I am dumbfounded that you actually said about Eminem's revolting video, with echos of the ugliest internet borne toxic rumors:
"I think it's the most powerful piece of politically directed art I have seen (or heard) in years."
Just for the record Steve, what other powerful politically directed art have you seen? You have lost all credibility in my eyes. I can just see you and your cocktail sipping white friends being impressed by this stupid video. The vision harks back to Leonard Bernstein and the Black Panthers. If I ever forget why elite academic liberals are so lame I just need to remember your comment. In my mind you just disqualified yourself for serious political commentary, and qualified yourself as another overeducated fool.

Bertignac -- I respect your right to comment on these matters but just for the record, I'm not seeking approval or validation from you or anyone else for some acceptable level of "serious political commentary." In my view, my blog is one of the most balanced out there, but I could be wrong. I get that you don't like the Eminem video. But your comments remind me of a time when I worked for Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat in the US Senate. We had worked very, very hard to get Jesse Helms' staff to drop some very disagreeable provisions from a foreign operations bill. I (and we) succeeded -- but it took a long time and some very serious negotiations. In the end, Jeff Bingaman still did not want to vote on the Helms bill because it was a Helms bill, even though it had been cleaned up. I encouraged Jeff Bingaman to change his mind about this and he did vote in favor of the legislation -- but too much of the world lies in comfortable grooves where they live by cliche and preconceived notions of people and ideas. I try not to.

I don't like much of what Eminem has done in the past. I liked this powerful video -- my preference. You don't need to share it.

But geez -- can we drop the ad hominem attacks?

Best regards,

Steve Clemons

Steve,
The part of the Eminem video that insinuates that George Bush knew about the attacks on the Twin Towers is pernicious. The fact that this group of Washington elite at Princeton was more concerned with Eminem's latest video than with Bin Laden's threats to the US and the rest of the world is pathetic. Your blog is about as balanced (I guess you mean between non-partisan between "left" and "right", Democrat/Republican) as The New America Foundation is: in other words not balanced at all. Even the commentaries here run in basically one direction. I'm afraid you lost me in the Jesse Helms story. I have nothing against you personally. You seem like an interesting and intelligent person. Your blog covers a lot of territory, but if you think that there is a "non-partisan" or "bi-partisan" feeling here, you are quite mistaken.
Cordially,
Bertignac

Bertignac -- Thanks for your follow-up. I'm glad that you know about the New America Foundation, but I think that you have an incorrect impression about the work that we do and the direction it points. Although Robert Kaplan is no longer with us -- he clearly was a Bush supporter, if that is what your meaning is. And if you carefully look at some of the social policy stuff my colleagues have done -- George Bush has acquired much more of the language and even the programattic ideas than John Kerry -- which I think makes some of my colleagues uncomfortable. Is there an overall tilt right now? Maybe so.

But in any case, I have valued your other commentary on the site and am sorry to lose your perspective, even if we disagree on some issues. I think that there are probably other arenas in which we might find agreement.

And while I do like the Eminem video, found it powerful -- and found people at the party last night talking about it, I think that you would be wrong to draw from my comments that there was some sort of contest going on about what was most important. If that is what you drew from the couple of grafs I suggested, then the mistake is mine. I didn't go polling the crowd. If I had, clearly just the overall issue about the election and bin Laden's video message would have been the biggest news. I just happened to note that a number of people had seen the Eminem video and were enthused that it might actually do something with younger subculture audiences that were not part of the traditinal polling samples.

But I won't disagree with you on your comment about Bush knowing about the 9/11 incident in advance -- but I didn't note that in the video. I will have to look again. But the overall direction of the video is one that is powerful and loaded with a message that people ought not to be passive in the debates about power that are unfolding. I agree with that message.

In any case, your comments are not uninformed -- and while they are passionate in their opposition to what I have written, I wanted to offer at least some reasoned response to the objections you raise.

