For anyone interested, if you have HBO I read on the tv listings that MM will be on Real Time with Bill Maher tonight. I'm sure he'll discuss his potential arrest for giving out underwear and noodles. :rolleyes:


TIS

Doctor Ferro I wasn't saying anything about Michael Moore in that IMDB article, I was just posting it. I'm a Michael Moore fan & was just relating this article that I found. I never said it did or didn't happen. Why are you getting so angry at me??

Side Question: Have any of you seen any of the Rage Against The Machine videos, directed by mike moore. Those are pretty cool like when they play and shut down wall street. I suggest you download them.

Irishman:
I'm very sorry, it's just that with everyone posting these articles around here, I get very edgey and frustrated when I know they are false. I overreacted and am sorry. I just wanted to make sure the real facts where known. Sorry again.

Blake, I heard about these videos and the controversy Mike caused when trying to film them. Do you know the names of the videos he directed?

Doctor Ferro

Just wanted to post the WHOLE quote, in context, so someone like Don Ferro doesn't take it out of context.

Let's see...Saddam was an evil dictator. Anti-American. Smack dab in the Middle East, and carrying out genocidal acts against his own people. There is a likelihood he is connected to other terrorists; he is violating the UN's Oil-For-Food program and purchasing weapons.

Goodness gracious, he didn't have WMD's! Oh no! I guess we should have left him well enough alone.

Hitler didn't have an WMD's either, but we took him out, eh?

---

Considering your taxation is quite minimal as a minor, a part-time employee, and a student/non home-owner, you really shouldn't even be talking.

COME ON, JJ! If you feel that being lied to by the One Man we are SUPPOSED to trust in making our desicions and protecting us is ok, THEN GO FIGHT! Cause by your CARELESSNESS, you are sending over 100,000 people in harms way for no reason. Why don't you go and fight this war then? If it's so justified.

I'm glad you can count. 4. I'm impressed.

Do you think having more posts makes you sound smarter, or something?

C'mon, tell me.

Seriously.

I can't think of any other logical reason.

Oh, and for Mr. Ferro, or "Doctor,"...hmm, must be an honorary degree, because it certainly wasn't earned through academic merit or intelligence by any means.

"I think it was the right decision to disarm saddam hussein and when the president made the decision, I supported him and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry

Strange...

Although you have conveniently ignored my references to Syria and North Korea...coincidence?

By your "logic," and trust me, I use the term quite loosely, we shouldn't have disarmed Saddam. We also shouldn't have stopped Adolph Hitler, and the Nazis...I mean, he didn't have an WMD's, all he did was knock off a few jews...what's a jew, or kurd between freinds? Better yet, let's do nothing, and let our enemies stockpile weapons (conventional or not). Sounds like a way to keep our nation safe, right? Just about as good as Kerry saying how he wants to disarm the United States nukes, and hope the rest of the world will do the same.

And again, since you also seemed to ignore my comment on the UN and the World Community...where are they? I guess they could care less. Or could it be that there were countries involved in the Oil-For-Food scandal? No way! Wait...could it be that they would rather see the US fail...no way!

---

To quote my friend, Rodney Dangerfield, about "Doctor" Ferro...

"This is why tigers eat their young."

Cheers.

I'm going to pick this apart piece by piece for you, buddy.

Just wanted to post the WHOLE quote, in context, so someone like Don Ferro doesn't take it out of context.

~~Like I said, which you forgot to mention, if we tried to free or "liberate" every country because the people were being repressed or mistreated, we would be in a hell of a lot countries around the world. I also talked about our clear "jump" to war without a diplomatic solution, or wait, is a diplomatic solution to you attacking a country that was not a threat to us and killing innocent civilians? Maybe you should re-read what I posted before or get reading glasses.

Let's see...Saddam was an evil dictator. Anti-American. Smack dab in the Middle East, and carrying out genocidal acts against his own people. There is a likelihood he is connected to other terrorists;


~~Proof please. I could say he had a likelihood for enjoying salsburry steak but that don't mean it's true.


he is violating the UN's Oil-For-Food program and purchasing weapons.


~~What weapons? Proof please...


