This Is Too Good....

[j2k4]

This was brought to my attention by a celebrated Conservative who wishes to remain anonymous-thanks, Hank!

ooops!

Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT



Moore: Trying to have it three ways

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.


Continue Article

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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.


Recruiters in Michigan

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.

Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq's recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly. They fear the liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film's "theory." Perhaps Moore prefers the pro-Saudi Kissinger/Scowcroft plan for the Middle East, where stability trumps every other consideration and where one dare not upset the local house of cards, or killing-field of Kurds? This would be a strange position for a purported radical. Then again, perhaps he does not take this conservative line because his real pitch is not to any audience member with a serious interest in foreign policy. It is to the provincial isolationist.

I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that. Back in Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this time. Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away. I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights. I'll merely ask this: In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft—the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he think—as he seems to suggest—that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve in their place? Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack) riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it's a waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much like taking him seriously. He'll just try anything once and see if it floats or flies or gets a cheer.


Trying to talk congressmen into sending their sons to war

Indeed, Moore's affected and ostentatious concern for black America is one of the most suspect ingredients of his pitch package. In a recent interview, he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women (and children). Never mind for now how many black passengers were on those planes—we happen to know what Moore does not care to mention: that Todd Beamer and a few of his co-passengers, shouting "Let's roll," rammed the hijackers with a trolley, fought them tooth and nail, and helped bring down a United Airlines plane, in Pennsylvania, that was speeding toward either the White House or the Capitol. There are no words for real, impromptu bravery like that, which helped save our republic from worse than actually befell. The Pennsylvania drama also reminds one of the self-evident fact that this war is not fought only "overseas" or in uniform, but is being brought to our cities. Yet Moore is a silly and shady man who does not recognize courage of any sort even when he sees it because he cannot summon it in himself. To him, easy applause, in front of credulous audiences, is everything.

Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet. Some right-wing hack groups, I gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to drop the film. How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one form of stupidity and cowardice with another? By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.

However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. And as for the scary lawyers—get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of.

Some people soothingly say that one should relax about all this. It's only a movie. No biggie. It's no worse than the tomfoolery of Oliver Stone. It's kick-ass entertainment. It might even help get out "the youth vote." Yeah, well, I have myself written and presented about a dozen low-budget made-for-TV documentaries, on subjects as various as Mother Teresa and Bill Clinton and the Cyprus crisis, and I also helped produce a slightly more polished one on Henry Kissinger that was shown in movie theaters. So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage.

Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.

Correction, June 22, 2004: This piece originally referred to terrorist attacks by Abu Nidal's group on the Munich and Rome airports. The 1985 attacks occurred at the Rome and Vienna airports. (Return to the corrected sentence.)


Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His latest book, Blood, Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship, is out in paperback.

[vidcc]

Just to let you Know J2 so that you don't think i am sidestepping this.

I haven't seen the movie in question and don't intend to. Other than knowing that it is not a pro Bush movie i can't comment on it as i haven't seen it and by the same token i can't debate this story because i haven't seen both sides to take a stance on it.
I did ask the question in the talk club as to if films like this about any party could change the way one votes. ( i asked for films of the like and not this one in particular so as not to make it a Bush issue).
The general opinion was no. I doubt it would change your mind and if it wouldn't change yours why would it change anyone elses? so why worry about it ?

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by vidcc@29 June 2004 - 23:01
so why worry about it ?
Why worry about it? I’ll tell you why. This film is being touted around the globe and winning honors at film festivals.

I worry about it because there are plenty of people in this country that are stupid enough to believe this kind of garbage and think that it’s brilliant. The sad part about that is that some of them are actually going to vote for President. People seem to think that just because it’s a documentary that all the facts are backed up and that’s just not the case. Just look at the post in Movieworld for example; people in there seem to think that this film is the next best thing next to Romeo and Juliet.

Not only that but think of how this makes us look to foreign countries.

[MagicNakor]

It's not a documentary. It irks me that these films are being classified as such, but until someone creates a more appropriate category (something along the lines of an editorial), films like this will continue to be misclassified.

:ninja:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+30 June 2004 - 01:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank &#064; 30 June 2004 - 01:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@29 June 2004 - 23:01
so why worry about it ?
Why worry about it? I’ll tell you why. This film is being touted around the globe and winning honors at film festivals.

I worry about it because there are plenty of people in this country that are stupid enough to believe this kind of garbage and think that it’s brilliant. The sad part about that is that some of them are actually going to vote for President. People seem to think that just because it’s a documentary that all the facts are backed up and that’s just not the case. Just look at the post in Movieworld for example; people in there seem to think that this film is the next best thing next to Romeo and Juliet.

Not only that but think of how this makes us look to foreign countries. [/b][/quote]
Well I haven&#39;t seen it either. I was too busy watching Garfield and White Chicks at the drive-in.

I do plan to see it though.

You know why this movie is doing so well?
There are pro-Bush folks that want to see it much like the asshole radio host who pisses everyone off.
There are folks like me who think Bush is a doody head and should be stuck in a corner with gum on his nose. I want to see for it&#39;s cinematic worthiness. I know some maybe most of things in the movie may have spin and are there for dramatic effect. It doesn&#39;t stop me from enjoying it.

Hank, have you seen the movie? If not, how can you say it&#39;s garbage? I think it&#39;s sad that people like you are actually going to vote for President.

With people like you, your vote is never earned. It is counted already.

Being an automaton for the Republican or Democratic party does no service to country. Question everything. The password is Ann Coulter..... Beeootch.:lol: :lol:

Until GW Bush, no President has had most of the world galvanized aqainst him in this manner(including Nixon).

I feel ashamed that I have to vote for Kerry just because I don&#39;t want another 4 years of Bush. Bush may very well plunge us into oblivion with no allies.

Hank I think people are stupid for believing the passengers of 9/11 in PA forced the plane down. It doesn&#39;t stop them from believing it.

Trust me. Foreign countries have looked at the US with disdain long before F9/11.

...but you knew that...in the meantime let&#39;s blame Moore. <_<

[clocker]

You think Christopher Hitchens is a "flaming lib"?
I get Vanity Fair ( it was a gift, so don&#39;t even start) and read Hitchens every month.
Sometimes I agree and others, not, but I would hardly characterize him as liberal.
More a wannabe journalistic icon, a second rate Tom Wolfe, lacking both the talent and sartorial flair of his idol.
But NOT a "flaming lib".

Nice try though.

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by clocker@30 June 2004 - 08:08
...I get Vanity Fair ( it was a gift, so don&#39;t even start)...
Could you at least save the Johnny Depp cover for me? ;)

:ninja:

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Busyman@30 June 2004 - 01:03
Hank I think people are stupid for believing the passengers of 9/11 in PA forced the plane down. It doesn&#39;t stop them from believing it.
Busyman I had more problems with your post but I wanted to single this one out so it doesn’t get lost.