All the best,
Steve Clemons

Steve,
Thanks for answering. I never mean any offense to (almost) anybody. Just speaking my mind. Be careful using the term "sub-culture" because if you ever actually speak to somebody from the "sub-culture" you are talking about they will probably be offended. Question: does Zbignew like Eminem?
Regards,
bertignac

bertignac writes: "The part of the Eminem video that insinuates that George Bush knew about the attacks on the Twin Towers is pernicious."

I'm no fan of rap music, but I watched the video to see if I could find evidence of this or any other of the "toxic rumors" you claim. In fact, there is no such insuation. Maybe you confused a reference to the fact that Bush received warnings of a pending attack and did nothing in response? Remember C. Rice's absurd claim that it was an "historical document"?

The only thing I found that was factually incorrect was the shot of Bush holding "My Pet Goat" upside down.

Let me ask you this? Leaving aside your choice "Washington elite" shibboleth, which do you think is currently getting more attention among a far larger and easily more potent group in this country, the young people in America, the UBL video or Eminem's Mosh?

PeterB:
At the beginning of the video you see a New York Post front page then a press clip which says: "Bush knew of terrorist plot to hijack US planes". I assume this was a story in the post but it is presented here as simple bold text. Dwelling on the Bush reading to the kids part is as puerile as I'd expect from Eminem (or Michael Moore). As far as your question about the young? First of all, I assume you mean over 18 (voting age). How am I supposed to know? But if Eminem (or Michael Moore) can significantly affect voting in the US then it is a sad state of affairs. My ten-year old step son would choose Eminem.
bertignac

Ya all want to win on Tuesday?

Then this ad right now:

http://p2p-politics.org/cgi-bin/wrapper.cgi?title=Who%20is%20more%20presential%3F&url=http://www.archive.org/download/morepresidential/morepresidential.mov

Total + total saturation.

Don't bother to run anything else.
Just that ad...again and again and again.

I am utterly unclear why the headline about Bush is unfair. It's a legitimate interpretation of Bush's failure to act like his 'hair was on fire' after seeing a PDB that contained such information.

Moreover, I'm unclear why making fun of the My Pet Goat incident is "puerile". I have yet to hear a defense of Bush's conduct that has any merit. Faced with horrible news, he sat there...and sat there...and sat there.

What is disturbing is to pick a couple points in the video without reference to overall message contained therein. This is also what has been so striking about the critics of Farenheit 9/11. When the biggest knocks are on the least important and/or convincing points, it still leaves the best points standing. It's quite telling.

Mike B:
This is a ridiculous partisan repost. First of all, those words make it sound like Bush was involved in the attack on the Twin Towers, which among other insane and toxic rumors (i.e. Jews did this) have been around on the internet since 9/11. Secondly, I do not expect that running around as if your 'hair was on fire' (is this a reference to Richard Clarke -- opportunistic bad loser -- by the way) is very effective for anything. Aside from that, check what Kerry said he and his aides were doing for hours in his Senate office when they heard the news about the attack. I paraphrase ... they were immobile, for hours they were numbed, couldn't even think. And I don't even know why I am wasting my time speaking to someone who gets his political cues from the likes of Eminem or Michael Moore. I am not a critic of Farenheit 9/11, I am a critic of a society that is so brain dead that it actually listens to the doctored propoganda of this clown and then quotes him as if he spoke about some truth. (and truth does not emanate from a nest of lies, which is what MM produces) If Moore were around in the 1930s he would be making documentaries proving that the Jews and the Cabal of the Elders of Zion were controlling the world. Kerry supporters such as yourself frighten me.

Bertignac - The kind of debate about these issues that you are engaged in is exactly the kind of healthy discussion and debate I hope my site encourages. I helps people, including me, learn. On your "sub-culture" point, you are right that members of that sub-culture might be offended, but I often find myself quite intrigued with being part of these groups (some of them) and would look at the distinction with a smile.