Goodness gracious, he didn't have WMD's! Oh no! I guess we should have left him well enough alone.


~~Did I say leave him alone? Uh no, you might want to get those glasses sometimes soon because I said we needed a diplomatic solution. Read what I posted before....


Hitler didn't have an WMD's either, but we took him out, eh?


~~This is just ignorant, we were attacked by an ally of Germany and HITLER WAS ATTACKING ALL OF EUROPE IN A GLOBAL DOMINATION WAR, a little different than what Saddam was doing. WMD didn't exist until we made them and dropped them on Hiroshima and Nakasaki.

---

Quote:

Regarding Kerry raising taxes: I ask, so what? I certainly HOPE taxes are raised. With the debt and all of the money being spent in Iraq, I WANT taxes raised. -Pat

Considering your taxation is quite minimal as a minor, a part-time employee, and a student/non home-owner, you really shouldn't even be talking.


~~He's a citizen of the United States, his opinion is as good as anyones.


[b]COME ON, JJ! If you feel that being lied to by the One Man we are SUPPOSED to trust in making our desicions and protecting us is ok, THEN GO FIGHT! Cause by your CARELESSNESS, you are sending over 100,000 people in harms way for no reason. Why don't you go and fight this war then? If it's so justified.

I'm glad you can count. 4. I'm impressed.

Do you think having more posts makes you sound smarter, or something?

C'mon, tell me.

Seriously.

I can't think of any other logical reason.


~~Wow, a Republican making fun of a liberal. I must be seeing things, this is unpresidented. I just mentioned that the post addressing you was 4 posts above and didn't want to confuse you with a post I had just made.


Oh, and for Mr. Ferro, or "Doctor,"...hmm, must be an honorary degree, because it certainly wasn't earned through academic merit or intelligence by any means.


~~I am studying to become a Doctor and am giving the name a little try. Thanks for the insults. Who was it who said when you insult a person you have nothing else intelligent to say?...


"I think it was the right decision to disarm saddam hussein and when the president made the decision, I supported him and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry

Strange...

Although you have conveniently ignored my references to Syria and North Korea...coincidence?

By your "logic," and trust me, I use the term quite loosely, we shouldn't have disarmed Saddam. We also shouldn't have stopped Adolph Hitler, and the Nazis...I mean, he didn't have an WMD's, all he did was knock off a few jews...what's a jew, or kurd between freinds? Better yet, let's do nothing, and let our enemies stockpile weapons (conventional or not).


~~The report yesterday said Saddam not only was not aquiring weapons, he had none and was losing his ability to aquire any.


Sounds like a way to keep our nation safe, right? Just about as good as Kerry saying how he wants to disarm the United States nukes, and hope the rest of the world will do the same.


~~Again, ignorant.


And again, since you also seemed to ignore my comment on the UN and the World Community...where are they? I guess they could care less. Or could it be that there were countries involved in the Oil-For-Food scandal? No way! Wait...could it be that they would rather see the US fail...no way!


~~No way.


---

To quote my friend, Rodney Dangerfield, about "Doctor" Ferro...

"This is why tigers eat their young."


~~Again, a thoughtless pun. How sad is it when someone has to attack someone without sense like this? Does this last commen really put that last nail in the coffin that "I must be real stupid".


Cheers.
[/b][/quote]Nice try.

Doctor Ferro

I agree with you 110% Marco, people on this board making these heartless(and thoughtless) comments should go to war and fight the "baddies" then.

COME ON, JJ! If you feel that being lied to by the One Man we are SUPPOSED to trust in making our desicions and protecting us is ok, THEN GO FIGHT! Cause by your CARELESSNESS, you are sending over 100,000 people in harms way for no reason. Why don't you go and fight this war then? If it's so justified.

Read my above post that is 4 posts up in reaction to your stupid comment if you already haven't.

Have fun, send me a postcard.

Doctor Ferro [/b][/quote]I was gonna try to stay out of these threads for a while, but thanks to the less-than-enlightened Doctor Ferro and his obnoxious posts, I figured I had to speak my peace.

