Isn't this a well known trick? Surely Paul Wolfowitz does this all the time? ;-D

It only increases the feeling that the war was done less for weapon stockpiling or humanitarian reasons, but as a way of using 9/11 to get back at the guy Daddy failed to do away with. It seems a shame that the Bush government felt the need to dupe its own people to perform this act (similar happened here with Blair, which perhaps is even more indefensible as there was even less of an understandable reason for supporting the war).

It says a lot for the contempt with which the public in the US and Britain were treated, if the faulty voting machines and allegations of corruption during the 2000 election weren't enough of a sign. Since the government proved not to care enough about its own people is it any wonder that they cared even less about the Iraqis?

and if that doesn't work...kittens smeared with Marmite

Voted for, mostly for the hot guy with the scoreboard just as the reporter said!

An interesting film and it is always good to see Julie Christie! I prefer the book (I actually found my copy of Bradbury's book left on a desk when helping out in the school library - someone left it behind and never came back to claim it so after a year the head librarian let me have it! Makes a nice parallel with the content - finding the book by chance, reading and memorising parts in case the owner came back for it and treasuring it when it was given to me!) mostly because the film is a bit rough - it was Truffaut's first English-language film and he apparently didn't get on very well with Oskar Werner.

There is also a story that it snowed by chance during filming of that final scene and that when Bradbury saw it he loved that ending.

What a strange excuse to demonise people. There's always the "potential future protests could become violent" if you piss people off enough! I've seen fifty year old plump women get incredibly angry about things - it doesn't mean they are a threat to national security, just that they are very, very, very upset! (especially if you feel powerless or that your pleas are ignored)

It just seems another way of creating a climate of fear - if any of these groups had any intention of performing a terrorist act or attacking people then surely they'd be 'underground' groups, not planting crosses in full view of the government and the media.

It seems more like laying the groundwork for being able to say these groups represented a known threat that excuses the use of force to disband them in the future.

Fantastic! I guess it might not be too far off since the Administration is doing its best to tap all sources but conscription - it is similar to what happened here in Britain when Blair's government reclassified all the unemployed as 'job seekers' and so didn't have to mention them in his unemployment figures!

I like Dewar's Whisky sponsoring the news! A great tagline should be "Dewar's Whisky - because the news always seems better when drunk!"

Interesting, but where is the part where he is punched and kicked by the cute Japanese schoolgirls as he tries to walk past? :-D

Yes, that is what would make everyone feel safe - lethal weapons in everyone's possession!

Excellent video! And these people in power are the same scumbags telling everyone that they are responsible for the death of the world by leaving their television on standby or not using energy saving lightbulbs - yet they have these ideas in their hands and refuse to do anything with them because they can't control their use.

They obviously prefer to attack those using their energy and absolve themselves of any responsibility for change. If they cared so much the loss of control or lack of power wouldn't come into their decision - it is one of the reasons why I think all this political talk is just the latest fad rather than a sign of any real concern about the environment.

I'd agree with aaronfr. It seems like the 'quick fix' approach to the issue, similar to how fund raising events raise awareness and money for a short time and then when they are over everyone goes back to their normal lives. I don't particularly like the way people are guilted into fundraising events or into doing things like turning off your TV for a week - it seems a bit pushy and gimicky.

Instead of a reactionary boycott of television the better (though more complicated) message to promote is one of encouraging a more questioning and interactive viewer. That might not change the content that is broadcast, but it will stop us being another barcoded product of what we see.

Thanks for showing this British guy that Bush doesn't speak for all Americans! ;-)

I suppose there is some solace to be taken from the idea that at least the American government hasn't started shooting people in its own country, although whether that should be put down to a lack of will on the part of the government to quell dissent with armed troops, or whether it is more because fewer people see the point in protesting any more to become targets is a point worth discussing.

I keep hearing comments by people around in the 60s to the effect that "We'd have been protesting events in Iraq long before now", and there is a sense that the younger generation (and I speak as part of it) are probably more socialised than that generation was. More prepared to accept infringements of civil liberties for fuzzily defined aims such as the 'war on terror' and more apathetic and withdrawn into the culture of reality television to escape the 'real reality' that we feel disenfranchised from.

But also in the 60s there was less media awareness on the part of the ruling class. On the commentary to the Hearts and Minds documentary, the director mentions that the Vietnam War was the first and last war to be totally played out in the public eye. So we have beautifully filmed images of death and destruction in Vietnam and miles of news footage of the reaction in the US, because the government didn't realise that seeing the victims gave them a face (the napalmed girl running down the road, skin peeling off her becoming an indelible image of that war)

They've learnt their lesson. No more beautiful images of war. Whatever the public is shown now is much more managed, edited, chosen for its impact on the audience. Now we have fuzzy pictures of smart bombs or films with poorly defined targets shown in gunsights being obliterated with a push of the button.

Strange that as computer games become more realistic reality is presented in a way more reminiscent of a computer game.

When reality does sometimes break through the micro-managed images we are fed, it comes through on even more grainy, poor quality images - Saddam Hussein's execution for example.

This 'managing and manipulation' of images through the media might also show how protests such as that at Kent State might never happen now. First, the people would not see the images of horror that would lead to a mass protest. Second, the protest would never get the kind of coverage, even if people were killed as a result, in today's media.

I agree with Wingoguy - it just takes one nervous guy with the safety off to accidentally shoot someone.

Very interesting to hear Nixon's speech about anarchy and keeping values by suppressing his countrymen - similar to Bush's pronouncements today. And it is always frightening to hear someone talk about their 'belief' that what they are doing is right and that sense of belief overrides everything else. That type of person can do anything, because they know that they are right, and nobody can tell them they are wrong.

That was sad with Nixon, but it becomes yet another layer of hypocrisy when I hear both Bush and Blair talk about their beliefs, or Blair talk about 'only being judged by history'. Surely the main aim in their 'war on terror' is to attack and destroy religious fundamentalists who feel that their 'beleifs' override the freedom of others. In that sense, how can we be blamed for equating Osama Bin Laden, George Bush and Tony Blair as one and the same?

Anyway, sorry to get onto a rant about current events in a comment about a video of a past tragedy. I just feel sad that I'm looking back at such disturbing footage as almost a relic of a more innocent and naive time.

I'm a bit ambivalent on the uses of Wikipedia myself, but following that link from the VTech shootings I learnt about the Bath School disaster of 1927, which was something I'd never known about before then.

So...perhaps there is something to it!

"Mr Bush, how would you counter the somewhat mistaken belief that the war in Iraq is similar to the war in Vietnam?"

Wow, tough crowd!

If Bush auditioning for a new job as a talk show host? Why does he keep roaming the stage like that?

Also, why in every event like this is the President shown with a wall of people behind him? Does he believe his television audience is so stupid that they need to be shown the fawning reaction of his supporters behind him to know what they should feel?