Copy/Pasted from my own guild's message boards:


I'm gonna start it off with the textbook definition for a Documentary, right here:

Ok, now that we've gotten that out of the way ... thats right, there is no definition. Rosenthal, one of the leading documentarians which has aired films on PBS, The Discovery Channel, and numerous other large cooporate and independent venues, wrote "The documentary is a work of fiction. It is impossible to capture reality, one can only put forth a story as true to form as possible." My AP Chemistry summarized it probably a little better and less theoretical though, "Absolute Zero can never be reached in a laboratory setting ... the machinery required to make such a temperature would add heat into the equation. Even if the technology was designed, whatever impliment you used to detect the temperature of absolute zero would warm the environment." Or one can simply rely on the FBI handbook my roomate was handed his first day on the job, "If you sit 7 people in a room and they all watch a crime, no one would tell you exactly what happened. Everyone will capture an event differently, even in the slightest." So anyone who's gonna start on that "it wasn't a documentary" bullshit can go mind their own business

I'm not gonna express my political views, but I can say the film was put together in a very insightful way ... and unlike his past film, it did help to lead one to a solid conclusion. He used facts and fancy editing, the tools of any good documentarian. I think the awards Michael has earned so far for this film can speak far more than I ever could on the topic. You will sit down and he will make you think. My die-hard liberal roomates enjoyed the movie just as much as my die-hard conservative friend, and both of them walked out of the theater a better person for seeing the film.

There were periods where I didn't like his style. It seemed early in the film during a few of the interviews he was fishing for responses from his subjects, though it was obvious if he waited a few more seconds his subject would have said the same things anyway ... patience Michael, patience! There were also a few places (as those of you who watched Bowling would recall) that he touched on personal, intimate stories of individuals instead of the bigger picture. I felt that sometimes these weren't as necessary as in Bowling as we were dealing with a far heavier, far more political film than Bowling. However he also captured a lot of the heavier topics in a humorous light -- watching our beloved President making funny faces at the camera 15 seconds before publically declaring war with Iraq was pretty priceless.

This isn't an easy movie to take though, its awfully serious. I know that everyone in my party (there were around 25 of us) cried at least once during the film, and poor Natalie actually gave herself a headache and swears she ran out of tears. No one talked the entire car ride home either. Its taken me a few hours just to figure out what to write on it, and I don't even feel comfortable sharing my political thoughts -- but I know people wanted a review and here it is. Is it worth your time? you bet.


Now I'm sure the conservatives will jump all over this one, so my challenge ... I want to see where some of the "lies" are. Copies of this forum are going to be sent to a few different places, to compare these with the "truth", one being a friend of mine over at NBC News in Washington, DC, another being my old documentary professor at American University (the leading university in the United States for documentary films).

*edit* I forgot to include why :) my old school of communicataions is covering the election and this kinda debate is interesting news!

Dear Kelraz it's not a matter of a lie but pushing a conclusion, yes. At the beginning of the film M. Moore made sure you knew that GW's cousin made the call that Bush Won Fla. Well he failed to point out that NBC ABC CBS where all at Fault to for calling a winner at all based on statical projections. New programs are no longer interested in report news but packaging news. The votes could of been called either way. He often showed effect of something but we never know what fully caused the effect. Many of the tragic since of soldiers talking about what just happen to the innocent victims of a battle. He never described the events leading up to the battle and how Iraqis soldier used the innocent non combatants as shields. So Iraqis people Good.

here is my Summery of the movie:
American People Good but are rubes American Soldiers are good but are doing evil things Iraq Good. GW Bush Bad bad.

How about showing the 1000s of children is mass graves and suffering from the after effects of mustard gas instead of them flying a fucking kite..

Talveren, thats simply stupid. Of course no one would show that ... why would you put opposing arguments into something thats supposed to support your argument. However, there were those children flying their kites that morning and those days -- that my friend, is factual information.

I mean, that would almost be as dumb as putting arguments ... say, pictures of themselves juxtaposed against pictures of Hitler ... on a commercial supporting yourself.
www.georgewbush.com/ (http://www.georgewbush.com/) -- check out the commercial "This is not a time for pessimism and rage"

I rank even American Idol, TRL, and Survivor higher than that crap. People wasting their money to support Moore is one thing, but giving credibility to that as a fact based documentary is silly.

Point number one, if you were smart enough to pay attention when you watched the film you would have read the part about those being commercials from Kerry supporters, and that Kerry denounced the Bush people for showing them, but never denounced his own people who made the commercials to begin with.

Next, there IS a textbook definition of documentary, "Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter". Moore strikes out on all three counts in that definition: he is most certainly not objective, he editorializes everything, and he not only inserts fictional matter but he removes factual material that takes away from the point he is trying to make.

What Michael Moore does is not documentaries, but propaganda films with the goal of defaming his political oponents, ie the President and conservatives.

I haven't seen the film(nor will I, as I refuse to put a dollar into that worthless uneducated buffoon's pocket) but I have already heard Republican members of Congress that he confronted on the street talk about how they were portrayed. Same thing different day, he didn't like what they said so he edited out their comments and edited in what he wanted them to look like/say.

defensive?

Of course not. /scoff

At least people care enough about it to create discussion. Agree or disagree but at least people are talking about it and that makes him the winner from his perspective.

Cristo I don't know who you are, but you have no clue what a documentary is if you think there is a definition. Thousands of scholarly journals and meetings have attempted to define the relatively new medium, but the fact is (and yes, fact) that you can never portray factual information because the instant you try to capture it on film the lense itself will alter it. People act different in front of a camera, and anything can be taken extremely out of context. These people said and did what they did because the camera was there, and that should never be forgotten. There is also the use of editing which takes the medium of "documentary" into the fictional realm. One of my first assignments during Documentary Filmmaking 3 was to cut the exact same footage 5 different ways, each portraying a radically different story. Before you try to talk about things, lets go to school first?

You should always question what you see in any medium, especially in the digital age as there are no rules. Its like the National Geographic (a highly respected fact based organization) moved the pyramids on the cover of one of their magazines to make it look prettier -- an arangement of pyramids that will never be seen in reality on this planet. Anyone who blindly follows what the film tells them is a fool and an idiot, but anyone who slanders it calling it not a documentary is equally a fool.

doc·u·men·ta·ry
adj.

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Haha thanks Sanchek.

Kelraz, put your feet on the ground for a minute.

Grumblin it's not defensive to say he edits stuff out that disagrees with his point, nor to say he edits in things to make his points - it's the truth.

'What Michael Moore does is not documentaries, but propaganda films with the goal of defaming his political oponents, ie the President and conservatives.'

- NO WAY?!?! TO THINK SOMEONE WOULD DO THAT IN ORDER TO PUT THEIR POINT ACROSS!!!
It's almost like Bush making Kerry look bad, or vice versa.


What a nerve.

I have read a critique of the movie in an online newspaper. The last few lines (ie. the summary) in a rough translation:


I’m walking out sadly from the cinema. I was deeply shaken by the Fahrenheit 9/11.
You can’t name ‘documentary’ such a doesn’t-matter-just-not-Bush election campaign movie made by such a twist-the-truth-champion. A nation which buys this is already lost. Such a nation does not think. Anything can be done with such a nation. For example you can send them into war.


Written by a central European journalist. Doesn’t reflect my views as I haven’t seen the movie yet but you guys might find it interesting.


EDIT, oh whats up with the quote commands anyhow? Ezboards changed the syntax or what?

This (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/) pretty much explains my views. It's a long read but well worth it.

Yeah Sanchek, thats a definition you can find in a dictionary ... but every textbook and intellectual who's ever spoke on the subject would say "it can't be done".

I was speaking with Steve James after a long lecture ... hrm, maybe 3 months ago. James is the co-director of Hoop Dreams, the first documentary to ever "make the big time" if you will. I told him that I couldn't believe how much of a prick he and his other co-director were, and how much his film bothered me. You see, the film was based on 2 inner city boys and their love for basketball -- one with someone to support him financially, the other who didn't. Of course the one with the financial support was successful and the other wasn't. There was one scene in particular where they were filming in the kids house when the power was turned off. His response to me was simple, "If we gave them money to turn their power back on, it would have changed the film into something people didn't want to see. It would have been missing the drama. The truth is we did give them the money, only we didn't include that in the film."

Even the discovery channel "this is an iceberg" only includes the facts it wants to include. So far no one has come forward disputing any of the facts Michael put into the film, every bit of footage was true to form and not manipulated digitially in any way, and since the documentary includes interviews (real interviews, done by real people) of course there will be some editorialization on the beliefs of the interviewies ... your responses are pretty nieve, its like none of you ever actually watched another documentary in your lives.

I asked for facts, or fallacies, and so far no one's been able to put one up for discussion. If you can, I'd be happy to hear and concider it ... thats why I asked in the first place.

Click the word (This) in the post above yours. It's a cheap, funny, cartoonish, propaganda film your hero has produced. You're marching in step with it just like a good little sheep. At BEST its Limbaugh in reverse.

Yea, I guess he forgot to read the article.

The most amusing thing is that he is attempting to call other people naive.

Osgiliath666 thanks for the artical. It everything I don't have the skill and research to say. M. Moore spoofs american people in the film as doofs that do as they are told and have not clue of anything outside thied shells. Yet banks on that same assumption to convince the audiance of his point of view. I do simalar things in my art work. I create an image then make the view exam the condition of the image. I don't force a conclusion in th viewer I just want an effect. Moore does the same but over steps the boundier to force a conclusion hopes the view is not smart enough to see the twist while getting his point of view set in thier mind.

I finally Saw Bowling.. 2 weeks ago. even with the contrive events it was a much better movie which until the charton hesten interview. You knew he was anti-gun but the conclusion was more open ended.

Fae, thanks. If people like Moore, fine. If you're a liberal fine. If your conservative, fine. I just hate to think that people actaully take what Moore says as the truth. Unless of course they have the same leftist demogogary ideological axe to grind then no amount of fact will suit them.

