<!--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-->Yes, that was his point. And I think it's a valid one. Clarke approved 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, who did? 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 without significant questioning. If they were questioned thoroughly before they were allowed to leave, he'd have no case.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You cannot shift the blame off of clark. That's just a weak justification to keep the spotlight off of him, if you want answers, you start with him. He should be asked who gave him the order, in any <b>half-half-half-decent</b> documentary that even <i>remotely</i> tries to follow the path of truth, but instead he follows his much easier path of half-truths and outright lies to support his already flimsy but appealing story.
<!--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-->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?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, there is no double-standard here, one is based on <a href='http://www.arcataeye.com/top/020312top02.shtml' target='_blank'>facts</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-->Moore dismissed criticism over his purchase of a million-dollar home. "I'm a millionaire, I'm a multi-millionaire," he proclaimed. "I'm filthy rich. You know why I'm a multi-millionaire? 'Cause multi-millions like what I do. That's pretty good, isn't it? There's millions that believe in what I do. Pretty cool, huh?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Moore does know he's good at making money, he is an expert at 'exploiting' captilism.
Whereas we have the old, tired, beaten down to a pulp argument of the oil for war argument which again, has no factual basis.
The most obvious reason being that it would have been simply cheaper to buy and sell oil by directly dealing with Saddam rather than doing a war that cost over 80 billion dollars, risks his second term at president, and also wouldn't yeild any profits for several years to come.
And finally, claiming moore is gearing this movie towards foreign audiences is hardly a 'conspiracy theory' as much as it is being a smart businessman. It's no secret that plenty of people in the world hate America today, especially Bush, why not preach to the choir all over the world for a small fee (the fee would be purchasing the movie).
I would be very impressed by the way if good old Moore used this caliber of logic in any of his films.
<!--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 have no idea what this means.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Edited for clarity. That is, in the original post above this one. Go read that part again!
<!--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-->You cannot shift the blame off of clark. That's just a weak justification to keep the spotlight off of him, if you want answers, you start with him. He should be asked who gave him the order, in any half-half-half-decent documentary that even remotely tries to follow the path of truth, but instead he follows his much easier path of half-truths and outright lies to support his already flimsy but appealing story.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally, I think there's more to the story here, and I would assume that the actual origin of the orders have been pretty well obfuscated. But I'll ask you-- who else in the administration would have given them this idea? The research I mentioned earlier had Clarke getting it from the FBI, which was regarded as odd.
So, who made the call?
<!--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-->Actually, there is no double-standard here, one is based on facts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, you completely ignored the Hezbollah bit, which was the key to the 'conspiracy' point. Are you honestly going to tell me that Joe didn't mean to draw a connection between the two for his viewers?
Edit: Also, for crying out loud: <!--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'm filthy rich. You know why I'm a multi-millionaire? 'Cause multi-millions like what I do. That's pretty good, isn't it? There's millions that believe in what I do. Pretty cool, huh<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's essentially saying he's rich because people like his work, which means-- and this is the point earlier in the article if you actually read it-- that 'dissent' against this administration isn't necessarily a 'fringe' thing. How does this mean that he's motivated by Hezbollah's profit potential?
But as long as we're going to explore that avenue:
<!--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-->Whereas we have the old, tired, beaten down to a pulp argument of the oil for war argument which again, has no factual basis.
The most obvious reason being that it would have been simply cheaper to buy and sell oil by directly dealing with Saddam rather than doing a war that cost over 80 billion dollars, risks his second term at president, and also wouldn't yeild any profits for several years to come.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, this is going to be fun.
First off, the whole 'the war was too expensive for the profits earned' argument dies when you realize that *gasp*-- all the people financing the effort aren't going to be on the immediate receiving end of the profits. If they're all on the same ledger, then yes, it's a terrible cost to profit ratio.
If, however, the <i>taxpayers</i> fund the majority of the effort and private groups are allowed to piggyback off that, then yes, it's <i>extremely</i> lucrative. However, if you'd like to wait by the mail box for your Iraq oil/reconstruction check, then be my guest, but I'd recommend that you don't hold your breath.
Now, let's throw the switch and look at this from the other side: **** Cheney draws a deferred salary from Haliburton. If Haliburton were to go the way of Enron, they would not be obligated to deliver him checks for the balance. They're usually in the neighborhood of 150k, which isn't tons of money to him; it's not chump change, either. It'll be more than half a million over the course of his first term.
He also owns a whole mess of stock options (in three bulk groups, at three different prices). Again, if Haliburton were to go away, they would be meaningless, expect as a tax write off, which he has stated he would not claim. Actually, for the record, he has said that he would donate the profits from his options to charity and not claim them as a charitable deduction. As far as I know, he hasn't stated anything about the annual dividend yield he'll receive, or what he'll do with further stock advances/splits, but <sarcasm>I figure he's trustworthy</sarcasm>.
Now, those no-bid contracts that they received were a) good for business, or b) bad for business?
Or c) good for business, but completely contrary to the nature of 'free market capitalism' where-- wait for it-- <i>competition</i> regulates prices for the taxpayers.
But suggesting that he stands to profit from brisk Haliburton business-- er, which he does-- is <i>ludicrous</i>. <b>Ludicrous</b>! But Michael Moore is going to make money off his movie so <i>obviously</i> he's lying about things to buff his profit margins. Does anyone else see a little disparity here?
A quick recap: **** Cheney, driven by profits he will earn: <i>Laughably</i> crazy. Michael Moore, driven by profits he will earn: Dude, totally obvious <b>and</b> underhanded-- This guy will go out of his <i>way</i> to deceive people for cash!
<!--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 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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not confusing, you're just not making a point.
Follow me on this: When the vast majority of flights in the United States were grounded, the Bin Laden family was allowed to hop on a few flights and exit the country. By <i>virtue</i> of this, it would seem to indicate that the name 'Bin Laden' and '9/11' were somehow popping up on the same radar. Which I would assume (and here correct me if I'm wrong) means that Bin Laden was a suspect-- which is what Bush and Co said to rebutt Clarke's idea that there was a map of Iraq in the war room immedtiately following 9/11, if I'm not mistaken.
So let's spell it out: The exclusivity of the Bin Laden family's departure would seem to <i>lightly suggest</i> that <i>just maybe</i> their son, the leader of a group who had been mentioned in a little memo we now know they had entitled 'Bin Laden determined to strike in the US' was <i>possibly</i> a <i>suspect</i> in the 9/11 attacks, which-- and I'm no cop here-- means that maybe they should have been questioned rigorously.
But again, you're dodging the point--Scarborough's criticism is based on really odd logic-- because Michael Moore didn't support the war in Afghanistan, he can't note the fact that the Bush adminstration <i>apparently</i> facilitiated (or, at the very least, <i>allowed</i>) <b>their</b> key suspect's family to bolt sans serious questioning?
I guess if you read it really quickly with squinted eyes there's some substance to his point, but upon further examination . . . . no.
Additionally, Joe is being intentionally vague about why Moore didn't support the Afghanistan war. As I recall, he doubted their sincerity in capturing Bin Laden-- he thought they were more concerned with the pipeline (A point I disagree). However, when he says that the Taliban got away, Joe quickly notes that they <i>didn't</i>, and they're both half correct. The Taliban were removed as a governing force, but they're still battling our troops, and we still haven't found Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, or other key figures.
I don't think Scarborough was making up a conspiracy theory when he said that "Hezbollah wanted to help distribute Moore's film." It was more of a jab at terrorist's liking Moore's film because of the way it seems to depict America, than it was accusing Moore of being a terrorist. ...or whatever you said it was.
this might be the DUMBEST president we've yet so far.... and we all KNOW he cheated..... that bastard... i think if al gore had won, the economies money would of went up 75% and job rates would have been the highest in years. but NO, our dumb president had to take a 3 month vacation. hah!
<!--QuoteBegin-Crisqo+Jul 5 2004, 06:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crisqo @ Jul 5 2004, 06:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't think Scarborough was making up a conspiracy theory when he said that "Hezbollah wanted to help distribute Moore's film." It was more of a jab at terrorist's liking Moore's film because of the way it seems to depict America, than it was accusing Moore of being a terrorist. ...or whatever you said it was. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You know, it suddenly occurred to me that I hadn't actually read the piece in the Guardian, so I hunted it down. The piece Scarborough refers to can be found <a href='http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1240819,00.html' target='_blank'>here.</a>
Notice, this is what it says: <!--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-->According to Screen International, the UAE-based distributor Front Row Entertainment has been contacted by <b>organisations related to the Hezbollah in Lebanon</b> with offers of help.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Emphasis mine. Here they're taking about organizations <i>related to</i> Hezbollah, without further clarification. How indirect are these ties? Apparently, it doesn't matter. Scarborough pulls this and says: <!--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-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since he's using the Guardian piece for his evidence, and this is all it states, it would seem that he's speculating, now, wouldn't it? The Guardian phrases it in a way to suggest there is at least one degree of separation; Joe ham-fists that into a direct connection.
Curiously, we have this little tid bit from you, regarding where the order for the Saudi flights came: <!--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-->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-->
Please reconcile. I would like to know why behavior like this makes Michael Moore a 'liar' and a 'cheat', but Joe Scarborough still remains a credible source.
<!--QuoteBegin-BlackPlague+Jul 5 2004, 01:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BlackPlague @ Jul 5 2004, 01:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> this might be the DUMBEST president we've yet so far.... and we all KNOW he cheated..... that bastard... i think if al gore had won, the economies money would of went up 75% and job rates would have been the highest in years. but NO, our dumb president had to take a 3 month vacation. hah! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Al-Gore lost fair and square, according to Americas system of electing presidents. I have proved that Bush won the election fairly and if you don't believe me go dig around the forum, it's to hot out for me to be reposting old arguments.
As I said before, if you have a problem with how Bush got elected, take it up with the founding fathers and the Electoral system.
And a word to the wise, if Al Gore had been president 9/11 still would have happened and the economy still would have taken a huge hit. Of course you just picked an imaginary “75%” and I’m not sure what you mean by “economies money”. And if you think whether Al Gore or Bush has any say over job rates you need to stop buying such stupid liberal propaganda. The president has little effect on the economy and even less on job rates, besides most affects a president has on the economy usually are visible after the president is out of office, and the economy seems to be doing fairly well as Bush's first term winds down.
<!--QuoteBegin-BlackPlague+Jul 5 2004, 03:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BlackPlague @ Jul 5 2004, 03:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> BUCK FUSH! lolz <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ...and with that the young cross-eyed rabbit whom had bitten off more lettuce then he could chew, darted back into the bushes from whence he came.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jul 5 2004, 03:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jul 5 2004, 03:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-BlackPlague+Jul 5 2004, 03:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BlackPlague @ Jul 5 2004, 03:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> BUCK FUSH! lolz <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ...and with that the young cross-eyed rabbit whom had bitten off more lettuce then he could chew, darted back into the bushes from whence he came. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Who cares what Black Plague thinks?
I bet you can't even vote. Your posts aren't appreciated either.
<!--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--> He's essentially saying he's rich because people like his work, which means-- and this is the point earlier in the article if you actually read it-- that 'dissent' against this administration isn't necessarily a 'fringe' thing. How does this mean that he's motivated by Hezbollah's profit potential?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because's he's a businessman as much as he is a ranter.
<!--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-->Oh, this is going to be fun.
First off, the whole 'the war was too expensive for the profits earned' argument dies when you realize that *gasp*-- all the people financing the effort aren't going to be on the immediate receiving end of the profits. If they're all on the same ledger, then yes, it's a terrible cost to profit ratio.
