This movie was awesome. Was it fair? Define fair because Bush going into Iraq was certainly not such. I give this movie a two thumbs up though, it would definately change anyone's mind who was on the fence before.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This table lists the names of 692 civilians killed as a result of the US-led military intervention in Iraq up to February 29th 2004.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going to go by this, seeing as these are the only documented deaths on the site.
Even with only 692 deaths they use the "as a result" phrase, which could mean allot of things.
<i>As a result</i> of me not taking out the garbage last night, my garbage man skips my house, at that moment a plane crashes into the street and hits his truck killing him.
If I had taken my garbage out he would have stopped, giving him enough time for the plane to miss him.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This table lists the names of 692 civilians killed as a result of the US-led military intervention in Iraq up to February 29th 2004.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going to go by this, seeing as these are the only documented deaths on the site.
Even with only 692 deaths they use the "as a result" phrase, which could mean allot of things.
<i>As a result</i> of me not taking out the garbage last night, my garbage man skips my house, at that moment a plane crashes into the street and hits his truck killing him.
If I had taken my garbage out he would have stopped, giving him enough time for the plane to miss him.
Guess I killed him then? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What! Wow I have seen some pretty ignorant posts on this topic.
First of all, lets give you the benefit of the doubt that we only killed about 1000 civilians and the rest were armed. The fact of the matter is that we dropped thousands and thousands of bombs along with thousands of cruise missiles, etc. We killed all those people armed or not, and does them being armed mean they shouldn't be counted when they were still civilians? Do these people not have families do they not have brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers?
The fact of the matter is that we killed thousands and thousands of civilians when we bombed Bahgdad. Is Bahgdad a military target? No, its a populated area! It's insane to even think about bombing a populated area and our leaders had no thought when they gave the orders. How would you feel if Los Angeles or New York or any other major city was bombed, cruise missiles, carpet bombing, etc.
The fact that most of you consider Iraq's population to be the enemy is disgusting, they just want to live their life peacefully. Now that we have done this, I am sure they will hate America for hundreds of years to come. All we did by attacking and invading Iraq was create more terrorists for the future.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This table lists the names of 692 civilians killed as a result of the US-led military intervention in Iraq up to February 29th 2004.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going to go by this, seeing as these are the only documented deaths on the site.
Even with only 692 deaths they use the "as a result" phrase, which could mean allot of things.
<i>As a result</i> of me not taking out the garbage last night, my garbage man skips my house, at that moment a plane crashes into the street and hits his truck killing him.
If I had taken my garbage out he would have stopped, giving him enough time for the plane to miss him.
Guess I killed him then? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What? Only documented deaths? Did you read their methodology? They didn't just pull the 10,000 number out of their ****. They are all tabulated from accounts delivered by more than one reliable news source. The have a detailed process of conservatively coming up with an upper and lower bound.
They define specifically what "as a result" means in this context on the website. Actually don't even bother to read the site. I quoted it for you a page ago.
If you guys have something legitimate to criticize about their methodology then go at it, but I haven't heard a single informed argument against the fact that we killed 10,000 non-combatant civilians in Iraq.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Zig+Jul 1 2004, 03:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zig @ Jul 1 2004, 03:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> you crazy guy, nobody said iraq's population was the enemy. what are you getting all riled up and "disgusted" for, rofl.
all targets bombed within the city were military targets: factories, locations of military leaders (like saddam's crib) etc.
unless you yourself have the military records of targets during the bombing raids..? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's quite naive. We bombed hundreds of homes in Iraq! We bombed the headquarters of Al-Jazeera! We even attacked the hotel in which our own journalists were staying!
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Jul 1 2004, 05:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Jul 1 2004, 05:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What? Only documented deaths? Did you read their methodology? They didn't just pull the 10,000 number out of their ****. They are all tabulated from accounts delivered by more than one reliable news source. The have a detailed process of conservatively coming up with an upper and lower bound.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't care about their "methodology" when they have 10,000 <i>documented</i> deaths I well accept that 10,000 people have been killed in Iraq because of the US.
Really, I followed this war closely, 10,000 civilian deaths seems unrealistically steep. Our cruise missiles are pretty accurate and we were mind numbingly careful about civilian causalities. I have a feeling many of these "civilian" causalities are members of the Iraqi army, or civilians killed by insurgents or in terrorist attacks.
Ether way unless they are documented I don't buy it.
Also if the site wasn't so obviously anti-war/anti-Bush/anti-military it would be a little easier to believe...but not much.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Jul 1 2004, 07:38 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Jul 1 2004, 07:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-MrMojo+Jul 1 2004, 06:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MrMojo @ Jul 1 2004, 06:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No one cares. Micheal Moore doesn't care about Iraqis or terrorists. The American people or people anywhere else don't care. We would simply like it to be quiet and hush hush. And yes, it is easily provable that Saddam was in fact a dictator, murdering, torturing and basically having control over the population.
But no one cares about that, people just seem to be humanitarians when it's an evil lying government going in.
I'm sad to say it but I don't care either. About a third of all the people in Africa have AIDS, and their level of living is just terrible. We don't care. There's famine and children without homes but as long as Bush isn't involved, we don't care. I'm interested in what these people who are against the war would have done if it didn't happen.
And yeah, the war probably wasn't fought for the purest reasons, but that's like saying US shouldnt have entered WW2 if it wasn't intentionally to save the Jews and Gypsies. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nonsense. We care more about iraqi civillians than the millions dying in africa because the blood of those iraqi civillians is on our hands. I feel in part responsible for the deaths of each of those 10,000 people because it is my country and my government that is doing the killing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So what have you done about Iraqis dying in the hands of Saddam Hussein? What have you done about other people that have problems? What, we have to attack someone for people to care about the civilians?
That's stupid, you might have said that you felt bad or had a fleeting thought, but no one actually cared. You just care that you're going against Bush.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jul 1 2004, 11:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jul 1 2004, 11:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Really, I followed this war closely, 10,000 civilian deaths seems unrealistically steep. Our cruise missiles are pretty accurate and we were mind numbingly careful about civilian causalities. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jul 1 2004, 06:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jul 1 2004, 06:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Jul 1 2004, 05:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Jul 1 2004, 05:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What? Only documented deaths? Did you read their methodology? They didn't just pull the 10,000 number out of their ****. They are all tabulated from accounts delivered by more than one reliable news source. The have a detailed process of conservatively coming up with an upper and lower bound.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't care about their "methodology" when they have 10,000 <i>documented</i> deaths I well accept that 10,000 people have been killed in Iraq because of the US.
Really, I followed this war closely, 10,000 civilian deaths seems unrealistically steep. Our cruise missiles are pretty accurate and we were mind numbingly careful about civilian causalities. I have a feeling many of these "civilian" causalities are members of the Iraqi army, or civilians killed by insurgents or in terrorist attacks.
Ether way unless they are documented I don't buy it.
Also if the site wasn't so obviously anti-war/anti-Bush/anti-military it would be a little easier to believe...but not much. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What more documentation do you need? <a href='http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So what have you done about Iraqis dying in the hands of Saddam Hussein? What have you done about other people that have problems? What, we have to attack someone for people to care about the civilians?
That's stupid, you might have said that you felt bad or had a fleeting thought, but no one actually cared. You just care that you're going against Bush.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You completely missed my point. I care about civillian casualties because they are partly my fault. I didn't have anything to do with Saddam Hussein's actions. I did have something to do with Bush's actions, because I'm an American, he's my president, and we elect our presidents.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jul 1 2004, 11:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jul 1 2004, 11:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't care about their "methodology" when they have 10,000 <i>documented</i> deaths I well accept that 10,000 people have been killed in Iraq because of the US.
Really, I followed this war closely, 10,000 civilian deaths seems unrealistically steep. Our cruise missiles are pretty accurate and we were mind numbingly careful about civilian causalities. I have a feeling many of these "civilian" causalities are members of the Iraqi army, or civilians killed by insurgents or in terrorist attacks.
Ether way unless they are documented I don't buy it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Curiously, do you hold Saddam to this same standard? I mean, sure, we hear all these rough counts of how many people died under his regime, but how many of those are clearly documented, directly authorized by the man himself, and not something indirect, or a result of negligence? How many of those are people who were actually innocent, and how many were genuine criminals/terrorists?