Next, there IS a textbook definition of documentary, "Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter". Moore strikes out on all three counts in that definition: he is most certainly not objective, he editorializes everything

I love statements like this...cause we all know Cristo is "objective" in his political views and doesn't "editorialize" so I am sure his opinion of Moore is not biased at all, which is fine, if he wasn't trying to sell his opinion as fact. Don't like the guy, fine. Don't agree with him, fine again. But, do not act like your any less biased than he is, cause ya aint.

I wish some people would get over themselves and just understand that finding an "unbiased" piece of news is an impossibility and therfore, requires just a little grey matter to sift thru the crap. Funny how I never hear the same people that bitch and moan about Moore and how "non-factual" he is bitch and moan about Rush and his bullshit, or any other of the partisian on either side. Guess if the guy who is spinning and telling half-truths is on your side, all is good but god forbid someone does that on the other side.

Let me be the first. Rush Limbaugh is full of crap. Michael Moore is full of crap. Let's hear it for the centrists!

At least Rush puts spin on what are facts. Moore just makes shit up.

See, that wasn't so hard, Gulor has it right. :D

But right on schedule, here comes the double standard squad.

"Your guy makes stuff up, but at least my guy tells half-truths" :rollin

I'll join the chorus on this one. Rush is one of the worst things to happen to the right wingers.

Much as I despise Mr Moorer I feel the same for Rush.

There ya go bud, guess perhaps if you opened those pinholes of yers you'd hear much the same from a growing majority of self thinking folks.

This bit O fiction of Mr Moorers won't change anyone already set in their ways. But then again it's not aimed at them, it's aimed directly at the kids coming out of school with nary the experience nor character to make up their own opinions.

Fandros

I think you're overestimating people.

you'd hear much the same from a growing majority of self thinking folks.

I seriously hope you are right. My opinion is that the vast majority of the people in this country are somewhat middle of the road people but are just shouted down by the vocal minority from the left and the right. But, then I see people like Rush, Hannity and Moore with the followings they have, I lose faith. :(

I totally missed that article, thanks! That was exactly what I was looking for. My one roomate works in the White House as an intern and is quite the Bush supporter, so when even he couldn't come up with anything to dispute the film I was baffled.

On an aside, I don't know much about politics, but I do know film, especially documentary ... calling this film anything less than a documentary would also be calling every other film in the same genre a fictional piece or propaganda piece as well though. People have always criticized the news medium as being biased and yet news isn't fiction, its impossible to completely unbiased.

You know what you are getting with both.

Nobody walks into the theater on a Micheal Moore expecting Non-biased information. He has a known set opinion and agenda.

He calls this movie a documentary in the same way that Hannity and Rush call themselves journalists. Its a failure of the language that it has not accuratly come up with a word to define these people.

I havent seen the film yet, and thats what it is, a film. Not a public service announcement. Is it the first film to have at its core a social message from its creator? Of course not. Much of the great art in this century is a statement by the artist.

Do you have to feel the same way Steinbeck does to appreciate "The Grape of Wrath"? No. Do you have to be as anti War as Hemmingway to love "The Sun Also Rise"?

Bowling for Columbine was a great movie, was it a fact filled academic work? No.
ITS SATIRE.
A composition, generally poetical, holding up vice or folly to reprobation; a keen or severe exposure of what in public or private morals deserves rebuke; an invective poem; as, the Satires of Juvenal.

2. Keeness and severity of remark; caustic exposure to reprobation; trenchant wit; sarcasm.

Syn: Lampoon; sarcasm; irony; ridicule; pasquinade; burlesque; wit; humor.

Its not fucking treason.

Ahhhh but L2?

He accepted an award for Bowling for Columbine didn't he? An award in the documentary category I believe. He played on emotions still stemming from that horrible event to propel his creds. He's doing the same now.

Fact is, he's an uneducated goof that most kids/folks wouldn't give the time of day.

Sadly he happens to be gifted at self promotion...

Fandros

He sold everything he owned and went deep into debt to make "Roger and Me", it paid off. He took a risk for something, agree with him or not, he believed in. Uneducated? Sure, but what does that mean? He can still be a gifted filmaker. And make no mistake. He is VERY talented.

His films are really funny and great examples of satire.
Bowling for Columbine had a powerful and insightful message. And it came out in what? 2001? Columbine happened what? 5 years prior? Not exactally capitilizing on emotions. But the event DOES make a statement about American culture.

You want to be a patriot? Fine. Im right with ya. But dont be blind, there are good and bad things about America. We are not perfect and our greatest gift is that we strive to be better at all times.
To do that you have to be willing to self examine. I feel that once you critize the US many people just tune you out. They dont want to hear about it, they want to pretend it doesnt exist and allow no room for the tough questions and looks that striving toward an ideal requires.

Do we in America live in culture of Fear.. IMO.. absolutly.. Turn on your Evening News tonight and tell me its not "Fear for sale". Sex sells, but not as well as Fear.
TONIGHT AT 11.. CAN SOMETHING IN YOUR HOUSE KILL YOUR CHILDREN.. TUNE IN TO FIND OUT AT 11.

I think rush more identifies him self a entertainer that is a journalist .

I love statements like this...cause we all know Cristo is "objective" in his political views and doesn't "editorialize" so I am sure his opinion of Moore is not biased at all, which is fine, if he wasn't trying to sell his opinion as fact.


Hey Feyd, this one's on me - I'll shell out the couple bucks to buy you a clue.

For starters, *I* am not fabricating propaganda films about Moore and selling them as the truth.

Next, of course my opinion of Moore is biased, I've seen the bullshit he tries to pass off.

Lastly, I differ from Moore in that *MY* info IS factual when I say Moore is a big fat(pardon the pun) liar. It's been proven, over and over and over again.

This is coming from the person who defends Bush's grammar by saying "It must be out of context" "Its probably the liberals".

I'm flattered that you have a hard on for me Bowler, really..but you should at least find a legit point to argue instead of following me from thread to thread like a lost puppy.

Fine, he's creative...

But outright lies are bullshit..

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2...79,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124079,00.html)

Fandros

lost puppy.
Lost puppy indicates I have no motive or agenda.

I am not sure where you do your research Faervas, but I'd believe that most people would actually give him the time of day.
$21.8 million dollars divided by $9 many people, and thats just on a 3 day period.

The Fox editorial was pretty good, and a few good facts, I'm gonna take em one at a time.

For instance, in one often-showed clip, Moore claims that President Bush was on vacation 42 percent of the time during his first several months in office — but that estimation included weekends at Camp David, a common practice for presidents. Without those days figured in, Bush actually spent 13 percent of his time on vacation.

That wasn't a lie at all, 13% of your job away on vacation? He still is the one president who spent more time away on vacation than any other president during their first several months at office. During this time he still disregarded plenty of reports regarding Osama Bin Laden, thats not a lie at all. Bush definately dropped the ball here, and the 9/11 Commission certainly agreed he was in the wrong here.

The movie also criticizes Bush for staying inside a Florida classroom full of kids for a full seven minutes after he learned that the country was under attack on Sept. 11, 2001. However, the vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission has said that Bush did the right thing. "Bush made the right decision in remaining calm, in not rushing out of the classroom," said Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana.

I can buy that, that part didn't even seem like that big of a deal. I know if I had that big of an issue on my hands I'd take the time to think about it. However thats just 1 person out of many in the commission. Taking what Lee Hamilton says as law without knowing the others is just as bad as anything you are accusing Moore of.

In "Fahrenheit 9/11" (search) Moore also claims that the White House approved plans for planes to pick up relatives of Usama Bin Laden right after the attacks. But according to terrorism czar Richard Clarke (search), he alone approved the Saudi flights. In addition, Moore says that the departing Saudis were not properly processed by the FBI when leaving the country. That too is contradicted by the Sept. 11 commission, which said the Saudis were properly interviewed.

I don't blame Bush for this, but it certainly was a fuckup. When they tore into the dorms to pull the one Bin Laden kid out without so much of a word I was pretty creeped out. I'll admidt a lot of people were pissed, and knowing there was a Bin Laden 3 floors up didn't help much. I will say that if that member of the FBI, as well as many others, felt that these people should have been interrogated -- well they should have, that was just the Clarke and the government acting inappropriately.

Finally, Moore shows prominent members of the Taliban visiting Texas, implying that they were invited by then-Governor Bush. The Taliban delegation, however, was invited to Houston by UNOCAL (search), a California energy company.
Moore also doesn't mention that the visit was made with the permission of the Clinton administration, which twice met with Taliban members — in 1997 and 1998.

Ok, long article ... 1 lie.

The parts of the film they never did touch on, the big fuckups in my oppinion, the parts that no one has yet to prove fictional ... that we went to war looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction that did not exist, that we TOTALLY fucked up regarding Afganestan, a place where every military mind in the world would have sent far more troops under the same scenerio but we didn't (spending almost 10% of what we've spent in Iraq, just a guess) and that a 2 month headstart for Osama when we've spent so much time focusing on Iraq was totally one place where our government screwed the pooch.

My girlfriend's unit is in Afganestan now, and the consensus from even her commanding officers was that Bush fucked up and treated Afganestan incorrectly from day 1, while spending too much attention on Iraq -- a country that wasn't and isn't nearly as much of a threat to us.

If someone can explain why a country that harbors the terrorists that flew 4 airplanes onto our soil and into our military and financial institutions, killing thousands and thousands of Americans is insignifigantly less dangerous than a country which made no offensive actions towards us since they were beaten in Desert Storm, a country which George Bush and his staff was quoted saying had no weapons of mass destruction in 2000, I'd be happy to hear it. Moore hit this part dead on.

66.90.75.92/suprnova//tor...1).torrent (http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2031/Fahrenheit.911.CAM-POT(1).torrent)

Torrent of a CAM version now up.

Several GOOD Torrent clients here:
a.scarywater.net/torrent/clients/ (http://a.scarywater.net/torrent/clients/)

The one thing that you have to know in war... you're going to be second guessed. We're talking about Moore's movie here tho. He criticizes Bush for not anticipating the attacks... and for having too many terror alerts since then based on info on threats. He criticizes the Patriot Act... and says we haven't done anything to make ourselves safer. He criticizes Bush for allowing jobs to go overseas... and hires Canadian companies himself.

