F 9/11

[Y2A]

I just saw it today. Pretty good. Although Moore should have left some of the personal attacks against Bush out. Dispite all the attacks on the administration, Moore's intention is for us to question our society and how we are just able to accept some things that are unjust as "part of life". It also showed the realities of war and not just the few triumphs that are shown in the media. But most importantly it got people talking from both sides of the political spectrum and got people questioning this war.

[BuyOurEverything]

It had its moments. If you can get over the fact that Moore is a pretentious narcisistic hypocrite, it was alright.

There were alot of irrelevant attacks against Bush and the entire part about the Bin Laden's connection with the Bushes was crap as it never demonstrated that there was a link between Ossama and the rest of them.

I did like the part about Iraq though, that was alright. Though it was kind of ironic how he first protrayed the soldiers as asshole cowboys looking for a rush by killing people and then a couple minutes later said they were poor expoited kids who sacrificed for our freedom.

It will get people talking, however, which is always good.

[fuerzasocialista]

Bush did a real good job in *****-slapping himself throughout that whole movie. ;)

I still haven't gotten a negative vibe from Moore. People often call him an asshole and so forth but he's got everyone thinking and realizing that the current U$ administration has been pulling a fast one on not just the american people but the whole international community.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 07:46 AM
There were alot of irrelevant attacks against Bush and the entire part about the Bin Laden's connection with the Bushes was crap as it never demonstrated that there was a link between Ossama and the rest of them.
Indeed. The only fact that he showed about a possible connection was the fact that some members of his family attended his wedding in Afganistan.

[Pawn Power]

Indeed. The only fact that he showed about a possible connection was the fact that some members of his family attended his wedding in Afganistan.

Seemed at some points in the film that moore was almost bashing Saudi Arabia.

I also dont know if he should have put the whole bush gore 2000 election thing in the begining of the film.

[Commie Girl]

Looks Like Michael Moore is donating profits to charity! (http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2004/07/05/Arts/moore20040705.html)

[Rex_20XD6]

Michel Moore tells you what to believe. Most of people in the theater thought that the movie would show both of the wrong doing of Bush and Kerry. Moore only said those things to bash the president. Very one sided. I want to see motorcycle diaries!!!

[STI]

I want to see motorcycle diaries!!!


I want to see you in your underwear!!!


Anyway, I'm seeing F9/11 tonight. I'll put my two cents in sometime after that.

For now, though, I'll say this:

Michael Moore is a wussy social democrat.

[truthaddict11]

after reading an interview with Moore, I have no intention in seeing his over hyped campaign ad.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 01:23 PM
after reading an interview with Moore, I have no intention in seeing his over hyped campaign ad.
I said that too. Why bother with a documentary ? Just have a ticker reading : "Vote Kerry" going round and round for two hours and it should achieve the same effect.

[HankMorgan]

I saw F9/11 yesterday.

At the risk of spoiling for those that haven't seen the movie
let's see if I have the movie right.

First we see election of 2000 where Al Gore won all the states
except Florida where Fox News knows that Jeb Bush has fixed the
election for his brother George.

Then we're led to believe that President Bush and Osama Bin
Laden are old old family friends. Where was Moore going with
this? Is Moore saying George Bush helped plan the 9/11/2001
WTC attack?

Next there's George Bush on vacation. This is a bad thing since
the country can't run itself without constant intervention by
the President and there's only enough time in the day to chop
wood.

Followed by the World Trade Center attack where we see George
Bush wasting a whole seven minutes in a class room. What would
Michael Moore have made if George Bush immediatly jumped up?
Would he have said the President was reckless and rash? Maybe
Moore would have said the President knew the attack was coming
and therefore knew exactly what he was going to do when the
attack came.

Now we have the Home Land security interlude. John Ashcroft
looses an election to a dead guy because Ashcroft is a bad
singer.

In the first part of the movie, Moore seems to be implying
some kind of action should have been taken on the threat
of the 9/11 attack. In Home Land security interlude Moore
is claiming that the warnings about threats serve only to
create fear and have no practical value. When no action
is taken on threats Moore is critical and when action is
taken on threats Moore is critical. It's a pleasure watching
Moore work.