Not that I have any doubts that the man was murderous scum, mind you-- I just wonder if proof is something you only require when your worldview is challenged.
This is an honest question-- not meant to be sarcastic or belligerent.
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Jul 1 2004, 07:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jul 1 2004, 07:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Curiously, do you hold Saddam to this same standard? I mean, sure, we hear all these rough counts of how many people died under his regime, but how many of those are clearly documented, directly authorized by the man himself, and not something indirect, or a result of negligence? How many of those are people who were actually innocent, and how many were genuine criminals/terrorists?
Not that I have any doubts that the man was murderous scum, mind you-- I just wonder if proof is something you only require when your worldview is challenged.
This is an honest question-- not meant to be sarcastic or belligerent. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes I do hold Saddam by the same standards, for one main reason. I have to admit that I underestimated how many people were killed under Saddam, I was a bit skeptical about the numbers. But I have seen on the news, the rooms filled with thousands of wooden coffins, I have seen the thousands of mounds at the mass graves.
Also in his regime I highly doubt any one else had the authority to order the gas strike against the Kurds, so I hold him directly responsible for that as well.
I have not however seen these thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians that have supposedly been killed by us.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+Jul 1 2004, 03:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Jul 1 2004, 03:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The fact of the matter is that we killed thousands and thousands of civilians when we bombed Bahgdad. Is Bahgdad a military target? No, its a populated area! It's insane to even think about bombing a populated area and our leaders had no thought when they gave the orders. How would you feel if Los Angeles or New York or any other major city was bombed, cruise missiles, carpet bombing, etc. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually Baghdad is a legitimate military target, containing many important government structures.
And it's really not that insane to think about bombing populated areas, populated areas have been bombed since the ability to bomb things was invented. Look at WWII if you want to see some <i>truly</i> horrific civilian casualties from bombings, of course we weren’t even trying to minimize them at the time.
I hate to tell you but if any country that had the ability were to declare war on us, they most likely would bomb NY, LA, DC, or any other large or important areas, civilians or no.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited July 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jul 1 2004, 10:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jul 1 2004, 10:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I have not however seen these thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians that have supposedly been killed by us. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course you haven't. The one news agency that showed those pictures was bombed by the US. Twice.
There is more than enough information on that site to look up every one of those deaths. They list a date, time, description, and the multiple news agencies they drew the information from for each one. If you question the source, find something inaccurate or false. Don't just ignore it because you don't want to believe it, or can't imagine it being true.
For more confirmation here's <a href='http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html' target='_blank'> another article about an unrelated study</a> that is coming up so far with the same ballpark of numbers.
I'm looking at the thread's title and the current discussion...and I am confused.
The reason why I don't like Moore or pretty much anything he makes is because it's just flat out shady... He puts an audio over a picture and makes the viewer make conclusions...That's bad. That's not a documentary.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I went to see “Fahrenheit 9/11” Thursday expecting to be entertained despite political objections, but I was wrong. To say Moore took liberty with the truth would be like saying that Ken Lay took liberties with Enron's accounting practices. Fahrenheit 9/11,” like Enron's accountants, obviously figured that when it came to making money, the end justified the means.
In both cases, the scale of deceit and deception is breathtaking. Though I'd need four hours to tell you the list of all the falsehoods from Moore's two-hour movie, let me give you a few glimpses into his twisted logic:
Moore's movie begins by pitching his conspiracy theory about the 2000 election. We're all told in the audience by all recounting methods Al Gore won Florida. That drew a big gasp from the crowd. But, shockingly, this first fact cited by Moore's movie is a lie. Didn't anybody associated with Miramax or Michael Moore's movie read newspapers after the election, when some of America's most liberal papers published results from their independent review of Florida's ballots, concluding it was George W. Bush who won by all recounting methods?
And what of the second conspiracy theory, suggesting that George W. Bush kept Americans grounded after 9/11 but let the bin Laden family escape American airspace scot-free? An FBI agent suggested President Bush's action was an insult to 3,000 dead Americans, while Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan dramatically demands on tape that we must have an investigation to find out who approved this.
But Michael and the senator both know who approved the bin Laden transfer: It was none other than that Bush-bashing hero of the left, Richard Clarke. He admitted it in the 9/11 Commission. Now, it's funny how Michael Moore used Clarke's 9/11 testimony to bash Bush in other parts of the movie, but decided to edit out that part that lays waste to bin Laden-and- Bush conspiracy theory.
These two gross distortions are in the first five minutes of the film. But I can tell you that this film can only add to coarsening of America's democracy. Moore seems to promote the following slanderous conspiracy theories in his movie:
* The Bushes and the bin Ladens were so close that Bush let their family skip out of town while Americans were grounded, * That the bin Laden family somehow helped George W. Bush start his first oil company, and that George W. Bush cares more about Saudi Arabia than America because the Saudis funneled $1.4 billion to Bush family interests. * America didn't invade Afghanistan to kick out the Taliban. America attacked Afghanistan so we could put an oil pipeline in Afghanistan. That's why George Bush didn't care if the Taliban got away. (Oh, really? I don't think they got away.) * The White House purposely tried to scare Americans into believing there was a terror threat after 9/11 so they could pass the Patriot Act, which they had already dreamed up before these 9/11 attacks even occurred. * We invaded Iraq for no other reason than their oil, allowing young American kids to die just so oil companies could make more money.
Now, there are hundreds of conspiracy theories that are simply unsupported by the facts. But Moore goes on to show pictures of dead Iraqi babies, followed immediately by American soldiers talking about the rush they got listening to rock C.D.s while they shot at anything they moved in Iraq. Why didn't Moore just write "baby killers" on the screen and point to U.S. troops?
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Michael Moore would make this kind of movie, but I am stunned that movie critics, Hollywood moguls and liberal movie viewers across America really think so little of America, its soldiers and its leaders.
Friends, it's a dark, grim and distorted perspective of our great nation. I think it's just wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These are excerpts from the transcript of Wednesday's show..,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->SCARBOROUGH: What was the most fraudulent claim that Michael Moore made in this movie?
HITCHENS: Well, that‘s a very tough question, but I think I would phrase it like this.
He says, if you think Americans are fighting in Afghanistan to protect Afghanistan and America from the Taliban and al Qaeda and hold an election in Afghanistan, the first one in its history, and to defend it from barbarism, Moore says, you are totally wrong. The whole war is about Bush family private business and a pipeline, a natural gas pipeline. I think he suggested an oil pipeline, built by Unocal.
Now, I know and anyone who knows anything about it knows, that deal was canceled in 1998, when Bush was still governor of Texas, as a result of Mr. Clinton bombing the al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. The theory isn‘t even worth arguing about. It‘s a whole-cloth fabrication, as well as a terrifying insult to Americans in Afghanistan who are fighting on the front line against barbarism. So that‘s one enormously important lie.
And then he says the Saudi Arabia control all of American foreign policy through private interests. And then you wonder, well, why does President Bush, who is their puppet, continue to knock over regimes that Saudis are in favor of, like the Saddam Hussein regime or the Taliban one? The Saudis so much hated regime change in Iraq, they made American bases move to Qatar, out of Saudi territory.
You could go on and on. He says that the White House at high level let the bin Laden family fly out of the country in a secret, surreptitious, sinister manner. And he had interviewed Richard Clarke months before. And Clarke says straight out, I made that call. Richard Clarke is the moral hero of the film. Michael Moore had the chance to ask the man who knew. Either he didn‘t ask Clarke, who authorized those flights, or Clarke told him it was me and only me, and he didn‘t think it was good enough to use. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->SCARBOROUGH: You know, Christopher, though, let me expand on this tape a little bit, though, because, as you know, you have seen the movie. I have seen the movie. Here you have Michael Moore saying a year after 3,000 Americans are killed...
HITCHENS: Murdered. Murdered. Murdered.
SCARBOROUGH: Murdered, murdered—that Osama bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and yet, in this movie, at the very beginning, he criticizes George Bush for not assuming the bin Laden family is somehow guilty, then letting them out of the country. Complete hypocrisy.