Moore didn't support going to Afghanistan in the first place... is it a surprise he's going to find things to complain about it. He's like... don't go don't go... WHY DIDN"T YOU SEND 10 TIMES MORE TROOPS!?

Every military endeavor throughout American history there are people who have some conspiracy theory about it. What is Moore's whole view that he's pushing about our troops in Iraq... oh they're nice people we love the troops... but what they are doing is evil. So I guess the new cry of the libs is BABYKILLERS!! but we love you. It's kind of like John Kerry... oh I "saw" such horrible things being done over in Vietnam... so I signed up for a second tour.

LOL it wasn't for WMD ,it was to keep the US the only super power. China look out!

'He's like... don't go don't go... WHY DIDN"T YOU SEND 10 TIMES MORE TROOPS!?'

- Uhh... and what's wrong with that criticism? Let me put it in to words your simple mind MAY comprehend: "If you're going to do something wrong, do it right at least."

He calls this movie a documentary in the same way that Hannity and Rush call themselves journalists

Wrong, Both Hannity and Rush refer to themselves as commentators.

It's kind of like John Kerry... oh I "saw" such horrible things being done over in Vietnam... so I signed up for a second tour.
This isnt a contradiction. You can do both of these things and many people do.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124079,00.html

You should also check out the video, it includes some stuff the article doesn't.

He also claims no one in congress would send their family to war. The video shows a congressmen looking speechless, but they didn't show his response, they just video taped him looking speechless and deleted his response.

Yeah it's hardly a documentry and I think most of America knows that, the only reason it has sold so much is because Moore benefits over controversy, pesimism, lies, and negative publicity. If the film wasn't on the news for 2 fucking weeks before its launch it would have been a flop. Most people going to the film are either 1) Moore's cock suckers or 2) wanna see all the lies he throws in. He takes many things out of context, changes facts and satistics to help his point, and edits out what people say. On top of everything Ray Bradbury is very pissed at Moore for jacking his book title and is trying to file a suit against Moore to get his title back. :cool:

Talveren, thats simply stupid. Of course no one would show that ... why would you put opposing arguments into something thats supposed to support your argument.I know this is rehashing something that was mentioned a few pages ago in the debate, but... when you're trying to make a point, you usually *do* bring things up that do not go along with the message you're trying to convey, simply to counter them. I haven't seen 9/11 yet, but if it's like his other material, I'll assume he does very little of that. You can't effectively argue your case without attempting to argue from the 'other side,' unless your audience basically already agrees with you. ;) Hint, hint, nudge, nudge. ;p

I'm gonna disagree with you on that one Roliel, and take away from your reputation! Take that, sucka!

One of the first things they teach you in law school, the title of the second chapter of the intro to law textbook is "Don't Argue Your Opponents Case For Them". You know the loopholes, you know how to counter them, but you don't mention them or it simply weakens your case. That way if your opponent doesn't think of them, your argument is just that much stronger in the eyes of the judge / jury or in this case -- audience.

I still have to say, no one's been able to counter the main part of the film that I mentioned above. We did far less to Afganestan, where the real threat was, than Iraq, where the made up threat is, and I'm glad Moore could point that out.

you usually *do* bring things up that do not go along with the message you're trying to convey, simply to counter them
Respect for the opposition is a common method of persuastion. It shows you aren't an ignorant fool, and you understand both sides but you agree with your side more.

One of the first things they teach you in law school, the title of the second chapter of the intro to law textbook is "Don't Argue Your Opponents Case For Them".


That's because a court of law is set up to allow both sides to present their case. Each side may get to shovel unabashed propaganda but the venue ensures the audience sees both sides and there is a judge there to call people on outright lies and misconduct. That is not implicitly true of a film and is the reason why documentaries are judged to the standard of scholarly works in that you must acknowledge legitimate criticisms of your thesis (and why most such works require a peer-review environment. Let's see some peer review of that entire Heston interview).

Moore's crap has neither the externally imposed ethics of a structured debate nor the professional ethics of a serious documentary, which is why so many people hate him and most anyone with a brain dismisses his work as cheap propaganda.


And for fuck's sake, if you're going to constantly harp on Afghanistan, LEARN TO SPELL IT.

I came across this Newsweek article which points out some more inconsistencies with claims made in Mr. Moore's movie.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/

As for the president’s own Carlyle link, his service on the Caterair board ended when he quit to run for Texas governor—a few months before the first of the Saudi contracts to the unrelated BDM firm was awarded. Moreover, says Ullman, Bush “didn’t invest in the [Caterair] deal and he didn’t profit from it.” (The firm was a big money loser and was even cited by the campaign of Ann Richards, Bush’s 1994 gubernatorial opponent, as evidence of what a lousy businessman he was.)

Thats pretty heavy, thanks Mukaz. The rest of the arguments seem to be "Well Bush did it yeah, but Clinton did too" which isn't that strong of an argument in my book, or stuff that was also pointed out in the Fox page. It deals with the earlier parts of the film but none over the military practicses of Bush or the lies regarding Iraq. I just wish there was 1 non-partisan person who could explain it all to me, everything you read is slighted one way or the other.

As stated before this movie hit the silver screens, it's rife with lies and misleading data.

Been proven out eh? Now will someone do us all a favor and stuff a few more grams of cholesterol in Moorer's diet?

To be honest tho, he's brought to light so many items actually IN FAVOR of Bush that perhaps he's working against the Democratic party once again.

Just like in 2000, when he actively supported Ralph Nader. Much to Gore's chagrin eh?

Anyone else notice John Kerry's platform falling to shreds in recent times?

Economy booming, Iraq turned over to the indigenous population to mishandle and hell now we have Mr Moorer showing Bush isn't so bad once you take out the LIES ;)

Fandros

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=106595

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/MichaelMoore/images2/allie.gif!!!!

Interesting,
You bring up a quote from Henry the V. The end of the St. Crispins Day speech.
Fine.
From later in that play, a wounded solider says to the King in disguise

But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy

reckoning to make; when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped

off in a battle, shall join together at the latter day, and cry all 'We died

at such a place;' some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon

their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some

upon their children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die well that die

in a battle: for how can they charitably dispose of any thing when blood

is their argument! Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black

matter for the king that led them to it... I suppose to each candidate the appropriate quote

This link presents the most rational and complete criticism of Moore's movie that I've seen yet - I think a little better organized than the Newsweek article linked earlier:

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Some of Moore's points are legitimate, some are outlandish conspiracy theory; either way he uses too many cheap tricks for me to take him seriously.

Oh, and as far as arguing the other side, in law: you don't have to make pursuasive arguments against yourself but you do have an obligation to inform the court if there is existing law contrary to your position.

Anyone else notice John Kerry's platform falling to shreds in recent times?He has a platform?

the entire movie is just a political thing, conviently released before the election. Though i dislike Bush, its a total slam against him, and totally lost much respect for the filmaker

Bah, someone took away a rep point for me posting that cartoon lol.

Just because I can't let it gooooooo!

That Kopel article has been updated to 59 deciets.

The silence is deafening. Seeing Michael Moore in television interviews by supposedly "hard-hitting reporters," who don't raise any of these issues, is a further recrimination. The parts he really likes to stress are Bush's reaction in the classroom, his opinion that Bush actually wasn't legally elected, and the supposed special treatment of the Saudi's in the days following 9/11.

I still haven't seen the film but I've read a lot of commentary on it and watched 3 or 4 interviews with him. No way I'm going to pay to see that crap after walking out of Bowling for Columbine. He got me once... my bad. Obviously there's room for different opinions, but I can't see how any intelligent person can watch his crap and not be insulted by it. I guess when it's saying what you want to believe it's easier to gobble it up.

I think you'd have to see it as somewhere between a real documentary and "docudrama" movies like Mississippi Burning and JFK. I had the same feeling about those pieces of trash. They're carefully crafted propaganda pieces bending facts along the way to creating a brand new reality for sale to a mass market. Moore's film spins off more toward the mass hypnosis category though I think.

Apparently there's some interesting information such as the fact that most Senators didn't read the Patriot Act before they voted for it, but unfortunately I have caught clips of how he presented some of that section with his sophomorish ambush tactics and driving around with a loudspeaker.

"Me think the lady the lady doth protest too much."
Heh. gg Neo Cons, keep raising hell about the movie, all the protests and attacks probably sold an extra 20 million in tickets.
Shit, "Dogtown" was a much more offensive movie, but because it was a dishonest piece of shit, it was ignored.
WHATEVER YOU DO, PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE WHITE ELEPHANT IN THE CORNER.
Its kind of the funny though, the false elitism of the conservative side. Keep it up, the impression you are sending is that you feel that everyone else is incapable of coming up with sound judgement calls. Maybe it comes back to starting to belive the hype and the propaganda. Its being fed every day on the various radio ideologues that the Conservative side is ALWAYS right and the Liberal side is ALWAYS wrong, to the point of calling it an EVIL and DANGEROUS viewpoint. The dogma is laughable. Its why you just cant shut up about Micheal Moore. Its why Bush cant ever take other opinions and options into account, and its why he marches headlong into disaster and mistake after disaster and mistake, with this Don Quixoti like delusion. So 2 reports have said "THERE IS NO CREDIBLE OR LIKELY EVIDENCE OF A LINK BETWEEN AL QUEDA AND SADDAM". It doesnt matter, he is already convinced himself he is right, and nothing anyone or anything says will ever change his mind. No other side has any value or viewpoint worth considering. The other side is the enemy, to be defeated and broken, not a viewpoint to call upon.
Thinking like this lead to a little event called World War One.

If you have any faith in the conviction that all truth will come out in the end, then, really, who gives a fuck about Farenheit 9/11. Not me, I can smell the bullshit, I can smell it from Moore as strong as I can from Bush, and they both fucking reek of it.

' Whatever You Do, Pay No Attention To The White Elephant In The Corner.'

:d

Dude LL get a fucking grip. You've lost it. You know since you're smelling bullshit everywhere, wake up and smell the bullshit, cuz its you.

It's nice to see though that I think the Moore fanboys have been put in their place and all we have left is a lib with who calls Moore bullshit.