You don’t think that a group of passengers stormed the cockpit and forced that plane down saving countless lives on the ground? Care to elaborate on that one.

[clocker]

Originally posted by MagicNakor+30 June 2004 - 02:22--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MagicNakor &#064; 30 June 2004 - 02:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-clocker@30 June 2004 - 08:08
...I get Vanity Fair ( it was a gift, so don&#39;t even start)...
Could you at least save the Johnny Depp cover for me? ;)

:ninja:[/b][/quote]
If you promise not to get it sticky.


Eeeeuwww.


looks for coat....

[{SHELL%SHOCKED}]

Originally posted by j2k4@30 June 2004 - 01:55
This was brought to my attention by a celebrated Conservative who wishes to remain anonymous-thanks, Hank&#33;

ooops&#33;

Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT



Moore: Trying to have it three ways

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&#39;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&#39;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.


Continue Article

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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.


Recruiters in Michigan

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&#39;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&#39;s removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;s collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least Moore&#39;s film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back in their paranoid box.

But it won&#39;t because it encourages their half-baked fantasies in so many other ways. We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq&#39;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&#39;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&#33; 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&#39;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&#39;t now, either. I&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;s presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)

Thus, in spite of the film&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t tell such a story?) Then we are immediately shown underfunded police departments that don&#39;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&#39;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&#39;s counting? Moore is having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing. Again—simply not serious.

Circling back to where we began, why did Moore&#39;s evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other&#39;s pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq&#39;s recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly. They fear the liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film&#39;s "theory." Perhaps Moore prefers the pro-Saudi Kissinger/Scowcroft plan for the Middle East, where stability trumps every other consideration and where one dare not upset the local house of cards, or killing-field of Kurds? This would be a strange position for a purported radical. Then again, perhaps he does not take this conservative line because his real pitch is not to any audience member with a serious interest in foreign policy. It is to the provincial isolationist.

I have already said that Moore&#39;s film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it&#39;s much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower&#39;s "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It&#39;s high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There&#39;s more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn&#39;t know that. Back in Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this time. Instead, it&#39;s the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away. I won&#39;t dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights. I&#39;ll merely ask this: In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft—the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he think—as he seems to suggest—that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve in their place? Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack) riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it&#39;s a waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much like taking him seriously. He&#39;ll just try anything once and see if it floats or flies or gets a cheer.


Trying to talk congressmen into sending their sons to war

Indeed, Moore&#39;s affected and ostentatious concern for black America is one of the most suspect ingredients of his pitch package. In a recent interview, he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women (and children). Never mind for now how many black passengers were on those planes—we happen to know what Moore does not care to mention: that Todd Beamer and a few of his co-passengers, shouting "Let&#39;s roll," rammed the hijackers with a trolley, fought them tooth and nail, and helped bring down a United Airlines plane, in Pennsylvania, that was speeding toward either the White House or the Capitol. There are no words for real, impromptu bravery like that, which helped save our republic from worse than actually befell. The Pennsylvania drama also reminds one of the self-evident fact that this war is not fought only "overseas" or in uniform, but is being brought to our cities. Yet Moore is a silly and shady man who does not recognize courage of any sort even when he sees it because he cannot summon it in himself. To him, easy applause, in front of credulous audiences, is everything.

Moore has announced that he won&#39;t even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He&#39;ll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet. Some right-wing hack groups, I gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to drop the film. How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one form of stupidity and cowardice with another? By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.

However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. And as for the scary lawyers—get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let&#39;s redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let&#39;s see what you&#39;re made of.

Some people soothingly say that one should relax about all this. It&#39;s only a movie. No biggie. It&#39;s no worse than the tomfoolery of Oliver Stone. It&#39;s kick-ass entertainment. It might even help get out "the youth vote." Yeah, well, I have myself written and presented about a dozen low-budget made-for-TV documentaries, on subjects as various as Mother Teresa and Bill Clinton and the Cyprus crisis, and I also helped produce a slightly more polished one on Henry Kissinger that was shown in movie theaters. So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don&#39;t even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage.

Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

And that&#39;s just from Orwell&#39;s Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it&#39;s highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It&#39;s also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.

Correction, June 22, 2004: This piece originally referred to terrorist attacks by Abu Nidal&#39;s group on the Munich and Rome airports. The 1985 attacks occurred at the Rome and Vienna airports. (Return to the corrected sentence.)


Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His latest book, Blood, Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship, is out in paperback.

Good article &#33;&#33;

[james_bond_rulez]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+29 June 2004 - 21:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 29 June 2004 - 21:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@29 June 2004 - 23:01
so why worry about it ?
Why worry about it? I’ll tell you why. This film is being touted around the globe and winning honors at film festivals.

I worry about it because there are plenty of people in this country that are stupid enough to believe this kind of garbage and think that it’s brilliant. The sad part about that is that some of them are actually going to vote for President. People seem to think that just because it’s a documentary that all the facts are backed up and that’s just not the case. Just look at the post in Movieworld for example; people in there seem to think that this film is the next best thing next to Romeo and Juliet.

Not only that but think of how this makes us look to foreign countries. [/b][/quote]
well guess what, America is a democratic country and there are ppl like you, who are right wing extremists, who think the other half of the american population should just blindly follow and BELIEVE that everything that Bush does is rightous and holy.

If you truely believe that, that you are a fool and if Bush gets re-elected there will be another 4 years of misery not only for Americans but also for the world.

so wake up and smell the roses <_<

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@30 June 2004 - 00:43
It&#39;s not a documentary. It irks me that these films are being classified as such, but until someone creates a more appropriate category (something along the lines of an editorial), films like this will continue to be misclassified.

:ninja:
MagicNakor I have the classification for this movie:


the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person


Definition: Propaganda

@JamesBond: I find an article pointing out that this movie is nothing but contradiction and made up facts and that makes me an extremist? You told me to wake up and smell the roses but I think you need to practice what you preach. It’s you yourself who blindly follows Moore and believes whatever he says to be fact not me.

[james_bond_rulez]

then how do you know if everything Bush said is true? did he not lie to us about the War? about Sadam?

He lied about a lot of other things <_<

and after all this you are still pro-bush?

Tell me, what do you stand to benefit if Bush gets re-elected? Do you get to rebuild something in Iraq?

[BigBank_Hank]

You have no defense for this movie being a piece of garbage so like a typical liberal you attack Bush because you don’t have anything else.

As for my stance on if Bush “lied” to the American public I’m not going to get into that again. My stance on that is well documented here so if you to know where I stand just read up a bit.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@30 June 2004 - 19:04
@JamesBond: I find an article pointing out that this movie is nothing but contradiction and made up facts and that makes me an extremist? You told me to wake up and smell the roses but I think you need to practice what you preach. It’s you yourself who blindly follows Moore and believes whatever he says to be fact not me.
I believe that the USA is a Court Culture...

ie: If there are libels then there will be court action.

If, therefore MM isnt sued by those he calls names....then by definition they mustnt be able to defend themselves against the Accusations in Court.