HITCHENS: That‘s why I looked to see if I still had the tape, because I thought, now, a guy who was 100 percent opposed to the war in Afghanistan at the time—that‘s Michael Moore—he thought it was a war for oil, a war for pipelines, an unjust war—why is he suddenly saying he is against the Iraq war because it‘s the distraction from the hunt for Osama bin Laden? You follow my point here?
SCARBOROUGH: Of course. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This next one is in response to Moore's quote of “The majority of Americans supported this war once it began. And, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe—just maybe—God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.”
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->HITCHENS: Don‘t step over where he says, God and Iraqi people won‘t forgive.
You are effectively, with the Michael Moore presentation, you are looking straight down the gun barrel of an al Qaeda video. God and the Iraqi people won‘t forgive? He is talking the language of jihad. This guy is on the other side in the most essential war that this country or society or culture has fought in a generation.
SCARBOROUGH: Why?
HITCHENS: Against Islamic totalitarianism.
Why is he against it? If you want my personal opinion, as someone who has observed Mr. Moore down the years, I don‘t think he has any principles at all. He will do anything to get applause, as you can see from the little clip you just showed. He likes applause from stupid crowds and he punches the applause button.
I would like to know, and I wish you would ask—and perhaps Mr. Lehane could be made to answer this question—who is distributing this film in the Middle East? I would like to know that now. How much money does Mr. Moore expect to make, since he is so interested in money making from Middle Eastern sources? How much does he expect to make when the film is shown in Beirut and Algeria and Cairo?
He must already know who his distributors are and how much he expects from the revenue. He is going to show this film that applauds the murder of Americans, Iraqis, British and Kurdish people all over the Middle East. He expects to do very well out of it. Well, I would like to know where he thinks the money is coming from and if he thinks it‘s worth it.
And I hope he can relax and enjoy that money.
SCARBOROUGH: All right, well, we are going to look into that, Christopher. Thank you for being with us.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: I think, as you know, it bears repeating that the U.K. “Guardian” reported just last week that Hezbollah has already contacted his distributor in the United Arab Emirates and offered their support and their help in distributing the movie. And I think that says an awful lot itself. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So again, Moore is a known liar and a cheat. Deal with him carefully.
Okay I think we're just about done here. It's obvious that the movie is completly unfair.
However it's a bit presumptious to call him a liar without pointing out flagrant lies. To my knowledge there aren't flagrant lies. However the conclusions he draws and the half truths he makes are just as bad as any invented-statistic. That said, has anyone found any outright lies in the film?
<!--QuoteBegin-Crisqo+Jul 3 2004, 06:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crisqo @ Jul 3 2004, 06:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yep...just look a little bit above your post, you'll see a couple. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I see a bunch of writing from Joe Scarborough, a right wing polemicist.
Have you vetted this information, or are you just taking it as Gospel? I find it odd that you're so quick to accept the information given by a guy who essentially has the same job as Moore, only in a different medium, on a different side.
We go through Moore's film with a fine toothed comb-- which we should, but when someone with as transparent an agenda starts contradicting it, it's amazing how many people simply go, 'I knew it! CASE CLOSED!' and don't think that maybe the other person isn't being entirely honest, either.
You know, I also find it entirely comical that in the same series of writings where Bush's ties to the oil industry are dispelled as simple 'conspiracy theory', we get this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I would like to know, and I wish you would ask—and perhaps Mr. Lehane could be made to answer this question—who is distributing this film in the Middle East? I would like to know that now. How much money does Mr. Moore expect to make, since he is so interested in money making from Middle Eastern sources? How much does he expect to make when the film is shown in Beirut and Algeria and Cairo? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think, as you know, it bears repeating that the U.K. “Guardian” reported just last week that Hezbollah has already contacted his distributor in the United Arab Emirates and offered their support and their help in distributing the movie. And I think that says an awful lot itself. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So....you're saying George Bush actually didn't win the election? That Richard Clarke actually didn't say he let the bin Laden family escape? That Moore isn't being hypocritical when he says "Osama is innocent until proven guilty," and then goes on later to say that "The war in Iraq is just a distraction from the hunt for Osama." ?
--Edit-- It turns out the war in Iraq was not to distract the hunt for Sadaam...but for Osama. Silly me. I uh...mistyped "Sadaam" where "Osama" should have been. You understand.
<!--QuoteBegin-Crisqo+Jul 3 2004, 06:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crisqo @ Jul 3 2004, 06:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So....you're saying George Bush actually didn't win the election? That Richard Clarke actually didn't say he let the bin Laden family escape? That Moore isn't being hypocritical when he says "Osama is innocent until proven guilty," and then goes on later to say that "The war in Iraq is just a distraction from the hunt for Sadaam." ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'll try to find som articles on the election that demonstrate the fuzziness of the recount, as I have yet to see anything definitive from a non-partisan source.
But in the meantime, why are we believing Clarke again? As I recall, he's a bitter, angry, closeted partisan who was upset about being marginalized by the administration, and nothing he says should be trusted.
Oh, except for this, which sort of exonerates George Bush. The other stuff he said in his testimony was the bittter stuff.
Just look what your buddy Joe Scarborough <a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4608258/' target='_blank'>has to say about him.</a> (For those who don't feel like reading this, Joe used to think Richard Clarke is a <i>liar</i>).
Further on the Clarke point I've borrowed this from a blog: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Richard Clarke did not wake up on the morning of September 13th and say to himself, 'You know, I think I'll organize the exodus of any Bin Laden family members still in the U.S.' Prince Bandar made the request to some other member of the Bush administration, possibly to Bush himself, they were close enough. This request was brought by some unknown party to Richard Clarke, who then said that the FBI had to clear it, probably on the reasonable premise that law enforcement should get to make this decision. The FBI cleared it, which sane human beings should find mildly odd, and on that basis Clarke approved a request which originated from elsewhere and was approved by the FBI.
So, did you ever wonder where the order <i>came from</i>, or did you just take Joe's abridged explanation as Gospel which required no further exploration?
<!--QuoteBegin-Crisqo+Jul 3 2004, 07:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crisqo @ Jul 3 2004, 07:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes, the order could have come from Bush...but isn't it all just speculation right now?
Unless you have some more evidence to prove Bush did, in fact, order the bin Laden family out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It <i>is</i> speculation, but there is at least a fairly compelling base of evidence to support it.
Just got back from viewing it right now, and I liked it. Sloppy and slow in places; very powerful in others.
A lot of the Hitchens and Scarborough criticisms have me scratching my head. Clarke as the 'moral hero' of the film? There was a very brief clip from his commision testimony, used to demonstrate that the first reaction post 9/11 was to tie it to Iraq. That's it. I mean, Huh?
Also, when was Bin Laden 'innocent until proven guilty'? I was looking for that one, and never saw it. <i>And</i>, incidentally, the deaths of 9/11 <i>were</i> referred to as 'murders' no less than three times in the film.
I'll try to cross reference more of this later, but I can honestly say that their rebuttal was as sloppy as Moore's work was to begin with.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Clarke as the 'moral hero' of the film?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It was none other than that Bush-bashing hero of the left, Richard Clarke.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clarke isn't so much the "moral hero" of the film. I think Scarborough just meant that the left likes him because he was bashing Bush.
The "innocent until proven guilty" thing can be found here... <a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5344115' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5344115</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL MOORE, FILMMAKER/AUTHOR: It seems as if he and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured, and brought to justice.
HITCHENS: Do you mind if I break in and say...
MOORE: Yes.
HITCHENS: Ask you, what is the “if” doing in that last sentence?
MOORE: What is the who?
HITCHENS: What is the “if” doing in that last sentence of yours?
MOORE: Well, all people are innocent until proven guilty in this country.
HITCHENS: So you have no...
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
MOORE: Even the worst piece of scum.
HITCHENS: I feel I have to press you on that. You regard it as an open question, the responsibility of Osama bin Laden?
MOORE: Until anyone is convicted of any crime, no matter how horrific the crime, they are innocent until proven guilty. And as Americans...
(CROSSTALK)
HITCHENS: No, that‘s all I asked you.
MOORE: Never leave that position.