On Brzezinski, great question! I will have to try and find that out. I know two of his sons, Mark and Ian -- one a dem and the other on the republican side -- and I will have to see if I can get them to get their dad to watch the video.

If it happens, I'll report back.

best regards,

Steve Clemons

Hi Steve,
Glad you are not put off by criticism. I like that. The subculture thing is for real. I have heard the offense with my own ears. The idea of you listening to Eminem is still a bit unreal for me. Brzezinski was a teacher at Columbia when I did a master's there. I never had a course with him, but remember seeing him in the halls looking like a lost Polish aristocrat. Thinking about who he worked for in Washington it seems ironic now that he was so criticized by the left in those days of the Tripartite Program. I recently saw him on TV in Paris (he was appearing from somewhere else via satellite) sitting around with the usual suspects here (i.e. Hubert Vidrine et al.) and I was happy to at least hear him put them in there place in their anti-Bush (just the latest excuse for anti-American) semi-frenzy. He said, a little too gently for me, that European intellectuals and leaders talk an awful lot about the US ignoring their advice, yet they sit on the sidelines when asked to contribute either military force or money.
Regards,
bertignac

Steve,
The fact that Peter Bergen and Walter Russell Mead are involved in the New America Foundation is reassuring.
Bertignac

bertignac - You can interpret the headline shown briefly in the video as you like, but it does in fact refer to the PDB which Bush ignored and does not, as you originally claimed, insinuate that he was specifically aware of the attack on the Towers before it happened. And MikeB is absolutely correct in pointing out that this simply obfuscates the larger message of the video, which is unassailable.

Also, in claiming that Kerry's immediate reaction to the 9-11 attack is comparable to the president's you betray your own partisan bias. In fact, Kerry has said publicly that he knew immediately after the first plane hit that bin Laden was responsbile and that we were under attack. (See the Larry King interview with Kerry on July 8th - in its entirety.) In any event, it makes no sense to look for untenable comparisons to Senator Kerry as an excuse for Bush's own failure to respond immediately to the attack.

You may think it is unfair to criticize Bush for those seven minutes of inaction. I tend to agree, but only because it distracts from more collosal and deliberate errros in judgment by Bush and his administration over the past 3 years and 9 months.

I agree with you that those who look to hip hop videos or popular movies for their political cues need to broaden their horizons. But why reserve your judgment for voices which have a point-of-view with which you don't agree? And in any case, you don't need to look hard among the right wing media players for contemptible examples outright lying.

In fact, after years of being subjected to the lies of Limbaugh, et al, ad nauseum, finally, and at long last, we hear the voices of those speaking against them. The right wing is disquieted by this and now flails impotently against the Eminem's and Michael Moore's of this world. This signals a broader shift in the deplorable state of public discourse, and encourages me that the voices you find so objectionalble will eventually serve to rebalance that discussion to the benefit of all who cherish a fair and open dialogue.

Peter B:
Many people would read that in the way I described. I have in fact read and heard as much, and worse. The "immediate" response you say is lacking makes no sense to me. What counts is that there was planning and successful invasion of Afghanistan. I remember all the "negatrons" in 2001 who said that it couldn't be done, that the US would get "bogged down" like the Soviets, etc. You must be referring to some kind of immediate public relations type of "immediate response", the kind of thing that Senator Kerry specialises in. I am happier with the consistent response that led to the end of the Taliban.
As far as Rush Limbaugh, other radio hosts of various political persuasions (in fact why not through in Dan Rather and Ms Mapes along with them while we're at it?) ... I agree with you, they play to their crowd and that is what they do. But at least acknowledge that the demand for the majority of conservative radio shows is a response to domination by a slanted mass print and tv media which calls itself objective, yet is not. And even though I listen to talk radio, I do not make reasoned judgments (in my own albeit limited manner) based on one of those programs, whereas many people I believe have made judgements based on dreck (excuse my yiddish) like Farenheit 9/11. The right wing or mainstream America has been "disquieted" by this state of affairs for quite some time. But I don't believe anybody is "flailing impotently" (aren't you waxing a bit poetic here?). I just know, for myself, that as soon as somebody brings up what MM or a Hollywood star has to say in order to make a political point, I make a mental note to not take that person's opinions very seriously. Michael Moore is a bit like Monarch Notes: he is for people too lazy to do their homework. And if Miramax says they did extensive fact-checking, does that mean that they checked the facts of their specious secondary sources?
Lastly, I do not hide my partisanship. I am neither Republican nor Democrat. But I support Bush in this election because, among many other reasons (too long to discuss here and anyway we all know all the arguments) I do not want the two Johns anywhere near the White House.
bertigac