That is the risk MM takes in making films of this type, and the risk that politians face by taking office.



And there are still people in the USA that believe Clinton/Gore are Democrats, just because they ran on that platform :P

[james_bond_rulez]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@30 June 2004 - 11:21
You have no defense for this movie being a piece of garbage so like a typical liberal you attack Bush because you don’t have anything else.

As for my stance on if Bush “lied” to the American public I’m not going to get into that again. My stance on that is well documented here so if you to know where I stand just read up a bit.
I dont need some movie to tell me how to vote. Bush&#39;s erratic behaviour and actions alone are proof to me that he is a rash, ,reckless, arragant, and irresponsible man unfit for the role of a leader.

The fact that you are supporting Bush means you have something to gain by doing so.

[clocker]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@30 June 2004 - 12:21
You have no defense for this movie being a piece of garbage
He has no need.
The description, " a piece of garbage" is your opinion of the movie, not immutable fact.

BBH, have you even seen this film?
If not, your "opinion" of it is not only irrelevant, but laughable, too.

How can we accept input from someone who refuses to even experience the event?

Proclaiming from atop a bandwagon constructed of the opinions of others makes for a bumpy ride.




sheesh, could I have mixed any more metaphors there?

[james_bond_rulez]

lol ya nice metaphor there clocker :lol:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@30 June 2004 - 02:08
You think Christopher Hitchens is a "flaming lib"?
I get Vanity Fair ( it was a gift, so don&#39;t even start) and read Hitchens every month.
Sometimes I agree and others, not, but I would hardly characterize him as liberal.
More a wannabe journalistic icon, a second rate Tom Wolfe, lacking both the talent and sartorial flair of his idol.
But NOT a "flaming lib".

Nice try though.
Excuse me, sir, but compared to me, he&#39;s a flaming lib; occasionally lapsed, perhaps, but there you have it. :)

Busyman-

As has been borne out by your previous commentaries, and contrary to your assertion here, I think the award for "Most Galvanizing and Polarizing Performance in the Role of POTUS" would go to Ronald Reagan, with apologies to Nixon, whose relative popularity was (by international standards) quite robust.

Maybe you had to be there. ;)

[BigBank_Hank]

Clocker me not seeing the movie does not change the fact that it’s full of contradictions and inaccuracies. My opinion is that its garbage backed up the evidence provided by the article, which is posted in the beginning of this thread.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+30 June 2004 - 14:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 30 June 2004 - 14:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@30 June 2004 - 19:04
@JamesBond:&nbsp; I find an article pointing out that this movie is nothing but contradiction and made up facts and that makes me an extremist? You told me to wake up and smell the roses but I think you need to practice what you preach. It’s you yourself who blindly follows Moore and believes whatever he says to be fact not me.
I believe that the USA is a Court Culture...

ie: If there are libels then there will be court action.

If, therefore MM isnt sued by those he calls names....then by definition they mustnt be able to defend themselves against the Accusations in Court.

That is the risk MM takes in making films of this type, and the risk that politians face by taking office.



And there are still people in the USA that believe Clinton/Gore are Democrats, just because they ran on that platform :P [/b][/quote]
Not true, Rat.

One can say, or make allusions to, just about anything when speaking of a public figure, without fear of legal sanction.

Case law applies; part of the massive catalog of "Free Speech" caveats.

Were it possible to sell admittance to this forum, we would be in the same boat, yes?

Much of what we "publish" here is not dissimilar to Moore&#39;s effort.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@30 June 2004 - 21:10
Clocker me not seeing the movie does not change the fact that it’s full of contradictions and inaccuracies. My opinion is that its garbage backed up the evidence provided by the article, which is posted in the beginning of this thread.
As I said...

Have any of these "Libelled" persons taken court action?

Inaction speaks louder than words sometimes.... ;)




J2k4,

We must have posted at same time.

There is a difference between infering impropriety and saying it outright.

This is the difference between Politics and Libel.

To accuse "The Government" is also one thing, however to accuse individuals is quite another....

If a "Person"; no matter who they are, is accused of something outright that is false and can prove it was false, then that is Libel.

Even in the USA....the difference is that the "Public Figure" has to go to further lengths...he has to prove it was done with Malice.

This, would not need much evidence in the case of MM.


That all changed in 1964 when the Supreme Court issued a ruling that revolutionized libel law in the United States. The famous decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan once and for all created a national rule that squared more fully with the free press guarantees of the First Amendment. In its ruling, the Court decided that public officials no longer could sue successfully for libel unless reporters or editors were guilty of "actual malice" when publishing false statements about them.

And just what is malice when it comes to proving libel? Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In other words, public officials no longer could sue for libel simply by proving that something that had been broadcast or printed about them was false. Now they would have to prove that a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies.

The Supreme Court later extended its so-called Sullivan rule to cover "public figures," meaning individuals who are not in public office but who are still newsworthy because of their prominence in the public eye. Over the years, American courts have ruled that this category includes celebrities in the entertainment field, well-known writers, athletes, and others who often attract attention in the media.



Source (http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press08.htm)

[Illuminati]

Originally posted by clocker+30 June 2004 - 20:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 30 June 2004 - 20:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> BBH, have you even seen this film? [/b]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@30 June 2004 - 22:10
Clocker me not seeing the movie does not change the fact that it’s full of contradictions and inaccuracies. My opinion is that its garbage backed up the evidence provided by the article, which is posted in the beginning of this thread.

Maybe it&#39;s me, but does this following satirical quote in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City come to mind to anyone else (who&#39;s played it ;))? :lol:

<!--QuoteBegin-VCPR Radio@ GTA:VC
Maurice: ...And Mr. Hickory, were you born in Florida?

John: Tuhah&#33;&nbsp; What a stupid question&#33;&nbsp; Of all the cheek&#33;&nbsp;

Maurice: Were you?

John: Of course not&#33;&nbsp; No one&#39;s been born in Florida since 1877&#33; BUT...&#33;&nbsp;
I&#39;ve been here five years which is a very long time.[/quote]

[j2k4]

You prove my point:

To sue Mr. Moore for slander/libel would require one take on he and his sponsors/financiers, who, in any case, would excuse any attempt to attach malice by stating "...it&#39;s just a movie...", made with the same type of creative license as Oliver Stone used when he made JFK and Nixon.

Note that Moore himself is very slyly backing away from any effort to characterize his movie as a documentary, so as to avoid legal entanglement, and also to avoid laws which limit the timeframe for showing blatantly political media in an election season.

It&#39;s a very minor crapshoot, but a crapshoot nonetheless; if Bush sued Moore, he would be accused of abusing the office of President in pursuit of a man who, the media and Mr. Moore himself would have you believe, epitomizes "Joe Six-Pack".

Not a winner.

No matter: even if Bush did sue, and win, what&#39;s in it for him?

The damage is done, and Moore hides (financially) behind the legal skirts of his sponsors.