If, however, the taxpayers fund the majority of the effort and private groups are allowed to piggyback off that, then yes, it's extremely lucrative. However, if you'd like to wait by the mail box for your Iraq oil/reconstruction check, then be my guest, but I'd recommend that you don't hold your breath.
Now, let's throw the switch and look at this from the other side: **** Cheney draws a deferred salary from Haliburton. If Haliburton were to go the way of Enron, they would not be obligated to deliver him checks for the balance. They're usually in the neighborhood of 150k, which isn't tons of money to him; it's not chump change, either. It'll be more than half a million over the course of his first term.
He also owns a whole mess of stock options (in three bulk groups, at three different prices). Again, if Haliburton were to go away, they would be meaningless, expect as a tax write off, which he has stated he would not claim. Actually, for the record, he has said that he would donate the profits from his options to charity and not claim them as a charitable deduction. As far as I know, he hasn't stated anything about the annual dividend yield he'll receive, or what he'll do with further stock advances/splits, but <sarcasm>I figure he's trustworthy</sarcasm>.
Now, those no-bid contracts that they received were a) good for business, or b) bad for business?
Or c) good for business, but completely contrary to the nature of 'free market capitalism' where-- wait for it-- competition regulates prices for the taxpayers.
But suggesting that he stands to profit from brisk Haliburton business-- er, which he does-- is ludicrous. Ludicrous! But Michael Moore is going to make money off his movie so obviously he's lying about things to buff his profit margins. Does anyone else see a little disparity here?
A quick recap: **** Cheney, driven by profits he will earn: Laughably crazy. Michael Moore, driven by profits he will earn: Dude, totally obvious and underhanded-- This guy will go out of his way to deceive people for cash!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, so get this.
We have two igenious plans:
1. You get elected president. Wait for a terrorist attack that has supposedly been in the works for quite some time now, THEN after the attack about a year after the fact you name a subsidary target with no real evidence to attack it, but go ahead anyways for control of the oil resources, upon which you claim with your family's and friends business.
2. Make a move talking about how evil Bush is, the corruption in American politics. Make it very simple to follow, even if it must use half-truths. Then you sell it to American viewers, followed by the American loving people of the world, not expecting to make a dime.
Hm... after reviewing the evidence here I'm gonna have to go on 1 being the less far-fetched and more practical scheme to pull. </Sarcasm>
Seriously, how is suggesting that Moore geared his movie towards foreign audiences (or terrorsts, whatever) that it is a conspiracy theory?!?
Besides, it's not as if the first is completely unsupported-- Paul O'Neil, Richard Clarke, Bob Woodward, and PNAC's own documents suggest that there were designs on Iraq from an early stage. And you can only write off so many sources with their standard 'oh, they're just cranky' defense before you start to wonder how who is really fibbing.
At any rate, I have no doubt that Michael Moore uses half truths; however, as you may have guessed, it does irritate me that it isn't the sloppy research, stretched points, and half truths that seem to be ticking most people off here-- it's the political agenda being pushed.
Moore exists as a necessary evil to balance the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Reillys, et al who use the same tactics on the other side. Only difference is that they pull their crap on a daily basis.
And I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say that he geared it towards foriegn audiences-- correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to be doing pretty well stateside. I would say he geared it towards people who have doubts about this administration-- and I think the ticket sales seem to indicate that they aren't defined by boundaries.
And I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say that he geared it towards foriegn audiences-- correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to be doing pretty well stateside. I would say he geared it towards people who have doubts about this administration-- and I think the ticket sales seem to indicate that they aren't defined by boundaries. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Notice, I did not say that it is ONLY geared towards foreign audiences, I'm just saying it is geared to foriegn audiences as well as stateside audiences as well.
But really, of course this plays into terrorist hands; they just want to bring down America in any way. Making fun of it's leader is a good start.
<!--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 are those two concepts mutually exclusive?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A businessman and politician with agenda is mutually exclusive simply because a businman says what sells and makes money, a politician does not have to do so.
Obviously, a politician could sell himself, but Moore definitaly is NOT doing that. haha at that thought.
<!--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-->Moore exists as a necessary evil to balance the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Reillys, et al who use the same tactics on the other side. Only difference is that they pull their crap on a daily basis. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't consider any of them evils. They are people in this great nation who are respected for their thoughts.
Also, if you notice how the left generally gets it's appeal through big programs and how the right through talk shows and things that are smaller but more consistant;
almost indictive of each side's philosophy. Strange, huh?
<!--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 I think the ticket sales seem to indicate that they aren't defined by boundaries.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh you got that right, I saw this movie in massachusetts with criogenics (aka future) and boy, the audience was clapping after it ended. The left ate this movie up like a good pizza.
And again, I have to give credit where it is due:
- Mike does do a good job overall, it is of high quality.
- Mike is not a stupid person.
- Mike also does a little bashing of all politicians (democrats, republicans) which I approve of in certain parts. Like how all of the congressmen have no children in the military, and yet the congressmen would all be so ready to boast how they have served in the military. (Bush and Kerry are good examples ^ max) I thought that part was really good.
Actually, I meant that the plans you mentioned weren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
Bush could have stretched the truth on Iraq, and Moore could have stretched the truth on a fair percentage of his movie. Same sort of situation.
The problem I have with polemecists-- <i>all</i> of them-- is that they try to get you to support things which may be good for the wrong reasons. There's a certain level of deceit inherent in the system which doesn't necessarily have to be there, but it's kind of like the difference between a slam dunk and a wide jump shot. Too much of a chance you might miss that jump shot, so you decide to take the lane and remove all doubt.
<!--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-->- Mike also does a little bashing of all politicians (democrats, republicans) which I approve of in certain parts. Like how all of the congressmen have no children in the military, and yet the congressmen would all be so ready to boast how they have served in the military. (Bush and Kerry are good examples ^ max) I thought that part was really good. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed. I personally liked the part where he reminded us that those who say that the election was stolen also have to hold the Democratic senators responsible. Congress needed <i>one</i> signature, and they couldn't get it. Sad.
Although, to be honest, one part I really had a problem with was when he interviewed the soldier who claimed to be a lifelong Republican who was going to be voting Democrat in the next election. It was too convenient and too literal-- especially since he was building up the theme of uncertainty amongst the soldiers in Iraq.
Is Fahrenheit 9/11 fair? Somebody already quoted The Daily Show, but I would just like to underscore what was said once more. Understand, I am paraphrasing, as I am under to find audio, video, or a transcript.
<!--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-->Jon Stewart: Is the movie fair?
Michael Moore: No, it's not fair. I have a point of view. There are certain facts that I present, but I edit it in a way that presents my point of view. Much as you can edit things on this show.
Jon Stewart: [Laughs.] Well, it's good to know you're not so cynical as to consider this fair.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That said, I found Fahrenheit 9/11 to be powerful and moving, if nothing else. It's not a true documentary, and does not present both sides of the issues. But that doesn't make the points he does choose to raise somehow less valid. I read the article you <a href='http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/?GT1=3584' target='_blank'>posted</a> at the beginning of this thread, and I found the rebuttal's valid points begin to blur at the points it met the exaggerations present.
<!--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-->In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did he forget Syria? North Korea? Sudan? Iran? Perhaps worst of all, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, both of which had state-run newspapers disseminate the story that 9/11 was carried out by Israelis, and no Jew died that day, because they all received calls telling them not to go to work that day.
<!--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-->...Moore complains that there isn't enough intrusion and confiscation at airports and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where did this come from? Moore pointed out the humor in allowing two books of matches and four lighters, but that fifth lighter has to go. We should allow all, or allow none.
Of course, Christopher Hitchens is also the same person that called opponents to the war <a href='http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/10/cct.00.html' target='_blank'>Pro-Saddam</a> on CNN's "Connie Chung Tonight." Polarized exaggeration should be no surprise.
To those who pray for a truly independent fact-checking service, <a href='http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html' target='_blank'>feast</a>! <a href='http://www.spinsanity.org/' target='_blank'>Spinsanity</a> is a wonderfully skeptical political service. Go on, search for your most hated political talking-head villian and laugh at their errors. And then search for your most loved political talking-head hero. Al Franken's <u>Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them</u> seems to <a href='http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_09_07_archive.html' target='_blank'>check out extremely well</a>, with only one minor misquote the only factual error in the book.
<!--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'm just confused as to the "controversy" that Moore appears to focus on here. So some of the bin Laden's in the US are allowed by Bush to leave the country after 9/11 for fear of their safety? What the hell is wrong with that. None of them have any ties to the long exiled and disowned Osama bin Laden, and their very name made them a big target for passionate and ignorant Americans here.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Moore states the some of the bin Laden family saw Osama bin Laden at a family wedding as recently as a few years ago, and may still have connections with him today, however thin. Even though the bin Laden family is innocent of any crime, it is customary for police to start looking for a suspect in hiding by asking the suspect's family if they might know where he is. Why were they allowed to leave our soil without formal questioning?
<!--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 it must be that I do not call Moore's conservative counter parts out. Well, when I find his conservative counterpart I will criticize him. The fact is there is no conservative make deceptive films and calling them documentaries.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, but conservatives write misleading editorials and call them articles, or write deceptive interpretations of events and consider them objective books, or film misinforming commentaries and call it a pundit show, or record unreliable audio and broadcast it regularly. Moore has his conservative counterparts, even if they don't choose the medium of film to work in.
<!--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-->Moore walks the street asking congress men to sign thier children up for the military(You cannot sign your children up for the military). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He asked the congressmen if they would like to <a href='http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2642193' target='_blank'>get their children enlisted.</a> Not enlist them, but to convince their children to enlist themselves.
<!--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 guy is going to try to push his freedom of speech to the limit.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is a scary sentence. Almost as scary as our President, speaking of the freedom of speech, saying, <a href='http://www.gwbush.com/multimedia/index.shtml' target='_blank'>"There ought to be limits to freedom!"</a> The audio is currently down, unfortunately, but it <a href='http://www.gwbush.com/press/pressusatoday.htm' target='_blank'>did happen</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-->...[Farenheit 9/11] will also be very Anti- American on our views and Its going to try to Jam the topic of "pulling out of iraq" into the viewers head.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I saw the movie as very Pro-American. And it did not present the idea of merely pulling out of Iraq. Instead, it said to me that we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but if we were to go in, we shouldn't be understaffing our effort.
<!--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-->Don't listen to what everyone tells you. Especially from someone who is very Anti- something, because about 90-95% of what there telling you is going to be in fact, in their favor AND there going to make the topic seem much, much bigger than it is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right now you're very anti- towards any challenging messages. And if that isn't irony, I don't know what is. Pro- messages can contain just as much propaganda as any anti- message.
<!--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-->Film reaches a broader audience than print and radio. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And television beats all three hands down. There are few who would claim that liberals have their own news channel, but the converse has a very vocal, very sizable group decrying Fox News Channel.
<!--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-->His other stuff is pretty outrageous too. He even tries to say how peaceful and calm Bagdad was to citizens before America moved in. Now that's just stupid.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why is that stupid? Because you lived there, saw how much more peaceful the city immediately became once our bombs started dropping?
<!--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-->Stating that we should avoid dissent because it causes "divisiveness" is the most vile traitorous thing a human being could possibly say.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That sentence is beautiful.
<!--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-->In a free society, diversity is not disorder. Debate is not strife. And dissent is not revolution. -- George W. Bush, 22 Feb 2002 Qinghua University, Beijing<!--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-->Well if we would have done a proper carpet bombing we could have got the kid too. Now we have another terrorist on our hands.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even as a joke, this is disturbing, and does not help win others to your cause.
<!--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-->...MM can sign his own petition and go join the war effort. To me, that would be a more constructive use of his time and energy than flaimbaiting our troops and stripping away what little national pride we have.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not seeing this movie stripping away national pride. Stripping away blind faith in our leaders, perhaps, but pride in my nation is as strong as ever. Even after seeing this movie.