Peter B:
Maybe what Charles Krauthammer has to say could be relevant to your comment about "... Bush's own failure to respond immediately to the attack."

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER WRITES on "Kerry's Afghan Amnesia:"

"Within days of Sept. 11, the clueless airhead president that inhabits Michael Moore's films and Tina Brown's dinner parties had done this: forced Pakistan into alliance with us, isolated the Taliban, secured military cooperation from Afghanistan's northern neighbors, and authorized a radical war plan involving just a handful of Americans on the ground, using high technology and local militias to utterly rout the Taliban.

President Bush put in place a military campaign that did in two months what everyone had said was impossible: defeat an entrenched, fanatical, ruthless regime in a territory that had forced the great British and Soviet empires into ignominious retreat. Bush followed that by creating in less than three years a fledgling pro-American democracy in a land that had no history of democratic culture and was just emerging from 25 years of civil war.

This is all barely remembered and barely noted. Most amazing of all, John Kerry has managed to transform our Afghan venture into a failure -- a botched operation in which Bush let Osama bin Laden get away because he "outsourced" bin Laden's capture to "warlords" in the battle of Tora Bora.

Outsourced? The entire Afghan war was outsourced. How does Kerry think we won it? How did Mazar-e Sharif, Kabul and Kandahar fall? Stormed by thousands of American GIs? They fell to the "warlords" we had enlisted, supported and directed. It was their militias that overran the Taliban. ..."

Oh, what the heck. Let it get political (as if it isn't already). I might as well post the rest of the Krauthammer article:

""Outsourcing" is a demagogue's way of saying "using allies." (Isn't Kerry's Iraq solution to "outsource" the problem to the "allies" and the United Nations?) . . . .

Once again, the senator's position has evolved, to borrow the New York Times' delicate term for Kerry's many about-faces.

This election comes down to a choice between one man's evolution and the other man's resolution. With his endlessly repeated Tora Bora charges, Kerry has made Afghanistan a major campaign issue. So be it. Whom do you want as president? The man who conceived the Afghan campaign, carried it through without flinching when it was being called a "quagmire" during its second week and has seen it through to Afghanistan's transition to democracy? Or the retroactive genius, who always knows what needs to be done after it has already happened -- who would have done "everything" differently in Iraq, yet in Afghanistan would have replicated Bush's every correct, courageous, radical and risky decision -- except one. Which, of course, he would have done differently. He says. Now."

Steve,

Thanks for posting the Eminem link. With the
exception of a few groups, like the poetic
"900 Foot Jesus", I don't like rap much. But
unlike the detractors, I thought that this was
an amazing work. The rap fit well with the
animated video.

To those who argue that this or that image is
inaccurage or unfair, I will point out that this
is not journalism. This is a work of art that
is targeted at the emotional level, at the gut.
Get out, vote and turn the Bushies out of office.
Take part in the political process, or you will
be the victim of that process. You will be sent
to Iraq to die for oil, says Eminem.

Eminem, like many artists, is a disturbed person.
I've read about how he treated his wife and about
his relationship with his mother. I'm not going
to hold him up as an example for anyone. But
I agree with Steve, this is a moving work. If
it results in people understanding that politics
is directly tied to their lives and their
incomes, all the better. Our nation is stronger
when everone is involved in the political process.