Principle is often (more often then you&#39;d think) not enough to carry the day.

[Rat Faced]

On the contrary..

Its been promoted as a Documovie...

The Principle that GWBush is being slandered/Libelled is everything in an election season... If he dont sue, hes guilty.

The Presidency may be whats in it for him, and prove he isnt Guilty of just "gung Ho" lets get our boys killed.


If the movie had been promoted as a Comedy.. ie Satire, then he couldnt.

MM delibratley promoted it before release as a Documentary... So the ball is in the court of those "Libelled" in the film.



Edit:

Just to make plain... I havet seen it, and it sounds a crap movie anyway ;)

But im gonna make a point of watching it now :)

[Mathea]

well this prolly belongs in movie world but i thought i would add:


im anti bush. very much so. I saw this film and absolutely hated it. it doesnt change my stance but i think he definitely should not win any awards or anythign for it.... there was alot he could have done with this movie, but instead i fould it to be garbage....... ok RF move this cuz i dont think it belongs here but I had to get that out

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4+30 June 2004 - 21:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 30 June 2004 - 21:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@30 June 2004 - 02:08
You think Christopher Hitchens is a "flaming lib"?
I get Vanity Fair ( it was a gift, so don&#39;t even start) and read Hitchens every month.
Sometimes I agree and others, not, but I would hardly characterize him as liberal.
More a wannabe journalistic icon, a second rate Tom Wolfe, lacking both the talent and sartorial flair of his idol.
But NOT a "flaming lib".

Nice try though.
Excuse me, sir, but compared to me, he&#39;s a flaming lib; occasionally lapsed, perhaps, but there you have it. :)

[/b][/quote]
Apologies at the outset here - my only excuse is that the flesh is weak&#33;

J2, compared to you Attila the Hun was a flaming Liberal. :lol:






Rather childish I know, but one can resist everything but temptation.


Hank,

By agreeing a critique of something you have not yet seen you are creating a homemade crocodile which will circle to bite you on the rear at some point in a future debate. Rather, it would be wiser to say that on reflection and given MM&#39;s politics, it is a pleasure you can easily bring yourself to miss.

[vidcc]

I&#39;m going to come to Hanks defence here slightly and would like to point out that in another thread related to the movie he stated that even though he wouldn&#39;t agree with the content ( as far as it had been reported ) he wouldn&#39;t want to stop it being shown.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by vidcc@30 June 2004 - 23:02
I&#39;m going to come to Hanks defence here slightly and would like to point out that in another thread related to the movie he stated that even though he wouldn&#39;t agree with the content ( as far as it had been reported ) he wouldn&#39;t want to stop it being shown.
Absolutely, I was only really making a suggestion in relation to debating technique rather than anything to do with the film.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Biggles+30 June 2004 - 16:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 30 June 2004 - 16:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@30 June 2004 - 23:02
I&#39;m going to come to Hanks defence here slightly and would like to point out that in another thread related to the movie he stated that even though he wouldn&#39;t agree with the content ( as far as it had been reported ) he wouldn&#39;t want to stop it being shown.
Absolutely, I was only really making a suggestion in relation to debating technique rather than anything to do with the film. [/b][/quote]
Oh i agree totally on the point of calling it garbage purely on the basis of a critics view. The viewpoint of such a revue could hardly be called evidence as it is just a viewpoint, an opinion.

As i stated in my first post i can&#39;t comment because i haven&#39;t seen the movie so all i have is this one revue to take a stance. It is very possible that the author is correct but i can&#39;t pass judgement until i have seen the evidence for myself.

I do however think it&#39;s a fair article because it does try debate the points of the film instead of just attack the makers credentials. Rebuttal is part of debate, personality assasination doesn&#39;t address the issues.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by vidcc+30 June 2004 - 21:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 30 June 2004 - 21:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Biggles@30 June 2004 - 16:08
<!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@30 June 2004 - 23:02
I&#39;m going to come to Hanks defence here slightly and would like to point out that in another thread related to the movie he stated that even though he wouldn&#39;t agree with the content ( as far as it had been reported ) he wouldn&#39;t want to stop it being shown.
Absolutely, I was only really making a suggestion in relation to debating technique rather than anything to do with the film.
Oh i agree totally on the point of calling it garbage purely on the basis of a critics view. The viewpoint of such a revue could hardly be called evidence as it is just a viewpoint, an opinion.

As i stated in my first post i can&#39;t comment because i haven&#39;t seen the movie so all i have is this one revue to take a stance. It is very possible that the author is correct but i can&#39;t pass judgement until i have seen the evidence for myself.

I do however think it&#39;s a fair article because it does try debate the points of the film instead of just attack the makers credentials. Rebuttal is part of debate, personality assasination doesn&#39;t address the issues.[/b][/quote]
Christ&#33;

This post makes you sound reasonable and balanced. This is a facade that I have been accused of myself.

Welcome to my world.

Some appear to think that this position is not possible, and I feel that this reflects more upon the accusors than upon me.

[Illuminati]

Originally posted by hobbes+1 July 2004 - 00:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 1 July 2004 - 00:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by vidcc@30 June 2004 - 21:23

Originally posted by Biggles@30 June 2004 - 16:08
<!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@30 June 2004 - 23:02
I&#39;m going to come to Hanks defence here slightly and would like to point out that in another thread related to the movie he stated that even though he wouldn&#39;t agree with the content ( as far as it had been reported ) he wouldn&#39;t want to stop it being shown.
Absolutely, I was only really making a suggestion in relation to debating technique rather than anything to do with the film.
Oh i agree totally on the point of calling it garbage purely on the basis of a critics view. The viewpoint of such a revue could hardly be called evidence as it is just a viewpoint, an opinion.

As i stated in my first post i can&#39;t comment because i haven&#39;t seen the movie so all i have is this one revue to take a stance. It is very possible that the author is correct but i can&#39;t pass judgement until i have seen the evidence for myself.

I do however think it&#39;s a fair article because it does try debate the points of the film instead of just attack the makers credentials. Rebuttal is part of debate, personality assasination doesn&#39;t address the issues.
Christ&#33;

This post makes you sound reasonable and balanced. This is a facade that I have been accused of myself.

Welcome to my world.

Some appear to think that this position is not possible, and I feel that this reflects more upon the accusors than upon me. [/b][/quote]
That looks like a reasoned, justified, balanced and rational point of view :)

Sounds like hobbes and vidcc are both lucky to possess such treats. In this day and age, having such an rare and valuable artifact would give you a lot of wealth...

...and that&#39;s a lot more than the price it could fetch on eBay ;)

[vidcc]

Oh bugger...there goes the neighbourhood :lol: :lol: :lol:

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by vidcc@30 June 2004 - 18:02
I&#39;m going to come to Hanks defence here slightly and would like to point out that in another thread related to the movie he stated that even though he wouldn&#39;t agree with the content ( as far as it had been reported ) he wouldn&#39;t want to stop it being shown.
*Hank picks himself up after reading that statement*

Well lord knows I never thought that I’d live long enough to see you coming to my defense :lol: :P

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@30 June 2004 - 17:48

J2, compared to you Attila the Hun was a flaming Liberal. :lol:







Surely you joust.... :huh:




















...as did the last fellow who said that. :D

[E-squirrel]

I love when Bush is called a liar. Here&#39;s a situation for you big guy.

