--May 5, 2004--
Disney Forbids Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush
By JIM RUTENBERG, The New York Times
WASHINGTON, May 4 — The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday. The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis — including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating. Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.
In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for Miramax, said: "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably." But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said. "We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands."
Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film when Icon Productions, Mel Gibson's company, backed out. Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor. "Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."
Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel.
A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company. The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many. "It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," this executive said.
Miramax is free to seek another distributor in North America, but such a deal would force it to share profits and be a blow to Harvey Weinstein, a big donor to Democrats. Mr. Moore, who will present the film at the Cannes film festival this month, criticized Disney's decision in an interview on Tuesday, saying, "At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' "Mr. Moore's films, like "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine," are often a political lightning rod, as Mr. Moore sets out to skewer what he says are the misguided priorities of conservatives and big business. They have also often performed well at the box office. His most recent movie, "Bowling for Columbine," took in about $22 million in North America for United Artists. His books, like "Stupid White Men," a jeremiad against the Bush administration that has sold more than a million copies, have also been lucrative.
Mr. Moore does not disagree that "Fahrenheit 911" is highly charged, but he took issue with the description of it as partisan. "If this is partisan in any way it is partisan on the side of the poor and working people in this country who provide fodder for this war machine," he said. Mr. Moore said the film describes financial connections between the Bush family and its associates and prominent Saudi Arabian families that go back three decades. He said it closely explores the government's role in the evacuation of relatives of Mr. bin Laden from the United States immediately after the 2001 attacks. The film includes comments from American soldiers on the ground in Iraq expressing disillusionment with the war, he said.
Mr. Moore once planned to produce the film with Mr. Gibson's company, but "the project wasn't right for Icon," said Alan Nierob, an Icon spokesman, adding that the decision had nothing to do with politics. Miramax stepped in immediately. The company had distributed Mr. Moore's 1997 film, "The Big One." In return for providing most of the new film's $6 million budget, Miramax was positioned to distribute it. While Disney's objections were made clear early on, one executive said the Miramax leadership hoped it would be able to prevail upon Disney to sign off on distribution, which would ideally happen this summer, before the election and when political interest is high.
Copyright © 2004 The New York Times Company.
--May 8, 2004--
More Bad News May Be on the Way for Bush
By TERENCE HUNT, AP
WASHINGTON (May 8) - In one of the darkest weeks of his administration, President Bush saw America's reputation sullied, the U.S. effort in Iraq damaged and his own campaign for re-election clouded. And more bad news may be on the way.
While the world already has been horrified by pictures of American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners, the Pentagon warns there are many more photos and videos that have not been disclosed.
Iraqis sit in the lobby of a local hotel in Baghdad as they watch President Bush during his apology to Muslims for prison abuse.
They show ''acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman,'' embattled Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress.
From the White House to Capitol Hill, policy-makers are worried that the United States faces lasting damage abroad - particularly in the Middle East - from the pictures of naked Arab men being tortured and humiliated by American soldiers, the same forces sent to Iraq to liberate the country from Saddam Hussein's torture and repression.
Analysts describe the pictures as great recruiting tools for al-Qaida and other extremist groups and said they undermine America's claims to a moral high ground. Rumsfeld said the impact was ''radioactive.''
Bush, in his weekly radio address Saturday, said, ''They are a stain on our country's honor and reputation.'' He said the abuses were the work of a few and do not reflect the overall character of the 200,000 members of the U.S. military who have served in Iraq in the past year.
Six months from the November elections, Iraq weighs heavily on the president.
April was the deadliest month yet for American soldiers in Iraq and May is off to a bloody start.
On the diplomatic front, the administration does not know who will take power in Iraq from the United States in a June 30 handover.
Costs are soaring. The administration has sent Congress an unexpected $25 billion request for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Day after day, the extraordinary apologies from the president and his top deputies dominated the news.
Pollsters and presidential experts are scratching their heads over how the prisoner scandal will affect Bush's re-election hopes.
''There's such a big question mark there, it's unlike anything we've seen before,'' said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center.
''The public is very critical of (Bush's) management of Iraq. They don't think he has a clear plan for bringing it to a successful conclusion, but a thin majority of the public has been hanging in with that it was the right decision to go to war,'' Kohut said. ''This could be the event which makes people say 'Oh, we did make a mistake.'''