So 2 reports have said "THERE IS NO CREDIBLE OR LIKELY EVIDENCE OF A LINK BETWEEN AL QUEDA AND SADDAM".
Really? Senate Intelligence Report (http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf) just released says otherwise. :confused:

Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism. During the last four decades, it has altered its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It continues to harbor and sustain a number of smaller anti-Israel terrorist groups and to actively encourage violence against Israel. Regarding the Iraq-al-Qaida relationship, reporting from sources of varying reliability points to a number of contacts, incidents of training, and discussion of Iraqi safehaven for Usama bin Ladin and his organization dating from the early 1990s. (source: page 314, section G, sub (U))
A CTC operational summary from April 13, 1999, notes four other intelligence reports mentioning Saddam Hussein's standing offer of safehaven to Usama bin Ladin. (Source: page 335)
In Conclusion:

The CIA's assessment that Iraq had maintained ties to several secular Palestinian terrorist groups and with the Mujahidin e-Khalq was supported by the intelligence. The CIA was also reasonable in judging that Iraq appeared to have been reaching out to more effective terrorist groups, such as Hizballah, Hamas, al-Qaida...

The CIA's examination of contacts, training, safehaven and operational cooperation as indicators of a possible Iraq-al-Qaida relationship was a reasonable and objective approach to the question.

The CIA's assessment of safehaven - that al-Qaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad ... was reasonable.

(Source: page 345)
Yeah, let's just suck some lala juice and ignore all that.

So does the whacky juice just cloud your comprehension? Because you and Halo appear to just completely miss the ballgame when it comes to understanding the difference between aiding al-Qaida and actually having a hand in plotting and executing the 9/11 attacks. Either way, they're both responsible but you actually argue that the absense of one nullifies the other absolutely.

Wrong ;)

It's nice to see though that I think the Moore fanboys have been put in their place and all we have left is a lib with who calls Moore bullshit.
Why am I a liberal? because I disagree with you?
Laughable. Some shit im here on and some shit im there on. Keep trying to seperate people into neat little sterotypes and dividing people into teams. Maybe we can all play Kickball after.

And akipt, are you quoting sources already found to be, at best, mistaken?
http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10669~2266134,00.html

As a source of intelligence of ANY kind how can you lend crediblity to anything they have on Iraq?
Besides. There are substantial and fundamental differences in the ideologies of Saddam Hussien and Al Queda.
Pre 9/11 there would have been no argument that they were more opposed to each other than to us. Both have competing immediate agendas. Would saddam, who could BARELY control religious factions in his country through genocide, WILLINGLY invite the most powerful and dangerous force of the very thing he had PERPETRATED genocide trying to prevent? Would this man who was a survivor first and foremost invite the proverbial fox into the henhouse? It makes no sense. It only makes sense if you are trying to justify a war.
And thats the linchpin for Bush, and everyone knows it. Without a connection to terrorism and without 9/11, Bush is left completely without ANY justification for the war. Why couldnt Bush have been honest about it. He wanted to invade and recreate Iraq in a way that would have an impact on the region. But instead this half assed totally non supported rationalization (and thats ALL it is) was trumped up and trotted out in order to take advantage of the politcal will created after 9/11.
And thats the end of the story,
And thats why Bush loses in November, because in the end, the truth always wins out.

So you are disagreeing completely with the Senate Intelligence report LLeauaric?

Are you suggesting that you personally have better(and contradictory) evidence than the Senate Intelligence Committee?

Explain.

Well honestly intelligence reports from our government dont have best track record in the last 4 years.

You see how stupid you are? You just get done calling me a neo con then you throw a fit when you get called a lib.

Try to have a civilized conversation about issues and you end up with the dumbass squad breaking in with OMG UR STUPID WHITE ELEPHANT LADY DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH NEO CON WHY YOU THINK LIBERAL ALWAYS WRONG ITS DANGEROUS! See even though it was a conversation about the movie and how undeniably false it is, you gotta jump in off the topic on your little rant.

Your little explanations are a like a 6 year old explaining why a Rembrandt painting is so purty. Yeah it might be purty there kiddo but let the grownups talk.

You must have evidence to the contrary from sources that are at least as credible to say they are wrong though..right?

The chairman of the 9/11 commission(Tom Kean) was asked if there were contacts between Al-Queda and Iraq and he replied that there were.

Vice chairman(Lee Hamilton, D) said "There were connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam."

Here's a great quote:


"Leaving him unfettered with nuclear weapons, with WMD's, is unacceptable. If you don't believe Saddam is a threat with nuclear weapons, you shouldn't vote for me."

Who said it?

John Kerry

Shit, the Al Qaeda lab in Sudan that Clinton attacked in 1998 was linked to Iraq by that administration. Top Iraqi chemical weapon experts attended that plant's opening ceremonies in 1996..yes, the Clinton administration brought forward all of this back then.

Al Shifa is on the list of companies in the oil for food bit for chrissakes. If you don't know who that is, here's your clue in- the Al Qaeda chemical lab in Sudan(the one Clinton missiled in 1998) was supposedly a pharmeceutical plant owned by Al Shifa.

The "pharmeceutical" plant's cover was blown when a soil sample was taken 60 feet from the main gate. The sample showed high levels of O-ethylmethylphosphonothioic acid(EMPTA).

EMPTA is a component of VX nerve agent, now pay close attention..there are a variety of ways for making VX, and the use of that particular agent for VX production was unique to..are you ready for it..Iraq.

Again, I'm sure you must have just as credible evidence disproving all of this from a source as sound as the stuff the Senate Intelligence Committee gets..so let's see it?

Besides. There are substantial and fundamental differences in the ideologies of Saddam Hussien and Al Queda.
And please explain to all of us why none of these "substantial and fundamental differences" played no role in Saddam's support of EVERY OTHER FUCKING ISLAMIC TERRORIST ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD?

And it doesn't matter anyway whether he was or wasn't supporting Al-quida.
Bush Doctrine 101, any terrorist or any country aiding terrorists is on our shit list. Just ask Ghadafi. He has more of a clue than you do.

Bush Doctrine 101, any terrorist or any country aiding terrorists is on our shit list.
Or any country that he thinks is aiding terrorists. Proof .. bah we dont need it now that we have Bush to tell us whom to hate. Your so enamored with Bush that you would buy an ice cube in Antarctica if Bush said it was too warm outside.

Or any country that he thinks is aiding terrorists.
Or any country he doesn't like, that he or his friends can benefit financially by attacking, or manufacture evidence that they support terrorists. :p

Im just waiting for Hartmut to drop in and compare Michael Moore to Jesus and claim that Pres. Bush is being controlled by aliens and is part of a wide scale plan to destroy our planet.

or manufacture evidence that they support terrorists.

I'm waiting for your proof to the contrary that comes from equally credible sources(keep in mind that was from Senate Intelligence members and the 9/11 commission, as well as the Clinton administration - not Bush), that challenge wasn't thrown out to just one person..any of you that don't believe Iraq had Al Qaeda ties feel free to tackle it.

Osgil, the same goes for the rightists.

I can't figure out if Moore is conservative or liberal. He hounded the hell out of charlton heston in Bowling. Never saw the whole thing just that interview and the guy annoyed the fuck out of me.

So yeah i had nothing to add to this post, just thought I'd throw that in here.

' And it doesn't matter anyway whether he was or wasn't supporting Al-quida.'

- Almost like the weather, Akipt.

Unremarkable, really.

He hounded the hell out of charlton heston in Bowling

Heston is a conservative, one of very, very few in the movie industry. Clint Eastwood, Arnold, Heston are about it as far as bigger names go.

He's a liberal.

If you went to the far left of our political spectrum you still wouldn't be left enough for Moore.

Hey Halo, are you up to the challenge..or are you just going to keep the head in the sand approach and say there were no ties because you don't want to see them?

Look where this thread's going. Anyway... the schmoes will still giggle girlishly over Moore's little jokes and quote the movie in their discussions even though so much of it has been shown to be a load of shit. Point won.

Back the freight train up Cristo...let me get this straight.


The Bush administration used as part of it's justification for going into Iraq the Saddam had ties to Al Quida. The 9/11 commision has found no credibale evidence that there were ties. What you are saying is that people that don't buy there were ties need to provide credible evidence that there weren't ties.
So in essence your saying (and I don't mean to put words in your mouth, please tell me if I've misunderstood your take here), Mr. Bush accuses a country of commiting a crime to support his war effort....that there is no "credible evidence" supporting that claim doesn't matter...It only matters that you can't find credible evidence to saying they haven't commited this crime.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/nation_world/topstory.asp?ID=12798

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040621-124414-5078r.htm

Again you're a victim of your leftist media sources. The commission showed that there were numerous connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda which suggested the intent to collaborate, but that they could find no evidence of any involvement of Iraq in the planning or execution of the 9/11 attacks. Free your mind, and the rest will follow.

The 9/11 commision has found no credibale evidence that there were ties. LMAO

Drink some more lala juice Ailwon and join your buddies. After you're done, try to comprehend the difference between:

"Iraq had no ties to Al-Quida."
and...
"There is no credible evidence that Iraq had a hand in planning 9/11."

See the difference there? Probably not, but it's really fucking funny watching you guys try to spin this shit out of existence.

Great point Winter, your right, I did mis-understand what the commision had actually stated in their report. They found no link to the 9/11 attack. But I am having trouble finding where the report said "numerous connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda which suggested the intent to collaborate"...this is what I found:

Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein’s secular regime. Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.

Though I do not concede they were actively cooperating, it's not to say Saddam wouldn't have moved that direction had he remained in power and there is plenty of evidence he supported other terrorists (palestinians especially). Hell, I go so far as to he was a terrorist himself with things he did. What I was saying was, when the president makes a claim to support a war...he has the burden of proof. He has to prove those crimes.....the accused or opposition does not have to prove there were no crimes. In the case of Al Qaeda ties, though tenious, I wouldn't hold that one up as a Bush "lie", exaggeration, perhaps. There were plenty of other reasons to invade besides the existance and continued production of WMDs and Al Qaeda links.