I feel the tide rising. I feel the wave coming.
Two more days and the Bushies will be swept out
of office. I don't believe the polls. I believe
that Kerry will win by several million votes.
Politicians necessarily disappoint, but I think
that Kerry will be a good president. And he
certainly cannot be worse than Bush.

Ian Kaplan

Ian Kaplan:
Are you sure you're feeling the tide rising because you surround yourself only with people who agree with you?
Bertignac

Didn't the Eminem video come out too late for it to motivate his fans to get registered? Doubt they would've been registered before, given descriptions of their views, so what good is the video if none of the fans are registered to vote Tuesday?

You know bertignac, you say you're an independent but you sound like you've OD'd on Fox News. Take a look around, the research shows that Kerry-supporters are more-well informed of issues than Bush supporters. Are you one of the drones that still think that Saddam had WMDs? or maybe that Saddam supported al Qaeda in 9/11 even though Bush and Cheney kinda/sorta refuted their earlier insinuations by stating that there is no connection?

You talk about Bush's "unflinching" drive in Afghanistan, do you really approve of his "unflinching" role in Iraq, 1100 dead Americans and what, more than 4700 wounded unable to return to their units? There's a point in time where "unflinching" charges into the burning building become "stupid." Your inability to discern between unflinching and stupid is your problem, but please don't preach that somehow we're the blind ones here.

I loved eminem's video, although I dislike rap. The video was inspiring, resonated with its theme, hit all the frustrations and anxieties that so many of us feel. He has the right and the talent to tell people, hey, you don't like what you're seeing, step up, and don't let Bush's attempts to dissuade voters from going to the polls stop you. If nothing else, bertignac, you ought to feel disgusted about the Rethuglican's attempts to bar new registering voters from voting or fool voters to going to the wrong polls or on the wrong date. But I guess if that's the only way Bush can win, you'd accept that, huh?

Not me. Time for fascists to go back to Crawford.

Al:
you sound defensive. "unflinchingly" comes from Krauthammer, so you better tangle with him. though i think even in his wheelchair he would have no problem with an obvious lightweight such as yourself.

this quote from you has got to be one of the funniest I've heard lately:
" ... the research shows that Kerry-supporters are more-well informed of issues." Keep making me laugh. But at least you are consistent with your candidate of choice, you will say anything no matter how dumb you sound.

bertignac

bertignac - It's curious that Krauthammer is reduced to bleating exclusively about our success in Afghanistan against the Taliban. Indeed, you'll probably be surprised to learn that not many people are actually criticizing either the rationale or execution to oust the Taliban. And yes, the Northern Alliance proved an excellent ally in that conflict. My problem, and that of many others, is with what has happened since then.

Also, holding up Charles Krauthammer as a worthy commentator discredits you. He sits at the head of the class of the blindly partisan, ossified punditocracy who senselessly beat the drum for war in Iraq. His only service to public discourse (if you can call it service) is, like William Safire and Robert Novak, as a reverse barometer of reality.

And to get back on track with the original thread, I noted in the news today that Mosh is currently No. 1 on the MTV playlist.

Peter B:
"Bleating"? My point in putting up Krauthammer's article had nothing to do with Iraq, but everything to do with John Kerry. I guess you read into the article what you wanted? I am quite happy with CH as a commentator. He is very worthy and very intelligent. I guess you read somebody like Krugman. Well, liberal baiting is fun here, there are so many of you around ... "bleating" like John Kerry and his cute running mate John (comb your hair for an hour) Edwards.
-bertignac

Obviously, I meant CK ...
and, I posted this elsewhere, but chew on this for a while Peter:

I don’t know if you have seen Madeleine Albright lately on TV shows campaigning, but here is an interesting tidbit from an old "The Nation" which I think puts into stark relief what the situation was during the Clinton Administration.