HITCHENS: I‘m sorry. So bin Laden‘s claims of responsibility strike you as the ravings of a clowns, say?
(LAUGHTER)
HITCHENS: OK. Fine.
(END VIDEO CLIP) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was a video clip on June 30th's show.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And, incidentally, the deaths of 9/11 were referred to as 'murders' no less than three times in the film.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->SCARBOROUGH: You know, Christopher, though, let me expand on this tape a little bit, though, because, as you know, you have seen the movie. I have seen the movie. Here you have Michael Moore saying a year after 3,000 Americans are killed...
HITCHENS: Murdered. Murdered. Murdered.
SCARBOROUGH: Murdered, murdered—that Osama bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and yet, in this movie, at the very beginning, he criticizes George Bush for not assuming the bin Laden family is somehow guilty, then letting them out of the country. Complete hypocrisy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Was that what you were refering to? I think that was just Scarborough mis-speaking and Hitchen's correcting him about what the status of the victims of the 9/11 were. 3,000 being "killed" is different from 3,000 being "murdered." I guess?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'll try to cross reference more of this later, but I can honestly say that their rebuttal was as sloppy as Moore's work was to begin with.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
allright, then show us a link to any <i>proof</i> that Osama Bin Laden was actually responsible for the attacks on the WTC. I remember the Afghan government asked the United States for just exactly this before the war started
Hitchens used that precise term, about the moral hero thing:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Richard Clarke is the moral hero of the film. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's waaaaay off.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Was that what you were refering to? I think that was just Scarborough mis-speaking and Hitchen's correcting him about what the status of the victims of the 9/11 were. 3,000 being "killed" is different from 3,000 being "murdered." I guess? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I may have been reading into it, and text is, of course, devoid of tone, but since he was jumping in and correcting something it sounds like he's emphasizing a point which he felt Moore was de-emphasizing. Saying someone is killed is much more passive than saying they were murdered. I just noted that if that's the case, they were described as murders quite often.
As far as the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing . . .I don't see how he's defending Bin Laden. As he says, in our country, ' even the worst piece of scum' is innocent until proven guilty. Isn't that the way our courts work?
Of course, Joe turns around in his monologue and says, 'you know that Michael Moore‘s claim of bin Laden‘s innocence . . .' intentionally making it sound as if Moore is saying Bin Laden is <i>innocent</i>, and not just <i>innocent until proven guilty</i>. Sort of the same thing he accuses Moore of doing-- taking a point and manipulating it to make it broader, more fantastic and condemning.
I don't have the time to go into the rest point by point, but after seeing the film, it seems like they take some broad points made, rephrase them, and then skew the rephrasements so that they're easy to knock down, or arrange in a contradictory fashion. And they're entitled to do that, but it's kind of hypoctritical, because that's the same thing Michael Moore does. Because they're on the right doesn't make it any more correct.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hitchens used that precise term, about the moral hero thing:
Ahh...I see. He'd have to elaborate a bit more on what he said then, but since this took place a few days ago, it would be kind of hard to do so.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As far as the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing . . .I don't see how he's defending Bin Laden. As he says, in our country, ' even the worst piece of scum' is innocent until proven guilty. Isn't that the way our courts work? Of course, Joe turns around in his monologue and says, 'you know that Michael Moore‘s claim of bin Laden‘s innocence . . .' <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would most certainly hope so. If you are "innocent until proven guilty," you are just that, innocent. ...Unless, of course, you actually admit to the crime. ...Like bin Laden.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't have the time to go into the rest point by point, but after seeing the film, it seems like they take some broad points made, rephrase them, and then skew the rephrasements so that they're easy to knock down, or arrange in a contradictory fashion. And they're entitled to do that, but it's kind of hypoctritical, because that's the same thing Michael Moore does. Because they're on the right doesn't make it any more correct.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
May I have some examples of when they ARE doing what Moore is doing?
Even if you admit to a crime (pleading guilty, obviously) you still are entitled to go through the court system, aren't you?
At any rate, let's look at this one first right here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->SCARBOROUGH: Murdered, murdered—that Osama bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and yet, in this movie, at the very beginning, he criticizes George Bush for not assuming the bin Laden family is somehow guilty, then letting them out of the country. Complete hypocrisy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, er sort of. He's summarizing a few key points, but doing so in a way to make it look hypocritical and ridiculous.
First, saying he simply 'let them out of the country' is misleading and avoids the major complaint-- he allowed them to plan flights while the rest of the country was grounded.
Second, if you watch the film, he criticizes them for allowing the family members to leave without formal questioning. He notes that some of these members-- though they claim to have disowned him-- had seen Bin Laden in recent years, at the wedding of one of his sons. He cuts this with some old Dragnet footage, showing the cops questioning wives and relatives of criminals. He mentions that this is usually standard practice in a crime-- I mean, who else would possibly have any information about where the suspect is. And that's what you have-- a <i>suspect</i>. They are technically innocent until you gather enough evidence to condemn them.
Also, doesn't Bush letting Bin Laden relatives out of the nation indicate that there is some pretty reasonable evidence that he was involved? I mean, by specifically letting <i>his</i> family out, someone <i>was</i> assuming that he was guilty. So when Joe says, 'he criticizes George Bush for not assuming the bin Laden family is somehow guilty, then letting them out of the country' he's completely missing the point-- he was actually criticizing Bush <i>for</i> letting the family out <i>when</i> it was obvious that <b>he</b> assumed Bin Laden was guilty.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->why is he suddenly saying he is against the Iraq war because it‘s the distraction from the hunt for Osama bin Laden? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And again, this is . . uh, kinda a little bit like what he says in the movie, but not really. I swear, it's like Joe is playing the old telephone game, where the initial message keeps getting filtered until it's barely recognizable.
Ah, to heck with it . . . I don't have the time right now to go through and re-insert the minutes of narration and nuance that Joe keeps condensing into intentionally ridiculous points. If you really want to know the truth of it, go see the movie and compare notes. In some places it'll be score one for the critics, in others it will be score one for Moore.
If not, just be aware that you might not be getting the whole truth with Joe/other critics.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you really want to know the truth of it, go see the movie and compare notes. In some places it'll be score one for the critics, in others it will be score one for Moore.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've seen the movie, and I must say I agree with the critics here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First, saying he simply 'let them out of the country' is misleading and avoids the major complaint-- he allowed them to plan flights while the rest of the country was grounded. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They are not just 'planning' flights just to fly around in circles, they were making the flights so they could leave the country. Just because Moore doesn't use the phrase, 'let them out of the country' doesn't mean he didn't imply it.
Look carefully through the whole Bin-Laden flight part. Moore <b>clearly</b> indicates through the usage of the clips (the order they are presented), and the script he speaks as well as the tone he speaks it in. A movie is NOT scrictly text, you have to understand through the feel of the movie what it's telling you. That section of the flim clearly gives viewer enough to conclude, quite simply and clearly that
Bush = Responsible for Bin Ladens getting out of the country.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Second, if you watch the film, he criticizes them for allowing the family members to leave without formal questioning. He notes that some of these members-- though they claim to have disowned him-- had seen Bin Laden in recent years, at the wedding of one of his sons. He cuts this with some old Dragnet footage, showing the cops questioning wives and relatives of criminals. He mentions that this is usually standard practice in a crime-- I mean, who else would possibly have any information about where the suspect is. And that's what you have-- a suspect. They are technically innocent until you gather enough evidence to condemn them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Notice, that a suspect by definiton may be 'somehow guilty'. Afterall, suspect means to literally "Suspect them of doing the crime!" I thought this was self-explanatory, but I guess it's a bit more confusing than I thought. Again, we have the quote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->SCARBOROUGH: Murdered, murdered—that Osama bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and yet, in this movie, at the very beginning, he criticizes George Bush for not assuming the bin Laden family is <b>somehow guilty</b>, then letting them out of the country. Complete hypocrisy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've seen the movie, and I must say I agree with the critics here.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, I am <b>shocked</b>. I mean, just bowled over. Color me <i>surprised</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush = Responsible for Bin Ladens getting out of the country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, that was his point. And I think it's a valid one. Clarke <i>approved</i> the flights, but that's just logistical execution. Whose idea was it? Moore uses Bush's connections to the Saudis to suggest that maybe it was through his beneficence.