<!--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-->things like this ["Join the Military - Replacements Needed" poster] aren't protest.. i don't know what the hell to call it, besides sickening.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Intentionally so. It conveys a message far more powerfully than any mere, "Blood for Oil" sign could hope to bring.
<!--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-->the only correlation in my statement between 911 and saddam was their proximity in typed characters.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's look at that again, shall we?
<!--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-->the death ratio in the united states as of 911 is USA 19, Terrorism a thousand something.
i am truly saddened that this doesn't mean a damn thing to people anymore.
America is a fighting country. we bring the fight to the enemy, ESPECIALLY if we are attacked first. when.. where.. WHO changed that? WHAT is different? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Iraq never attacked American citizens on American soil. Until we finish the fight with Al Qaeda and the reconstruction in Afghanistan, I fail to see the benefit in an unprovoked attack on Iraq, save for the world's second-largest oil field.
<!--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 doubt the number of civilians actually killed directly by Americans is not over 1000.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In a country with a population of <a href='http://www.faair.org/images/Iraq-Census-Total-2003.pdf' target='_blank'>28 million</a> you think it's unbelievable that the 510,000 soldiers we have placed there couldn't kill many innocent civilians? When you combine accidental gunfire with collateral damage from bombs and missiles, and the widespread civil infrastructure destroyed by our actions, I find 12,000 civilians dead to believable. It is, after all, only 0.04% of Iraq's total population.
<!--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 it's hostiles getting killed who gives a damn.. and WHY..<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Civilians are not hostiles.
<!--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-->could you please quote your sources or spell it out for me, seein as you already did the research? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm#methods' target='_blank'>Sure.</a> Courtesy of a volunteer group of British and US academics and researchers.
<!--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 a result 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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the analogy would be better expressed as, "As a result of our destruction of hospital facilities, water storage units, and sewer processing plants, disease spread throughout populated cities and killed thousands of civilians." And seeing as how war was started without approval from the U.N. Security Council, the blame falls squarely on those who started the war.
From the web site's FAQ:
<!--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-->Each side can readily claim that indirectly-caused deaths are the "fault" of the other side or, where long-term illnesses and genetic disorders are concerned, "due to other causes." Our methodology requires that specific deaths attributed to US-led military actions are carried in at least two reports from our approved sources. This includes deaths resulting from the destruction of water treatment plants or any other lethal effects on the civilian population. The test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed to a piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger, or is due to "collateral damage" by either side (with the burden of responsibility falling squarely on the shoulders of those who initiate war without UN Security Council authorization). We agree that deaths from any deliberate source are an equal outrage, but in this project we want to only record those deaths to which we can unambiguously hold our own leaders to account. In short, we record all civilians deaths attributed to our military intervention in Iraq.
(The above FAQ does not apply to sanctions; although we are opposed to them, our study deals with the consequences of our current military actions in Iraq. It has also been newly revised due to our growing awareness that we were too narrowly-focused on bombs and other conventional weapons, neglecting the deadly effects of disrupted food, water, electricity and medical supplies. These effects, though relatively small at the outset of a war, are likely to become much more significant as time passes, and we will monitor media reports accordingly.)<!--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-->all targets bombed within the city were military targets: factories, locations of military leaders (like saddam's crib) etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All targets were military targets? <a href='http://electroniciraq.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/10/582' target='_blank'>Every single one?</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-->Ether way unless they are documented I don't buy it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm#methods' target='_blank'>It is documented.</a> By at <i>least</i> two independent sources. Even if they <a href='http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm' target='_blank'>don't have the person's name</a> doesn't mean he or she did not exist, was not important to some family.
<!--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-->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-->
I see the anti-war. Where, pray tell, do you assume that the site is anti-Bush or anti-military? The web site strives towards an objective analysis of the results of U.S. military action. Calling truth propaganda doesn't change the truthfulness of it.
Again, quoting the FAQ:
<!--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-->We acknowledge that many parties to this conflict will have an interest in manipulating casualty figures for political ends. There is no such thing (and will probably never be such a thing) as an "wholly accurate" figure, which could accepted as historical truth by all parties. This is why we will always publish a minimum and a maximum for each reported incident. Some sources may wish to over-report casualties. Others may wish to under-report them. Our methodology is not biased towards "propaganda" from any particular protagonist in the conflict. We will faithfully reflect the full range of reported deaths in our sources. These sources, which are predominantly Western (including long established press agencies such as Reuters and Associated Press) are unlikely to suppress conservative estimates which can act as a corrective to inflated claims. We rely on the combined, and self-correcting, professionalism of the world's press to deliver meaningful maxima and minima for our count.<!--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 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-->
One of the requirements demanded of news reporters before being allowed to move with the military in Iraq was that they were not allowed to show Iraqi civilian deaths or the deaths of American soldiers. Good to show patriotic support, slow dissenting opinions towards the war, and sell newspapers/advertising space/magazines, but bad for objective reporting.
<!--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-->The pool system allowed the military to control the movement of journalists and to restrict where they went and what they saw. Journalists were taken to selected sites and not allowed to interview soldiers without a military minder present. Additionally, reporters were not allowed to pass on stories until they were inspected by the military. In the absence of direct access to the war, reporters were treated to press briefings with images of precision bombing and laser guided missiles hitting their target. Media scholar Douglas Kellner notes that such "control of press coverage was unprecedented in the history of U.S. warfare."<!--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-->We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective. -- Michael Eisner, CEO of Disney<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As pointed out, one news agency is vigorously trying to cover the war in a truly objective fashion, <a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage' target='_blank'>Al Jazeera</a>. And was <a href='http://electroniciraq.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/10/582' target='_blank'>attacked</a> by us. More than once.
<!--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 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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, Richard Clarke admitting his responsibility in letting the bin Laden family flee the country did not occur until <a href='http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx' target='_blank'>after the movie was finished</a> and had been released at Cannes.
<!--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-->...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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sigh.
<!--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 are those two concepts mutually exclusive?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Best. Argument. Ever.
<!--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-->They [Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Reillys, et al] are people in this great nation who are respected for their thoughts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As is Moore. Simply to an audience other than yourself.
<!--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-->Also, if you notice how the left generally gets it's appeal through big programs and how the right through talk shows and things that are smaller but more consistant;
almost indictive of each side's philosophy. Strange, huh?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've lost me.
<!--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-->Congress needed one signature, and they couldn't get it. Sad.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A minor point, but it was the Senate. They had the necessary signatures from our Representatives, it was the elite 100 sitting on the Senate floor that would not sign the petition.
And as a final point, Bathroom Monkey, I salute you! You don't push any kind of agenda that I can see, aside from powerful skepticism. And that is perhaps the best attitude to take with you and promote, in life and in the voting booth. So thank you, and don't ever stop questioning it all.
-Ryan!
"Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts." -- Bernard M. Baruch
"But far more numerous was the herd of such, Who think too little, and who talk too much." -- John Dryden
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Jul 5 2004, 10:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jul 5 2004, 10:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Bush could have stretched the truth on Iraq, and Moore could have stretched the truth on a fair percentage of his movie. Same sort of situation. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Except you know, one is war and the other is a movie.
...
Seems to be a bit of a descripency in severity 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-->As pointed out, one news agency is vigorously trying to cover the war in a truly objective fashion, Al Jazeera. And was attacked by us. More than once.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-version91x+Jul 6 2004, 08:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (version91x @ Jul 6 2004, 08:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm going to have to link that overly large post to confused people... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> After posting it, I realized how monsterous it seemed. But mostly because of quoting. There were a lot of good things in this thread that caught my eye, and, obviously, a lot of things I felt a need to reply to. So I'm sorry for the certainly overly long post.
<!--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 is entertaining and factual.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But that makes it worth it. Thank you. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
One thing that occured to me while at work about what I said in my post:
<!--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 find 12,000 civilians dead to believable. It is, after all, only 0.04% of Iraq's total population.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And those that died on September 11 were only 0.001% of the U.S. population, yet their deaths wound me deeply, even today, so don't think I am trying in any way to minmize the impact of those civilian who died, on either side. One might argue that our period of mourning and anger was somehow more poignant, because of the way it happened, so much destruction at once, broadcast to every home in the nation. But my way of life has not changed because of small destructions happening in my town. I am not able to see the death outside my bedroom window.
-Ryan!
"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure." -- Albert Einstein
In a free society, diversity is not disorder. Debate is not strife. And dissent is not revolution. -- George W. Bush, 22 Feb 2002 <a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020222.html' target='_blank'>Qinghua University, Beijing</a>
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." -- Albert Einstein
"There are only two stimulants to one's best efforts: the fear of punishment, and the hope of reward." -- John M. Wilson
H'BNayr, I read your entire post, so it was not in vain. And I support every single one of your points. Best. Retort. Ever. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jul 5 2004, 03:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jul 5 2004, 03:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And a word to the wise, if Al Gore had been president 9/11 still would have happened and the economy still would have taken a huge hit. Of course you just picked an imaginary “75%” and I’m not sure what you mean by “economies money”. And if you think whether Al Gore or Bush has any say over job rates you need to stop buying such stupid liberal propaganda. The president has little effect on the economy and even less on job rates, besides most affects a president has on the economy usually are visible after the president is out of office, and the economy seems to be doing fairly well as Bush's first term winds down.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I just got around to watching the movie. I was disappointed overall. I don't think Moore made any bold, and irrefutable points as I had hoped. I felt he was casting a wide net, trying to reel people in with different messages. To elaborate, I feel he was trying to find everyone's sensitive spot. Such as, the weeping mothers for those who hate to see people cry. Sometimes, his points would contradict each other and leave me confused. Such as, railing on Bush's military history and then accepting his records as fact to support his next argument. Maybe he should have tried to make fewer points, and focus more on the good stuff. Like the lack of action by the President to the daily briefing stating that Bin Laden intended to attack the US by hijacking planes. The 9/11 commission (if it even fit into the time-frame the movie was shot). Why it took so long to scramble jets once the country was aware that a hi-jacking was occurring. More about 9/11 itself, rather than the aftermath.
Okay, so I quoted a part by Reasa for a reason. Reasa, I hate to see this argument about how 9/11 would have still happened had Gore been elected. That is totally unsubstantiated propoganda. You don't know that, and you should get it out of your head. You are claiming that Bush did all he could reasonably do to prevent 9/11 from occurring. This is simply not the case. From the movie itself, Moore claims that Bush CUT funding to the CIA's anti-terrorism unit. The CIA was still able to find out that Bin Laden intended to attack the US with commercial airliners. With more funding, it's possible that Bin Laden's complete plans could have been revealed before the attack happened. And from the movie, Bush was too busy playing golf to deal with the threat.
So, Gore would have done the same thing? I don't know, chances are slim, but it's quite possible. I don't know, so I'm not going to make any wild claims like you have. I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt that he would have acted differently. <b>This means, 9/11 could have been prevented had Gore been in office.</b>
On the economy, I disagree with you that the president does not have much control over the economy. Investor confidence is one of the leading factors in how well the economy does. Times of war tend to increase investor uncertainty, and economy goes down. Bush has had 2 wars. Would Gore have had 2 wars?
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Jamil+Jul 13 2004, 02:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jamil @ Jul 13 2004, 02:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Okay, so I quoted a part by Reasa for a reason. Reasa, I hate to see this argument about how 9/11 would have still happened had Gore been elected. That is totally unsubstantiated propoganda. You don't know that, and you should get it out of your head. You are claiming that Bush did all he could reasonably do to prevent 9/11 from occurring. This is simply not the case. From the movie itself, Moore claims that Bush CUT funding to the CIA's anti-terrorism unit. The CIA was still able to find out that Bin Laden intended to attack the US with commercial airliners. With more funding, it's possible that Bin Laden's complete plans could have been revealed before the attack happened. And from the movie, Bush was too busy playing golf to deal with the threat.