"Moore's little jokes and quote the movie in their discussions even though so much of it has been shown to be a load of shit"

I agree...I refuse to see it...despite it's comical content. I don't like Bush, I have never said I do...but I'm not going to fund Moore's reckless style of misleading rants and mis-statements. He's as a big a thorn in the democrats side as the republicans, IMO.

Please put it into reverse and reread my post showing that we have known there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda since early in the Clinton administration, and that said administration even used those ties as a reason for the cruise missile attacks on Al Qaeda sites in Sudan.

Got it Cristo...read back in thread a bit more.


I was reacting to this:

I'm waiting for your proof to the contrary that comes from equally credible sources
you were referencing what you had said about disproving some of your previous statements. You weren't in fact saying that there needed to be proof there wasn't ties..got it, my mistake.

To be honest this discussion is too interesting to be placed under the title of Mister Morre's movie....I think the discussion about that film has pretty much ceased...not seeing anyone trying to defend it anymore. I can't believe my parents paid money to see it....my dad won't go see LOTR or the Potter films but he'll pay to see that shit. :eek:

You see how stupid you are? You just get done calling me a neo con then you throw a fit when you get called a lib.
Bit of a reality check here Winterwarg.
First of all, i wasnt even refering to you. In fact, prior to this post I have never mentioned you, nor ever had you in mind when posting. I dont think Ive even read your posts over the good old "scroll skim".
Second, I find it fascinating that you can call me "stupid" then say I"M like a 6 year old and am incapable of an adult arguement.
As Alanis Morrisette once said "Isnt it ironic... dont ya think?"

Arrgh,
I just gave akipt a postitive rep vote by accident. That really sucks.

Oh nooooz

Oh okay LL here is this better for you... you characterized my opinion in such a way as to call me a neo con.. therefore I characterized your side of the argument as being from libs.

Why do you find it so fascinating that I call you stupid? I would have though you had gotten used to it. Especially when you burst into a thread that was interesting and had become civil and spout your childish kiddie-logic.

“In Liverpool, [Moore] paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern world: “It’s all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton.” (David Brooks in the New York Times, June 26. 2004)

His hatred for America and Israel make him so popular in Europe.

'Why do you find it so fascinating that I call you stupid? I would have though you had gotten used to it'

- One can only wonder.

Poor Halo, reduced to attacking typos.

Oh you're on a roll now.

What can I say? I'm a right bastard.

This link hasn't been posted yet, that I see: http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723

Christopher Hitchens article.

OK, whether or not Moore's film is full of fabrication, one point remains. If you want to live in a peaceful and secure environment, running around causing lots of deep hatred by bombing and killing is definitely *not* going to achieve that for you. You just create more people who are willing to pick up whatever every day object is at their disposal to slit your throat.

Living here in NYC I could not feel less secure. I dread the Republican convention because I believe there is absolutely *no way* something's not going to happen then. The tears he shows of those irrepairably hurt by losing family members shown do make that point, whatever you think of Moore's film otherwise.

Your alternative is what exactly Ruthey?

Sit around and let them kill us at their leisure?

Last I saw Al Qaeda active membership was down by a little over 17% from pre- 9/11 days and terrorist cells are being forced to rely more on local people making them easier to infiltrate.

The 9/11 commission report is due to be released today, if it contains what has been suggested there will be alot of crow to be eaten.

Let's just bury our head in the sand. Maybe the bad guys will go away. If anyone needs me i'll be int he backyard.

Duh. Everyone feels less safe since 9/11.

'Last I saw Al Qaeda active membership was down by a little over 17% from pre- 9/11 days and terrorist cells are being forced to rely more on local people making them easier to infiltrate'

- Aye, we got them on the run.
And it shows, because of the fewer terrorist attacks after 9/11.

Oh, wait.

I don't remember any terror attacks in the US since 9/11. Well I guess there was that powderscare.

yea, we caused alot of terrorist attacks...


oh wait...

So if the United States soliders who have died in Iraq arent fighting and getting killed by Terrorists, then why are they there again?

They're fighting in the US?

I refuse to see this movie or bowling for columbine. And I find it disgusting that people endorse him knowing he's full of shit. "Ya, he's a liar, but...." If you have to resort to outright lies to make your point then you don't really have a point worth being made.


OK, whether or not Moore's film is full of fabrication, one point remains. If you want to live in a peaceful and secure environment, running around causing lots of deep hatred by bombing and killing is definitely *not* going to achieve that for you. You just create more people who are willing to pick up whatever every day object is at their disposal to slit your throat.

The threat of muslim extremists is going to be there whether we actively go around pissing people off or not. Its been around long before President Bush came into the picture so to say that he's creating it couldn't be any farther from reality. This was emailed to me. Its a speech a Navy captain gave in Florida. I thought it was pretty good.


America, wake up! That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 and maybe it was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.

It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign US embassy set the stage for the events to follow for the next 23 years.

America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Viet Nam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then President Carter had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism. America's military had been decimated and downsized / right sized since the end of the Viet Nam war. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission doomed from the start.

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued. In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.

Then just six short months later a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut. 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.

Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber. The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gates of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid. Then in August a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the Snooze Alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US soil is continually attacked. Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.

The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259.

America wants to treat these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war -- the Wake Up alarm is louder.

The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime, not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women. A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively. They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision, they kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to inspect the crime and went back to sleep.

And of course, you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep. In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high official in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention, I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979.

The President is right on when he says we are engaged in a war. I think we have been in a war for the past 23 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough.

America has to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to hit the Snooze Button again and roll over and go back to sleep. We have to make the terrorists know that in the words of Admiral Yamamoto after the Pearl Harbor attack, "all they have done is to awaken a sleeping giant."

How silly of me, Winterwong. I was thinking of terrorist attacks outside the US. But perhaps they just don't matter.

Anyone remember that movie, Red Dawn?

Wolverines!

I'm ashamed to admit that I sat through Red Dawn in the theatre when it opened back in 1984 or 85. I can truthfully say that that was one of the *worst* films I ever had the dubious pleasure of paying for, and only went because it was an excuse to sit in the dark with the guy I had the hots for at the time...

That film was so tedious, Patrick Swayze and all, that it even killed hormonal running around on your girlfriend/boyfriend romance, which is saying quite a lot ;). Ah, memories...

Uhm, what was the topic again?

Oh yes, the 'war on terror'. Samuel, I find your choice of words to bold rather interesting:


. I think we have been in a war for the past 23 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough.

Let me ask you something. What, precisely, did going to war with Iraq, which was a secular dictatorship whose leader was actually quite good at squashing religious extremist terrorist movements within his country, and for whom no credible link has actually been found linking him to Al Qaeda, do to *advance* our 'war on terror'? *That* is the question that a lot of people are asking, including Michael Moore in his ham-handed and propagandistic way, and it's a legitimate question. Why, exactly, did we largely abandon our efforts in Afganistan (large areas of the country are back under control of the Taliban btw), our hunt for Bin Laden, and our efforts to trace and freeze the assets of organizations who are funding Al Qaeda, in order to not only invade a large soverign country whose connection to *any* of the events you listed in that chronology above is tenuous at best, but then do such a horrible job of managing the peace afterwards that the region has become a breeding ground for discontent and a magnet/dumping ground/recruiting post for every Islamic extremist organization who wishes to consolidate power in the area or has an axe to grind with us? Please tell me how this was an act which helped us out in our (coughs uncomfortably) 'crusade' against terrorism, because I'd really like to know...

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Past Coercer - Autonomous Collective

...for whom no credible link has actually been found linking him to Al Qaeda... Nydia says, "Lalalalalalalalalala lalalalalalala lalalala alallalalalalalalalalalalalala lalalalalalalala"

akipt says, "mmphm mmph mmphmpmpm" <sound of head in sand>

Seriously, the one country in the Middle East where Islamic fundamentalism would not take hold was Iraq. That may have been for all the wrong reasons, but the point remains.

I'm ashamed to admit that I sat through Red Dawn in the theatre when it opened back in 1984 or 85. I can truthfully say that that was one of the *worst* films I ever had the dubious pleasure of paying for, and only went because it was an excuse to sit in the dark with the guy I had the hots for at the time...

That film was so tedious, Patrick Swayze and all, that it even killed hormonal running around on your girlfriend/boyfriend romance, which is saying quite a lot ;). Ah, memories...

Uhm, what was the topic again?

Oh yes, the 'war on terror'. Samuel, I find your choice of words to bold rather interesting:


Let me ask you something. What, precisely, did going to war with Iraq, which was a secular dictatorship whose leader was actually quite good at squashing religious extremist terrorist movements within his country, and for whom no credible link has actually been found linking him to Al Qaeda, do to *advance* our 'war on terror'? *That* is the question that a lot of people are asking, including Michael Moore in his ham-handed and propagandistic way, and it's a legitimate question. Why, exactly, did we largely abandon our efforts in Afganistan (large areas of the country are back under control of the Taliban btw), our hunt for Bin Laden, and our efforts to trace and freeze the assets of organizations who are funding Al Qaeda, in order to not only invade a large soverign country whose connection to *any* of the events you listed in that chronology above is tenuous at best, but then do such a horrible job of managing the peace afterwards that the region has become a breeding ground for discontent and a magnet/dumping ground/recruiting post for every Islamic extremist organization who wishes to consolidate power in the area or has an axe to grind with us? Please tell me how this was an act which helped us out in our (coughs uncomfortably) 'crusade' against terrorism, because I'd really like to know...

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Past Coercer - Autonomous CollectiveYou're fuckig kidding me. I it on DVD!!!!! WRAAA! That movie seriously kicks ass. Of course i'm an American male and you're a commie pinko so no wonder. Infact I just sepnt all day at the shooting range and my job what better way to cap off an evening then to watch a bunch of Russians and Cuban commie bit the big one. God damn movie makes me proud.

'Nydia says, "Lalalalalalalalalala lalalalalalala lalalala alallalalalalalalalalalalalala lalalalalalalala"'

- Quick Akipt!
Post that link with that one terrorist who was found hiding out in the Iraqi desert that time! And is now actually blowing Iraqi's up himself!
Quick! Prove them all wrong!