Then there's the attack on Iraq made by the Coalition of the
Willing. The Coalition of the Willing according to the film
consists of Costa Rica, Afghanistan and the United States.
The Radical Islamists made a horrible mistake when they blew
up the Spanish train stations since according to Moore there
were no Spanish soldiers in Iraq. The Italian people didn't
have to protest to keep their people from being beheaded in
Iraq since according to Moore there were no Italian soldiers
in Iraq. And you folks in Britian don't need to bother with
Blair since there are no British troops in Iraq either.

But the United States had it's military in Iraq. Oh yeah!
We see our American boys amped on heavy metal, killing the
good kite flying Iraqis and making Iraq safe for private
contractors to make a huge and growing profit. Saddam wasn't
the target since he's another old family friend of the Bush
administration. No just the women and children were attacked.
And again no mention of the mass graves full of people killed
by Saddam Hussein. This is probably the most fair and
balanced part of the movie. It's this part of the movie that
best lifts Moore's effort from the muck of propaganda into
the sunlight of a documentary.

Then there was the war is hell part where we are reminded of
the effects war has on the civilian populations on both sides
of the conflict. It is always good to be reminded that people
die in war. That being said Moore falls off the track here too.
Sometimes war is the lesser of two evils. Good can come from
a war. Again I point out there was no mention of the mass
graves in Iraq. We are led to believe that the only killing
done in Iraq was done by Americans. THIS IS AN AWEFUL, TERRIBLE,
HORRIBLE LIE. There are mass graves in Iraq filled by the
man who was removed from power by as a result of the war.

Back to America where we see 50% (the figure is from the movie)
unemployment makes it easy for Marines to trick unsuspecting
young people into thinking there are careers in basketball
and music in the Marines.

All in all though I don't worry about Michael Moore's little
film. As I say in my signature, people are smart.

[Subversive Pessimist]

There are mass graves in Iraq filled by the
man who was removed from power by as a result of the war.

Don't you think the mass graves could have come from the Iran - Iraq war?

[Y2A]

Are you denying the gassing of the kurds and the oppression of the Marsh Arabs and Shi-ites while Hussien was in power?

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 03:46 AM
Are you denying the gassing of the kurds and the oppression of the Marsh Arabs and Shi-ites while Hussien was in power?
I read in the news that Sadam is going to call on a witness who is a CIA agent and he believe will clear him of gassing of the Kurds and will place the blame on Iran.

[Guerrilla22]

Not that this exonerates him for gasing the Kurds, but in the case of using gas against Iranian soldiers, Saddam really had no choice. Iranian soldiers had entered Iraq and were attempting to blow up a dam that would have flooded Baghdad and killed thousands.

[Hiero]

I never knew that. So there were Iranian troops in the Kurdish town ?

[Guerrilla22]

No, but Kurdish rebels were fighting alongside the Iranians.

[Hiero]

Still chemical weopons are really harsh, it would of been better to use scuds.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 11:07 AM
Not that this exonerates him for gasing the Kurds, but in the case of using gas against Iranian soldiers, Saddam really had no choice. Iranian soldiers had entered Iraq and were attempting to blow up a dam that would have flooded Baghdad and killed thousands.
No, Saddam launched chemical weapons against Tehran. There is no excuse for gassing a civilian population.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 7 2004, 11:03 AM
I read in the news that Sadam is going to call on a witness who is a CIA agent and he believe will clear him of gassing of the Kurds and will place the blame on Iran.
Oh the hypocrisy, the C.I.A. tried to blame that attack on the Iranians since the U.S. was backing Saddam at the time, but there's no reason to take them seriously. There isn't one legitimate Human Rights organization who denies Saddam Hussein's forces were responsible for that attack.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by percept¡[email protected] 7 2004, 04:29 PM
No, Saddam launched chemical weapons against Tehran. There is no excuse for gassing a civilian population.
Actually, Iraq never deployed any chemical weapons on Tehran, the city was out of range. However, maybe I should have stated that the incident which I mentioned was not the only instance when Iraq deployed gas during that war. Iran claims that gas was deployed against civillian populations in several boarder towns and there is also proof that gas deployed against Kurdish villages in retalliation for their support of Iran.