So, Gore would have done the same thing? I don't know, chances are slim, but it's quite possible. I don't know, so I'm not going to make any wild claims like you have. I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt that he would have acted differently. <b>This means, 9/11 could have been prevented had Gore been in office.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The question is, why didn't Al Gore prevent these attacks while he WAS in office. 8 years of opportunity as opposed to 1. "GG. Thanks for looking out for us."
Interesting tidbit:
<!--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--><b>Al Gore and the Iraqi Democracy Question</b>
by Frank Smyth <i>IntellectualCapital.com</i> March 2, 2000
Thursday, March 2, 2000
<u>How carefully did Vice President Al Gore choose his words last month when he became the first Clinton administration official to apply the "d-word" to Iraq? In a one-page, Feb. 8 letter to Iraqi exiles based in London, Gore became the first high-level U.S. official ever to publicly promise to promote "democracy in Iraq."</u> Nothing would be more revolutionary for a place that, for centuries, has been dominated by a small social minority. Nothing would be more threatening for Saddam Hussein, who, for decades, has been the same ruling minority's strongest leader. Religious identity is what sets Saddam and his regime apart from most of the people in both Iraq and Iran. Saddam along with most of his military officers, ruling-party officers and elite combat personnel are ethnic Arabs who are members of the Sunni Muslim faith -- just like most members of every Iraqi regime including the monarchy that was deposed in 1958. At the same time, at least 60% of Iraqis and 89% of Iranians (who are mainly ethnic Arabs and Persians, respectively) share allegiance to the Shia Muslim faith. Ethnic Kurds who also practice the Sunni faith comprise a third social group in Iraq. They comprise less than 20% of the country's population and are as small as Iraq's ruling Sunni Arab elite that, since 1979, has been led by Saddam. The issue of democracy for Iraq is sensitive because any free elections there would probably lead to greater autonomy for Iraq's long-disenfranchised Kurdish minority, and also finally bring representative power to the country's long-disenfranchised Shia majority. To prevent either outcome, the United States has long maintained a de facto alliance with Iraq's ruling Sunni minority led by Saddam. Today many U.S. officials still fear that without Sunni Arabs like Saddam in control, Iraqi Kurds would try and form their own state which would de-stabilize America's regional NATO ally, Turkey, while Iraqi Shias would turn what is left of Iraq into another radical Islamic state allied with Iran.
<b>An uneasy imbalance he U.S. must back democratic reforms in the Persian Gulf selectively.</b>
This perception is outdated. The Persian Gulf has changed in recent years. The winding down of a 15-year Kurdish guerrilla war in Turkey gives U.S. policymakers more opportunities to deal with Iraqi Kurds, and the unexpected rise of moderate Shia leaders in Iran through successive elections over the past three years turns the American notion that equates Shias with fundamentalists on its turban. To strengthen American interests in both Iraq and Iran, either President Clinton or his successor should finally state that the United States supports the eventual goal of democracy for Iraq, whenever Saddam finally falls -- just as candidate Gore, however unwittingly, recently did. Americans have tended to perceive all Persian Gulf Shias in a negative light since the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis that lasted until 1981. The United States has since sought to contain Shia political forces throughout the Persian Gulf. The Reagan administration backed Saddam and his Sunni-dominated regime throughout the Iran-Iraq War that finally ended in 1988.
Many Shias in Iraq, Iran and Lebanon share their own hatred for Saddam. Since 1998, three of Iraq's Supreme Ayatollahs have been killed in the streets by unidentified gunmen after encouraging Shias to return to their mosques to receive daily prayers instead of receiving them from state television. A year ago after the third murder, Shias spontaneously demonstrated against Saddam. In Tehran, Iran's most hard-line cleric, Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, immediately denounced the latest top-cleric murder. The last time Shias worshiped freely in Iraq was right after the Gulf War during the period known as the intifada or "shaking off." It began the evening after President George Bush urged Iraqis to remove Saddam. First Shia rebels in the south and then Kurdish guerrillas in the north overtook local army, air force and ruling-party bases. The Bush administration, however, never intended to provoke a popular insurrection and instead allied with Saudi Arabia in trying to provoke a palace coup against Saddam in order to keeps Iraq's ruling Sunnis in power. As a result of U.S. inaction, Saddam quickly snuffed out the Shia/Kurdish intifada. President George Bush would later say that he ordered U.S. forces to stand by because he feared the intifada's triumph might have destabilized the region.
<b>The failure of current policy</b>
The Persian Gulf remains unstable today because of Saddam and his regime. Few doubt that Iraq is actively rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction while its efforts are no longer being monitored. Russia, China and France recently forced the United Nations to appoint a relatively weak candidate, Hans Blix, to renew U.N. inspections. The new inspection regime that Blix is forming will no doubt be the weakest one since the Gulf War, granted Saddam's regime even allows the inspections to resume at all. The United States also goes on paying an ever-higher political price over U.N. sanctions against Iraq. The top two U.N. officials to administer the oil-for-food program that is designed to alleviate the suffering of Iraqi people resigned in February in protest of the program's failure to do so. In January, 68 members of Congress wrote a letter to President Clinton demanding an end to the sanctions against Iraq -- a program that the administration has already begun to weaken in the face of mounting international pressure. Backing the notion of democracy for Iraq would represent nothing less than a strategic shift for U.S. policy. The change would finally dump the idea of backing a coup against Saddam that would preserve most of his Sunni Arab-dominated regime -- an anti-democratic goal that both the Bush and Clinton administrations have separately pursued at one time or another.
<b>The case for U.S. support of democracy in Iraq</b>
Democracy, of course, is uncommon in the Middle East, and it may only be promoted in most nations slowly and with caution. Saudi Arabia is a monarchist dictatorship that is generations away from reform. Self-rule for Iraq would be even more threatening to another oil-producing giant, Bahrain, where, like in Iraq, another Sunni minority rules over a Shia majority. The United States must back democratic reforms in the Persian Gulf selectively in a way that preserves its economic and strategic interests. But the presumption that America could never back democracy in Iraq is inconsistent with both American values and interests. America's long-held view that only Sunni Arabs can maintain stability in Iraq is near-sighted. Whether he realizes yet or not, Al Gore has taken a radical stand in backing the simple goal of democracy for Iraq. Other presidential candidates should now be asked whether they back it there, too, while Gore should be asked when exactly he plans to engage in a dialogue with the men who represent Iraq's Shia majority. Back in 1998, leaders of the Supreme Assembly of the Islamic Revolution for Iraq based in Tehran said they wanted to work more closely with the United States. But Gore's allies in the Clinton administration still keep them at arm's length. America must finally begin discussions with truly representative Iraqi groups about a future form of government that could keep Iraq together in a way that would protect both its people's majority and minority rights. Of course, that would be a tall order, and every Iraqi frontline state, among others, would have legitimate concerns about the process. The effort would no doubt fail without leadership from the United States. But it could conceivably succeed. The unexpected continuation of Saddam's regime in power has been a sobering experience for Iraqis, Iranians and Americans, among others, who share the burden of living with Saddam. American backing of democracy for Iraq would involve more than risks. It would finally cast the United States in a favorable light in Iran. Shias from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean are sure to retain anti-American sentiments if they rightfully perceive that America is still trying to keep Shias down. But if America were to back democracy for Iraq, there would be no better way to influence Iran. The policy change would be the most dangerous one imaginable for Saddam. Observers who think the United States could remove him if it wanted to generally are overly impressed with America's technological advantage while failing to consider that America along with the rest of the West has little or no effective intelligence base today inside Iraq. Backing democracy for Iraq is not the same thing as backing Saddam's ouster. Democracy presumes that not only will Saddam be forced to leave office but that one way or another Shias will eventually gain the representative power they deserve. Self-determination is one reason why the Clinton administration went to war with Yugoslavia over its province of Kosovo, and it is the same principle upon which the Bush administration purportedly fought the Gulf War with Iraq to free Kuwait. Yet, America's moral record is inconsistent. To serve its own interests, the United States needs to apply the same principle now to Iraq. Did Gore mean to use the "d-word" or not?
Frank Smyth, who covered the Gulf War and the intifada for The Economist, CBS News and The Village Voice, is a contributing editor for IntellectualCapital.com. He is also a contributor to Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know, edited by Roy Gutman and David Rieff.
<!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Jul 13 2004, 06:47 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Jul 13 2004, 06:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The question is, why didn't Al Gore prevent these attacks while he WAS in office. 8 years of opportunity as opposed to 1. "GG. Thanks for looking out for us."
Interesting tidbit:
<b>Al Gore and the Iraqi Democracy Question</b>
by Frank Smyth <i>IntellectualCapital.com</i> March 2, 2000
Thursday, March 2, 2000
<u>How carefully did Vice President Al Gore choose his words last month when he became the first Clinton administration official to apply the "d-word" to Iraq? In a one-page, Feb. 8 letter to Iraqi exiles based in London, Gore became the first high-level U.S. official ever to publicly promise to promote "democracy in Iraq."</u> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why didn't George H.W Bush prevent 9/11? Al-Qaeda existed then. Perhaps because the time for action was not within his time-frame. I would argue the same for Clinton/Gore. The memo informing the president that 9/11 was about to occur came while Bush was in office. Had Gore had the same memo infront of him, I would believe he would have actually done something. We don't really know what Gore would have done, but we know what Bush did. Nothing. I'd take the alternative any day.
Don't beat around the bush. What is your point? That Gore would have gone to war with Iraq to establish a democracy? If all you have is Gore promoting democracy (as opposed to despotism?) in Iraq, I'd like to see it.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
edited July 2004
Time frame? Time for action? <a href='http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4463' target='_blank'>There were plenty of opportunities for real action.</a>
The point is, the same man who is saying that Bush "betrayed our country" spent years promoting even stronger rhetoric for the demise of Iraq's tyrant. All the while ignoring terrorist groups like Al-queda. EDIT: Except, of course, for the residents of Ruby Ridge and the Branch Dividians. Can't believe I forgot those scary folks. Good thing we wiped them out without mercy.
<!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Jul 13 2004, 04:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Jul 13 2004, 04:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Time frame? Time for action? <a href='http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4463' target='_blank'>There were plenty of opportunities for real action.</a>
The point is, the same man who is saying that Bush "betrayed our country" spent years promoting even stronger rhetoric for the demise of Iraq's tyrant. All the while ignoring terrorist groups like Al-queda. EDIT: Except, of course, for the residents of Ruby Ridge and the Branch Dividians. Can't believe I forgot those scary folks. Good thing we wiped them out without mercy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And thankfully, our chief law enforcement officer under Bush saw the clear and present danger posed by stone boobies and Cajun prostitutes and correctly focused his energy on their nefarious schemes. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Also, for the record, the Ruby Ridge debacle took place on August 21, 1992, and Clinton took office on January 20, 1993. So not only did Gore invent the internet, but he invented the time machine as well?
<!--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-->In 1993, terrorists detonated a bomb in the parking garage of the World Trade Center killing six Americans and injuring 1,042. Vital information could have been gathered to thwart future attacks. But President Clinton did nothing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We cut Bush slack because 9/11 came less than a year after he took office, but hold Clinton accountable for something which occurred barely over a month into his first term?
<!--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 they are, they ought to pick up a copy of Bossie's book. The evidence all points to one man.