If not, the question then becomes, <i>who did</i>? At any rate, you're also missing his point. It wasn't that they were let out of the country, it was that they were let out <b>without significant questioning</b>. If they were questioned thoroughly before they were allowed to leave, he'd have no case.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Notice, that a suspect may be 'somehow guilty'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no idea what this means. From what I've gathered from the 9/11 commision, they immediately suspected Al Queda, or an associated group-- but I'm sure they had a rogue's crew of suspects. In the time that the decision was made to let the relatives leave, the decision must have already been made that Bin Laden was a key suspect-- otherwise it doesn't make any sense. So they should have been questioned thoroughly.
I'm trying to follow Joe's point-- since Michael Moore didn't support the Afghan war, that absolves the Bush administration from following the most basic rules of investigation? Huh?
And, just so I have you on record here, can you say that Joe Scarborough saying, 'you know that Michael Moore?s claim of bin Laden?s innocence' is intentionally misleading, much like something Michael Moore gets frequently accused of doing? He goes from Michael Moore saying he is 'innocent until proven guilty' to phrasing it in a way to suggest that he believes he is categorically 'innocent'. It's intentional sleight of hand. If anybody thinks that it's ok when Joe does it, then they have no business criticizing Moore. Or, at they very least, they should admit that it's not the lying and misdirection that gets to him, per se, but the people that the lie is about.
Also, is there a double standard in Joe's overuse of the term 'conspiracy theory' when he turns around and basically accuses Moore of trying to make money through Hezbollah? Or is that term now the exclusive property of the right as well?
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This table lists the names of 692 civilians killed as a result of the US-led military intervention in Iraq up to February 29th 2004.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going to go by this, seeing as these are the only documented deaths on the site.
Even with only 692 deaths they use the "as a result" phrase, which could mean allot of things.
<i>As a result</i> of me not taking out the garbage last night, my garbage man skips my house, at that moment a plane crashes into the street and hits his truck killing him.
If I had taken my garbage out he would have stopped, giving him enough time for the plane to miss him.
Guess I killed him then?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This table lists the names of 692 civilians killed as a result of the US-led military intervention in Iraq up to February 29th 2004.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going to go by this, seeing as these are the only documented deaths on the site.
Even with only 692 deaths they use the "as a result" phrase, which could mean allot of things.
<i>As a result</i> of me not taking out the garbage last night, my garbage man skips my house, at that moment a plane crashes into the street and hits his truck killing him.
If I had taken my garbage out he would have stopped, giving him enough time for the plane to miss him.
Guess I killed him then? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What! Wow I have seen some pretty ignorant posts on this topic.
First of all, lets give you the benefit of the doubt that we only killed about 1000 civilians and the rest were armed. The fact of the matter is that we dropped thousands and thousands of bombs along with thousands of cruise missiles, etc. We killed all those people armed or not, and does them being armed mean they shouldn't be counted when they were still civilians? Do these people not have families do they not have brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers?
The fact of the matter is that we killed thousands and thousands of civilians when we bombed Bahgdad. Is Bahgdad a military target? No, its a populated area! It's insane to even think about bombing a populated area and our leaders had no thought when they gave the orders. How would you feel if Los Angeles or New York or any other major city was bombed, cruise missiles, carpet bombing, etc.
The fact that most of you consider Iraq's population to be the enemy is disgusting, they just want to live their life peacefully. Now that we have done this, I am sure they will hate America for hundreds of years to come. All we did by attacking and invading Iraq was create more terrorists for the future.
all targets bombed within the city were military targets: factories, locations of military leaders (like saddam's crib) etc.
unless you yourself have the military records of targets during the bombing raids..?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This table lists the names of 692 civilians killed as a result of the US-led military intervention in Iraq up to February 29th 2004.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going to go by this, seeing as these are the only documented deaths on the site.
Even with only 692 deaths they use the "as a result" phrase, which could mean allot of things.
<i>As a result</i> of me not taking out the garbage last night, my garbage man skips my house, at that moment a plane crashes into the street and hits his truck killing him.
If I had taken my garbage out he would have stopped, giving him enough time for the plane to miss him.
Guess I killed him then? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? Only documented deaths? Did you read their methodology? They didn't just pull the 10,000 number out of their ****. They are all tabulated from accounts delivered by more than one reliable news source. The have a detailed process of conservatively coming up with an upper and lower bound.
They define specifically what "as a result" means in this context on the website. Actually don't even bother to read the site. I quoted it for you a page ago.
If you guys have something legitimate to criticize about their methodology then go at it, but I haven't heard a single informed argument against the fact that we killed 10,000 non-combatant civilians in Iraq.
all targets bombed within the city were military targets: factories, locations of military leaders (like saddam's crib) etc.
unless you yourself have the military records of targets during the bombing raids..? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's quite naive. We bombed hundreds of homes in Iraq! We bombed the headquarters of Al-Jazeera! We even attacked the hotel in which our own journalists were staying!
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't care about their "methodology" when they have 10,000 <i>documented</i> deaths I well accept that 10,000 people have been killed in Iraq because of the US.
Really, I followed this war closely, 10,000 civilian deaths seems unrealistically steep. Our cruise missiles are pretty accurate and we were mind numbingly careful about civilian causalities. I have a feeling many of these "civilian" causalities are members of the Iraqi army, or civilians killed by insurgents or in terrorist attacks.
Ether way unless they are documented I don't buy it.
Also if the site wasn't so obviously anti-war/anti-Bush/anti-military it would be a little easier to believe...but not much.
But no one cares about that, people just seem to be humanitarians when it's an evil lying government going in.
I'm sad to say it but I don't care either. About a third of all the people in Africa have AIDS, and their level of living is just terrible. We don't care. There's famine and children without homes but as long as Bush isn't involved, we don't care. I'm interested in what these people who are against the war would have done if it didn't happen.
And yeah, the war probably wasn't fought for the purest reasons, but that's like saying US shouldnt have entered WW2 if it wasn't intentionally to save the Jews and Gypsies. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nonsense. We care more about iraqi civillians than the millions dying in africa because the blood of those iraqi civillians is on our hands. I feel in part responsible for the deaths of each of those 10,000 people because it is my country and my government that is doing the killing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what have you done about Iraqis dying in the hands of Saddam Hussein? What have you done about other people that have problems? What, we have to attack someone for people to care about the civilians?
That's stupid, you might have said that you felt bad or had a fleeting thought, but no one actually cared. You just care that you're going against Bush.
cluster bombs. civilian areas. enough said.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't care about their "methodology" when they have 10,000 <i>documented</i> deaths I well accept that 10,000 people have been killed in Iraq because of the US.
Really, I followed this war closely, 10,000 civilian deaths seems unrealistically steep. Our cruise missiles are pretty accurate and we were mind numbingly careful about civilian causalities. I have a feeling many of these "civilian" causalities are members of the Iraqi army, or civilians killed by insurgents or in terrorist attacks.
Ether way unless they are documented I don't buy it.
Also if the site wasn't so obviously anti-war/anti-Bush/anti-military it would be a little easier to believe...but not much. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What more documentation do you need?
<a href='http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
So what have you done about Iraqis dying in the hands of Saddam Hussein? What have you done about other people that have problems? What, we have to attack someone for people to care about the civilians?
That's stupid, you might have said that you felt bad or had a fleeting thought, but no one actually cared. You just care that you're going against Bush.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You completely missed my point. I care about civillian casualties because they are partly my fault. I didn't have anything to do with Saddam Hussein's actions. I did have something to do with Bush's actions, because I'm an American, he's my president, and we elect our presidents.
I don't care about their "methodology" when they have 10,000 <i>documented</i> deaths I well accept that 10,000 people have been killed in Iraq because of the US.
Really, I followed this war closely, 10,000 civilian deaths seems unrealistically steep. Our cruise missiles are pretty accurate and we were mind numbingly careful about civilian causalities. I have a feeling many of these "civilian" causalities are members of the Iraqi army, or civilians killed by insurgents or in terrorist attacks.