In the incident that I talked about, Iraq actually deployed gas on its own territory to stop the demolition of the dam.

[HankMorgan]

Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm) with help catalogs the deceits in Fahrenheit 911. A good read which really puts Michael Moore and his propaganda film in perspective.

[Capitalist Imperial]

There were some good points made.

Mostly it was heavily spun, biased, agenda driven, and one sided.

surprise-surprise

It was entertaining, though.

I didn't like they way he showed footage of young soldiers talking about how they put the song "Let the Bodies hit the Floor" on their headphones before laying seige to the Bagdad. That was absolutely atrocious. I think that Deadpool's "If you Want to Stand up You're Gonna' Get Knocked Down" would have been much better.

All in all, it was entertaining, but only that. I would not even consider it a true documentary.

[Sabocat]

Mostly it was heavily spun, biased, agenda driven, and one sided.


Hmm....just like FoxNews or Bill O'Rielly.

[FatFreeMilk]

Hmm....just like FoxNews or Bill O'Rielly. How about most of the American media.

As for being one sided or whatever, some guy is making a movie as an answer to F 9/11, Michael Moore hates America . How original.

[Capitalist Imperial]

as if other world medias aren't spun

al jazeera is way worse than any US media outlet

[Y2A]

The documentary that I really want to see is "Control Room".

[DaCuBaN]

I would not even consider it a true documentary.

I don't consider anything this man does worthy of my time. The guy destroys his own argument through the absurd bias he shows. Why can't 'leftists' be more fucking rational!

[FatFreeMilk]

Al Jazeera headquarters was also bombed by the US ;)

[redstar2000]

A left critique...

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a Stupid White Movie

by Robert Jensen

I have been defending Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 from the criticism in mainstream and conservative circles that the film is leftist propaganda. Nothing could be further from the truth; there is very little left critique in the movie. In fact, it's hard to find any coherent critique in the movie at all.

The sad truth is that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a bad movie, but not for the reasons it is being attacked in the dominant culture. It's at times a racist movie. And the analysis that underlies the film's main political points is either dangerously incomplete or virtually incoherent.

But, most important, it's a conservative movie that ends with an endorsement of one of the central lies of the United States, which should warm the hearts of the right-wingers who condemn Moore. And the real problem is that many left/liberal/progressive people are singing the film's praises, which should tell us something about the impoverished nature of the left in this country.

Full Text (http://www.guerrillanews.com/human_rights/doc4797.html)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 07:07 AM
Al Jazeera headquarters was also bombed by the US ;)
Good! If you ask me, that is a completely legitimate target, those middle-east muck-raker propogandists deserve nothing less than a 500 pounder right down their throats.

[FatFreeMilk]

Okay well, I didn't ask you, but now that you mention it, with that mentality we might as well blow Fox news away too!

[Capitalist Imperial]

I absolutely concede that an enemy attacking on our soil may target media outlets. Information control is a large part of warfare, especially nowadays.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 9 2004, 09:24 PM
Good! If you ask me, that is a completely legitimate target, those middle-east muck-raker propogandists deserve nothing less than a 500 pounder right down their throats.
Wow, so you don't like free speech?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 12:53 PM
Wow, so you don't like free speech?
I like free speech, but it doesn't mean that you can't control information to help toward your objectives in a war zone.

Free speech and wartime information control are two different issues.

The thing is, you reds often espouse the slanted bias of "corporate ruled American media", but you never acknowledge that US media is much less biased than state-sponsored media outlets like al-jazzeera, the chinnese media, or any of the former or current communist media centers.

They were much more heavily sensored and controled by their respective governments than US media is. It is a joke to criticize the US media, when your own ideology has been practiced by brutal regimes that use centrally controlled media, which lends itself to censorship and brainwashing much more than the American free press. If you deny this, then you are truly brainwashed yourself.

[DaCuBaN]

I criticise them all to be honest... journalism is a disgusting profession as far as I've come into contact with it, and 'investigative journalists' such as this Moore wanker are quite frankly the scum of the earth.