Bill Clinton spent his presidency concerned about leaving a legacy. Unfortunately, he succeeded. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh <i>come on</i>. This is the most comically ridiculous thing I've read-- it's <i>just</i> as bad as the whole 'OH MY GOD IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT!' argument (which is why I <i>hope</i> you've included it).
I won't mention any names here, but certain administrations actually gave arms and support to the terrorists, didn't they? And they don't get a nod?
It's everyone's fault or it's nobody's fault; but anyone who tries to blame it on a single political party or figure is just playing politics.
Note: Spooge, keeping in line with the rules here I will only say this about that source: When I see Ann Coulter listed as a columnist on a site, my spidey sense starts tingling . . . <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Second note: <!--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 as a final point, Bathroom Monkey, I salute you! You don't push any kind of agenda that I can see, aside from powerful skepticism. And that is perhaps the best attitude to take with you and promote, in life and in the voting booth. So thank you, and don't ever stop questioning it all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Though, to be fair, I <b>do</b> have an agenda right now-- I <i>definitely</i> want a new administration. As I've said before, I truly hope I can retain my skepticism regardless of who is in office or what party they belong to.
I find myself with a knee-jerk tendency to side with the Democrats these days, but I feel like I've been backed into a corner by the Bush administration. And when you get backed into a corner, and you suddenly turn around and Teddy Kennedy is standing there right behind you-- <b>GAH!</b>
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
Yeah, the link was the first I found (quickly) with a time line list. The rest is dribble for me. And yes, what we're seeing in this thread and those like them are people using a magnifying glass to find a city.
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-Forlorn+Jul 6 2004, 08:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 6 2004, 08:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--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 pointed out, one news agency is vigorously trying to cover the war in a truly objective fashion, Al Jazeera. And was attacked by us. More than once.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...right.... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> which part of that statement are you doubting?
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Jul 14 2004, 06:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Jul 14 2004, 06:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jul 6 2004, 08:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 6 2004, 08:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--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 pointed out, one news agency is vigorously trying to cover the war in a truly objective fashion, Al Jazeera. And was attacked by us. More than once.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...right.... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> which part of that statement are you doubting? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> "a truely objective fashion"
I know we attacked them at least once during the war, to shut down any form of communication that could be used. By attack, I mean we bombed their transmition towers and dishes.
Im sorry, I sick as hell right now and Im getting things messed up. We did attack dish stations, and that is ok(Cutting of information sources that can be used by the enemy). We also bomb two stations, one in Kabul and one in Baghdad. Until the more information surfaces, I will with hold my judgement on the events.
Comments
If not, the question then becomes, who did? 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 without significant questioning. If they were questioned thoroughly before they were allowed to leave, he'd have no case.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You cannot shift the blame off of clark. That's just a weak justification to keep the spotlight off of him, if you want answers, you start with him. He should be asked who gave him the order, in any <b>half-half-half-decent</b> documentary that even <i>remotely</i> tries to follow the path of truth, but instead he follows his much easier path of half-truths and outright lies to support his already flimsy but appealing story.
<!--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-->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?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, there is no double-standard here, one is based on <a href='http://www.arcataeye.com/top/020312top02.shtml' target='_blank'>facts</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-->Moore dismissed criticism over his purchase of a million-dollar home. "I'm a millionaire, I'm a multi-millionaire," he proclaimed. "I'm filthy rich. You know why I'm a multi-millionaire? 'Cause multi-millions like what I do. That's pretty good, isn't it? There's millions that believe in what I do. Pretty cool, huh?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Moore does know he's good at making money, he is an expert at 'exploiting' captilism.
Whereas we have the old, tired, beaten down to a pulp argument of the oil for war argument which again, has no factual basis.
The most obvious reason being that it would have been simply cheaper to buy and sell oil by directly dealing with Saddam rather than doing a war that cost over 80 billion dollars, risks his second term at president, and also wouldn't yeild any profits for several years to come.
And finally, claiming moore is gearing this movie towards foreign audiences is hardly a 'conspiracy theory' as much as it is being a smart businessman. It's no secret that plenty of people in the world hate America today, especially Bush, why not preach to the choir all over the world for a small fee (the fee would be purchasing the movie).
I would be very impressed by the way if good old Moore used this caliber of logic in any of his films.
<!--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 have no idea what this means.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Edited for clarity. That is, in the original post above this one. Go read that part again!
Personally, I think there's more to the story here, and I would assume that the actual origin of the orders have been pretty well obfuscated. But I'll ask you-- who else in the administration would have given them this idea? The research I mentioned earlier had Clarke getting it from the FBI, which was regarded as odd.
So, who made the call?
<!--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-->Actually, there is no double-standard here, one is based on facts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, you completely ignored the Hezbollah bit, which was the key to the 'conspiracy' point. Are you honestly going to tell me that Joe didn't mean to draw a connection between the two for his viewers?
Edit: Also, for crying out loud:
<!--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'm filthy rich. You know why I'm a multi-millionaire? 'Cause multi-millions like what I do. That's pretty good, isn't it? There's millions that believe in what I do. Pretty cool, huh<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's essentially saying he's rich because people like his work, which means-- and this is the point earlier in the article if you actually read it-- that 'dissent' against this administration isn't necessarily a 'fringe' thing. How does this mean that he's motivated by Hezbollah's profit potential?
But as long as we're going to explore that avenue:
<!--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-->Whereas we have the old, tired, beaten down to a pulp argument of the oil for war argument which again, has no factual basis.
The most obvious reason being that it would have been simply cheaper to buy and sell oil by directly dealing with Saddam rather than doing a war that cost over 80 billion dollars, risks his second term at president, and also wouldn't yeild any profits for several years to come.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, this is going to be fun.
First off, the whole 'the war was too expensive for the profits earned' argument dies when you realize that *gasp*-- all the people financing the effort aren't going to be on the immediate receiving end of the profits. If they're all on the same ledger, then yes, it's a terrible cost to profit ratio.
If, however, the <i>taxpayers</i> fund the majority of the effort and private groups are allowed to piggyback off that, then yes, it's <i>extremely</i> lucrative. However, if you'd like to wait by the mail box for your Iraq oil/reconstruction check, then be my guest, but I'd recommend that you don't hold your breath.
Now, let's throw the switch and look at this from the other side:
**** Cheney draws a deferred salary from Haliburton. If Haliburton were to go the way of Enron, they would not be obligated to deliver him checks for the balance. They're usually in the neighborhood of 150k, which isn't tons of money to him; it's not chump change, either. It'll be more than half a million over the course of his first term.
He also owns a whole mess of stock options (in three bulk groups, at three different prices). Again, if Haliburton were to go away, they would be meaningless, expect as a tax write off, which he has stated he would not claim. Actually, for the record, he has said that he would donate the profits from his options to charity and not claim them as a charitable deduction. As far as I know, he hasn't stated anything about the annual dividend yield he'll receive, or what he'll do with further stock advances/splits, but <sarcasm>I figure he's trustworthy</sarcasm>.
Now, those no-bid contracts that they received were a) good for business, or b) bad for business?
Or c) good for business, but completely contrary to the nature of 'free market capitalism' where-- wait for it-- <i>competition</i> regulates prices for the taxpayers.
But suggesting that he stands to profit from brisk Haliburton business-- er, which he does-- is <i>ludicrous</i>. <b>Ludicrous</b>! But Michael Moore is going to make money off his movie so <i>obviously</i> he's lying about things to buff his profit margins. Does anyone else see a little disparity here?
A quick recap: **** Cheney, driven by profits he will earn: <i>Laughably</i> crazy.
Michael Moore, driven by profits he will earn: Dude, totally obvious <b>and</b> underhanded-- This guy will go out of his <i>way</i> to deceive people for cash!
<!--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 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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not confusing, you're just not making a point.
Follow me on this: When the vast majority of flights in the United States were grounded, the Bin Laden family was allowed to hop on a few flights and exit the country. By <i>virtue</i> of this, it would seem to indicate that the name 'Bin Laden' and '9/11' were somehow popping up on the same radar. Which I would assume (and here correct me if I'm wrong) means that Bin Laden was a suspect-- which is what Bush and Co said to rebutt Clarke's idea that there was a map of Iraq in the war room immedtiately following 9/11, if I'm not mistaken.
So let's spell it out: The exclusivity of the Bin Laden family's departure would seem to <i>lightly suggest</i> that <i>just maybe</i> their son, the leader of a group who had been mentioned in a little memo we now know they had entitled 'Bin Laden determined to strike in the US' was <i>possibly</i> a <i>suspect</i> in the 9/11 attacks, which-- and I'm no cop here-- means that maybe they should have been questioned rigorously.
But again, you're dodging the point--Scarborough's criticism is based on really odd logic-- because Michael Moore didn't support the war in Afghanistan, he can't note the fact that the Bush adminstration <i>apparently</i> facilitiated (or, at the very least, <i>allowed</i>) <b>their</b> key suspect's family to bolt sans serious questioning?
I guess if you read it really quickly with squinted eyes there's some substance to his point, but upon further examination . . . . no.
Additionally, Joe is being intentionally vague about why Moore didn't support the Afghanistan war. As I recall, he doubted their sincerity in capturing Bin Laden-- he thought they were more concerned with the pipeline (A point I disagree). However, when he says that the Taliban got away, Joe quickly notes that they <i>didn't</i>, and they're both half correct. The Taliban were removed as a governing force, but they're still battling our troops, and we still haven't found Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, or other key figures.
You know, it suddenly occurred to me that I hadn't actually read the piece in the Guardian, so I hunted it down. The piece Scarborough refers to can be found <a href='http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1240819,00.html' target='_blank'>here.</a>
Notice, this is what it says:
<!--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-->According to Screen International, the UAE-based distributor Front Row Entertainment has been contacted by <b>organisations related to the Hezbollah in Lebanon</b> with offers of help.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Emphasis mine. Here they're taking about organizations <i>related to</i> Hezbollah, without further clarification. How indirect are these ties? Apparently, it doesn't matter. Scarborough pulls this and says:
<!--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-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since he's using the Guardian piece for his evidence, and this is all it states, it would seem that he's speculating, now, wouldn't it? The Guardian phrases it in a way to suggest there is at least one degree of separation; Joe ham-fists that into a direct connection.
Curiously, we have this little tid bit from you, regarding where the order for the Saudi flights came:
<!--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-->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-->
Please reconcile. I would like to know why behavior like this makes Michael Moore a 'liar' and a 'cheat', but Joe Scarborough still remains a credible source.
Al-Gore lost fair and square, according to Americas system of electing presidents. I have proved that Bush won the election fairly and if you don't believe me go dig around the forum, it's to hot out for me to be reposting old arguments.
As I said before, if you have a problem with how Bush got elected, take it up with the founding fathers and the Electoral system.
And a word to the wise, if Al Gore had been president 9/11 still would have happened and the economy still would have taken a huge hit. Of course you just picked an imaginary “75%” and I’m not sure what you mean by “economies money”. And if you think whether Al Gore or Bush has any say over job rates you need to stop buying such stupid liberal propaganda. The president has little effect on the economy and even less on job rates, besides most affects a president has on the economy usually are visible after the president is out of office, and the economy seems to be doing fairly well as Bush's first term winds down.
...and with that the young cross-eyed rabbit whom had bitten off more lettuce then he could chew, darted back into the bushes from whence he came.
...and with that the young cross-eyed rabbit whom had bitten off more lettuce then he could chew, darted back into the bushes from whence he came. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who cares what Black Plague thinks?
I bet you can't even vote. Your posts aren't appreciated either.
<!--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-->
He's essentially saying he's rich because people like his work, which means-- and this is the point earlier in the article if you actually read it-- that 'dissent' against this administration isn't necessarily a 'fringe' thing. How does this mean that he's motivated by Hezbollah's profit potential?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because's he's a businessman as much as he is a ranter.