PROVE THE HEATHENS WRONG!

Terrorist attacks outside the US matter Halo. Thats what the UN is for though right? Good luck with that.

I'm curious has anyone else here read Michael Moore's interview in July's Playboy? seems to me he doesn't like Kerry either, but he hates bush, but do you think he'd include his feelings on Kerry in his movie?

and for whom no credible link has actually been found linking him to Al Qaeda

At least we can tell who didn't check out the 9/11 commission's report.

One has to wonder about your definition of "credible".

- Quick Akipt!
Post that link with that one terrorist who was found hiding out in the Iraqi desert that time! And is now actually blowing Iraqi's up himself!
Quick! Prove them all wrong!
Is more than one ok?

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

(p.61) - With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Laden himself met with senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Laden is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request . . . the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.

(p.66) - In March 1998, after Bin Laden's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Laden. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Laden's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.

(p.66) - Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Laden or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Laden declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

And in the New York Times -

A June 25, 2004 article, "Iraqis, Seeking Foes of Saudis, Contacted bin Laden, File Says," reported on the contents of a mid-1990s Iraqi intelligence document believed to be authentic. According to the article,


* bin Laden "had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative."

* the Iraqi regime agreed to bin Laden's request to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda.

* bin Laden "requested joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, because the U.S. had a strong troop presence in Saudi Arabia at the time.

* following bin Laden's departure from Sudan, Iraq intelligence began "seeking other channels through which to handle the relationship."

* the Iraqi Intelligence service believed "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement."

* a Sudanese official in 1994 told Uday Hussein and the director of Iraqi Intelligence that bin Laden was willing to meet in Sudan.

And, on July 7, 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee reported:



* That George Tenet provided the Senate Intelligence Committee this assessment in a closed session on September 17, 2002: "There is evidence that Iraq provided al Qaeda with various kinds of training--combat, bomb-making, [chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear] CBRN. Although Saddam did not endorse al Qaeda's overall agenda and was suspicious of Islamist movements in general, he was apparently not averse, under certain circumstances, to enhancing bin Laden's operational capabilities. As with much of the information on the overall relationship, details on training are [redacted] from sources of varying reliability."

* That according to a CIA report called Iraqi Support for Terrorism, "the general pattern that emerges is one of al Qaeda's enduring interest in acquiring chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) expertise from Iraq."
This one just for you Halo:
* That the Iraqi regime [b]'certainly' had knowledge that Abu Musab al Zarqawi -- described in Iraqi Support for Terrorism as "a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner" -- was operating in Baghdad and northern Iraq.
If, as you and L2 say, Saddam held such a tight grip on Islamic groups in his own country, why did he let this guy continue to operate there?

Yey.
Some fun.

(p.61) there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request
- OK.(p.66) two al Qaeda members went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence
- OH MY GOSH!! Sounds to me like the Bush family had more contacts with Bin Laden's than the Iraqi's had with Al Qaeda.

(p.66) we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.
- So I'll summarize: "Iraqi intelligence met Al Qaeda members a few times. Nothing happened, and no assistance was given." My god. How could we have been so blind?! Those right bastards!

A June 25, 2004 article * ...the Iraqi Intelligence service believed "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement."
- Would that be the relationship which consisted of some meetings in the 90's which amounted to absolutely nothing?

July 7, 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee reported: "the general pattern that emerges is one of al Qaeda's enduring interest in acquiring chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) expertise from Iraq."
- Enduring interest? You make baby jesus cry.

This one just for you Halo: * That the Iraqi regime 'certainly' had knowledge that Abu Musab al Zarqawi -- described in Iraqi Support for Terrorism as "a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner" -- was operating in Baghdad and northern Iraq.
- It's like a tragedy, a Greek tragedy.


Pathetic, Akipt. Utterly, and insanely pathetic.
Here's my problem. There's no evidence. And it's widely accepted that there was a failure in evidence and intelligence regarding Iraqi's link with Al-Qaeda terrorists and with the production and capability of WoMD stockpiles before the invasion last year.
That you need to scrape the bottom of the barrel just to find even remote information slightly connected - no, not connected - suggesting and assuming connection, to terrorism...that just is not right.

It shows Iraq held no position in the "War on Terror", no immediate threat to the Anglo-American alliance, and could not have been further off the field in regards to priorities across the world.

That people like you - close-minded,imperialistic conservatives - have to run around frantically to try and find tiny crumbs of evidence that might even - remotely - justify original reasons for war, and then fall back on the fact that Saddam was evil anyway, and did nasty things a decade ago, is what I have a problem with.

Going in to Iraq? I can understand it. Arsehole dictator. Genocide-like criminal acts committed by an oppressive regime in the past, aggessive and imperialistic wars fought in the recent decades. I can understand going in to Iraq to remove that hell-like regime and bringing freedom and democracy in to a country that has never known such a fate. I can see the arguments for bombing the hell out of the Serbians in the old Yugoslavian state to ensure Kosovan autonomy. Hell, I even agree with a crushing sweep through Afghanistan to put out of action a world-wide terrorist organization, and an equally destructive Taliban government.
I'm right now desperately in favour for military action in our old African province of Sudan.
There are some places in this world that need our help. But there are right times, there are right ways, and there are right reasons.

Iraq possessed not a single one of those qualities at the invasion last year.

I'll tell you what it reminds me of, both Iraq and Afghanistan. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, during the so called Race for Africa, Britain - still in its "civilizing the world" frame of mind - used some of the earliest types of aerial bombing campaigns to weaken and control tribal peoples and rebels. The reasons were this: we were there to bring civilization to the backward animist tribes of Africa, to enlighten their society, bring prosperity and stability in to a previously violent-struck turmoil world. That was the official reasoning for intervention in Africa. And that is something I see as positive, something I can understand. Intervening for the better of a people. Yet that's not, at that time, why we actually did it. We were there to win a race, the African Race, to bring about as much as East and West Africa under our control as possible, use a positive and winning message in order to fund its reasoning, and yet execute it in a way that utterly contradicts the entire thing, mass aerial bombing that killed thousands.

That's what I hate about Afghanistan and Iraq. We were told satisfactory and pleasing reasons for action (terrorists, WMD, democracy, freedom, etc), conducted it in a way that undermined this (3, 500 civilians dead in Afghanistan, 10, 000+ in Iraq, no WMD, no terrorist support, no freedom, no attention or reconstruction ala Afghanistan, etc...) and clearly went in for different reasons.
Afghanistan, for me, undermines the effort in Iraq. We invaded, bombed, destroyed, brought the place to ruin, violence, chaos, and fucked off. Sure, we still got a thousand or so troops running in the mountains to kill terrorists (Taliban slowly regaining control..), but we sure as hell didn't stick around to re-build like we did in Iraq.

Now. Why is that?

I'm rambling. Let me tell you what I mean in a sentence: If you have to scramble for even slighty suggestive evidence, then the justification is clearly wrong.

If you get attacked and didn't see it coming left wing "liberal" divisionists like Halo will get all mad and blame it on you for not seeing it coming in the incomplete information you have and tell you you should have seen it coming and done something. If you attack and do something based on good but not 100 percent complete information they'll tell you you were wrong to do it because you didn't have complete information. Don't worry man... government can't do anything right in the minds of people like him unless they scrap the military, give all that money to third world dictators and programs to provide bombs to anyone wanting to kill Jews, and enslave the working class to pay for anyone who wants to go to college for 50 years instead of getting a job.

Give him about 10 or 15 years maybe he'll figure it out.

What, on earth, was that all about?! ROFL
I can't even decipher most of the fucking jibberish. Winterwong, you are a terrible flamer, debator, and, well, human being. Any attempt at retorting turns in to a rambling moan, you get frustrated far too east, straying off the topic to complain about aparant liberals being the reason your car broke down the other day, or you're just here to whine about how, because people oppose your point of view, they think they're always right.
Mate... just die. I'll pay for the coffin. Fuck off, and die. 'Cause this is getting EMBARASSING.

Hey look - someone who still thinks Saddam is responsible for the WTC bombings!

And here we were thinking we lived in a world-of-media.

'If you attack and do something based on good but not 100 percent complete information'

- Not 100% complete? :D
It's like a faire tale. I say that far too much.

The Iraq war was a product, like a bag of potato chips. It was packaged, it was marketed and it was sold. And when we got it home and opened it, we discovered the puffed up bag was mostly filled with air.

The military has done their job, and they have done it brilliantly. They are the greatest, most efficient, most precise force the world has ever seen. But it is a great sword being weilded by a fool.
They were not given the proper equipment before the war. The first failure of leadership.
http://www.detnews.com/2004/nation/0407/04/nation-202100.htm
Bush had a duty to these men, he did not meet it.



Now with a second failure of leadership he places the world and the people in Iraq in even greater peril. GWB is EXPECTED to be the LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD All nations and people of this world look to him and expect him to fill that role. He has been a failure in this regard.





Not able to lead the UN or consolidate or NATO allies. FAILURE
Not able to allow troops to move through Turkey. FAILURE
Not able to proved the strong leadership to prevent our erstwhile allies from buckling into Terrorism and leaving the alliance. MASSIVE FAILURE
The complete inability to implement his "Road Map to Peace" in Israel. His involvement actuallly made it worse for a while. FAILURE



Is it any surprise that when you type "Failure" into google, the VERY first website that comes up is the biography of George W. Bush on whitehouse.gov?

Why did we go to war in Iraq? Simple. The very WORST reason to ever enter into a war. Fear.
After 9/11 Americans were afraid, terrified. The attack was a disgusting success. We would have done ANYTHING if we were told it would have made us safer. People around Bush, people who he trusted, wanted this war. Wolfowitz had a hard on for this war.
President Bush in the 2000 election freely admitted that he had virtually no experience for international affairs. And to counter this he promised to surround himself with people who did. Experts who would assist him to make these decision. It has become plainly obvious that these people, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney, did more than just assist and advise, they influenced and guided. Of course the intelligence was bad, it was shaped and designed to have an effect. Intelligence Analysis is like a Rourshac Test. Massive amounts of information are shown to highly trained people, and in a impartial setting they come up with a conclusion. Is that setting impartial when Cheney is meeting with these people.
"See what you can find about Iraq and Al-Queda"


Even then, any evidence is at best, suspect. What was Abu Musab al Zarqawi doing there? He was with Ansar al-Islam, (http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/ansarbk020503.htm) a KURDISH group whos goal was to create a seperate state from Saddams Iraq, and the location of the base was in NORTHERN Iraq. You remember, the area of the no-fly zone that we controlled. And it was near the Iranian border. Not exactally a saddam area of power. Ansar al-Islam was given seed money from Al Queda, and was given logistical support from Iran in the form of weapons and equipment. It was at best tolerated by Saddam for 2 reasons.