The argument over national and private news is a totally absurd one however: The BBC is widely regarded as one of the more impartial media outlets (though admittedly this reputation is tarnishing quickly) and it has been a government funded organisation since it's conception, but it is not directly accountable to the state. It does admittedly have to get it's charter renewed, but to me an ideal media outlet would follow a similar model, but with a permenant charter. This could easily apply to any mixed, marxist or technocratic economy.

However, whether it's direct government control that's calling the shots, political correctness, or simply financial gain, putting bias into 'news' is abhorrent.

[Danton]

This film made me like Bush, he's a funny guy.

[HankMorgan]

I just came from seeing "Spiderman 2" at the theater. It's a great movie. Much better than "Fahrenheit 9/11" and more believable too.

Jay Ambrose of Scripps Howard News Service (http://24hour.startribune.com/24hour/opinions/story/1483691p-8926333c.html)

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Well, I don't see people lining up to see Robert Jensen's movie and walking away vowing not to vote for George Bush...

[antieverything]

Several people have questioned the relevance of Moore's focus on Bush's Saudi connections. I think the intention was clear...fact is, many Americans would be very offended by the idea of a guy who portrays himself as a hardass cowboy shaking hands with godless A-rabs much less taking money from them. Sure, it is an appeal to racism but I guarantee you it worked!

[antieverything]

Oh, and as to the critique from the Left Redstar posted, who cares? Was the movie meant to appeal to radicals? No. It was meant to tug at the heartstrings of moderate American voters. Honest or not, it did that very well.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 02:16 AM
Well, I don't see people lining up to see Robert Jensen's movie and walking away vowing not to vote for George Bush...
How easily people can be brainwashed with clever editing, have-truths, and signifcant omissions.

[HankMorgan]

Michael Moore runs afoul of Canadian election law. (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/jaworski200407160946.asp)

http://chargemoore.com/

[Lardlad95]

People really need to stop *****ing about this movie.

1. Yes Michael moore Tends to stretch the truth

2. He presents the footage, implies something...but you can draw your own conclusions.

3. The public isn't stupid, we all knowt he movie is biased, he's said himself that the opinions expressed int he movie are his

4. Bush is a jackass...we all know that and we didn't need a movie to tell us that

5. THe movie was hilarious

[Danton]

6. Michael Moore is a fat **** living on Manhattan's upper west side scoffing caviar burgers, screwing high class hookers, snorting yayo and laughing at the knobheads who pay to watch his boring, pointless drivel.. I brought the dvd for £5 from some Chinese dudes, watched it and binned it, tedious.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Am I hearing Danton whining about someone getting being rich? He might have made a great deal of money off his movie, but a lot of people have done far less to make far more. Paris Hilton, never did a god damned thing in her life worth a nickel and shes worth a lot more money then Moore. Capitalism isn't fair, you know that and you support it. So why don't you take your own advice and stop whining?

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 11:20 AM
1. Yes Michael moore Tends to stretch the truth



Are you kidding me?!! Michael Moore doesn't just stretch the truth. He pulls so hard on the truth it rips apart at the atomic level.

Yet another good debunking of Moore's trash. This one by Brittany Craigo who is a 17 year old girl. (http://www.larryelder.com/911/debunking911.html) This kind of critical thinking at a young age gives me hope.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 05:35 PM

Are you kidding me?!! Michael Moore doesn't just stretch the truth. He pulls so hard on the truth it rips apart at the atomic level.

Yet another good debunking of Moore's trash. This one by Brittany Craigo who is a 17 year old girl. (http://www.larryelder.com/911/debunking911.html) This kind of critical thinking at a young age gives me hope.
Um that site doesn't really debunk it, it simply gives the girls opinion of the movie

[Danton]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 06:41 PM
Paris Hilton, never did a god damned thing in her life worth a nickel and shes worth a lot more money then Moore.
The problem with this comparison is that Paris Hilton never pretended to be a working class hero, she never dressed down in baseball cap and jeans to look, like a person of the people. She never built herself up as this everyman who's going to bring justice to America through film. If he is so genuine then why does'nt he forgo his fee and donate it to a worthy cause?