Ether way unless they are documented I don't buy it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Curiously, do you hold Saddam to this same standard? I mean, sure, we hear all these rough counts of how many people died under his regime, but how many of those are clearly documented, directly authorized by the man himself, and not something indirect, or a result of negligence? How many of those are people who were actually innocent, and how many were genuine criminals/terrorists?
Not that I have any doubts that the man was murderous scum, mind you-- I just wonder if proof is something you only require when your worldview is challenged.
This is an honest question-- not meant to be sarcastic or belligerent.
Not that I have any doubts that the man was murderous scum, mind you-- I just wonder if proof is something you only require when your worldview is challenged.
This is an honest question-- not meant to be sarcastic or belligerent. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes I do hold Saddam by the same standards, for one main reason. I have to admit that I underestimated how many people were killed under Saddam, I was a bit skeptical about the numbers. But I have seen on the news, the rooms filled with thousands of wooden coffins, I have seen the thousands of mounds at the mass graves.
Also in his regime I highly doubt any one else had the authority to order the gas strike against the Kurds, so I hold him directly responsible for that as well.
I have not however seen these thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians that have supposedly been killed by us.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually Baghdad is a legitimate military target, containing many important government structures.
And it's really not that insane to think about bombing populated areas, populated areas have been bombed since the ability to bomb things was invented.
Look at WWII if you want to see some <i>truly</i> horrific civilian casualties from bombings, of course we weren’t even trying to minimize them at the time.
I hate to tell you but if any country that had the ability were to declare war on us, they most likely would bomb NY, LA, DC, or any other large or important areas, civilians or no.
Of course you haven't. The one news agency that showed those pictures was bombed by the US.
Twice.
There is more than enough information on that site to look up every one of those deaths. They list a date, time, description, and the multiple news agencies they drew the information from for each one. If you question the source, find something inaccurate or false. Don't just ignore it because you don't want to believe it, or can't imagine it being true.
For more confirmation here's <a href='http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html' target='_blank'> another article about an unrelated study</a> that is coming up so far with the same ballpark of numbers.
The reason why I don't like Moore or pretty much anything he makes is because it's just flat out shady... He puts an audio over a picture and makes the viewer make conclusions...That's bad. That's not a documentary.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I went to see “Fahrenheit 9/11” Thursday expecting to be entertained despite political objections, but I was wrong. To say Moore took liberty with the truth would be like saying that Ken Lay took liberties with Enron's accounting practices. Fahrenheit 9/11,” like Enron's accountants, obviously figured that when it came to making money, the end justified the means.
In both cases, the scale of deceit and deception is breathtaking. Though I'd need four hours to tell you the list of all the falsehoods from Moore's two-hour movie, let me give you a few glimpses into his twisted logic:
Moore's movie begins by pitching his conspiracy theory about the 2000 election. We're all told in the audience by all recounting methods Al Gore won Florida. That drew a big gasp from the crowd. But, shockingly, this first fact cited by Moore's movie is a lie. Didn't anybody associated with Miramax or Michael Moore's movie read newspapers after the election, when some of America's most liberal papers published results from their independent review of Florida's ballots, concluding it was George W. Bush who won by all recounting methods?
And what of the second conspiracy theory, suggesting that George W. Bush kept Americans grounded after 9/11 but let the bin Laden family escape American airspace scot-free? An FBI agent suggested President Bush's action was an insult to 3,000 dead Americans, while Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan dramatically demands on tape that we must have an investigation to find out who approved this.
But Michael and the senator both know who approved the bin Laden transfer: It was none other than that Bush-bashing hero of the left, Richard Clarke. He admitted it in the 9/11 Commission. Now, it's funny how Michael Moore used Clarke's 9/11 testimony to bash Bush in other parts of the movie, but decided to edit out that part that lays waste to bin Laden-and- Bush conspiracy theory.
These two gross distortions are in the first five minutes of the film. But I can tell you that this film can only add to coarsening of America's democracy. Moore seems to promote the following slanderous conspiracy theories in his movie:
* The Bushes and the bin Ladens were so close that Bush let their family skip out of town while Americans were grounded,
* That the bin Laden family somehow helped George W. Bush start his first oil company, and that George W. Bush cares more about Saudi Arabia than America because the Saudis funneled $1.4 billion to Bush family interests.
* America didn't invade Afghanistan to kick out the Taliban. America attacked Afghanistan so we could put an oil pipeline in Afghanistan. That's why George Bush didn't care if the Taliban got away. (Oh, really? I don't think they got away.)
* The White House purposely tried to scare Americans into believing there was a terror threat after 9/11 so they could pass the Patriot Act, which they had already dreamed up before these 9/11 attacks even occurred.
* We invaded Iraq for no other reason than their oil, allowing young American kids to die just so oil companies could make more money.
Now, there are hundreds of conspiracy theories that are simply unsupported by the facts. But Moore goes on to show pictures of dead Iraqi babies, followed immediately by American soldiers talking about the rush they got listening to rock C.D.s while they shot at anything they moved in Iraq. Why didn't Moore just write "baby killers" on the screen and point to U.S. troops?
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Michael Moore would make this kind of movie, but I am stunned that movie critics, Hollywood moguls and liberal movie viewers across America really think so little of America, its soldiers and its leaders.
Friends, it's a dark, grim and distorted perspective of our great nation. I think it's just wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5296236/' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5296236/</a>
These are excerpts from the transcript of Wednesday's show..,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->SCARBOROUGH: What was the most fraudulent claim that Michael Moore made in this movie?
HITCHENS: Well, that‘s a very tough question, but I think I would phrase it like this.
He says, if you think Americans are fighting in Afghanistan to protect Afghanistan and America from the Taliban and al Qaeda and hold an election in Afghanistan, the first one in its history, and to defend it from barbarism, Moore says, you are totally wrong. The whole war is about Bush family private business and a pipeline, a natural gas pipeline. I think he suggested an oil pipeline, built by Unocal.
Now, I know and anyone who knows anything about it knows, that deal was canceled in 1998, when Bush was still governor of Texas, as a result of Mr. Clinton bombing the al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. The theory isn‘t even worth arguing about. It‘s a whole-cloth fabrication, as well as a terrifying insult to Americans in Afghanistan who are fighting on the front line against barbarism. So that‘s one enormously important lie.
And then he says the Saudi Arabia control all of American foreign policy through private interests. And then you wonder, well, why does President Bush, who is their puppet, continue to knock over regimes that Saudis are in favor of, like the Saddam Hussein regime or the Taliban one? The Saudis so much hated regime change in Iraq, they made American bases move to Qatar, out of Saudi territory.
You could go on and on. He says that the White House at high level let the bin Laden family fly out of the country in a secret, surreptitious, sinister manner. And he had interviewed Richard Clarke months before. And Clarke says straight out, I made that call. Richard Clarke is the moral hero of the film. Michael Moore had the chance to ask the man who knew. Either he didn‘t ask Clarke, who authorized those flights, or Clarke told him it was me and only me, and he didn‘t think it was good enough to use. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->SCARBOROUGH: You know, Christopher, though, let me expand on this tape a little bit, though, because, as you know, you have seen the movie. I have seen the movie. Here you have Michael Moore saying a year after 3,000 Americans are killed...
HITCHENS: Murdered. Murdered. Murdered.
SCARBOROUGH: Murdered, murdered—that Osama bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and yet, in this movie, at the very beginning, he criticizes George Bush for not assuming the bin Laden family is somehow guilty, then letting them out of the country. Complete hypocrisy.
HITCHENS: That‘s why I looked to see if I still had the tape, because I thought, now, a guy who was 100 percent opposed to the war in Afghanistan at the time—that‘s Michael Moore—he thought it was a war for oil, a war for pipelines, an unjust war—why is he suddenly saying he is against the Iraq war because it‘s the distraction from the hunt for Osama bin Laden? You follow my point here?
SCARBOROUGH: Of course. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This next one is in response to Moore's quote of “The majority of Americans supported this war once it began. And, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe—just maybe—God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.”
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->HITCHENS: Don‘t step over where he says, God and Iraqi people won‘t forgive.