<!--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-->Oh, this is going to be fun.
First off, the whole 'the war was too expensive for the profits earned' argument dies when you realize that *gasp*-- all the people financing the effort aren't going to be on the immediate receiving end of the profits. If they're all on the same ledger, then yes, it's a terrible cost to profit ratio.
If, however, the taxpayers fund the majority of the effort and private groups are allowed to piggyback off that, then yes, it's extremely lucrative. However, if you'd like to wait by the mail box for your Iraq oil/reconstruction check, then be my guest, but I'd recommend that you don't hold your breath.
Now, let's throw the switch and look at this from the other side:
**** Cheney draws a deferred salary from Haliburton. If Haliburton were to go the way of Enron, they would not be obligated to deliver him checks for the balance. They're usually in the neighborhood of 150k, which isn't tons of money to him; it's not chump change, either. It'll be more than half a million over the course of his first term.
He also owns a whole mess of stock options (in three bulk groups, at three different prices). Again, if Haliburton were to go away, they would be meaningless, expect as a tax write off, which he has stated he would not claim. Actually, for the record, he has said that he would donate the profits from his options to charity and not claim them as a charitable deduction. As far as I know, he hasn't stated anything about the annual dividend yield he'll receive, or what he'll do with further stock advances/splits, but <sarcasm>I figure he's trustworthy</sarcasm>.
Now, those no-bid contracts that they received were a) good for business, or b) bad for business?
Or c) good for business, but completely contrary to the nature of 'free market capitalism' where-- wait for it-- competition regulates prices for the taxpayers.
But suggesting that he stands to profit from brisk Haliburton business-- er, which he does-- is ludicrous. Ludicrous! But Michael Moore is going to make money off his movie so obviously he's lying about things to buff his profit margins. Does anyone else see a little disparity here?
A quick recap: **** Cheney, driven by profits he will earn: Laughably crazy.
Michael Moore, driven by profits he will earn: Dude, totally obvious and underhanded-- This guy will go out of his way to deceive people for cash!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, so get this.
We have two igenious plans:
1. You get elected president. Wait for a terrorist attack that has supposedly been in the works for quite some time now, THEN after the attack about a year after the fact you name a subsidary target with no real evidence to attack it, but go ahead anyways for control of the oil resources, upon which you claim with your family's and friends business.
2. Make a move talking about how evil Bush is, the corruption in American politics. Make it very simple to follow, even if it must use half-truths. Then you sell it to American viewers, followed by the American loving people of the world, not expecting to make a dime.
Hm... after reviewing the evidence here I'm gonna have to go on 1 being the less far-fetched and more practical scheme to pull. </Sarcasm>
Seriously, how is suggesting that Moore geared his movie towards foreign audiences (or terrorsts, whatever) that it is a conspiracy theory?!?
Besides, it's not as if the first is completely unsupported-- Paul O'Neil, Richard Clarke, Bob Woodward, and PNAC's own documents suggest that there were designs on Iraq from an early stage. And you can only write off so many sources with their standard 'oh, they're just cranky' defense before you start to wonder how who is really fibbing.
At any rate, I have no doubt that Michael Moore uses half truths; however, as you may have guessed, it does irritate me that it isn't the sloppy research, stretched points, and half truths that seem to be ticking most people off here-- it's the political agenda being pushed.
Moore exists as a necessary evil to balance the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Reillys, et al who use the same tactics on the other side. Only difference is that they pull their crap on a daily basis.
And I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say that he geared it towards foriegn audiences-- correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to be doing pretty well stateside. I would say he geared it towards people who have doubts about this administration-- and I think the ticket sales seem to indicate that they aren't defined by boundaries.
And I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say that he geared it towards foriegn audiences-- correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to be doing pretty well stateside. I would say he geared it towards people who have doubts about this administration-- and I think the ticket sales seem to indicate that they aren't defined by boundaries. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Notice, I did not say that it is ONLY geared towards foreign audiences, I'm just saying it is geared to foriegn audiences as well as stateside audiences as well.
But really, of course this plays into terrorist hands; they just want to bring down America in any way. Making fun of it's leader is a good start.
<!--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 are those two concepts mutually exclusive?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A businessman and politician with agenda is mutually exclusive simply because a businman says what sells and makes money, a politician does not have to do so.
Obviously, a politician could sell himself, but Moore definitaly is NOT doing that. haha at that thought.
<!--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-->Moore exists as a necessary evil to balance the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Reillys, et al who use the same tactics on the other side. Only difference is that they pull their crap on a daily basis. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't consider any of them evils. They are people in this great nation who are respected for their thoughts.
Also, if you notice how the left generally gets it's appeal through big programs and how the right through talk shows and things that are smaller but more consistant;
almost indictive of each side's philosophy. Strange, huh?
<!--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 I think the ticket sales seem to indicate that they aren't defined by boundaries.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh you got that right, I saw this movie in massachusetts with criogenics (aka future) and boy, the audience was clapping after it ended. The left ate this movie up like a good pizza.
And again, I have to give credit where it is due:
- Mike does do a good job overall, it is of high quality.
- Mike is not a stupid person.
- Mike also does a little bashing of all politicians (democrats, republicans) which I approve of in certain parts. Like how all of the congressmen have no children in the military, and yet the congressmen would all be so ready to boast how they have served in the military. (Bush and Kerry are good examples ^ max) I thought that part was really good.
Bush could have stretched the truth on Iraq, and Moore could have stretched the truth on a fair percentage of his movie. Same sort of situation.
The problem I have with polemecists-- <i>all</i> of them-- is that they try to get you to support things which may be good for the wrong reasons. There's a certain level of deceit inherent in the system which doesn't necessarily have to be there, but it's kind of like the difference between a slam dunk and a wide jump shot. Too much of a chance you might miss that jump shot, so you decide to take the lane and remove all doubt.
<!--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-->- Mike also does a little bashing of all politicians (democrats, republicans) which I approve of in certain parts. Like how all of the congressmen have no children in the military, and yet the congressmen would all be so ready to boast how they have served in the military. (Bush and Kerry are good examples ^ max) I thought that part was really good. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed. I personally liked the part where he reminded us that those who say that the election was stolen also have to hold the Democratic senators responsible. Congress needed <i>one</i> signature, and they couldn't get it. Sad.
Although, to be honest, one part I really had a problem with was when he interviewed the soldier who claimed to be a lifelong Republican who was going to be voting Democrat in the next election. It was too convenient and too literal-- especially since he was building up the theme of uncertainty amongst the soldiers in Iraq.
Again, that's where the slam dunk gets annoying.
Althought Michael Moore's precence was toned down a bit, he kinda let the footage do the talking.
It was mostly cementing facts that Michael has already commented in, [I recognized a bunch from his book "Dude, where's my 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-->Jon Stewart: Is the movie fair?
Michael Moore: No, it's not fair. I have a point of view. There are certain facts that I present, but I edit it in a way that presents my point of view. Much as you can edit things on this show.
Jon Stewart: [Laughs.] Well, it's good to know you're not so cynical as to consider this fair.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That said, I found Fahrenheit 9/11 to be powerful and moving, if nothing else. It's not a true documentary, and does not present both sides of the issues. But that doesn't make the points he does choose to raise somehow less valid. I read the article you <a href='http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/?GT1=3584' target='_blank'>posted</a> at the beginning of this thread, and I found the rebuttal's valid points begin to blur at the points it met the exaggerations present.
<!--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-->In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did he forget Syria? North Korea? Sudan? Iran? Perhaps worst of all, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, both of which had state-run newspapers disseminate the story that 9/11 was carried out by Israelis, and no Jew died that day, because they all received calls telling them not to go to work that day.
<!--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-->...Moore complains that there isn't enough intrusion and confiscation at airports and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where did this come from? Moore pointed out the humor in allowing two books of matches and four lighters, but that fifth lighter has to go. We should allow all, or allow none.
Of course, Christopher Hitchens is also the same person that called opponents to the war <a href='http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/10/cct.00.html' target='_blank'>Pro-Saddam</a> on CNN's "Connie Chung Tonight." Polarized exaggeration should be no surprise.
To those who pray for a truly independent fact-checking service, <a href='http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html' target='_blank'>feast</a>! <a href='http://www.spinsanity.org/' target='_blank'>Spinsanity</a> is a wonderfully skeptical political service. Go on, search for your most hated political talking-head villian and laugh at their errors. And then search for your most loved political talking-head hero. Al Franken's <u>Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them</u> seems to <a href='http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_09_07_archive.html' target='_blank'>check out extremely well</a>, with only one minor misquote the only factual error in the book.
<!--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'm just confused as to the "controversy" that Moore appears to focus on here. So some of the bin Laden's in the US are allowed by Bush to leave the country after 9/11 for fear of their safety? What the hell is wrong with that. None of them have any ties to the long exiled and disowned Osama bin Laden, and their very name made them a big target for passionate and ignorant Americans here.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Moore states the some of the bin Laden family saw Osama bin Laden at a family wedding as recently as a few years ago, and may still have connections with him today, however thin. Even though the bin Laden family is innocent of any crime, it is customary for police to start looking for a suspect in hiding by asking the suspect's family if they might know where he is. Why were they allowed to leave our soil without formal questioning?
<!--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 it must be that I do not call Moore's conservative counter parts out. Well, when I find his conservative counterpart I will criticize him. The fact is there is no conservative make deceptive films and calling them documentaries.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, but conservatives write misleading editorials and call them articles, or write deceptive interpretations of events and consider them objective books, or film misinforming commentaries and call it a pundit show, or record unreliable audio and broadcast it regularly. Moore has his conservative counterparts, even if they don't choose the medium of film to work in.
<!--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-->Moore walks the street asking congress men to sign thier children up for the military(You cannot sign your children up for the military). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He asked the congressmen if they would like to <a href='http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2642193' target='_blank'>get their children enlisted.</a> Not enlist them, but to convince their children to enlist themselves.
<!--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 guy is going to try to push his freedom of speech to the limit.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is a scary sentence. Almost as scary as our President, speaking of the freedom of speech, saying, <a href='http://www.gwbush.com/multimedia/index.shtml' target='_blank'>"There ought to be limits to freedom!"</a> The audio is currently down, unfortunately, but it <a href='http://www.gwbush.com/press/pressusatoday.htm' target='_blank'>did happen</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-->...[Farenheit 9/11] will also be very Anti- American on our views and Its going to try to Jam the topic of "pulling out of iraq" into the viewers head.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I saw the movie as very Pro-American. And it did not present the idea of merely pulling out of Iraq. Instead, it said to me that we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but if we were to go in, we shouldn't be understaffing our effort.
<!--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-->Don't listen to what everyone tells you. Especially from someone who is very Anti- something, because about 90-95% of what there telling you is going to be in fact, in their favor AND there going to make the topic seem much, much bigger than it is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right now you're very anti- towards any challenging messages. And if that isn't irony, I don't know what is. Pro- messages can contain just as much propaganda as any anti- message.
<!--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-->Film reaches a broader audience than print and radio. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And television beats all three hands down. There are few who would claim that liberals have their own news channel, but the converse has a very vocal, very sizable group decrying Fox News Channel.
<!--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-->His other stuff is pretty outrageous too. He even tries to say how peaceful and calm Bagdad was to citizens before America moved in. Now that's just stupid.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why is that stupid? Because you lived there, saw how much more peaceful the city immediately became once our bombs started dropping?
<!--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-->Stating that we should avoid dissent because it causes "divisiveness" is the most vile traitorous thing a human being could possibly say.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That sentence is beautiful.
<!--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-->In a free society,
diversity is not disorder.
Debate is not strife.
And dissent is not revolution.