[HankMorgan]

CNN on singer Linda Ronstadt getting tossed for dedicating a song to Michael Moore. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Music/07/19/ronstadt.reut/index.html) The poor confused dear thinks Mr. Moore is spreading the truth.

As more people see "Fahrenheit 9/11" I expect more of this kind of reaction.

[RosaRL]

This article goes into the issues raised by F911 at length. What I have posted is just the introduction. The whole thing can be found at - http://www.rwor.org/a/1246/fahrenheit_911_guide.htm

A Viewers Guide to Fahrenheit 9/11
Revolutionary Worker #1246, July 18, 2004, posted at http://rwor.org

People have been lied to. And many can see it.

Invasion, occupation, police spying, round-ups, even torture camps--plus far-reaching changes in law, treaty and doctrine --they have all come wrapped in deceit.

The President lies. His whole clique lies.

Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, CNN, Fox, the New York Times and all the rest play their part-- like obedient generals --shamelessly promoting those lies.

And the Democratic Party (supposedly an "opposition") signs on the dotted line over and over and over--to the invasion of Iraq, to the Patriot Act, to all the hype about endless "war against terrorism," to strict limits on what can be questioned in public.

And yet, at this same time, this operation of deceit is crumbling under the weight of reality. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Iraqi people obviously feel occupied, not "liberated." Torture was approved at the highest levels.

There are times when the worm of doubt starts to roar like a great dragon.

Fahrenheit 9/11 dropped into the middle of all this.

Over nine million people in the U.S. have already seen this movie--making it a real phenom . It opened on 868 screens, and may soon be expanding to 2,000 screens a night.

Here, in the roaring crowds of sold-out movie theaters, that nauseating "respect for the Office" is stripped away. This White House clique stands revealed as dishonest, corrupt, and consciously serving the interests of wealth and capitalist profit-making! This government, its ringleaders, its policies and wars are all ILLEGITIMATE and unjust!

Suddenly anti-government politics is a must-see! This moment is becoming politically charged. Sharp debate is raging everywhere--often far OUTSIDE the bounds set by official politics.

And there is counter-attack (of course!). The same media hacks--who have shamelessly promoted every lie of a murderous government--now accuse Michael Moore of being "loose with the facts"!

And so the question is: NOW WHAT?

The situation needs to be kicked WIDE OPEN.

This current political debate needs to grapple much more deeply with the scope of this government's crimes and deceits--to uncover the true nature of these rulers, their motives, their goals, and to get at the reality of how deep the rot goes, and how serious this moment really is.

Michael Moore's film reveals many of the "the dots" of this moment--in a powerful, provocateurish and often-hilarious way. But to connect those dots correctly--to actually understand what is going on--requires a critical analysis of Fahrenheit 9/11 itself.

This whole global military offensive does not flow from just the petty corruption or incompetence of this current president, his family or his sinister cronies.

It is important to dig deeply into what the U.S. government is up to strategically--to see how the U.S. powerstructure is using the "war on terrorism" as an excuse to carry out a long-planned grab for permanent world domination. And to see how controlling Iraq and the whole oil-rich Persian Gulf gives the U.S. imperialists a much tighter strategic control over the whole rest of the world.

Bob Avakian, the leader of the Revolutionary Communist Party, has been going deeply into these strategic matters, from many sides. And he has grappled, hard, with what that means for our struggle to defeat this gruesome Bush agenda and actually wrench the future and the world away from these ugly empire-builders.

Here are insights, drawn from the work of Bob Avakian, into the many important questions raised by Fahrenheit 9/11 and these historic challenges we all face together.

*****

Read the whole article here - http://www.rwor.org/a/1246/fahrenheit_911_guide.htm

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 12:15 AM
The President lies. His whole clique lies.

Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, CNN, Fox, the New York Times and all the rest play their part-- like obedient generals --shamelessly promoting those lies.



This stuff just kills me. Let's remember back to the last President. We saw that man, Bill Clinton, face impeachment for lying to a grand jury about a affair with a girl. How much more serious is lying to start a war? Obviously infinitely more serious.

Here's this President, George Bush, hated by the whole world, villified by the press. There's no length that people won't go to smear this President. Look at the heaping pile of lies Moore shines on the big screen.