For your information DF, I will gladly fight for this cause and Im sure DJ would too. I believe in the cause, and no that cause is not for WMD's, or oil, or because Iraq orchestrated 9/11. You have to open your eyes dude. You have look at the bigger picture. Saddam Husein proved to the world time after time that he was insane in his actions against his people. This man was the dictator of a troubled nation where people werent even close to free. And not only that, but Iraq was and still is serving as a sanctuary to terrorists, and I whole heartedly believe that Iraq provided funding to terrorists. Basically... the middle east is one huge hot spot and it needs to be dealt with. The liberation of Iraq will most definetly bring some stability to the middle east.

If you cant see these facts and realize the cause, then please just keep your mouth shut, because it shows your ignorance.

First off, learn how to use the message board. It's rather annoying to have to read through my entire quote with your stuff spliced in.

---

Goodness gracious, where is Mr. Kerry's international community? The United Nations?

So let me get this straight - are you saying that it is acceptable for free nations and security council members to sit idly by?

That being said, I like how you talk about innocent civilians.

Last time I checked, the terrorists could give two shits about innocents, as shown by todays attacks in Sinai.

Proof Saddam was killing his own people? I thought that was common sense. As far as being connected to terrorists, you tell me; does an anti-American dictator, located in a hotbed for terrorism, have connections to terrorists? I don't know for sure, but I would bet money on it.

Castro was connected to the Russians during the 'Crisis, wasn't he?

You could pick up todays issue of the NY Times, which shows how the recent report says no WMD's, but the Oil-For-Food program used shady deals with governments, corporations, and officials to amass "$11 Billion" (source: NY Times) in llicit revenue over the past decade, including Russia and France. Hmm...

Diplomacy...hmm. Yes. I see now.

Terrorists will be deterred by diplomacy.

Obviously working, considering 9/11, and the Israel-Palestine issue. :rolleyes:

Maybe you live in a fantasy world...but in case you didn't know, the terrorists don't play fair.

Shocking, I know.

A little different?

Explain to me, or better yet, explain to the Kuwatis and Kurds, and the Jews, how genocide is "different."

WMD's up until that point were large conventional bombs...the bombings of Britain? Pearl Harbor?

I guess comparing one genocidal dictator to another is 'no foul,' silly me, bringing a little history in.

Considering I'm a student, I don't have high taxes either (in fact, I got money back last year).

That notwithstanding, he's not forking out the cash, now, is he?

Is he paying his hard earned dollars in to deadend social programs like Social Security?

Sorry, but before you bash Bush and his tax cuts, let's understand something; the richest Americas DO pay the most taxes. Without the rich, we are shit.

Bush's tax cuts were instituted to dissolve ridiculous taxes (marriage penalty) and to reduce the burden on the already overtaxed middle class, those who make the economy go 'round.

Did it increase the defecit? Sure. Less money in the system in taxes.

Wow, a rhetorical idea. Did you come up with that one all by yourself?

I found it rather farcical that someone would call themselves "Doctor" without even earning the right to be called one.

Call me crazy then.

I guess 4 posts is better than none, right, if they all have no substance.

Read the USA Today and NY Times, todays issues.

Ignorant?

Right.

Let's give up all our weapons!

I'm sure they will too!

Kinda like giving a robber your loaded pistol if he promises to leave you alone.

And I'm an idiot? :rolleyes:


Way.

Oh boy. You made me feel real bad now. I think I might cry. You're superior debator skills are too hax0r 1337 f0r m3.

Sorry, but I question the intelligence of anyone who buys into Michael Moore's fodder. Simply put.

Regards,
-DJ

Originally posted by Double-J:

I don't know what that has to do with anything. If you're someone who cares about your personal wealth and not that of the future of this country, then I can see why you would not want taxes raised. I was talking to my Driver's Ed teacher the other day and he told me that he agreed that taxes needed to be raised too. He's in his 50's AND voted for Bush in 2000. If you honestly care about your whole nation and not just a party of people, then you would want taxes raised.

This was to Don Ferro, but I'ma take it anyway. John Kerry, like the rest of the United States of America, were lied to by the Bush administration. No one in the right mind would've voted NOT to go into Iraq if we were told Saddam had WMD. I supported the war for crying out loud. Months passed. Nothing. We got Saddam. More months passed. Nothing.