I tell you my name is Eric.
You decide to do some research first to make sure I&#39;m telling the truth.
You find some friends of mine and people who know me and ask them if my name really is Eric, they all tell you that infact it is.
You then tell someone else that my name is Eric.
It happens to be that my name is Frank.
Does that mean you lied to that person?

No, I don&#39;t think so. Atleast not in my oppinion.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc@30 June 2004 - 19:02
I&#39;m going to come to Hanks defence here slightly and would like to point out that in another thread related to the movie he stated that even though he wouldn&#39;t agree with the content ( as far as it had been reported ) he wouldn&#39;t want to stop it being shown.
Well you defend Hank on something that in fact was a non-issue.

No one raised the question of whether the film should be allowed to be shown.

You&#39;ve made assumptions about this movie before this article.

All because it doesn&#39;t support your candidate.

You are a brainwashed fool.

I&#39;ve been working with folks like you for over 10 years and it&#39;s all the same story.

Question your politicians. Stop sitting back and always buying the company, or should I say, the government line.

I am in no way saying believe all conspiracy theories like the "Cheney order fighters to shoot down the plane over PA", but DAMN, you question nothing of Bush, even if he bends you over.

If or when Kerry becomes President I&#39;ll light into him the same way if he fucks up.

[clocker]

Originally posted by E&#045;squirrel@30 June 2004 - 20:17
I love when Bush is called a liar. Here&#39;s a situation for you big guy.

I tell you my name is Eric.
You decide to do some research first to make sure I&#39;m telling the truth.
You find some friends of mine and people who know me and ask them if my name really is Eric, they all tell you that infact it is.
You then tell someone else that my name is Eric.
It happens to be that my name is Frank.
Does that mean you lied to that person?

No, I don&#39;t think so. Atleast not in my oppinion.
Boy&#33;
That was a fun exercise&#33;

Not sure what it meant, but I can hardly wait to do it again&#33;

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Busyman@30 June 2004 - 20:27
You&#39;ve made assumptions about this movie before this article.

All because it doesn&#39;t support your candidate.

You are a brainwashed fool.

I&#39;ve been working with folks like you for over 10 years and it&#39;s all the same story.

Question your politicians. Stop sitting back and always buying the company, or should I say, the government line.

I am in no way saying believe all conspiracy theories like the "Cheney order fighters to shoot down the plane over PA", but DAMN, you question nothing of Bush, even if he bends you over.

If or when Kerry becomes President I&#39;ll light into him the same way if he fucks up.
Are you talking about me or Hank ?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc+30 June 2004 - 23:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 30 June 2004 - 23:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@30 June 2004 - 20:27
You&#39;ve made assumptions about this movie before this article.

All because it doesn&#39;t support your candidate.

You are a brainwashed fool.

I&#39;ve been working with folks like you for over 10 years and it&#39;s all the same story.

Question your politicians. Stop sitting back and always buying the company, or should I say, the government line.

I am in no way saying believe all conspiracy theories like the "Cheney order fighters to shoot down the plane over PA", but DAMN, you question nothing of Bush, even if he bends you over.

If or when Kerry becomes President I&#39;ll light into him the same way if he fucks up.
Are you talking about me or Hank ? [/b][/quote]
Sorry that part was Hank. :(

[BigBank_Hank]

Vid I’m going to assume that Busyman is referring to me.

The “assumptions” that you said I made before this movies release weren’t assumptions at all. Unlike Moore I deal with the facts and the fact of the matter is I was right all along. I didn’t base my “assumption” for this movie from nothing. I read articles and heard from people that had seen the movie who documented all the inaccuracies and contradictions.

Its funny how you say you question all political parties but I never hear you saying anything about the Democrats. Clinton for example has been brought up in numerous threads as of late and you haven’t joined in any of the conversations. But this movie hammers Bush and here you are.

You also say that you will be just as tough on Kerry if he becomes elected. He is the lead candidate of your Democratic party and I haven’t heard you say anything about him either.

[clocker]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@30 June 2004 - 21:15
Unlike Moore I deal with the facts
I think it would be more accurate to say that you deal with different facts linked in different ways.

My understanding is that much of the brouhaha concerning the film ( which I have yet to see)centers around the belief that Moore connects (allegedly) unrelated facts together to lead the audience to a certain ( again, allegedly) erroneous conclusion.
The facts he cites are not in dispute.

The conclusions are.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@1 July 2004 - 00:15
Vid I’m going to assume that Busyman is referring to me.

The “assumptions” that you said I made before this movies release weren’t assumptions at all. Unlike Moore I deal with the facts and the fact of the matter is I was right all along. I didn’t base my “assumption” for this movie from nothing. I read articles and heard from people that had seen the movie who documented all the inaccuracies and contradictions.

Its funny how you say you question all political parties but I never hear you saying anything about the Democrats. Clinton for example has been brought up in numerous threads as of late and you haven’t joined in any of the conversations. But this movie hammers Bush and here you are.

You also say that you will be just as tough on Kerry if he becomes elected. He is the lead candidate of your Democratic party and I haven’t heard you say anything about him either.
1. Clinton is not President, Bush is.

2. You will even admit that what&#39;s going on during this administration (war and recession), is vastly different from the previous one (smaller war, great economy and blowjobs).

3. I&#39;m not a Democrat.

4. I don&#39;t care for Kerry much either.

[j2k4]

I have reached a conclusion:

If we are all still here after a few more administrations have come and gone, and (God forbid) one of them is of Democrat stripe, then we may have a basis for proper debate of the issues.

One particular point strikes me as a winner:

If (again, God forbid) John "Effing" Kerry or Hillary "Rob &#39;em" Clinton manages to get elected, I am just as sure as I can be that all the anti-Bush crowd on this board will not have ceased talking about and blaming him for any woes continuing to plague the country or the Democrats.

Mark my words, if you are still around. ;)

[Rat Faced]

OK, just to make you feel better J2k4....

Bush got a bad deal on Arsenic Levels in the water, as he was merely continuing Clintons Policy.

True is the same for Oil Drilling in places like Alaska.

And Clinton was the 1st US President since the early 70s not to put pressure on the Motor Industry not to increase mpg.... and that lasted 2 terms.

In fact, if you look at most of Clintons Policies and at the way the "Democrats" voted in the early years of Bush&#39;s tener..... I really cant see that much between them.



What Clinton had in abundance, which Bush has none of....is Style, Tact and Diplomacy. He also had the Trust of most of the world... when Bush came into power US approval Ratings had never been so high.