With all the hatred for Bush and with seriousness of his alleged crimes, why hasn't somebody stepped forward with the evidence to put George Bush out of office?

Answer: The evidence to impeach the President doesn't exist. If it did, Dick Cheney would be the President.

Sombody, anybody please explain to me why everyone in the world who hates this President is holding back the evidence to impeach.

[Guerrilla22]

Let's see, the evidence used against Clinton in both (shameful) GOP attempts to impeach Clinton was gathered by an independent council, which was headed by not-so independednt GOP lackie, Ken Starr. After Starr burned some 25 million in tax payer money, while accomplishing absolutely nothing, a bill barring independent councils from investigating presidential affairs was passed by a wide margin in 2001.

I'm pretty sure if there was some sort of council investigating Bush... Oh wait there's the 9-11 Commission, which for some reason GWB has refusefd to cooperate with and the upcoming Senate Intel Committee report, which again the Bush administration has refused to cooperate with and has even tried to delay its final report untill after the Nov. election, I wonder why that is? Please explain Hank Morgan, or try to explain more likely.

[Hate Is Art]

9/11 was good as it actualy got a few of my friends to think politicaly, the content may not be 100% accurate but it was a good film IMO.

[DaCuBaN]

Michael Moore pisses me off immensely - by lying he does more than all the honest effort that people who actually give a fuck put in. I find it sickening that this biased piece of shit can employ such tactics as misinformation and deceipt in the name of the most righteous cause alive - the 'truth'.

*EDIT*

I've just been reading the apparent 'critical thinking' link from this thread. Suffice to say I'm mildly amused now. She summarizes quite well I feel


Michael Moore ends Farenheit 9/11 with a quote from George Orwell. I, myself, have a quote from George Orwell that Moore just may have overlooked.
“If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, he that is not with me is against me.

I'm sorry.... but that quote being used in the context she intends is laughable... does she have no idea who and in what context it was initially used? Michael Moore deserves no more than to be ignored - for a journalist I can think of no better punishment - but by even commenting on the film in the manner this girl did merely lowers people to his level - with her case the exception.

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 01:40 AM
I'm pretty sure if there was some sort of council investigating Bush... Oh wait there's the 9-11 Commission, which for some reason GWB has refusefd to cooperate with and the upcoming Senate Intel Committee report, which again the Bush administration has refused to cooperate with and has even tried to delay its final report untill after the Nov. election, I wonder why that is? Please explain Hank Morgan, or try to explain more likely.
Let's see if I've got it. Everyone's running around saying President Bush lied but we're really waiting for the reports of the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee to see if the charge of lying holds.

Nobody's going to prove President Bush lied about WMD in Iraq to start a war. First one would have to prove the negative which is Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction. That can't be done but if it were one would then have to prove President Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq. That can't be done either. Yet none of this will stop people, especially Democrats, from making the charge.

[Guerrilla22]

Yeah, it has already been proven that Bush lied about the case for war. Why? Because no WMDs have shown up, nor will any show up, but you didn't answer the question, which was why won't Bush cooperate with the 9-11 Commission and the Senate Intel Com. report and why does the Bush camp want the final reports from both committees to come out after the November election, if he didn't mislead the country?

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 01:56 AM
Yeah, it has already been proven that Bush lied about the case for war. Why? Because no WMDs have shown up, nor will any show up, but you didn't answer the question, which was why won't Bush cooperate with the 9-11 Commission and the Senate Intel Com. report and why does the Bush camp want the final reports from both committees to come out after the November election, if he didn't mislead the country?

No it hasn't been proven that the President lied about the case for war. The absence of WMD's is NOT sufficient. In addition it must be proven that President Bush knew there were no WMD's at the time he was making statements saying there were WMD's.

Let's go down your road for a moment and see where we end up. If the President lied about WMD's in Iraq then all others saying the same thing must also be liars. Simple logic. Who else said Iraq had WMD's? Many Democrat congressmen, the United Nations, the Clinton administration, virtually every intelligence agency in every country on the planet. Be honest now. Remember the debate before the war was not about whether Hussein had WMD's. No the debate was about what to do about it.