On Kerry's quote, he CLEARLY said, "It was the right decision to DISARM (i.e. find his WMDs) Saddam." What part of that is so bad? This was when the war had just begun. Everyone thought there were WMDs. Bush's administration and intelligence screwed up. I was lied to. Kerry was lied to. The people of the United States were lied to. The world was lied to.

On the comparison to Hitler and Hussein--You have to be kidding me. Hitler was responsible for millions upon millions of deaths. Saddam killed people, I agree with that, but Saddam isn't a terrorist. Saddam didn't attack us on 9/11. We took our attention off of Afghanistan which is the center of terrorism and put our eyes on a Iraq, a country that didn't have terrorists until WE attacked them. -Pat

Apology accepted. It takes a real man to admit that he was wrong. Don't even worry about it, no harm no foul. I was just thinking, man, I'm on this guys side!

So we have at least 2 people (Raggingbull2003 and Double J) that are going to volunteer for the military?

I don't believe you. I think you are among the many war supporters that sit over here and think the deaths of our soldiers is a justifiable casualty of war and someone else's problem. And before you jump all over me about military service - I did my part. I spent 4 years in the Navy - thankfully Reagan wasn't a cowboy like this president is.

And Double J - the Hitler had no WMDs is a weak statement. First, nuclear weapons were not invented at that time, although he was working to develop them. Secondly, Sarin gas is a Nazi invention.

Hitler was stopped because he aggressively attacked and conquered allies of the United States, Great Britain, and the USSR. Don't even try to equate the invasion of Kuwait with the German agression. Iraq was routed in the Gulf War and was not a threat to anyone as long as the sanctions and the no-fly zone were enforced.

I commend you for your military service Don Marco, but I dont appreciate your criticism of what I said. I doubt that I will ever enlist to fight in the war. I have my whole life ahead of me, and I have to worry about starting college. But if there is ever a draft or whatever, I will gladly pick up a gun and fight for my country.

Exactly my point - there is a difference between defending your country and fighting in a war based on errors in judgement.

I wholeheartedly support the soldiers - it's the people that sent them there that shouldn't be able to sleep at night for this error.

I agree with you 110% Marco, people on this board making these heartless(and thoughtless) comments should go to war and fight the "baddies" then.

COME ON, JJ! If you feel that being lied to by the One Man we are SUPPOSED to trust in making our desicions and protecting us is ok, THEN GO FIGHT! Cause by your CARELESSNESS, you are sending over 100,000 people in harms way for no reason. Why don't you go and fight this war then? If it's so justified.

Read my above post that is 4 posts up in reaction to your stupid comment if you already haven't.

Have fun, send me a postcard.

Doctor Ferro [/b][/quote]I was gonna try to stay out of these threads for a while, but thanks to the less-than-enlightened Doctor Ferro and his obnoxious posts, I figured I had to speak my peace.

For your information DF, I will gladly fight for this cause and Im sure DJ would too. I believe in the cause, and no that cause is not for WMD's, or oil, or because Iraq orchestrated 9/11. You have to open your eyes dude. You have look at the bigger picture. Saddam Husein proved to the world time after time that he was insane in his actions against his people. This man was the dictator of a troubled nation where people werent even close to free. And not only that, but Iraq was and still is serving as a sanctuary to terrorists, and I whole heartedly believe that Iraq provided funding to terrorists. Basically... the middle east is one huge hot spot and it needs to be dealt with. The liberation of Iraq will most definetly bring some stability to the middle east.

If you cant see these facts and realize the cause, then please just keep your mouth shut, because it shows your ignorance. [/b][/quote]Here is my first problem to deal with of the night.

Why must America be the one's to deal with the world's problems? Because we are the most powerful? Sure, I'll buy that for now, I have said before, I agree something needed to be done with Iraq. But how many times must I say we went about it the wrong way? I've said it too many times so I'm not going into that again.

So, tell me this, if you would fight in this war, which you believe is justified because of Saddams actions, are you willing to fight in EVERY country that has these problems? If so, then pack for a long trip buddy. There are problems like this accross the world, we as the world power, need to help solve these problems in a peaceful, diplomatic fashion. If you insist that these problems around the world must be fought out with violence, then great, you can go it alone and give new meaning to an Army of One.