-- George W. Bush, 22 Feb 2002
Qinghua University, Beijing<!--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-->Well if we would have done a proper carpet bombing we could have got the kid too. Now we have another terrorist on our hands.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even as a joke, this is disturbing, and does not help win others to your cause.
<!--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-->...MM can sign his own petition and go join the war effort. To me, that would be a more constructive use of his time and energy than flaimbaiting our troops and stripping away what little national pride we have.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not seeing this movie stripping away national pride. Stripping away blind faith in our leaders, perhaps, but pride in my nation is as strong as ever. Even after seeing this movie.
<!--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-->things like this ["Join the Military - Replacements Needed" poster] aren't protest.. i don't know what the hell to call it, besides sickening.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Intentionally so. It conveys a message far more powerfully than any mere, "Blood for Oil" sign could hope to bring.
<!--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-->the only correlation in my statement between 911 and saddam was their proximity in typed characters.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's look at that again, shall we?
<!--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-->the death ratio in the united states as of 911 is USA 19, Terrorism a thousand something.
i am truly saddened that this doesn't mean a damn thing to people anymore.
America is a fighting country. we bring the fight to the enemy, ESPECIALLY if we are attacked first. when.. where.. WHO changed that? WHAT is different? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Iraq never attacked American citizens on American soil. Until we finish the fight with Al Qaeda and the reconstruction in Afghanistan, I fail to see the benefit in an unprovoked attack on Iraq, save for the world's second-largest oil field.
<!--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 doubt the number of civilians actually killed directly by Americans is not over 1000.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In a country with a population of <a href='http://www.faair.org/images/Iraq-Census-Total-2003.pdf' target='_blank'>28 million</a> you think it's unbelievable that the 510,000 soldiers we have placed there couldn't kill many innocent civilians? When you combine accidental gunfire with collateral damage from bombs and missiles, and the widespread civil infrastructure destroyed by our actions, I find 12,000 civilians dead to believable. It is, after all, only 0.04% of Iraq's total population.
<!--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 it's hostiles getting killed who gives a damn.. and WHY..<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Civilians are not hostiles.
<!--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-->could you please quote your sources or spell it out for me, seein as you already did the research? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm#methods' target='_blank'>Sure.</a> Courtesy of a volunteer group of British and US academics and researchers.
<!--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 a result 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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the analogy would be better expressed as, "As a result of our destruction of hospital facilities, water storage units, and sewer processing plants, disease spread throughout populated cities and killed thousands of civilians." And seeing as how war was started without approval from the U.N. Security Council, the blame falls squarely on those who started the war.
From the web site's FAQ:
<!--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-->Each side can readily claim that indirectly-caused deaths are the "fault" of the other side or, where long-term illnesses and genetic disorders are concerned, "due to other causes." Our methodology requires that specific deaths attributed to US-led military actions are carried in at least two reports from our approved sources. This includes deaths resulting from the destruction of water treatment plants or any other lethal effects on the civilian population. The test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed to a piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger, or is due to "collateral damage" by either side (with the burden of responsibility falling squarely on the shoulders of those who initiate war without UN Security Council authorization). We agree that deaths from any deliberate source are an equal outrage, but in this project we want to only record those deaths to which we can unambiguously hold our own leaders to account. In short, we record all civilians deaths attributed to our military intervention in Iraq.
(The above FAQ does not apply to sanctions; although we are opposed to them, our study deals with the consequences of our current military actions in Iraq. It has also been newly revised due to our growing awareness that we were too narrowly-focused on bombs and other conventional weapons, neglecting the deadly effects of disrupted food, water, electricity and medical supplies. These effects, though relatively small at the outset of a war, are likely to become much more significant as time passes, and we will monitor media reports accordingly.)<!--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-->all targets bombed within the city were military targets: factories, locations of military leaders (like saddam's crib) etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All targets were military targets? <a href='http://electroniciraq.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/10/582' target='_blank'>Every single one?</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-->Ether way unless they are documented I don't buy it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm#methods' target='_blank'>It is documented.</a> By at <i>least</i> two independent sources. Even if they <a href='http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm' target='_blank'>don't have the person's name</a> doesn't mean he or she did not exist, was not important to some family.
<!--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-->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-->
I see the anti-war. Where, pray tell, do you assume that the site is anti-Bush or anti-military? The web site strives towards an objective analysis of the results of U.S. military action. Calling truth propaganda doesn't change the truthfulness of it.
Again, quoting the FAQ:
<!--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-->We acknowledge that many parties to this conflict will have an interest in manipulating casualty figures for political ends. There is no such thing (and will probably never be such a thing) as an "wholly accurate" figure, which could accepted as historical truth by all parties. This is why we will always publish a minimum and a maximum for each reported incident. Some sources may wish to over-report casualties. Others may wish to under-report them. Our methodology is not biased towards "propaganda" from any particular protagonist in the conflict. We will faithfully reflect the full range of reported deaths in our sources. These sources, which are predominantly Western (including long established press agencies such as Reuters and Associated Press) are unlikely to suppress conservative estimates which can act as a corrective to inflated claims. We rely on the combined, and self-correcting, professionalism of the world's press to deliver meaningful maxima and minima for our count.<!--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 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-->
One of the requirements demanded of news reporters before being allowed to move with the military in Iraq was that they were not allowed to show Iraqi civilian deaths or the deaths of American soldiers. Good to show patriotic support, slow dissenting opinions towards the war, and sell newspapers/advertising space/magazines, but bad for objective reporting.
Quoting <a href='http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Media/Media_Time_War.html' target='_blank'>this page</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-->The pool system allowed the military to control the movement of journalists and to restrict where they went and what they saw. Journalists were taken to selected sites and not allowed to interview soldiers without a military minder present. Additionally, reporters were not allowed to pass on stories until they were inspected by the military. In the absence of direct access to the war, reporters were treated to press briefings with images of precision bombing and laser guided missiles hitting their target. Media scholar Douglas Kellner notes that such "control of press coverage was unprecedented in the history of U.S. warfare."<!--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-->We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective. -- Michael Eisner, CEO of Disney<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As pointed out, one news agency is vigorously trying to cover the war in a truly objective fashion, <a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage' target='_blank'>Al Jazeera</a>. And was <a href='http://electroniciraq.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/10/582' target='_blank'>attacked</a> by us. More than once.
<!--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 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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, Richard Clarke admitting his responsibility in letting the bin Laden family flee the country did not occur until <a href='http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx' target='_blank'>after the movie was finished</a> and had been released at Cannes.
<!--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-->...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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sigh.
<!--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 are those two concepts mutually exclusive?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Best. Argument. Ever.
<!--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-->They [Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Reillys, et al] are people in this great nation who are respected for their thoughts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As is Moore. Simply to an audience other than yourself.
<!--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-->Also, if you notice how the left generally gets it's appeal through big programs and how the right through talk shows and things that are smaller but more consistant;
almost indictive of each side's philosophy. Strange, huh?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've lost me.
<!--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-->Congress needed one signature, and they couldn't get it. Sad.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A minor point, but it was the Senate. They had the necessary signatures from our Representatives, it was the elite 100 sitting on the Senate floor that would not sign the petition.
And as a final point, Bathroom Monkey, I salute you! You don't push any kind of agenda that I can see, aside from powerful skepticism. And that is perhaps the best attitude to take with you and promote, in life and in the voting booth. So thank you, and don't ever stop questioning it all.
-Ryan!
"Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts."
-- Bernard M. Baruch
"But far more numerous was the herd of such,
Who think too little, and who talk too much."
-- John Dryden
Except you know, one is war and the other is a movie.
...
Seems to be a bit of a descripency in severity here.
LAFFO <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> best. reply. ever. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm going to have to link that overly large post to confused people, it is entertaining and factual.
...right.... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
After posting it, I realized how monsterous it seemed. But mostly because of quoting. There were a lot of good things in this thread that caught my eye, and, obviously, a lot of things I felt a need to reply to. So I'm sorry for the certainly overly long post.
<!--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 is entertaining and factual.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But that makes it worth it. Thank you. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
One thing that occured to me while at work about what I said in my post:
<!--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 find 12,000 civilians dead to believable. It is, after all, only 0.04% of Iraq's total population.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And those that died on September 11 were only 0.001% of the U.S. population, yet their deaths wound me deeply, even today, so don't think I am trying in any way to minmize the impact of those civilian who died, on either side. One might argue that our period of mourning and anger was somehow more poignant, because of the way it happened, so much destruction at once, broadcast to every home in the nation. But my way of life has not changed because of small destructions happening in my town. I am not able to see the death outside my bedroom window.
-Ryan!
"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination
of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty
bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights
secure."
-- Albert Einstein
In a free society,
diversity is not disorder.
Debate is not strife.
And dissent is not revolution.
-- George W. Bush, 22 Feb 2002
<a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020222.html' target='_blank'>Qinghua University, Beijing</a>
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for
reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
-- Albert Einstein
"There are only two stimulants to one's best efforts: the fear of
punishment, and the hope of reward."
-- John M. Wilson
Best. Retort. Ever. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I just got around to watching the movie. I was disappointed overall. I don't think Moore made any bold, and irrefutable points as I had hoped. I felt he was casting a wide net, trying to reel people in with different messages. To elaborate, I feel he was trying to find everyone's sensitive spot. Such as, the weeping mothers for those who hate to see people cry. Sometimes, his points would contradict each other and leave me confused. Such as, railing on Bush's military history and then accepting his records as fact to support his next argument. Maybe he should have tried to make fewer points, and focus more on the good stuff. Like the lack of action by the President to the daily briefing stating that Bin Laden intended to attack the US by hijacking planes. The 9/11 commission (if it even fit into the time-frame the movie was shot). Why it took so long to scramble jets once the country was aware that a hi-jacking was occurring. More about 9/11 itself, rather than the aftermath.
Okay, so I quoted a part by Reasa for a reason. Reasa, I hate to see this argument about how 9/11 would have still happened had Gore been elected. That is totally unsubstantiated propoganda. You don't know that, and you should get it out of your head. You are claiming that Bush did all he could reasonably do to prevent 9/11 from occurring. This is simply not the case. From the movie itself, Moore claims that Bush CUT funding to the CIA's anti-terrorism unit. The CIA was still able to find out that Bin Laden intended to attack the US with commercial airliners. With more funding, it's possible that Bin Laden's complete plans could have been revealed before the attack happened. And from the movie, Bush was too busy playing golf to deal with the threat.
So, Gore would have done the same thing? I don't know, chances are slim, but it's quite possible. I don't know, so I'm not going to make any wild claims like you have. I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt that he would have acted differently. <b>This means, 9/11 could have been prevented had Gore been in office.</b>
On the economy, I disagree with you that the president does not have much control over the economy. Investor confidence is one of the leading factors in how well the economy does. Times of war tend to increase investor uncertainty, and economy goes down. Bush has had 2 wars. Would Gore have had 2 wars?
So, Gore would have done the same thing? I don't know, chances are slim, but it's quite possible. I don't know, so I'm not going to make any wild claims like you have. I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt that he would have acted differently. <b>This means, 9/11 could have been prevented had Gore been in office.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The question is, why didn't Al Gore prevent these attacks while he WAS in office. 8 years of opportunity as opposed to 1. "GG. Thanks for looking out for us."
Interesting tidbit:
<!--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--><b>Al Gore and the Iraqi Democracy Question</b>
by Frank Smyth <i>IntellectualCapital.com</i> March 2, 2000
Thursday, March 2, 2000
<u>How carefully did Vice President Al Gore choose his words last month when he became the first Clinton administration official to apply the "d-word" to Iraq? In a one-page, Feb. 8 letter to Iraqi exiles based in London, Gore became the first high-level U.S. official ever to publicly promise to promote "democracy in Iraq."</u> Nothing would be more revolutionary for a place that, for centuries, has been dominated by a small social minority. Nothing would be more threatening for Saddam Hussein, who, for decades, has been the same ruling minority's strongest leader.