Here's something you can use the rest of your life: If your explanation of an event requires a great many people to be liars, it's probably wrong.

Here's something else just so we can avoid thread creep. If your explanation agrees with Michael Moore, it's also probably wrong.

As for the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Intel Committee, the President has been cooperating and the 9/11 Commission has in fact issued its report, BEFORE the November election.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/22/9.11.full.report/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126689,00.html

Guerrilla22, thanks for the conversation. You gave me what I wanted.

[DaCuBaN]

Here's what the international edition of CNN has to say

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07...port/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/22/911.report/index.html)

I'm sure a thread on this will pop up momentarily

*EDIT*

Is it just me, or is the text bigger in the 'executive summary' version...
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 04:28 AM

No it hasn't been proven that the President lied about the case for war. The absence of WMD's is NOT sufficient. In addition it must be proven that President Bush knew there were no WMD's at the time he was making statements saying there were WMD's.

Let's go down your road for a moment and see where we end up. If the President lied about WMD's in Iraq then all others saying the same thing must also be liars. Simple logic. Who else said Iraq had WMD's? Many Democrat congressmen, the United Nations, the Clinton administration, virtually every intelligence agency in every country on the planet. Be honest now. Remember the debate before the war was not about whether Hussein had WMD's. No the debate was about what to do about it.

Here's something you can use the rest of your life: If your explanation of an event requires a great many people to be liars, it's probably wrong.

Here's something else just so we can avoid thread creep. If your explanation agrees with Michael Moore, it's also probably wrong.

As for the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Intel Committee, the President has been cooperating and the 9/11 Commission has in fact issued its report, BEFORE the November election.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/22/9.11.full.report/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126689,00.html

Guerrilla22, thanks for the conversation. You gave me what I wanted.
Np, the war was based on the claim that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, not only weapons of estruction, but stockpiles of WMDs, only thing is it turns out this isn't true, the President exaggerated what little intelligence there was on this greatly and people like you and unfortunately most of America bought it hoo, line and sinker.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 05:24 AM

This stuff just kills me. Let's remember back to the last President. We saw that man, Bill Clinton, face impeachment for lying to a grand jury about a affair with a girl. How much more serious is lying to start a war? Obviously infinitely more serious.

Here's this President, George Bush, hated by the whole world, villified by the press. There's no length that people won't go to smear this President. Look at the heaping pile of lies Moore shines on the big screen.

With all the hatred for Bush and with seriousness of his alleged crimes, why hasn't somebody stepped forward with the evidence to put George Bush out of office?

Answer: The evidence to impeach the President doesn't exist. If it did, Dick Cheney would be the President.

Sombody, anybody please explain to me why everyone in the world who hates this President is holding back the evidence to impeach.
I"ll be the first Socialist to say. Bush didn't lie. What he did was get us into an unecassary war. regardless of the fact that intellgence fucked up, he rushed in plain and simple. The buck stops with him. Lives are too valuable for us to start w a war, have 3 soldiers killed a day, countless civillians and then look back and say oops we fucked up going into the war a little.

Hell i was all for the war in Afghanistan...I think they handled things wrong when they got in there, but I'm not against anyone retaliating for being attacked. You may not be the most just nation on earth but you have every right to defend your self. THe problem was the war in afghanistan was that we didn't have enough troops, we let Bin Laden get away. And then we just shifted our attention to IRaq.

The preisdent said that Iraq was a threat to teh united states, that it needed our immediate attention. That Iraq was central to winning the war on terrorism. well I'm not a military strategist but I really do think that if your going to fight a war 1. Finish up what your started before moving on 2. Rely on more concrete intellegence.

A good deal of the intellegence linking Iraq to Al Qeada was simply not concrete. The contacts that occured never resulted in anything, meetings with high ranking officials, particularly the one in prague was shady at best. And Iraq and Al qaeda never worked together on anything.

Saddaam Was a horrible man, no doubt about it. But the ends do not justify the means. The way we went in, the intellegence we went in with, and the attitude we went in with simply don't justify what we did especially when Afghanistan needed some more work.