Next time, read my other posts before you post an idiotic comment like that.

Doctor Ferro

I would be willing to fight for what ever my country asked me to do, because I love this country and I am thankful that I live here and I make sure I remind myself of that every day.

Oh boy is this next in line on my "prove they are full of shit" list? Goodie!

I don't know how to pick selected quotes so the bulk is at the end.


Goodness gracious, where is Mr. Kerry's international community? The United Nations?

So let me get this straight - are you saying that it is acceptable for free nations and security council members to sit idly by?

That being said, I like how you talk about innocent civilians.

Last time I checked, the terrorists could give two shits about innocents, as shown by todays attacks in Sinai.

Quote:

Proof please. I could say he had a likelihood for enjoying salsburry steak but that don't mean it's true.

Proof Saddam was killing his own people? I thought that was common sense. As far as being connected to terrorists, you tell me; does an anti-American dictator, located in a hotbed for terrorism, have connections to terrorists? I don't know for sure, but I would bet money on it.

Castro was connected to the Russians during the 'Crisis, wasn't he?

Quote:

Proof please. I could say he had a likelihood for enjoying salsburry steak but that don't mean it's true.

You could pick up todays issue of the NY Times, which shows how the recent report says no WMD's, but the Oil-For-Food program used shady deals with governments, corporations, and officials to amass "$11 Billion" (source: NY Times) in llicit revenue over the past decade, including Russia and France. Hmm...

Quote:

Did I say leave him alone? Uh no, you might want to get those glasses sometimes soon because I said we needed a diplomatic solution. Read what I posted before....

Diplomacy...hmm. Yes. I see now.

Terrorists will be deterred by diplomacy.

Obviously working, considering 9/11, and the Israel-Palestine issue. :rolleyes:

Maybe you live in a fantasy world...but in case you didn't know, the terrorists don't play fair.

Shocking, I know.

Quote:

This is just ignorant, we were attacked by an ally of Germany and HITLER WAS ATTACKING ALL OF EUROPE IN A GLOBAL DOMINATION WAR, a little different than what Saddam was doing. WMD didn't exist until we made them and dropped them on Hiroshima and Nakasaki.

A little different?

Explain to me, or better yet, explain to the Kuwatis and Kurds, and the Jews, how genocide is "different."

WMD's up until that point were large conventional bombs...the bombings of Britain? Pearl Harbor?

I guess comparing one genocidal dictator to another is 'no foul,' silly me, bringing a little history in.

Quote:

He's a citizen of the United States, his opinion is as good as anyones.

Considering I'm a student, I don't have high taxes either (in fact, I got money back last year).

That notwithstanding, he's not forking out the cash, now, is he?

Is he paying his hard earned dollars in to deadend social programs like Social Security?

Sorry, but before you bash Bush and his tax cuts, let's understand something; the richest Americas DO pay the most taxes. Without the rich, we are shit.

Bush's tax cuts were instituted to dissolve ridiculous taxes (marriage penalty) and to reduce the burden on the already overtaxed middle class, those who make the economy go 'round.

Did it increase the defecit? Sure. Less money in the system in taxes.

Quote:

Wow, a Republican making fun of a liberal. I must be seeing things, this is unpresidented. I just mentioned that the post addressing you was 4 posts above and didn't want to confuse you with a post I had just made.

Wow, a rhetorical idea. Did you come up with that one all by yourself?

Quote:

I am studying to become a Doctor and am giving the name a little try. Thanks for the insults. Who was it who said when you insult a person you have nothing else intelligent to say?...

I found it rather farcical that someone would call themselves "Doctor" without even earning the right to be called one.

Call me crazy then.

I guess 4 posts is better than none, right, if they all have no substance.

Quote:

The report yesterday said Saddam not only was not aquiring weapons, he had none and was losing his ability to aquire any.

Read the USA Today and NY Times, todays issues.

Quote:

Again, ignorant.

Ignorant?

Right.

Let's give up all our weapons!

I'm sure they will too!

Kinda like giving a robber your loaded pistol if he promises to leave you alone.