Political scientist James Thurber of American University likened the Iraq images to the infamous Vietnam pictures of a naked young girl fleeing a napalm attack and a Viet Cong prisoner being executed on a Saigon street.
Referring to the new pictures, Thurber said, ''That's what we're going to remember about Iraq. It's just not going to go away. That may have a lasting and negative effect on his campaign. It certainly does right now and I think you'll see it in the polls immediately.''
Support for Bush's handling of foreign policy and terrorism, usually his strongest issue, was at 50 percent in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Friday. That compares with 55 percent a month ago.
Kurt Campbell, a former Pentagon official during the Clinton administration, said it was too early to tell whether Rumsfeld would be able to keep his job.
''The real issue is there's more stuff that's going to come out that is troubling, beyond humiliation and torture. Deaths I think,'' said Campbell, director of international security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"This has been a difficult few weeks. Yet our forces will stay on the offensive, finding and confronting the killers and terrorists."
-President Bush
''And there's going to be quite a long record of warnings that were either ignore or dismissed. And that I think is going to be problematic,'' Campbell said.
Lawmakers worried the pictures would harm U.S. credibility for years, perhaps decades. While the United States champions freedom and democracy in Iraq, the pictures show vivid scenes of cruelty and insensitivity.
Splashed across front pages across the Middle East and around the world, the pictures may undermine ''the substantial gains toward the goal of peace and freedom in various operation areas of the world, most particularly Iraq,'' said Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the committee's top Democrat, said the abuses ''dishonored our military and our nation and they made the prospects for success in Iraq even more difficult than they already are.''
Added Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla.: ''This was a political and public relations Pearl Harbor.''
Bush pledged in his radio address that the United States would not be thrown into retreat.
''This has been a difficult few weeks,'' Bush said. ''Yet our forces will stay on the offensive, finding and confronting the killers and terrorists who are trying to undermine the progress of democracy in Iraq.''
--May 14, 2004--
Bremer Says U.S. Will Leave if Asked
The Associated Press
BAGHDAD, Iraq (May 14) -- The U.S. governor of Iraq told regional officials Friday that the United States would leave the country if requested to do so by the new Iraqi government -- although he thinks such a move is unlikely.
L. Paul Bremer told a delegation from Iraq's Diyala province that American forces would not stay where they were unwelcome.
"If the provisional government asks us to leave we will leave,'' Bremer said, referring to an Iraqi administration due to take power June 30. "I don't think that will happen, but obviously we don't stay in countries where we're not welcome.''
The United States plans to keep substantial military forces here after the June 30 handover, prompting critics to question whether Iraqis will gain genuine sovereignty.
American officials have said that the terms of the U.S. military role will ultimately be determined by a status of forces agreement to be signed with the new Iraqi government.
During a briefing later Friday, coalition spokesman Dan Senor said that U.S.-led forces have the right to remain in Iraq "through the coalition process'' under U.N. resolution 1511.
"However, we do not anticipate that being an issue... . U.S. forces never stay in a foreign country in a situation like we would be staying in Iraq past June 30th if we are not wanted.''
But he added that Washington expects "a close partnership with the Iraqi interim government post-June 30th. The majority of Iraqis we deal with anticipate a close partnership. The Iraqi leaders anticipate a close partnership,'' especially in maintaining security.
On Thursday, Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman said the new Iraqi government will not have the authority to evict American forces from Iraq, quickly reversing a statement made minutes earlier before a House of Representatives panel.
Grossman's comments reflect the difficult balance the U.S. government is trying to strike as it moves closer to the June 30 handover.
When first asked by House International Relations Committee members whether an interim Iraqi government could force U.S. troops to leave, Grossman stressed that Iraqi leaders wanted them to remain. He also said that the Iraqi interim constitution and a U.N. resolution gave them authority to do so.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican, kept asking Grossman, "If they ask us to leave, we will leave, will we not?'' Pressed for a yes-or-no answer, Grossman eventually said yes.
But he later agreed with another panelist, Lt. Gen. Walter L. Sharp, that the interim constitution and U.N. resolution gave U.S.-led forces responsibility for Iraqi security for the immediate future.
After the hearing, Grossman was asked if that meant U.S. forces would not leave if asked by the interim government. "That is correct,'' he said.
U.S. officials have said that the terms of the American military role will ultimately be determined by a status of forces agreement to be signed with the new Iraqi government.
Though some officials have said such an agreement could be signed with the interim government, Grossman said it would be negotiated with the government formed after elections expected in January.