Not to mention, regarding the war on terror we should have focused solely on the Al Qaeda terror network, not the soveriegn nation of Iraq. If Sadaam's regime had been part of AL Qaeda then maybe that would have made sense. But it didn't really hurt Al Qaeda to loose sadaam, in fact I'm not sure how that would have hurt them at all.

In addition to all of this most reports show that the wa in Iraq has boosted Al Qaeda's recruitment and made america less safe.


Did Bush lie? No, he didn't. I seriously doubt that he had prior knowledge regarding WMDs not existing or anything of that nature.

But frankly I don't trust the man with my security. When the rest of the world hates the US at a level I've not seen...well ever. I frankly don't feel safe. And It will be the best day of my life when i see that man leave office.

[Seraph]

I'll be the first to admit that this is a one sided story. The irony of this is that Americans (myself included) have been getting force fed a one sided story since Bush has been in office. Almost all media outlets have been afraid to take Bush to task for the things he's had his hands in, from Enron to him trying to block the 9/11 Investigation. Now, for someone like Moore to come along and give a biased liberal point of view, and people *****, makes me laugh.

The bottom line is, Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Where are the WMD? These are the two reasons King Bush gave us for INVADING Iraq. He didn't say "Hussein is a bad man, he bombed the Kurds, and we have to get him out of power." King Bush told us that we were in imminent danger, that Hussein wanted to kill Americans, and he had already done it since he had connections to Al Qaeda. None of this was proven, yet he sent me generation to fight and die.

Moore points this out in his movie. He doesn't give you any conclusions, he allows you to make your own. You can either say it's propaganda bullshit, or you can continue to investigate and ask questions. It is shady that the bin Ladens were allowed to just leave without being questioned. It is shady that we went to war in Iraq with the "coalition" of the willing.

Am I the only one that thinks it's ironic how we can impeach a president for lying about getting his dick sucked, but don't impeach a president for lying about why we are going to war. Hmmm, let's see. Dicksuck, no one died. BS War, Over one thousand will die, over ten thousand injured. What's the greater crime?

Hank, I have a question for you. If Moore put up a "heaping pile of lies" on screen, why isn't there one lawsuit out against him for libel or slander?

[redstar2000]

Hell, I was all for the war in Afghanistan...I'm not against anyone retaliating for being attacked.

Gee, I must have missed something.

Did the Afghani Air Force bomb New York while I was napping? Or the Afghani Marines storm the beaches of Long Island while I was taking a leak?

The invasion and "semi-conquest" of Afghanistan had nothing to do with self-defense...it was simply another imperialist war against a weak but strategically significant country. Something about an oil-pipeline, as I recall.

Or Bush thought their weddings were too noisy. :lol:

To suggest that the invasion of Afghanistan was "justified" by 9/11 is pro-imperialist bullshit. If any country "deserved" to be invaded, it would have been "Saudi" Arabia...but, hey, we own those poor bastards already.

Or at least we think we do. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Seraph]

touche brother Redstar.

Again, more stuff Moore points out in the movie. Unocal pipeline, the Saudi's interest in the US and vice versa. Just food for thought on his part.

[Sabocat]

Bombing Afghanistan to get Bin Laden is tantamount to bombing Chicago to get Al Capone.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 04:33 PM
Bombing Afghanistan to get Bin Laden is tantamount to bombing Chicago to get Al Capone.
Not really. Afghanistan is highly rural, with the population dispersed among small villages, kabul isn't even that large. Collateral damage in Afghanistan has been light.

[Sabocat]

It was an allegory.


You're missing my point. I'm talking about the ludicrousness of bombing a country and it's civilian population trying to get a small group or one person.



Collateral damage in Afghanistan has been light.

Unless of course you were one of the "collateral's" killed.

[Capitalist Imperial]

It was an allegory.

I concede


You're missing my point. I'm talking about the ludicrousness of bombing a country and it's civilian population trying to get a small group or one person.

Well, the Taliban were actively contributing to his evaision, and they were the ruling party there, and of course you understand that we didn't actively target civilians.


Unless of course you were one of the "collateral's" killed.

I know what you're saying, and I'm not really seeking to minimize it, heck, one unneeded death is too much, but there is still relativity.