And I'm an idiot? :rolleyes:

Quote:

No way.

Way.

Quote:

Again, a thoughtless pun. How sad is it when someone has to attack someone without sense like this? Does this last commen really put that last nail in the coffin that "I must be real stupid".

Oh boy. You made me feel real bad now. I think I might cry. You're superior debator skills are too hax0r 1337 f0r m3.

Sorry, but I question the intelligence of anyone who buys into Michael Moore's fodder. Simply put.

Regards,
-DJ
[/quote]You have gone around every single answer I gave.
Just a few problems I want to deal with:
WMD, are you honestly calling bombers dropping small scale bombs WMD? Ha. You mind as well call bows and arrows weapons of mass destruction to because they hurt people also.

Like I said, I want proof Iraq had links to the terrorist groups of 9/11. You bring Castro into this? What the hell does he have to do with this? Two different countries. Two COMPLETELY different situations. The things you bring up in this thread such as Hitler and Castro are so lame, those are all different situations. By the way, we solved our problems with Castro peacefully, with out violence.

I will read the Newspapers today and see about your alleged information but yesterday it said Saddam not only had no WMD but was unable to aquire them. How this story changed so quickly, we will see.

As for the Doctor Thing, GET THE FU*K OVER IT! I'm trying a new title. I will be a doctor, so whats the difference. I've used the title for years now outside of the board and it's been like this on this board for about a year now. Suddenly when I debate you, you have a problem with it.

I never said I was smarter than you or a better debater, so don't accuse me of doing so. I just belive when you post insults at the end of your post's it makes you look rather unconvincing. You seem so despirate to make a jab at me because your rebuttles to my posts lack any substance. I don't fully understand your need to do so, but if you feel you need to say I'm uneducated or "go cry" as you put it, go right ahead.

DOCTOR Ferro

Took the words right out of my mouth. Exactly my points, nicely put Marco, and thanks for your service to our country.

Doctor Ferro

I love my country as much as you do, I believe America is the best country in the world. But when I believe my country is making huge errors in judgement and exercises it's power too much, I call in my CONSTITUTIONAL right to question and do everything possible to remove that leadership and replace it with a more responsible leader.

Doctor Ferro

I believe that President Bush genuinely believed that there were WMDs in Iraq.

I don't believe that the American people were lied to. We were misinformed. Big difference.

However, given the fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq, doesn't that make the war a mistake?

To put it another way, would we have been justified in invading Iraq if we knew that there were no WMDs?

That would have been wrong, I think, and the American people never would have stood still for a war that had the sole objective of removing a brutal dictator and bringing democracy to a country with no frame of reference for that type of government, and which, in fact, is a form of government that runs counter to the religious beliefs of most of its citizens.

We're there now, and we de-stabilized the country, and I suppose we have to stay at least until they have their elections.

But once they do, unless we hang around to prop of the government, there will be, I predict, some type of coup that will overthrow the elected government, and the same SOBs will be back in power.

So the whole war will have been for nothing.

What I don't understand is why the administration can't just admit it was a mistake?

Why can't you Pro-Bush guys here just admit it was a mistake?

Plawrence summed it up perfectly. I (surprisingly) agree with about 90% of what he said. The only place where I differ is that I still do not believe the war is a mistake. We had no way of knowing there were no WMD. Every intelligence outfit was telling us they were there and S.H. isin't exactly the most honest dictator. WMD can be incredible small. I know U.S. subs can fit about 24. I've seen them and they are surprisingly small considering how outrageously powerful they are. You can carry one around in a bulldozer.


My point was that Plawrence hit it on the head, all the other posts are beginning to not make sense. And the constant quoting gives me a headache.

Sorry to quote you and give you a bigger headache, but I need to.

We did have a way to know for sure if Saddam had WMD, the U.N. Weapons Inspectors. They requested more time and we told them that "there was no more time". And as we all found out yesterday, there were, and have been, no weapons in Iraq since the Gulf War. Too bad we didn't just wait a little longer. Do you honestly, any of you, think Iraq would have attacked us when the weapons inspectors were investigating and with the world watching them? I don't even need to say what would have happened to Iraq. We should have given the U.N. and inspectors more time and saved over 60,000 lives.