He couldnt do anything about them at the time, an air strike was out, and any movement of troops large enough to attack the 300+ man group, would have given them time to flee across the border to Iran.
The group was trying to create a Taliban like state with Wahhabism and strick shari'ah law. In doing so it created havoc and disruption in the Kurdish area. And REAL success from this group would have been dealt with immediatly by Saddam if he had the ability to do so.
Did we really go to war over this? Of course not. We KNEW there was no substantial connection to terrorism in a way that had ANY impact on us or western interests. But it made the sell "sexier", people so scared about terrorism and so frightened would support and give political will to any thing they were told was connected to terrorism
Fear.
Thats why we went to war. Thats the emotion that was manipulated and exploited in order to achieve some objective that they felt the American public wouldnt "buy". We would have done ANYTHING, and we did.
Thats the emotion that Bush now campaigns on. Only HE can protect us from the terrorist threat. Only HE is strong enough to fight the "war"
Its BULLSHIT
Its a repeat of the same lies and mispresentation of the truth that we have seen before. It is:
http://www.comm.cornell.edu/scheufele/hortona.jpg
It is one big false phony view of a serious issue being exploited, not because it has any truth to it, but because it can achieve a political goal.

BTW.
Heres was ACTUAL evidence would look like
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_17-6-2004_pg4_15
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5479438/site/newsweek/
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=6531
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10221231%255E1702,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-07-22-iran-alqaeda_x.htm
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=7/25/2004&Cat=2&Num=009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4191-2004Jul21.html
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3615705
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58891-2004Jun21.html
http://www.mehr.org/index_articles_IRI_terrorism.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/
http://www.iranvajahan.net/english/pictures/en.20030510..10.jpg
http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper441/stills/2hp4hpf2.jpg

Yeah I'm embarassed for you too Halo.

"you're just here to whine about how, because people oppose your point of view, they think they're always right.
Mate... just die. I'll pay for the coffin. Fuck off, and die. 'Cause this is getting EMBARASSING."

lol you're getting frustrated far too easily. You're talking about wanting someone to die because you don't like their opinion. You can't debate things so you flame. I dont want you to die or go away. All you do is demonstrate how wrong your beliefs are day after day. You're much better at pointing it out than I am.

L2, your statue of Michael Moore has some drool on it, better polish it up before he comes by to give you his autograph.

The military has done their job, and they have done it brilliantly. They are the greatest, most efficient, most precise force the world has ever seen. But it is a great sword being weilded by a fool. They were not given the proper equipment before the war. The first failure of leadership.If you're aiming for a position on Kerry's campaign by simultaneously praising our troops and trashing them in the next breath, I'm sure he'd be proud to have you on board. And I hear he has a slot open for foreign policy advisor...

Your little article would disagree with you anyway. Better find another one to reference...

The Pentagon’s plan for Baghdad had envisioned a series of “thunder runs” to slowly chip away at the regime. But the authors said Perkins’ decision to suddenly revise the plan under fire and stay in downtown Baghdad was a prime example of flexibility and innovation by both the Pentagon brass and commanders in the field. How many hundreds of lives were saved by cutting the combat phase of operations short by 3 weeks? How many were killed as a result from the Baathist's/terrorists' lack of defeat? Who knows, but it's war and we learn from it for the next time. Because Iran or Syria will offer up entirely new sets of problems to overcome.

Otherwise, it was a pretty good article. It's good that we're going to learn from these mistakes, as all good war commanders do. So when we have to invade Iran or Syria, we'll really kick some ass.

Now with a second failure of leadership he places the world and the people in Iraq in even greater peril. So let me make sure I'm clear on this, you want Saddam back in power because that would make it less of a peril? Seriously dude, whatcha smokin?

If your boy Kerry had his way, Iraq would still be sitting in Kuwait, and Saddam would have nukes by now.

Bush lied! LOL

GWB is EXPECTED to be the LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD All nations and people of this world look to him and expect him to fill that role. He has been a failure in this regard.Add 50 million people to that list you're talking about, and ask them if Bush is a failure.

Not able to lead the UN or consolidate or NATO allies. FAILUREDidn't pay off the French enough you mean?

Not able to allow troops to move through Turkey. FAILURESo you wanted to invade a democracy to get your way?

Not able to proved the strong leadership to prevent our erstwhile allies from buckling into Terrorism and leaving the alliance. MASSIVE FAILUREROFL! It's Bush's fault now that the Spanish can't vote right! LMAO

The complete inability to implement his "Road Map to Peace" in Israel. His involvement actuallly made it worse for a while. FAILURE Saddam back in power, Arafat back in the White House for state visits, suicide bombers being funded by Iraq, no wall being built to protect Israel, and the PLO would still be receiving billions of dollars per year in "humanitarian aid" from our Congress. L2 for President! All aboard now.

Is it any surprise that when you type "Failure" into google, the VERY first website that comes up is the biography of George W. Bush on whitehouse.gov? Al Fraken is almost out of work, what else does he have time to do but make this shit up? Actually, I had helped Michael Moore get to the top of the list for a few days but someone made another press release about Bush being Google bombed, and back he went. Damn press!

After 9/11 Americans were afraid, terrified. The attack was a disgusting success. We would have done ANYTHING if we were told it would have made us safer. People around Bush, people who he trusted, wanted this war. Wolfowitz had a hard on for this war.All hate and pointing the finger. You know, it took Congress to approve all this right? Right? Your Kerry even authorized it, and most of the Dems went right along, because they'd been preaching the same chorus for a decade.

Kinda like your allegations about the Berger "incident" last week. You didn't wring your hands and whine and moan about what this means to our nation's security. You blew it off and pointed your finger right at Bush and blamed him for the timing of it all. Squeek squeek, polish up that Michael Moore statue before he gets there.

Massive amounts of information are shown to highly trained people, and in a impartial setting they come up with a conclusion. Is that setting impartial when Cheney is meeting with these people. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck, chances are it's a duck. You probably think OJ Simspon is innocent too.

Even then, any evidence is at best, suspect. Well no fucking shit. You finally got something right.

L2 says something like, "Saddam held Iraq in such a tight grip, Islamic extremists couldn't possibly operate there"

What was Abu Musab al Zarqawi doing there? He was with Ansar al-Islam, a KURDISH group whos goal was to create a seperate state from Saddams Iraq, and the location of the base was in NORTHERN Iraq. You remember, the area of the no-fly zone that we controlled. And it was near the Iranian border. Not exactally a saddam area of power. Ansar al-Islam was given seed money from Al Queda, and was given logistical support from Iran in the form of weapons and equipment.Waffles anyone?

Kerry NEEDS you.

We KNEW there was no substantial connection to terrorism in a way that had ANY impact on us or western interests.Well this is bullshit. Israel isn't a western interest? Suicide bombers?

We would have done ANYTHING, and we did.Well, considering you believe just about everything Michael Moore spews out of his ass, but don't project your feeble mental abilities and subzero critical thinking skills onto the rest of us.

Only HE can protect us from the terrorist threat. Only HE is strong enough to fight the "war"Given a choice between Bush and Kerry, Bush is the clear winner. Improve your subzero critical thinking skills by looking at Kerry's history of being on the wrong side of just about every foreign and domestic issue this country has faced since he first ran for office. If Google was all about the truth, it would have Kerry's mug next to miserable failure.

You have done nothing to address the fact that he has failed as a world leader. He has been ineffective as a leader and is not up to the job.
He cannot unite our allies
He cannot unite this nation.
He is the wrong man for the job.
Your little article would disagree with you anyway. Actually it doesnt.
The failure isnt in the field commanders, or pentagon staff. It is in the rush to war while it was still domestically politically viable. Not the right gear. NOT ENOUGH TROOPS. Troops had to adapt because the strategetic doctrine was sacrificed for political expedience. There is no way around that. We rushed in.
So when we have to invade Iran or Syria, we'll really kick some ass. Quite the shame that we didnt knock down the right door in the first place.

So let me make sure I'm clear on this, you want Saddam back in power because that would make it less of a peril? Nope. THe failure is in his inability to lead. All these countries pulling out of Iraq to cater to terrorist demands has made the world less safe. Everytime you give in to terrorism, it makes it stronger. These nations need to be led, and GWB has painted himself into such a corner that he no longer has the political strength and influence to give backbone to our allies who are wavering.
It is his doing. HE gave this idiot in Spain the election by bungling diplomacy. HE is the cause every time a nation loses faith in the Iraq effort and pulls out. HIM, he is the leader, he is in charge, it is more than expected of him, it is DEMANDED. And he as shown to be woefully incapable of inspired leadership.
Add 50 million people to that list you're talking about, and ask them if Bush is a failure. Which Bush? The one that abandoned them after Gulf War 1? Or the one that bombed their cities and no controls an ineffectual puppet government. Shit, hold elections tomarrow. GWB vs. Muqtada al-Sadr.
Willing to bet your house on who wins that one?