"The grim question of how many people have died in Iraq has sparked heated debate over the years. The controversy dates from 1995, when researchers with a Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) study in Iraq wrote to The Lancet, the journal of the British Medical Society, asserting that sanctions were responsible for the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children. The New York Times picked up the story and declared "Iraq Sanctions Kill Children." CBS followed up with a segment on 60 Minutes that repeated the numbers and depicted sanctions as a murderous assault on children. This was the program in which UN ambassador (and later Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright, when asked about these numbers, coldly stated, "The price is worth it." "

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011203&s=cortright

My mamma told me "stupid is as stupid does," so I'm feeling comfortable, bertignac. Keep weaving and ducking the issues, it's only going to be one more day, and then you can start bemoaning the future Kerry presidency.

Al:
Well then Al, I suggest you 'Save it fo yo mama"
bertignac

Bertignac --

I just read your response to my comments, and like many of your other posts here, they are based on inaccurate presumptions. Engage the arguments instead of engaging in name calling.

Rather than defend Bush's conduct after being advised of the attack, you comment on what happened at Kerry's office. Hey, I would guess that most Americans were stunned and just watched the TV. But the commander-in-chief is supposed to lead. And at least get up out of his chair.

What is particularly offensive to me is that you accuse me (and thus many others) of 'quoting' Michael Moore, as if I'm some mindless minion who can't think on my own. I watched the film -- some things in it were effective and informative, some things didn't wash. Put no matter what, the seven minutes are absolute fact -- it's up to everyone to decide what they think of it.

As for 'hair on fire' -- if you take the expression literally, then you really don't understand what it's trying to communicate. I believe you do know, but don't want to accept it, because you would rather make a cheap point than deal with the failure of the administration to treat terrorism seriously before 9/11, despite indications that they needed to do so.

When it comes down to it, people evaluating Bush's record don't need to rely on distortions to make stinging critiques. Regardless of what side of the debate one comes down on, the effects of Bush's policies will reverberate for years to come. It's still possible that he's right, and his tax cuts and preemptive wars will lead to peace and prosperity. But for now, it just looks like 2 + 2 = 5.

Mike B
I am not avoiding anything. The way Bush reacted minutes after the attack on the Twin Towers is neither here nor there. I do not in any way criticise the way Kerry reacted. It was merely a response to this idiotic focusing on what is not important, and trying to politicize it. The fact is that Afghanistan just had a peaceful election, the first election in the history of that country. Bush is personally responsible for getting to that place, no matter how much nit-picking, negative, Monday morning quarterback liberals like to discount that. Bush was transformed by 9/11 and acted afterwards and got results. Now argue that away. And don't change the subject.

Bertignac,

The headline you are so upset about in the Eminem video was from a legitimate news story in the UK newspaper the Observer:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,8224,718311,00.html

In early August 2001, Bush was indeed briefed about Al Qaeda's intent to strike at the U.S., and reminded of previous intelligence reports that Al Qaeda operatives had discussed hijacking U.S. planes.

Not exactly an "internet borne toxic rumor" like you claimed.

Next time, try a little fact-checking of your own before penning your comments.

[And really...fact-checking a music video? That's just like Tucker Carlson criticizing Jon Stewart for not being hard-hitting enough on his COMEDY show]

the rumor was that Bush actually conspired to allow the towers to be hit ... and there are enough idiots out there (probably listening to Eminem too) to see that clip in his video and draw their own conclusions. have you, by the way, read the 9/11 report? to say that Bush is responsible for the towers being hit, even having been warned about potential high-jackings is calumnous ... the real problem was the whole system of air security, which he inherited ... so, now, read the 9/11 report ... instead of listening to the inaccurate, opportunistic rants of the likes of Richard Clarke during the televised circus.

Bertignac,

The only one spreading that rumor here is you. I simply pointed out your error.

Rob