Then the sympathy vote after 911.... so he lost the Trust of a planet TWICE, a real achievement, considering he wasnt DOING much that was different.

In Short,

the difference is with Clinton...He could screw you over and you&#39;d still like the guy, whereas Bush.... is just a Total Analretentive...

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@1 July 2004 - 16:33
What Clinton had in abundance, which Bush has none of....is Style, Tact and Diplomacy.
:huh:

You were doing so well, Rat; right up &#39;til here...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :D :P :) :lol: :lol: :lol: :o :blink:










Now you&#39;ve gone and made me piss myself laughing.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4+1 July 2004 - 21:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 1 July 2004 - 21:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@1 July 2004 - 16:33
What Clinton had in abundance, which Bush has none of....is Style, Tact and Diplomacy.
:huh:

You were doing so well, Rat; right up &#39;til here...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :D :P :) :lol: :lol: :lol: :o :blink:










Now you&#39;ve gone and made me piss myself laughing. [/b][/quote]
:o

This is dangerous near electrical equipment. We must keep quiet about such "accidents" lest those who care about our welfare come up with stringent laws on the use of humour near computers.





Come to think of it they have already got to our IT department :ph34r:

[j2k4]

Luckily, I was sitting at my keyboard and not on it. ;)

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Busyman@1 July 2004 - 06:47
1. Clinton is not President, Bush is.

2. You will even admit that what&#39;s going on during this administration (war and recession), is vastly different from the previous one (smaller war, great economy and blowjobs).

3. I&#39;m not a Democrat.

4. I don&#39;t care for Kerry much either.
1. Clinton used to be a politician. You said that we should question our politicians but you never have anything to say about any Democrats. I pointed out to you there Clinton had been a topic of discussion as of late and you never posted in any of those discussions. I guess because Clinton has left office he is off limits to criticism now?

2. I will admit that what’s going in this administration is vastly different from the previous. The war on terror wouldn’t even be a war on terror if Clinton worried about Osama as much as he did Monica. We had three chances to get take him out and we let them all get away.

3. You say that you aren’t a Democrat but I distinctly remember you consider yourself liberal. I remember that you voted yourself a 4 in my poll before it got deleted. Now if you lean towards the left but you’re not a democrat what does that make you?

4. I don’t blame you for not liking Kerry. No one seems to be all that impressed with him. So I guess you’ll be voting for Nader then?

[protak]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@30 June 2004 - 00:43
It&#39;s not a documentary. It irks me that these films are being classified as such, but until someone creates a more appropriate category (something along the lines of an editorial), films like this will continue to be misclassified.

:ninja:
Do you mean a more appropriate, or a Moore appropriate category. :D
Tim :)

[MagicNakor]

Oh, that&#39;s bad.

You should be punished.

:ninja:

[protak]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@2 July 2004 - 01:43
Oh, that&#39;s bad.

You should be punished.

:ninja:
I know man, it&#39;s getting late, and to think I had four or five other pones.... :D

Tim :P

[Rat Faced]

Hank,

I know you aimed your post at Busyman, howeer i&#39;ll answer as a "Screaming Liberal"...as I classed myself a 4 too...


1/ I have attacked Clinton on this board, and i still think he&#39;s the Best President youve produced in the last 30 years (although I have a personal liking for Carter that has nothig to do with politics)

2/ The last thing the Clinton Administration did was warn Bush that Bin Laden and terrorism would be his biggest problem in this term of office. His answer was to slash anti-terrorism funding.

3/ Not a Democrat, as the Democrats were labelled 6-7 (depending upon Leadership) in that Poll...so he has been consistant in saying he isnt a Democrat. There are plenty of politics, even in the USA that are further to the Left...they just arent major Parties in your system, which is geared to the Right totally.

I could ask how the Richest country in the world has the same Child Mortality rates as Malasia, one of the poorest, to point out how policies that care more about corporations than they do people really fucks up a country...but i wont, its not the issue.

4/ That depends upon how bad Busyman wants to get rid of Bush, and where he lives. If hes in a safe Democrat or Republican State, he may well follow his consiance and vote for Nadar. If he&#39;s in a swing State then he may feel that the Democrats are the lesser of too evils and vote because of that, and not because he supports the Democrats.


Certainly if i was in the USA, i would be doing 4/ ..... Not because i support the Democrats, i see very little difference between the 2.... except one fucks you up the ass while smiling and distracting you, the other just comes right on out and says it. If however, your gonna get a Butt Fucking anyway, its a little nicer for it to be polite ;)


Paul

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+1 July 2004 - 22:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 1 July 2004 - 22:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@1 July 2004 - 06:47
1. Clinton is not President, Bush is.

2. You will even admit that what&#39;s going on during this administration (war and recession), is vastly different from the previous one (smaller war, great economy and blowjobs).

3. I&#39;m not a Democrat.

4. I don&#39;t care for Kerry much either.
1. Clinton used to be a politician. You said that we should question our politicians but you never have anything to say about any Democrats. I pointed out to you there Clinton had been a topic of discussion as of late and you never posted in any of those discussions. I guess because Clinton has left office he is off limits to criticism now?

2. I will admit that what’s going in this administration is vastly different from the previous. The war on terror wouldn’t even be a war on terror if Clinton worried about Osama as much as he did Monica. We had three chances to get take him out and we let them all get away.

3. You say that you aren’t a Democrat but I distinctly remember you consider yourself liberal. I remember that you voted yourself a 4 in my poll before it got deleted. Now if you lean towards the left but you’re not a democrat what does that make you?

4. I don’t blame you for not liking Kerry. No one seems to be all that impressed with him. So I guess you’ll be voting for Nader then? [/b][/quote]
1. Clinton isn&#39;t World News atm. I said previously that I&#39;d take Kerry over Bush. I feel he is the lesser of two evil (much lesser). Where was the Clinton topic? He had an interview on 60 Minutes, a new book, and a testimonial on 9/11. He is not in office nor does he now affect my life. I never said he was off limits but have you seen how many posts I have in a day.

Not many....so I might have missed the Anti-Clinton thread. <_<

2. .....and Bush didn&#39;t seemed too worried either but, "Let&#39;s get Saddam&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;".

3. Do you know what a Democrat is? What is a European that&#39;s votes the same way in your poll.........a Democrat? :blink:

4. No

[BigBank_Hank]

Vid has a thread dedicated to Bubba in the Talk Club.


and Bush didn&#39;t seemed too worried either but, "Let&#39;s get Saddam&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;".

I think that you may be forgetting that before the invasion of Iraq we went into Afghanistan and defeated the Taliban and went after Bin Laden.

[clocker]

The Taliban has been defeated?
Deposed perhaps, but they appear to be pretty active to me.
Not to mention the soldiers they are still managing to kill.

[BigBank_Hank]

The Taliban rule in Afghanistan is over. The majority of the fighters have either been killed or left the country.

They are still active in small pockets but the numbers aren’t great.

