (USA Today, 6/15)
Seymour Hersh:
"The truth is it's so ironic. The best information we
may get about this election may come from a
combination of The Control Room, Fahrenheit 9/11, John
Sayles, the nightly news from Jon Stewart..."
(www.informationclearinghouse.info, 7/19)
Annie Lennox:
"Last night I got the chance to see Michael Moore's
new film, Fahrenheit 9/11. It was utterly compelling,
and incredibly thought provoking. I'd highly recommend
seeing it." (www.alennox.net, 7/9)
Madonna:
"I don't think I ever cried so hard at a movie in my
life. I urge each and every one of you to see it." (NY
Daily News, 6/18)
Camryn Manheim:
"A lot of us look to Michael Moore to uncover the real
truth." (USA Today 6/10)
Moby:
"I think Fahrenheit 9/11 is very truthful. I think the
reason Fahrenheit 9/11 is so important is because it
tells the truth about issues where the truth has been
suppressed for the last three years." (CNBC, "Topic A
with Tina Brown", 6/20)
Rob Reiner:
"I think this is one of the most important films ever
made. It has the potential of actually affecting the
election, and if it does, it will change the world.
There are very few films or works of art that have a
profound effect on world affairs," he said, mentioning
"Uncle Tom's Cabin" and "I Am a Fugitive From a Chain
Gang." "But this actually has a chance to change the
world." (Hollywood Reporter, 6/10)
Linda Ronstadt:
"I've been dedicating 'Desperado' every night to
Michael Moore, trying to get people to go see
Fahrenheit 9/11." (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 7/16)
Emily Saliers of "The Indigo Girls":
"I was moved by it - especially the story of the woman
who lost her son in the war. I went with a bunch of
friends, and we all cried. I couldn't really talk
after the film for about 30 minutes afterward."
(Denver Post, 7/23)
Leelee Sobieski:
"(It) should be required for everyone in America to
see as part of their education in high schools." (USA
Today 6/10)
Tilda Swinton:
When an Italian journalist complained that the film
had "only one point of view," she replied, "We've
heard what Bush has to say. We live with it. It's not
a fair fight. This film helps to redress the balance."
(Chicago Sun-Times, 5/24)
Quentin Tarantino, Cannes 2004 Jury President:
"We want you to know that the politics of your film
had nothing to do with this award . . . We're giving
(it to) you, because you made a great movie." (Chicago
Tribune, 5/30)
"A film can be funny and that's all it has to be. It
can make me cry. It can make me laugh. It can disturb
me. It can elate me. This film did all of those."
(Toronto Globe and Mail, 5/25)
Uma Thurman:
"I'd like to hear why it is that Disney thinks (Moore)
should be censored. I'd like to hear a statement to
that." (Entertainment Weekly, 5/28)
A Report From Crawford
By Rev. Robert Flowers / Friends of Peace
I was overwhelmed on Wednesday, July 28, 2004, when
thousands of people (as many as 5,000 according to
some estimates) descended upon Crawford, Texas for a
special screening of 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' Michael
Moore’s highly-publicized movie. First, there are
several who need to be thanked for making this event
happen.
John Young, one of the op/ed editors for the Waco
Tribune-Herald, contacted Michael Moore about the
possible screening. I think it is appropriate to give
much credit for Mr. Young’s invitation since--at that
time--the Waco theaters would not show Moore’s film.
John Young should be commended for his creative and
imaginative way to create dialogue concerning this
film.
Two groups who played a huge role in preparation were
the Crawford Peace House, and, the Waco-based, Friends
of Peace. The Crawford Peace House is supported by FOP
as well as by the Dallas Peace Center. These two
groups spent countless hours on the phone with media
from all around the world in preparation for the
event, not to mention dealing with the Crawford city
officials and law enforcement, and other essential,
logistical needs. To see these two groups work is
truly an amazing thing! And once again the emphasis on
nonviolence helped make the event happen with no
significant or violent confrontations (there was some
verbal exchanges). To be sure, the local law
enforcement teams also did an outstanding job of crowd
control that curtailed violence.