You are effectively, with the Michael Moore presentation, you are looking straight down the gun barrel of an al Qaeda video. God and the Iraqi people won‘t forgive? He is talking the language of jihad. This guy is on the other side in the most essential war that this country or society or culture has fought in a generation.
SCARBOROUGH: Why?
HITCHENS: Against Islamic totalitarianism.
Why is he against it? If you want my personal opinion, as someone who has observed Mr. Moore down the years, I don‘t think he has any principles at all. He will do anything to get applause, as you can see from the little clip you just showed. He likes applause from stupid crowds and he punches the applause button.
I would like to know, and I wish you would ask—and perhaps Mr. Lehane could be made to answer this question—who is distributing this film in the Middle East? I would like to know that now. How much money does Mr. Moore expect to make, since he is so interested in money making from Middle Eastern sources? How much does he expect to make when the film is shown in Beirut and Algeria and Cairo?
He must already know who his distributors are and how much he expects from the revenue. He is going to show this film that applauds the murder of Americans, Iraqis, British and Kurdish people all over the Middle East. He expects to do very well out of it. Well, I would like to know where he thinks the money is coming from and if he thinks it‘s worth it.
And I hope he can relax and enjoy that money.
SCARBOROUGH: All right, well, we are going to look into that, Christopher. Thank you for being with us.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: I think, as you know, it bears repeating that the U.K. “Guardian” reported just last week that Hezbollah has already contacted his distributor in the United Arab Emirates and offered their support and their help in distributing the movie. And I think that says an awful lot itself. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So again, Moore is a known liar and a cheat. Deal with him carefully.
However it's a bit presumptious to call him a liar without pointing out flagrant lies. To my knowledge there aren't flagrant lies. However the conclusions he draws and the half truths he makes are just as bad as any invented-statistic.
That said, has anyone found any outright lies in the film?
I see a bunch of writing from Joe Scarborough, a right wing polemicist.
Have you vetted this information, or are you just taking it as Gospel? I find it odd that you're so quick to accept the information given by a guy who essentially has the same job as Moore, only in a different medium, on a different side.
We go through Moore's film with a fine toothed comb-- which we should, but when someone with as transparent an agenda starts contradicting it, it's amazing how many people simply go, 'I knew it! CASE CLOSED!' and don't think that maybe the other person isn't being entirely honest, either.
You know, I also find it entirely comical that in the same series of writings where Bush's ties to the oil industry are dispelled as simple 'conspiracy theory', we get this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I would like to know, and I wish you would ask—and perhaps Mr. Lehane could be made to answer this question—who is distributing this film in the Middle East? I would like to know that now. How much money does Mr. Moore expect to make, since he is so interested in money making from Middle Eastern sources? How much does he expect to make when the film is shown in Beirut and Algeria and Cairo? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think, as you know, it bears repeating that the U.K. “Guardian” reported just last week that Hezbollah has already contacted his distributor in the United Arab Emirates and offered their support and their help in distributing the movie. And I think that says an awful lot itself. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That Richard Clarke actually didn't say he let the bin Laden family escape?
That Moore isn't being hypocritical when he says "Osama is innocent until proven guilty," and then goes on later to say that "The war in Iraq is just a distraction from the hunt for Osama." ?
--Edit--
It turns out the war in Iraq was not to distract the hunt for Sadaam...but for Osama. Silly me. I uh...mistyped "Sadaam" where "Osama" should have been. You understand.
That Richard Clarke actually didn't say he let the bin Laden family escape?
That Moore isn't being hypocritical when he says "Osama is innocent until proven guilty," and then goes on later to say that "The war in Iraq is just a distraction from the hunt for Sadaam." ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll try to find som articles on the election that demonstrate the fuzziness of the recount, as I have yet to see anything definitive from a non-partisan source.
But in the meantime, why are we believing Clarke again? As I recall, he's a bitter, angry, closeted partisan who was upset about being marginalized by the administration, and nothing he says should be trusted.
Oh, except for this, which sort of exonerates George Bush. The other stuff he said in his testimony was the bittter stuff.
Just look what your buddy Joe Scarborough <a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4608258/' target='_blank'>has to say about him.</a> (For those who don't feel like reading this, Joe used to think Richard Clarke is a <i>liar</i>).
Further on the Clarke point I've borrowed this from a blog:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Richard Clarke did not wake up on the morning of September 13th and say to himself, 'You know, I think I'll organize the exodus of any Bin Laden family members still in the U.S.' Prince Bandar made the request to some other member of the Bush administration, possibly to Bush himself, they were close enough. This request was brought by some unknown party to Richard Clarke, who then said that the FBI had to clear it, probably on the reasonable premise that law enforcement should get to make this decision. The FBI cleared it, which sane human beings should find mildly odd, and on that basis Clarke approved a request which originated from elsewhere and was approved by the FBI.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, did you ever wonder where the order <i>came from</i>, or did you just take Joe's abridged explanation as Gospel which required no further exploration?
Unless you have some more evidence to prove Bush did, in fact, order the bin Laden family out.
Unless you have some more evidence to prove Bush did, in fact, order the bin Laden family out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It <i>is</i> speculation, but there is at least a fairly compelling base of evidence to support it.
Just got back from viewing it right now, and I liked it. Sloppy and slow in places; very powerful in others.
A lot of the Hitchens and Scarborough criticisms have me scratching my head. Clarke as the 'moral hero' of the film? There was a very brief clip from his commision testimony, used to demonstrate that the first reaction post 9/11 was to tie it to Iraq. That's it. I mean, Huh?
Also, when was Bin Laden 'innocent until proven guilty'? I was looking for that one, and never saw it. <i>And</i>, incidentally, the deaths of 9/11 <i>were</i> referred to as 'murders' no less than three times in the film.
I'll try to cross reference more of this later, but I can honestly say that their rebuttal was as sloppy as Moore's work was to begin with.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It was none other than that Bush-bashing hero of the left, Richard Clarke.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clarke isn't so much the "moral hero" of the film. I think Scarborough just meant that the left likes him because he was bashing Bush.
The "innocent until proven guilty" thing can be found here...
<a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5344115' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5344115</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL MOORE, FILMMAKER/AUTHOR: It seems as if he and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured, and brought to justice.
HITCHENS: Do you mind if I break in and say...
MOORE: Yes.
HITCHENS: Ask you, what is the “if” doing in that last sentence?
MOORE: What is the who?
HITCHENS: What is the “if” doing in that last sentence of yours?
MOORE: Well, all people are innocent until proven guilty in this country.
HITCHENS: So you have no...
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
MOORE: Even the worst piece of scum.
HITCHENS: I feel I have to press you on that. You regard it as an open question, the responsibility of Osama bin Laden?
MOORE: Until anyone is convicted of any crime, no matter how horrific the crime, they are innocent until proven guilty. And as Americans...
(CROSSTALK)
HITCHENS: No, that‘s all I asked you.
MOORE: Never leave that position.
HITCHENS: I‘m sorry. So bin Laden‘s claims of responsibility strike you as the ravings of a clowns, say?
(LAUGHTER)
HITCHENS: OK. Fine.
(END VIDEO CLIP) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was a video clip on June 30th's show.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And, incidentally, the deaths of 9/11 were referred to as 'murders' no less than three times in the film.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->SCARBOROUGH: You know, Christopher, though, let me expand on this tape a little bit, though, because, as you know, you have seen the movie. I have seen the movie. Here you have Michael Moore saying a year after 3,000 Americans are killed...
HITCHENS: Murdered. Murdered. Murdered.
SCARBOROUGH: Murdered, murdered—that Osama bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and yet, in this movie, at the very beginning, he criticizes George Bush for not assuming the bin Laden family is somehow guilty, then letting them out of the country. Complete hypocrisy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Was that what you were refering to? I think that was just Scarborough mis-speaking and Hitchen's correcting him about what the status of the victims of the 9/11 were. 3,000 being "killed" is different from 3,000 being "murdered." I guess?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I'll try to cross reference more of this later, but I can honestly say that their rebuttal was as sloppy as Moore's work was to begin with.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well...I liked them.