Doctor Ferro

I see what you are saying and yes it makes sense, but how many times did Saddam refuse to let the Inspectors investigate? or only allow them to investigate certain areas? That happened countless times. If he had nothing to hide, then why was he restricting the inspectors? Plus how many inspectors were their? Maybe a few dozen? I doubt that many but I remember specifically hearing that it was equivalent to about 10 men inspecting an area the size of texas. My jaw dropped when I heard that.

I love my country as much as you do, I believe America is the best country in the world. But when I believe my country is making huge errors in judgement and exercises it's power too much, I call in my CONSTITUTIONAL right to question and do everything possible to remove that leadership and replace it with a more responsible leader.

Doctor Ferro [/b][/quote]Just remember why you have those constitutional rights. Its the soldier, not the reporters, poets, or singers that give us our rights. Dont take your rights for granted.

Whoo boy, so you want an unbiased apraisal of the lies in Moore's movie? Here you go:

Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore.

One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.

Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.

Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.

2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.

3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.

5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)


It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction. In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures. This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that—as you might expect—Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. So, that's another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic "key to all mythologies."

A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.

The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm. More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup. This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book that also revives the charge of FDR's collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least Moore's film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back in their paranoid box.

But it won't because it encourages their half-baked fantasies in so many other ways. We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003. I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now, either. I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)

That this—his pro-American moment—was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. 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. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)

Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem. No problem at all. Now look again at the facts I have cited above. If these things had been allowed to happen under any other administration, you can be sure that Moore and others would now glibly be accusing the president of ignoring, or of having ignored, some fairly unmistakable "warnings."

The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism infects his treatment of another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy. From being accused of overlooking too many warnings—not exactly an original point—the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many. (Would there not have been "fear" if the harbingers of 9/11 had been taken seriously?) We are shown some American civilians who have had absurd encounters with idiotic "security" staff. (Have you ever met anyone who can't tell such a story?) Then we are immediately shown underfunded police departments that don't have the means or the manpower to do any stop-and-search: a power suddenly demanded by Moore on their behalf that we know by definition would at least lead to some ridiculous interrogations. Finally, 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. (Cue mood music for sinister influence of Big Tobacco.) So—he wants even more pocket-rummaging by airport officials? Uh, no, not exactly. But by this stage, who's counting? Moore is having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing. Again—simply not serious.

Here's the rest of that article:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Now don't dodge the accusations in the article, refute the statements with facts, if you can .

Usually people who debate each other have different views. How you say that it's an unbiased article is beyond me. -Pat

Obviously the writer disagrees with Moore. However, the author is not right wing, and in fact wrote for The Nation, a liberal source. Notice how he says "where was OUR Rush Limbaugh" (as in the Left's). So nope, he's certainly not conservative.

Now, when will you refute the information raised in the article?

Then obviously it's not an unbiased article. -Pat

You're full of bullshit Pat. The writer is a liberal, just like you, except he is willing to admit that Moore is lying through his teeth. Thanks for ignoring the rest of my post, although that's all you can do really, once you're proven wrong.

Once again, waiting for you to refute the article.

I've used that article as a source for many of my arguments. It's a very, very good article.

Of course, Pat is going to avoid it -- like he usually does.

Then obviously it's not an unbiased article. -Pat [/b][/quote]So is Michael Moore -- Moore is biased against President Bush. Why should his opinion mean shit then?

Stop making excuses. Try, for once, to refute something contradicting Moore's illogical bullshit without using the "biased" excuse, even though Moore himself is as crooked as a barrel of snakes in the biasism department.

Baggins, we're wasting our breath. Pat will never give a rebuttal to something disproving Moore. Because he can't. When he's proven wrong, he uses transparent excuses, such as just above. He'll wait for Ferro or another board liberal to give a helping hand. And he wonders why people seem to look down on him with political debates. :rolleyes:

Anthony, you should know that things are only biased if they go against the gospel of Michael Moore. People that agree with Moore are never biased

You know what I find funny in all this, is that Pat has admitted before that Moore lies, but when a new thread comes up about him, he immediately jumps to support him .