I like how you look at things Clocker. We defeat an army of fighters and kill the majority of them and the thing that you focus on is the handfuls that are left. We have to go cave by cave to find the rest of them but we are going to get the rest of them.

[clocker]

The defeated Taliban. (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL165302.htm)
Even more. (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/07/6784bb13-c255-46e3-bf53-f08700fa87b3.html)
Pretty active for a "few pockets of resistence" don&#39;t you think? (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aOKpFTkOvFZc&refer=europe)
It is feared that the "few" remaining Taliban fighters will be sufficient to delay the upcoming elections in Afghanistan AND, even the US Army admits that it&#39;s control of the country barely extends outside of Kabul.

Interesting way you describe "victory", BBH.

[Rat Faced]

The Loya Jirga, an ancient pre-feudal tradition held under the shadows of bayonets to install democracy is an insult to the masses of this war ravaged country. This Jirga was held not to give the people of Afghanistan the "present of democracy" but to justify the aggression and the rulership of its puppets.

If the Loya Jirga could be held by Genghis Khan, then it is not very strange if George Bush also convenes it. In reality there is not much difference in the present policies of George W. Bush and those executed by Genghis Khan in the twelfth century. The only difference is that Bush has more sophisticated and destructive weaponry.

The participants of the Jirga comprise of mainly the afghan elite who fled with their wealth to the West after the 1978 Saur [spring] Revolution and the Afghan war lords who have been fighting for loot and power in and around their fiefdoms. The main aim of this congregation was to reach an agreement on the loot of the warlords and the continuation of the plunder of Afghan resources (including pipelines) by the conglomerates in which the "returned" elite could be agents with hefty commissions.



Very slanted to the left, but basically true as to the facts... Why dont the left sites admit that not all "Conglomerates" are bad? If people didnt trade we&#39;d all starve.... The amount of Corporate presence, who they are and what they want however is cause for concern. McDonalds, Coca Cola etc arent the ones here en mass....

The West imported the "Leadership" and paid off the Warlords (who by the way, supply most of the worlds Opium, but i guess thats OK... I mean, heroin is a poor mans drug, isnt it?)

The "Congress" consists of the Warlords (who arent exactly voted in, its survival of the fittest) and the Afgans that disappeared when Afganistan became Socialist (ie Before Russian Occupation) and didnt return until after the American Invasion.

They werent the ones that fought the Russians of course, as these are now the enemy.... except for a few of the Northern Opium Growers who are our friends... :blink:

I just wish someone would make up their mind as to who the enemy actually is, instead of changing their minds as their wealth...erm, i mean the downtrodden...is effected.

:rolleyes:


The Warlords control the areas outside of Kabul, and the Rights of Afgans are actually less than they were under the Taliban...at least they followed Religious Law, bloody rough, but you knew where you stood. You werent shot or Raped coz the guys felt like it.

As to the Taliban, in the 80s we all heard EXACTLY the same thing coming from the Kremlin...except at the time, we treated and reported on them as hero&#39;s... they were afterall part of mujahidin. Except they fought for Religious reasons (against communism) and not to protect their opium crops like the rest of the mujahidin warlords.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@2 July 2004 - 13:14
The Taliban rule in Afghanistan is over. The majority of the fighters have either been killed or left the country.

They are still active in small pockets but the numbers aren’t great.

I like how you look at things Clocker. We defeat an army of fighters and kill the majority of them and the thing that you focus on is the handfuls that are left. We have to go cave by cave to find the rest of them but we are going to get the rest of them.
Hank you remind of the "rest of America" that easily believed (back in the day) the certain folks were Communists just because the government accused them of it.

..or the rich politician that has the answers for folks in poverty but has never gone to impoverished areas.

You buy the company line so easily in your narrow-minded world.

Btw I&#39;m surprised you haven&#39;t mentioned the discovery of cyclosarin in Iraq.

Want elaborate?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Busyman@2 July 2004 - 15:51
Btw I&#39;m surprised you haven&#39;t mentioned the discovery of cyclosarin in Iraq.

Want elaborate?
Elaborate on what, B? :huh:

Even FOXNEWS reported right up front the shells were from the &#39;80s.

Do you suppose, in our extraordinary "narrow-mindedness" that we somehow missed this?

Or was it you who missed it? ;)

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by Busyman@2 July 2004 - 20:51
Btw I&#39;m surprised you haven&#39;t mentioned the discovery of cyclosarin in Iraq.

Want elaborate?
I know why you want him to mention this... and your evil.

Evil i say :ph34r:


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+2 July 2004 - 16:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 2 July 2004 - 16:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@2 July 2004 - 20:51
Btw I&#39;m surprised you haven&#39;t mentioned the discovery of cyclosarin in Iraq.

Want elaborate?
I know why you want him to mention this... and your evil.

Evil i say :ph34r:


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: [/b][/quote]
Not evil, Rat-

Merely a bit wrong-headed. :huh:

Oooops-now he&#39;ll never agree with me, ever again. :P

[Busyman]

Originally posted by j2k4+2 July 2004 - 17:13--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 2 July 2004 - 17:13)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Rat Faced+2 July 2004 - 16:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced &#064; 2 July 2004 - 16:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@2 July 2004 - 20:51
Btw I&#39;m surprised you haven&#39;t mentioned the discovery of cyclosarin in Iraq.

Want elaborate?
I know why you want him to mention this... and your evil.

Evil i say :ph34r:


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: [/b]
Not evil, Rat-

Merely a bit wrong-headed. :huh:

Oooops-now he&#39;ll never agree with me, ever again. :P [/b][/quote]
Actually j2 I&#39;m talking about cyclosarin.

The shells were recently discovered.

Hank was quick to point out the sarin that was discovered as proof that Bush was right all along about WMD in Iraq.

Cyclosarin is much worse.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Do you suppose, in our extraordinary "narrow-mindedness" that we somehow missed this?[/quote]

Well...ok then.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Busyman@2 July 2004 - 21:45
Cyclosarin is much worse.


Just so-

Still doesn&#39;t satisfy the quibbling about WMD, especially considering it&#39;s ostensible origins, and is only mention-worthy insofar as the shells are worth long green on the terrorist "after-market".

Interesting, isn&#39;t it, that all the stray terrorists seem to regard Iraq as a sort of shopping mall these days for scaring up the odd weaponry to supplement their arsenals, eh? :huh:

Given that Saddam had long ago given up WMD, what makes them think they can find what the U.N. inspectors could not? <_<

[Busyman]

Originally posted by j2k4+2 July 2004 - 23:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 2 July 2004 - 23:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@2 July 2004 - 21:45
Cyclosarin is much worse.


Just so-

Still doesn&#39;t satisfy the quibbling about WMD, especially considering it&#39;s ostensible origins, and is only mention-worthy insofar as the shells are worth long green on the terrorist "after-market". [/b][/quote]
Well will ya please tell Hank that?&#33;&#33;? :lol: :lol:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Busyman+2 July 2004 - 22:34--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 2 July 2004 - 22:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@2 July 2004 - 23:20
<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@2 July 2004 - 21:45
Cyclosarin is much worse.