Religious identity is what sets Saddam and his regime apart from most of the people in both Iraq and Iran. Saddam along with most of his military officers, ruling-party officers and elite combat personnel are ethnic Arabs who are members of the Sunni Muslim faith -- just like most members of every Iraqi regime including the monarchy that was deposed in 1958. At the same time, at least 60% of Iraqis and 89% of Iranians (who are mainly ethnic Arabs and Persians, respectively) share allegiance to the Shia Muslim faith. Ethnic Kurds who also practice the Sunni faith comprise a third social group in Iraq. They comprise less than 20% of the country's population and are as small as Iraq's ruling Sunni Arab elite that, since 1979, has been led by Saddam.
The issue of democracy for Iraq is sensitive because any free elections there would probably lead to greater autonomy for Iraq's long-disenfranchised Kurdish minority, and also finally bring representative power to the country's long-disenfranchised Shia majority. To prevent either outcome, the United States has long maintained a de facto alliance with Iraq's ruling Sunni minority led by Saddam. Today many U.S. officials still fear that without Sunni Arabs like Saddam in control, Iraqi Kurds would try and form their own state which would de-stabilize America's regional NATO ally, Turkey, while Iraqi Shias would turn what is left of Iraq into another radical Islamic state allied with Iran.
<b>An uneasy imbalance he U.S. must back democratic reforms in the Persian Gulf selectively.</b>
This perception is outdated. The Persian Gulf has changed in recent years. The winding down of a 15-year Kurdish guerrilla war in Turkey gives U.S. policymakers more opportunities to deal with Iraqi Kurds, and the unexpected rise of moderate Shia leaders in Iran through successive elections over the past three years turns the American notion that equates Shias with fundamentalists on its turban. To strengthen American interests in both Iraq and Iran, either President Clinton or his successor should finally state that the United States supports the eventual goal of democracy for Iraq, whenever Saddam finally falls -- just as candidate Gore, however unwittingly, recently did.
Americans have tended to perceive all Persian Gulf Shias in a negative light since the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis that lasted until 1981. The United States has since sought to contain Shia political forces throughout the Persian Gulf. The Reagan administration backed Saddam and his Sunni-dominated regime throughout the Iran-Iraq War that finally ended in 1988.
Many Shias in Iraq, Iran and Lebanon share their own hatred for Saddam. Since 1998, three of Iraq's Supreme Ayatollahs have been killed in the streets by unidentified gunmen after encouraging Shias to return to their mosques to receive daily prayers instead of receiving them from state television. A year ago after the third murder, Shias spontaneously demonstrated against Saddam. In Tehran, Iran's most hard-line cleric, Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, immediately denounced the latest top-cleric murder.
The last time Shias worshiped freely in Iraq was right after the Gulf War during the period known as the intifada or "shaking off." It began the evening after President George Bush urged Iraqis to remove Saddam. First Shia rebels in the south and then Kurdish guerrillas in the north overtook local army, air force and ruling-party bases. The Bush administration, however, never intended to provoke a popular insurrection and instead allied with Saudi Arabia in trying to provoke a palace coup against Saddam in order to keeps Iraq's ruling Sunnis in power. As a result of U.S. inaction, Saddam quickly snuffed out the Shia/Kurdish intifada. President George Bush would later say that he ordered U.S. forces to stand by because he feared the intifada's triumph might have destabilized the region.
<b>The failure of current policy</b>
The Persian Gulf remains unstable today because of Saddam and his regime. Few doubt that Iraq is actively rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction while its efforts are no longer being monitored. Russia, China and France recently forced the United Nations to appoint a relatively weak candidate, Hans Blix, to renew U.N. inspections. The new inspection regime that Blix is forming will no doubt be the weakest one since the Gulf War, granted Saddam's regime even allows the inspections to resume at all.
The United States also goes on paying an ever-higher political price over U.N. sanctions against Iraq. The top two U.N. officials to administer the oil-for-food program that is designed to alleviate the suffering of Iraqi people resigned in February in protest of the program's failure to do so. In January, 68 members of Congress wrote a letter to President Clinton demanding an end to the sanctions against Iraq -- a program that the administration has already begun to weaken in the face of mounting international pressure.
Backing the notion of democracy for Iraq would represent nothing less than a strategic shift for U.S. policy. The change would finally dump the idea of backing a coup against Saddam that would preserve most of his Sunni Arab-dominated regime -- an anti-democratic goal that both the Bush and Clinton administrations have separately pursued at one time or another.
<b>The case for U.S. support of democracy in Iraq</b>
Democracy, of course, is uncommon in the Middle East, and it may only be promoted in most nations slowly and with caution. Saudi Arabia is a monarchist dictatorship that is generations away from reform. Self-rule for Iraq would be even more threatening to another oil-producing giant, Bahrain, where, like in Iraq, another Sunni minority rules over a Shia majority. The United States must back democratic reforms in the Persian Gulf selectively in a way that preserves its economic and strategic interests.
But the presumption that America could never back democracy in Iraq is inconsistent with both American values and interests.
America's long-held view that only Sunni Arabs can maintain stability in Iraq is near-sighted. Whether he realizes yet or not, Al Gore has taken a radical stand in backing the simple goal of democracy for Iraq. Other presidential candidates should now be asked whether they back it there, too, while Gore should be asked when exactly he plans to engage in a dialogue with the men who represent Iraq's Shia majority. Back in 1998, leaders of the Supreme Assembly of the Islamic Revolution for Iraq based in Tehran said they wanted to work more closely with the United States. But Gore's allies in the Clinton administration still keep them at arm's length.
America must finally begin discussions with truly representative Iraqi groups about a future form of government that could keep Iraq together in a way that would protect both its people's majority and minority rights. Of course, that would be a tall order, and every Iraqi frontline state, among others, would have legitimate concerns about the process. The effort would no doubt fail without leadership from the United States. But it could conceivably succeed. The unexpected continuation of Saddam's regime in power has been a sobering experience for Iraqis, Iranians and Americans, among others, who share the burden of living with Saddam.
American backing of democracy for Iraq would involve more than risks. It would finally cast the United States in a favorable light in Iran. Shias from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean are sure to retain anti-American sentiments if they rightfully perceive that America is still trying to keep Shias down. But if America were to back democracy for Iraq, there would be no better way to influence Iran.
The policy change would be the most dangerous one imaginable for Saddam. Observers who think the United States could remove him if it wanted to generally are overly impressed with America's technological advantage while failing to consider that America along with the rest of the West has little or no effective intelligence base today inside Iraq. Backing democracy for Iraq is not the same thing as backing Saddam's ouster. Democracy presumes that not only will Saddam be forced to leave office but that one way or another Shias will eventually gain the representative power they deserve.
Self-determination is one reason why the Clinton administration went to war with Yugoslavia over its province of Kosovo, and it is the same principle upon which the Bush administration purportedly fought the Gulf War with Iraq to free Kuwait. Yet, America's moral record is inconsistent. To serve its own interests, the United States needs to apply the same principle now to Iraq. Did Gore mean to use the "d-word" or not?
Frank Smyth, who covered the Gulf War and the intifada for The Economist, CBS News and The Village Voice, is a contributing editor for IntellectualCapital.com. He is also a contributor to Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know, edited by Roy Gutman and David Rieff.
© Copyright 2000 Frank Smyth. All rights reserved. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting tidbit:
<b>Al Gore and the Iraqi Democracy Question</b>
by Frank Smyth <i>IntellectualCapital.com</i> March 2, 2000
Thursday, March 2, 2000
<u>How carefully did Vice President Al Gore choose his words last month when he became the first Clinton administration official to apply the "d-word" to Iraq? In a one-page, Feb. 8 letter to Iraqi exiles based in London, Gore became the first high-level U.S. official ever to publicly promise to promote "democracy in Iraq."</u> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why didn't George H.W Bush prevent 9/11? Al-Qaeda existed then. Perhaps because the time for action was not within his time-frame. I would argue the same for Clinton/Gore. The memo informing the president that 9/11 was about to occur came while Bush was in office. Had Gore had the same memo infront of him, I would believe he would have actually done something. We don't really know what Gore would have done, but we know what Bush did. Nothing. I'd take the alternative any day.
Don't beat around the bush. What is your point? That Gore would have gone to war with Iraq to establish a democracy? If all you have is Gore promoting democracy (as opposed to despotism?) in Iraq, I'd like to see it.
The point is, the same man who is saying that Bush "betrayed our country" spent years promoting even stronger rhetoric for the demise of Iraq's tyrant. All the while ignoring terrorist groups like Al-queda. EDIT: Except, of course, for the residents of Ruby Ridge and the Branch Dividians. Can't believe I forgot those scary folks. Good thing we wiped them out without mercy.
The point is, the same man who is saying that Bush "betrayed our country" spent years promoting even stronger rhetoric for the demise of Iraq's tyrant. All the while ignoring terrorist groups like Al-queda. EDIT: Except, of course, for the residents of Ruby Ridge and the Branch Dividians. Can't believe I forgot those scary folks. Good thing we wiped them out without mercy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And thankfully, our chief law enforcement officer under Bush saw the clear and present danger posed by stone boobies and Cajun prostitutes and correctly focused his energy on their nefarious schemes. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Also, for the record, the Ruby Ridge debacle took place on August 21, 1992, and Clinton took office on January 20, 1993. So not only did Gore invent the internet, but he invented the time machine as well?
<!--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-->In 1993, terrorists detonated a bomb in the parking garage of the World Trade Center killing six Americans and injuring 1,042. Vital information could have been gathered to thwart future attacks. But President Clinton did nothing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We cut Bush slack because 9/11 came less than a year after he took office, but hold Clinton accountable for something which occurred barely over a month into his first term?
<!--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 they are, they ought to pick up a copy of Bossie's book. The evidence all points to one man.
Bill Clinton spent his presidency concerned about leaving a legacy. Unfortunately, he succeeded. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh <i>come on</i>. This is the most comically ridiculous thing I've read-- it's <i>just</i> as bad as the whole 'OH MY GOD IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT!' argument (which is why I <i>hope</i> you've included it).
I won't mention any names here, but certain administrations actually gave arms and support to the terrorists, didn't they? And they don't get a nod?
It's everyone's fault or it's nobody's fault; but anyone who tries to blame it on a single political party or figure is just playing politics.
Note: Spooge, keeping in line with the rules here I will only say this about that source: When I see Ann Coulter listed as a columnist on a site, my spidey sense starts tingling . . . <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Second note:
<!--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 as a final point, Bathroom Monkey, I salute you! You don't push any kind of agenda that I can see, aside from powerful skepticism. And that is perhaps the best attitude to take with you and promote, in life and in the voting booth. So thank you, and don't ever stop questioning it all.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Awwww, thanks <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Though, to be fair, I <b>do</b> have an agenda right now-- I <i>definitely</i> want a new administration. As I've said before, I truly hope I can retain my skepticism regardless of who is in office or what party they belong to.
I find myself with a knee-jerk tendency to side with the Democrats these days, but I feel like I've been backed into a corner by the Bush administration. And when you get backed into a corner, and you suddenly turn around and Teddy Kennedy is standing there right behind you-- <b>GAH!</b>
...right.... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
which part of that statement are you doubting?
...right.... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
which part of that statement are you doubting? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"a truely objective fashion"
I know we attacked them at least once during the war, to shut down any form of communication that could be used. By attack, I mean we bombed their transmition towers and dishes.