Michael Moore should be thanked for his courage to
allow his film to be used in such a way. This film
raised some very difficult questions that beg honest
answers. Mr. Moore’s decision not to attend kept the
focus on the film. Herein lies what I believe to be a
crucial message of the film. Moore believed that his
presence would’ve caused more divisiveness, which is
what the Bush administration seems to thrive on. The
film accurately portrayed how the Bush administration
spun the justifications for war with Iraq in such a
way that drew distinct lines in the sand. The message
was clear to U.S. citizens and the world: You’re
either with us, or you’re against us. This was evident
in the caustic approach taken by a small pro-Bush
crowd that gathered concurrently to the film’s
showing. This kind of political hubris is dangerous
and it has tainted the rest of the world’s attitudes
towards the United States in ways that may be
irreparable. Moore’s decision not to come, in the
final analysis, was a wise choice and focused
attention on the issues raised by his movie.
Finally, this film’s message is timely. Our nation is
in dire need of a wake-up call. The U.S. public needs
to know the truth of why the war in Iraq is being
waged. The other wake-up call for us is that we need
to hold our President accountable. The insanity must
stop! The next elections are crucial. What does Mr.
Moore have to gain from such a film? That is the wrong
question. The more obvious question is, what do we
have to lose if this current war regime is not
replaced. Hopefully, the thousands who viewed the
insanity of war in Crawford, Texas will be able to
make a decision in November that will take the first
steps toward a new vision of peace, and a new leader
to make it possible.
Book Description
The Bushes are the family nobody really knows, says
Kevin Phillips. This popular lack of
acquaintance—nurtured by gauzy imagery of Maine summer
cottages, gray-haired national grandmothers, July
Fourth sparklers, and cowboy boots—has let national
politics create a dynasticized presidency that would
have horrified America’s founding fathers. They, after
all, had led a revolution against a succession of
royal Georges.
In this devastating book, onetime Republican
strategist Phillips reveals how four generations of
Bushes have ascended the ladder of national power
since World War One, becoming entrenched within the
American establishment—Yale, Wall Street, the Senate,
the CIA, the vice presidency, and the
presidency—through a recurrent flair for old-boy
networking, national security involvement, and
political deception. By uncovering relationships and
connecting facts with new clarity, Phillips comes to a
stunning conclusion: The Bush family has
systematically used its financial and social
empire—its "aristocracy"—to gain the White House,
thereby subverting the very core of American
democracy. In their ambition, the Bushes ultimately
reinvented themselves with brilliant timing, twisting
and turning from silver spoon Yankees to born-again
evangelical Texans. As America—and the world—holds its
breath for the 2004 presidential election, American
Dynasty explains how it happened and what it all
means.
Former
White House counsel and New York Times bestselling author John Dean
reveals how the Bush White House has set America back decades-employing
a worldview and tactics of deception that will do more damage to the
nation than Nixon at his worst.
From Publishers Weekly
This title’s accusation
bears particular weight coming from the man who warned the
super-secretive Richard Nixon that there was a cancer on his
presidency, and Dean, who was Nixon’s White House counsel, makes a
strong argument that the secrecy of what he dubs the "Bush-Cheney
presidency" is "not merely unjustified and excessive but obsessive,"
and consequently "frighteningly dangerous." Some of the subjects he
touches on have been covered in detail elsewhere, and his chapter on
the administration’s stonewalling of the September 11 commission isn’t
fully up to date. But few critics have as effectively put the disparate
pieces together, linking them to what Dean says is a broader pattern of
secrecy from an administration that does its best to control the flow
of information on every subject—even the vice president’s health—and
uses executive privilege to circumvent congressional scrutiny. Dean’s
probe extends back to Bush’s pre-presidential activities, such as his
attempt to withhold his gubernatorial papers from public view, and
Dean’s background as an investment banker adds welcome perspective on
Bush’s business career (as well as Cheney’s). Dean ultimately
identifies 11 issues (such as the secrecy around the forming of a
national energy policy and what Dean calls Bush’s misleading of
Congress about war with Iraq) on which the White House’s stance could
lead to scandal, and warns that allowing the administration to continue
its policy of secrecy may lead to a weakening of democracy. Despite
occasional comments about Bush’s intelligence that will rankle
presidential supporters, Dean (Blind Ambition) is generally
levelheaded; his role in Watergate and the seriousness of his charge in
the national media that Bush has committed impeachable offenses has
popped this onto bestseller lists.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.