Just so-

Still doesn&#39;t satisfy the quibbling about WMD, especially considering it&#39;s ostensible origins, and is only mention-worthy insofar as the shells are worth long green on the terrorist "after-market".
Well will ya please tell Hank that?&#33;&#33;? :lol: :lol: [/b][/quote]
Don&#39;t worry; Hank knows. ;)

Any thoughts on my last point? :huh:

[protak]

Originally posted by j2k4+2 July 2004 - 22:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 2 July 2004 - 22:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@2 July 2004 - 21:45
Cyclosarin is much worse.


Just so-

Still doesn&#39;t satisfy the quibbling about WMD, especially considering it&#39;s ostensible origins, and is only mention-worthy insofar as the shells are worth long green on the terrorist "after-market".

Interesting, isn&#39;t it, that all the stray terrorists seem to regard Iraq as a sort of shopping mall these days for scaring up the odd weaponry to supplement their arsenals, eh? :huh:

Given that Saddam had long ago given up WMD, what makes them think they can find what the U.N. inspectors could not? <_< [/b][/quote]
I&#39;d certainly like to hear more j2, by the sound&#39;s of it, I must of mist something, I was under the impression there were deeper agenda&#39;s.
Tim :)

[Biggles]

Originally posted by Busyman+3 July 2004 - 02:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 3 July 2004 - 02:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4+2 July 2004 - 17:13--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 2 July 2004 - 17:13)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Rat Faced@2 July 2004 - 16:06
<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@2 July 2004 - 20:51
Btw I&#39;m surprised you haven&#39;t mentioned the discovery of cyclosarin in Iraq.

Want elaborate?
I know why you want him to mention this... and your evil.

Evil i say :ph34r:


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Not evil, Rat-

Merely a bit wrong-headed. :huh:

Oooops-now he&#39;ll never agree with me, ever again. :P [/b]
Actually j2 I&#39;m talking about cyclosarin.

The shells were recently discovered.

Hank was quick to point out the sarin that was discovered as proof that Bush was right all along about WMD in Iraq.

Cyclosarin is much worse.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Do you suppose, in our extraordinary "narrow-mindedness" that we somehow missed this?[/quote]

Well...ok then. [/b][/quote]
Not sure I would like to be killed by either really. :)


It is true that Iraq has became a huge mall for erstwhile terrorists. It is awash with their day to day tools - explosives, guns, rocket propelled grenades etc.

I think if the claims that he still had an active programme (rather than the odd handfull of 1980s shells that appear to pop up from time to time) and that he had direct links to OBL then it is a fair assumption that AQ has all the WMDs it can handle. 1) because it has taken so long to even start dismantling the Iraq resistance (if start is the right word) and 2) because we certainly have not found the items in question.

On the whole I think it would be better that we were wrong on both counts and there are no weapons and Saddam had no channels to send such weapons to AQ. The alternative would mean that we have made the world a much more dangerous place, not a safer place and that OBL is very pleased with events as they have turned out. None of these being the stated objective of the Coalition.

[j2k4]

The whole situation in Iraq vis a vis weapons bears, from this remove, a moderate resemblance to the breakup of the Soviet union, where the overwhelming concern and focus was nuclear materiel; the existence of "other" weaponry was, for the most part, never even addressed. <_<

Seriously, when Soviet Migs are being discovered buried in the sand, your average terrorist outfit would, I think, secure a deal on metal detectors and head for the "beach", so to speak. :P

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Busyman+2 July 2004 - 22:34--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 2 July 2004 - 22:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@2 July 2004 - 23:20
<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@2 July 2004 - 21:45
Cyclosarin is much worse.


Just so-

Still doesn&#39;t satisfy the quibbling about WMD, especially considering it&#39;s ostensible origins, and is only mention-worthy insofar as the shells are worth long green on the terrorist "after-market".
Well will ya please tell Hank that?&#33;&#33;? :lol: :lol: [/b][/quote]
Busyman why not quote the post in its entirety? J2 asked and I am also interested what are your thoughts on the part you left out?

[Biggles]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@2 July 2004 - 17:14
The Taliban rule in Afghanistan is over. The majority of the fighters have either been killed or left the country.

They are still active in small pockets but the numbers aren’t great.

I like how you look at things Clocker. We defeat an army of fighters and kill the majority of them and the thing that you focus on is the handfuls that are left. We have to go cave by cave to find the rest of them but we are going to get the rest of them.
The Taliban are not a political party or an army. They were essentially farmers who took up arms at the behest of clerics to drive out the infidels and communists (Russians and the Northern Alliance).

We have reinstalled the Northern Alliance - an interesting collection of individuals (some good, some very very bad).

The farmers are still there and so are most of the 1000 or so Taliban clerics - some moderates some hardliners.

This is a complex situation and peace in Afghanistan will only happen if the moderate clerics support the new government. If they do not then there will be considerable problems for the Kabul government and the Southern 60% of the country will continue to be a no go area. Drug Lords like Dostrum continue to rule in parts of the North and herion production has soared.

There is a huge amount of work still to be done in Afghanistan and I don&#39;t think we should have become distracted by Iraq.

[j2k4]

We have indeed chosen a difficult mix to "multi-task"; I have fingers crossed that time will sort the on-going chaos in Afghanistan-we are all very well-equipped to second-guess right now, but I am willing to lean to a historical perspective which tells me that none of this happens according to any convenient time-frame, and such expectations are wildly out-of-sync with our military capability, further aggravating our "new" sensibilities.

If this state of flux exists for even a few more years before a successful resolution, will it have been worth it?

I think so.

Post WWII Japan and Germany are the only sound examples in recent (well, semi-recent) memory.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4@3 July 2004 - 20:24
We have indeed chosen a difficult mix to "multi-task"; I have fingers crossed that time will sort the on-going chaos in Afghanistan-we are all very well-equipped to second-guess right now, but I am willing to lean to a historical perspective which tells me that none of this happens according to any convenient time-frame, and such expectations are wildly out-of-sync with our military capability, further aggravating our "new" sensibilities.

If this state of flux exists for even a few more years before a successful resolution, will it have been worth it?

I think so.

Post WWII Japan and Germany are the only sound examples in recent (well, semi-recent) memory.
Japan and Germany are outstanding examples of what can be achieved. However, if one were to compare the political determination and effort after WW2 with Afghanistan then one can see why there might be a shortfall. Having said that Iraq will almost certainly get post WW2 levels of investment and attention - to fail to do so would be to unravel the whole of the ME.

I fear Afghanistan is seen as too weird and remote to capture the popular imagination.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@4 July 2004 - 09:04
I fear Afghanistan is seen as too weird and remote to capture the popular imagination.
At the very least, the government(s) are also flummoxed by the atypicallity of the situation; our efforts to make sense of the situation suffer accordingly.