Saddam back in power, Arafat back in the White House for state visits, suicide bombers being funded by Iraq, no wall being built to protect Israel, and the PLO would still be receiving billions of dollars per year in "humanitarian aid" from our Congress. L2 for President! All aboard now. Heh, nice attempt at mischaracterization.
The primary directive of a doctor is "Do No Harm"
Doctors dont win awards if they botch surgery, but hey... at least they tried!!
They get sued, and they lose the license to operate.
Bush made matters WORSE in Palestine. His intentions mean SHIT. He FAILED in a place where failure is not an option. And then he just GAVE UP. Washed his hands of it and moved on. Wow....
"Saddam held Iraq in such a tight grip, Islamic extremists couldn't possibly operate there" Where he had power.. no..
but after the 91 invasion Saddam lost control of much of the area of his country with the imposition of the "no-fly" zones. Thus..... with Al-Queda seed money a terrorist organization sprung up to fill a vacuum of power... Whats hard to understand about that?
Waffles anyone? huh? There is no waffle. It is all the same cohesive event.
Well this is bullshit. Israel isn't a western interest? Suicide bombers? Thats it??????
The why havent we invaded Saudi Arabia? Then why havent we invaded Egypt? Pakistan? They all do THE EXACT SAME THING.
Its not like we have even stop dealing with them, they are our ALLIES, and they give SCADS of money to Arafat and the Palestinian organizations.

If Google was all about the truth, it would have Kerry's mug next to miserable failure. That is no way to talk about youre next president.

Oh I know, its everyone ELSES fault. Blame everyone else when something goes wrong. Maybe in a year it will be "Blame the Iraqi's for not knowing how to run a democracy"
Improve your subzero critical thinking skills by looking at Kerry's history of being on the wrong side of just about every foreign and domestic issue this country has faced since he first ran for office. How about you work on your ability to see through the GOP propaganda machine first. Stop being such a fanboi. Can you at least recognize the right wing spin on it? Can you at least not understand the truth comes somewhere ALOT closer to the middle than what you seem to be swallowing hook, line and sinker? Or maybe not. My critical thinking skills are just fine. And I can make ALOT better arguement against Kerry than you have. But given the choice. We cannot afford another 4 years of Cheney/Bush. The litany of failure must stop this year. And if in 2008 we find out that Kerry sucks just as bad, FINE, then we vote in McCain.

BTW, I havent seen Moores movie, and I have never listened to Al Franken. It is called independent thought, you should try it some time.

He cannot unite our alliesReally?

Final warning for Saddam, UN Resolution UNANIMOUSLY for:

http://www.legalnewswatch.com/news_49.html

"The Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution today that gives Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply with disarmament resolutions and establish a rigorous regiment of inspections, giving United Nations inspectors immediate access to any site they want in Iraq. President Bush called the resolution a "final test" of Saddam Hussein's willingness to disarm, saying the Iraqi president's response must be "prompt and unconditional, or he will face the severest consequences."

More aid and more troops to Iraq, UN Resolution UNANIMOUSLY for:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/16/un.iraq.vote/

"The vote of the 15 member-nations (15 for, 0 against) approved Resolution 1511, which calls for an expanded role for the United Nations, encourages countries to offer more troops for Iraq and more money to rebuild the country and addresses the transfer of sovereignty from the U.S.-led coalition to Iraq."

Backing the new sovereign government in Iraq, UN Resolution UNANIMOUSLY for:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-06-08-un-iraq-resolution_x.htm

"The United Nations Security Council handed the Bush administration an important foreign policy victory Tuesday by voting unanimously (15 to 0) for a resolution backing the new caretaker government of Iraq and a multinational force under U.S. command."

What's that word "unanimous" mean L2? Help me out here, I'm a little confused.

THe failure is in his inability to lead. All these countries pulling out of Iraq to cater to terrorist demands has made the world less safe. Everytime you give in to terrorism, it makes it stronger. These nations need to be led, and GWB has painted himself into such a corner that he no longer has the political strength and influence to give backbone to our allies who are wavering.
It is his doing. HE gave this idiot in Spain the election by bungling diplomacy. HE is the cause every time a nation loses faith in the Iraq effort and pulls out. HIM, he is the leader, he is in charge, it is more than expected of him, it is DEMANDED. And he as shown to be woefully incapable of inspired leadership.
*pssst Next time your wife holds out on you, it's Bush's fault. Pass it on*

Which Bush? The one that abandoned them after Gulf War 1? Or the one that bombed their cities and no controls an ineffectual puppet government. Shit, hold elections tomarrow. GWB vs. Muqtada al-Sadr. Willing to bet your house on who wins that one?You realize how fucking stupid you're sounding right? Probably not. Here's a hint, it would be Allawi against Sadr and right now, and Allawi would win in a landslide.

Bush made matters WORSE in Palestine. His intentions mean SHIT. He FAILED in a place where failure is not an option. And then he just GAVE UP. Washed his hands of it and moved on. Really? He just wrote Isreal and the Palestinian people off? Guess we can just ignore this speech of his 2 months ago...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040518-1.html

Freedom is also at the heart of our approach to bringing peace between Israel and the Palestinian people. The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state. (Applause.) Israel is a democracy and a friend, and has every right to defend itself from terror. (Applause.)

For the sake of peace, this country is committed to helping the Palestinian people establish a democratic and viable state of their own. (Applause.) Israel needs a truly responsible partner in achieving peace. (Applause.) The Palestinian people deserve democratic institutions and responsible leaders. (Applause.) Progress towards this vision creates responsibilities for Israel, the Palestinian people, and Arab nations. Before these two states -- before there can be two states, all parties must renounce violence and fight terror. (Applause.)

Security is the foundation for peace. (Applause.) All parties must embrace democracy and reform and take the necessary steps for peace. The unfolding violence in the Gaza Strip is troubling and underscores the need for all parties to seize every opportunity for peace. I supported the plan announced by Prime Minister Sharon to withdraw military installations and settlements from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. (Applause.) As I said in my statement on April 14, 2004, the Prime Minister's plan is a bold, courageous step, that can bring us closer to the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security. (Applause.)

The Prime Minister's decision has given the Palestinian people and the free world a chance to take bold steps of their own toward peace. First, the Palestinian people must reject corrupt and failed leaders, and insist on a leadership committed to reform and progress and peace. (Applause.) Second, they must renounce terror and violence that frustrate their aspirations and take so many innocent lives. (Applause.) And, finally, by taking these steps, they will have an opportunity, a fantastic opportunity to build a modern economy and create the institutions and habits of liberty. The Palestinian people deserve a better future. (Applause.) And that future -- and that future can be achieved through democracy. Wow, look at those applauses. Must have been the miserable failure's day off.

Where he had power.. no.. but after the 91 invasion Saddam lost control of much of the area of his country with the imposition of the "no-fly" zones. Thus..... with Al-Queda seed money a terrorist organization sprung up to fill a vacuum of power... Whats hard to understand about that?OK I get it! We should just invade the portions of Iraq that Saddam didn't control before, and let him keep his little utopian triangle. Gotcha. Man you're so fucking smart, what would this country be like without you???

The why havent we invaded Saudi Arabia? Then why havent we invaded Egypt? Pakistan? They all do THE EXACT SAME THING.... you're really a stupid ass.

Oh I know, its everyone ELSES fault. Blame everyone else when something goes wrong.Uh no, it's called taking responsiblity. If the Spainish want to vote in an anti-war candidate, it's their perogative. It's not a BLAME BUSH event.

Maybe in a year it will be "Blame the Iraqi's for not knowing how to run a democracy"If we cut tail and run, yeah, but Bush isn't going to do that is he? Today Kerry says he won't, but who knows what the fuck tomorrow will bring from him.

How about you work on your ability to see through the GOP propaganda machine first. This, from the guy who finally gave up debating for Kerry by conceding "it's all about the incumbant anyway" argument.

And I can make ALOT better arguement against Kerry than you have.... and it's all about the incombant right? LMAO.

BTW, I havent seen Moores movie, and I have never listened to Al Franken.Never claimed you had. I don't blame you.

It is called independent thought...Funny you sound like a Kerry-spokesperson though. LOL

There is not a single US president who has gotten us into a war who has been re-elected. Some might want to split hairs and say Lincoln and Kennedy got re-elected in spite of being involved in major military actions, but they...umm promptly got assassinated. Pretty good bet to say they don't count.

Kerry will be our next president. Period. There have been presidents far less inept, more charismatic, and more intelligent, such as Bush's own dad, who lost at the polls after a war. Gulf War I was alot better lead, managed and there was an exit strategy most could live with and YET the senior Bush still lost. I see Dubyah losing just to get ALL the bad leadership components removed, such as Rumsfeld.

So there you have it. It doesn't take some bloated liberal windbag making a movie to show what history has revealed for centuries. If you take us into a war, kill our soldiers (AKA our fathers, sons, mothers, daughters, brothers and sisters) and continue to kill them without demonstrating you are doing nothing more but spin your wheels instead of devising a sound plan to move the situation towards an acceptable, positive conclusion (even if its takes a while), then don't expect to get re-elected.

I don't believe you and think you are lying.

While I doubt that Bush will be re elected, I didn't vote for him last time but I will vote for him this time. My vote doesn't count because this State is inescapably liberal. Bush has made mistakes but he hasn't run away from what he thought was right in order to be popular, and in my opinion Kerry is the worst kind of politician. I'd vote for Dean over Kerry... at least he has convictions.

And to counter this he promised to surround himself with people who did. Experts who would assist him to make these decision. It has become plainly obvious that these people, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney, did more than just assist and advise, they influenced and guided.

Uh...yeah.

You know when people "assist" and "advise" you on a matter you might say they "guide" you or maybe even "influence" you towards making the decision.

How DARE he do...what he said he was going to do.


Intelligence Analysis is like a Rourshac Test.

Right.

So when the intelligence says


Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.


it's clearly open to interpretation.


We KNEW there was no substantial connection to terrorism in a way that had ANY impact on us or western interests.

9/11 commission report.

Read it.

Become educated on what you are talking about.


What was Abu Musab al Zarqawi doing there? He was with Ansar al-Islam, (http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/ansarbk020503.htm) a KURDISH group whos goal was to create a seperate state from Saddams Iraq, and the location of the base was in NORTHERN Iraq.

9/11 commission report.

Read it.

Become educated on what you are talking about.

Gotta give you props for your artful dropping and dodging of your four "Failures" when push came to shove though.

It's also nice to see that you already acknowledge issues from Iran..we'll have to take photos of course, so that when we actually start focusing on Iran and you stamp your feet and swear up and down that we're wrong to do it we can show them to you.