I remember the Afghan government asked the United States for just exactly this before the war started
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Richard Clarke is the moral hero of the film. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's waaaaay off.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Was that what you were refering to? I think that was just Scarborough mis-speaking and Hitchen's correcting him about what the status of the victims of the 9/11 were. 3,000 being "killed" is different from 3,000 being "murdered." I guess?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I may have been reading into it, and text is, of course, devoid of tone, but since he was jumping in and correcting something it sounds like he's emphasizing a point which he felt Moore was de-emphasizing. Saying someone is killed is much more passive than saying they were murdered. I just noted that if that's the case, they were described as murders quite often.
As far as the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing . . .I don't see how he's defending Bin Laden. As he says, in our country, ' even the worst piece of scum' is innocent until proven guilty. Isn't that the way our courts work?
Of course, Joe turns around in his monologue and says, 'you know that Michael Moore‘s claim of bin Laden‘s innocence . . .' intentionally making it sound as if Moore is saying Bin Laden is <i>innocent</i>, and not just <i>innocent until proven guilty</i>. Sort of the same thing he accuses Moore of doing-- taking a point and manipulating it to make it broader, more fantastic and condemning.
I don't have the time to go into the rest point by point, but after seeing the film, it seems like they take some broad points made, rephrase them, and then skew the rephrasements so that they're easy to knock down, or arrange in a contradictory fashion. And they're entitled to do that, but it's kind of hypoctritical, because that's the same thing Michael Moore does. Because they're on the right doesn't make it any more correct.
Richard Clarke is the moral hero of the film.
That's waaaaay off.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahh...I see. He'd have to elaborate a bit more on what he said then, but since this took place a few days ago, it would be kind of hard to do so.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As far as the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing . . .I don't see how he's defending Bin Laden. As he says, in our country, ' even the worst piece of scum' is innocent until proven guilty. Isn't that the way our courts work? Of course, Joe turns around in his monologue and says, 'you know that Michael Moore‘s claim of bin Laden‘s innocence . . .'
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would most certainly hope so. If you are "innocent until proven guilty," you are just that, innocent. ...Unless, of course, you actually admit to the crime. ...Like bin Laden.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't have the time to go into the rest point by point, but after seeing the film, it seems like they take some broad points made, rephrase them, and then skew the rephrasements so that they're easy to knock down, or arrange in a contradictory fashion. And they're entitled to do that, but it's kind of hypoctritical, because that's the same thing Michael Moore does. Because they're on the right doesn't make it any more correct.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
May I have some examples of when they ARE doing what Moore is doing?
At any rate, let's look at this one first right here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->SCARBOROUGH: Murdered, murdered—that Osama bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and yet, in this movie, at the very beginning, he criticizes George Bush for not assuming the bin Laden family is somehow guilty, then letting them out of the country. Complete hypocrisy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, er sort of. He's summarizing a few key points, but doing so in a way to make it look hypocritical and ridiculous.
First, saying he simply 'let them out of the country' is misleading and avoids the major complaint-- he allowed them to plan flights while the rest of the country was grounded.
Second, if you watch the film, he criticizes them for allowing the family members to leave without formal questioning. He notes that some of these members-- though they claim to have disowned him-- had seen Bin Laden in recent years, at the wedding of one of his sons. He cuts this with some old Dragnet footage, showing the cops questioning wives and relatives of criminals. He mentions that this is usually standard practice in a crime-- I mean, who else would possibly have any information about where the suspect is. And that's what you have-- a <i>suspect</i>. They are technically innocent until you gather enough evidence to condemn them.
Also, doesn't Bush letting Bin Laden relatives out of the nation indicate that there is some pretty reasonable evidence that he was involved? I mean, by specifically letting <i>his</i> family out, someone <i>was</i> assuming that he was guilty. So when Joe says, 'he criticizes George Bush for not assuming the bin Laden family is somehow guilty, then letting them out of the country' he's completely missing the point-- he was actually criticizing Bush <i>for</i> letting the family out <i>when</i> it was obvious that <b>he</b> assumed Bin Laden was guilty.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->why is he suddenly saying he is against the Iraq war because it‘s the distraction from the hunt for Osama bin Laden? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And again, this is . . uh, kinda a little bit like what he says in the movie, but not really. I swear, it's like Joe is playing the old telephone game, where the initial message keeps getting filtered until it's barely recognizable.
Ah, to heck with it . . . I don't have the time right now to go through and re-insert the minutes of narration and nuance that Joe keeps condensing into intentionally ridiculous points. If you really want to know the truth of it, go see the movie and compare notes. In some places it'll be score one for the critics, in others it will be score one for Moore.
If not, just be aware that you might not be getting the whole truth with Joe/other critics.
I've seen the movie, and I must say I agree with the critics here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First, saying he simply 'let them out of the country' is misleading and avoids the major complaint-- he allowed them to plan flights while the rest of the country was grounded. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They are not just 'planning' flights just to fly around in circles, they were making the flights so they could leave the country. Just because Moore doesn't use the phrase, 'let them out of the country' doesn't mean he didn't imply it.
Look carefully through the whole Bin-Laden flight part. Moore <b>clearly</b> indicates through the usage of the clips (the order they are presented), and the script he speaks as well as the tone he speaks it in. A movie is NOT scrictly text, you have to understand through the feel of the movie what it's telling you. That section of the flim clearly gives viewer enough to conclude, quite simply and clearly that
Bush = Responsible for Bin Ladens getting out of the country.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Second, if you watch the film, he criticizes them for allowing the family members to leave without formal questioning. He notes that some of these members-- though they claim to have disowned him-- had seen Bin Laden in recent years, at the wedding of one of his sons. He cuts this with some old Dragnet footage, showing the cops questioning wives and relatives of criminals. He mentions that this is usually standard practice in a crime-- I mean, who else would possibly have any information about where the suspect is. And that's what you have-- a suspect. They are technically innocent until you gather enough evidence to condemn them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Notice, that a suspect by definiton may be 'somehow guilty'. Afterall, suspect means to literally "Suspect them of doing the crime!" I thought this was self-explanatory, but I guess it's a bit more confusing than I thought. Again, we have the quote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->SCARBOROUGH: Murdered, murdered—that Osama bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and yet, in this movie, at the very beginning, he criticizes George Bush for not assuming the bin Laden family is <b>somehow guilty</b>, then letting them out of the country. Complete hypocrisy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, I am <b>shocked</b>. I mean, just bowled over. Color me <i>surprised</i>.
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush = Responsible for Bin Ladens getting out of the country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, that was his point. And I think it's a valid one. Clarke <i>approved</i> the flights, but that's just logistical execution. Whose idea was it? Moore uses Bush's connections to the Saudis to suggest that maybe it was through his beneficence.
If not, the question then becomes, <i>who did</i>? At any rate, you're also missing his point. It wasn't that they were let out of the country, it was that they were let out <b>without significant questioning</b>. If they were questioned thoroughly before they were allowed to leave, he'd have no case.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Notice, that a suspect may be 'somehow guilty'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no idea what this means. From what I've gathered from the 9/11 commision, they immediately suspected Al Queda, or an associated group-- but I'm sure they had a rogue's crew of suspects. In the time that the decision was made to let the relatives leave, the decision must have already been made that Bin Laden was a key suspect-- otherwise it doesn't make any sense. So they should have been questioned thoroughly.
I'm trying to follow Joe's point-- since Michael Moore didn't support the Afghan war, that absolves the Bush administration from following the most basic rules of investigation? Huh?
And, just so I have you on record here, can you say that Joe Scarborough saying, 'you know that Michael Moore?s claim of bin Laden?s innocence' is intentionally misleading, much like something Michael Moore gets frequently accused of doing? He goes from Michael Moore saying he is 'innocent until proven guilty' to phrasing it in a way to suggest that he believes he is categorically 'innocent'. It's intentional sleight of hand. If anybody thinks that it's ok when Joe does it, then they have no business criticizing Moore. Or, at they very least, they should admit that it's not the lying and misdirection that gets to him, per se, but the people that the lie is about.
Also, is there a double standard in Joe's overuse of the term 'conspiracy theory' when he turns around and basically accuses Moore of trying to make money through Hezbollah? Or is that term now the exclusive property of the right as well?