[kscoyote]

Originally Posted by shartley

****

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.)

(link http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/ ) And Moore has personally debated this man in the past and was crushed by him. He is an expert in middle east.

*****
Jonathan Foreman of the New York Post:

The most offensive sequence in "Fahrenheit 9/11"'s long two hours lasts only a few minutes. It's Moore's file-footage depiction of happy Iraq before the Americans began their supposedly pointless invasion. You see men sitting in cafes, kids flying kites, women shopping. Cut to bombs exploding at night.
What Moore presumably doesn't know, or simply doesn't care about, is that the building you see being blown up is the Iraqi Ministry of Defense in Baghdad. Not many children flew kites there. It was in a part of the city that ordinary Iraqis weren't allowed to visit - on pain of death.

*****

I've not seen the movie. So I can't say whether this was taken out of context, or not. Saddam was an evil man who was strengthened immeasurable by the Reagan/Bush administrations. His record on human rights was protested for years by "lefties," as was Pinochet (another Dictator supported by Reagan/Bush), Noriega (yet another), the Apartheid system, the Dirty War, and the Contras in Nicaragua. All of those regeimes were evil. It seems odd that their supporters are now pointing to the evil they caused as if they, themselves had nothing to do with it.

If he discounts the evil that Saddam did, then he lost an opportunity to make a broader, more cogent point. Until I actually see the movie, I reserve judgement.

Originally Posted by shartley

He is the review from "Roger and Me" :

Another distortion of fact from the movie

In one particularly tasteless portion of the film, Moore attempts to flag down a few congressmen and "convince" them to sign their children up for military service, thus implying that our legislators represent an "elite" who will not send their sons and daughters to die in unpopular foreign wars (a'la Vietnam). Despite the fact that no national draft has been instituted and that military service is voluntary, Moore has presented us with a half-baked half-truth.

For instance, Brooks Johnson, the son of Senator Tim Johnson (a democratic senator from South Dakota), is currently serving with distinction in the 101st Airborne.

Also, regardless of what you think of Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), it's undeniable that he helped to pin the bars on his son, Beau Biden, who is a member of the Delaware Army National Guard (there's a picture of him being sworn in here). Although Beau isn't in the line of fire (he is currently practicing as a judge advocate), he is a military serviceman nonetheless.

Another interesting fact: Attorney General John Ashcroft, defender of the much-maligned Patriot Act and punching bag of the liberal left, has a son who is currently on active duty in the Middle East. His name is Andrew Ashcroft, and he serves in the Persian Gulf aboard a navel destroyer called the USS McFaul (you can find the reference a few paragraphs down here).

****

And yes, there are more. It is easy to prove almost anything you want from any point of view, it des not mean it is the truth though, and Mr. Moore has learned that if you say what folks want to hear, and believe, it will become "truth" to them. And they will fight to the death to defend their truth.

I hope that was more in line of what you wanted to see. So with that, I say “good day” and drive safe.

You are correct re: Ashcroft. But he isn't a congressman.

The only CONGRESSMEN with children in the military are DEMOCRATS. You're missing the point entirely.

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunhera...cs/8873962.htm

Ashcroft's son Andy, 26, is a Navy ensign who is now stateside after returning "a few weeks ago" after from the USS McFaul in the Persian Gulf, Justice spokesman Mark Corallo said.

"As a person whose son is in the military now on active duty and has been in the Gulf for the last several months, I'm aware of those considerations, and I care about your son," Ashcroft told Biden. "My son happens to be stateside right now for more training, but he's scheduled to go back."

[NoobAStang]

it seems as if everyone who got all pissy cause we dont like bush missed the point entirely. They get alloffended and claim lies in a movie that havent even seen, so how the hell would they know? they just get all mad when someone digs up the facts on a crappy president. this thread was started by ME recommending a movie for everyone to see, not recommending that everyone comes and puts their "why we need to vote for moron again" essays. If you like bush, good. enjoy his last few months of presidency. if you dont, good, well hopefully enjoy having less of an idiot in the oval office (notice how i said less, cause i think kerry sucks too, just not as bad as bush). just shut the hell up and go see the movie or just shutup entirely and dont. its that simple. THATS ALL THIS THREAD WAS MADE FOR. enough with the "argue until your blue in the face" nobody is going to change their mind because everyone is too stubborn to do so. This thread will just go on and on forever. Im sorry i even created this thread ***** christ. I hope some admin locks this thread down before someone kills theirself over a damn argument.

[countymounty]

Originally Posted by kscoyote

Kerry is a decorated WAR VETERAN. He has medals, bush has a dentist's appt. He's USED a gun in defense of the United States of America.

Then why are so many vets for Bush and so many vets against Kerry?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...1/225546.shtml


And for the record I read the Moor’s book Stupid White Men, and I can safely say that he is a POS he dose write propaganda and he is a complete moron, and I would not waste my time for any production the idiot makes. (the book was loaned to me so I didn’t give the bleeding heart one penny)

[kscoyote]

Originally Posted by countymounty

Then why are so many vets for Bush and so many vets against Kerry?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...1/225546.shtml


And for the record I read the Moor’s book Stupid White Men, and I can safely say that he is a POS he dose write propaganda and he is a complete moron, and I would not waste my time for any production the idiot makes. (the book was loaned to me so I didn’t give the bleeding heart one penny)

Newsmax again?

[kscoyote]

Originally Posted by NoobAStang

it seems as if everyone who got all pissy cause we dont like bush missed the point entirely. They get alloffended and claim lies in a movie that havent even seen, so how the hell would they know? they just get all mad when someone digs up the facts on a crappy president. this thread was started by ME recommending a movie for everyone to see, not recommending that everyone comes and puts their "why we need to vote for moron again" essays. If you like bush, good. enjoy his last few months of presidency. if you dont, good, well hopefully enjoy having less of an idiot in the oval office (notice how i said less, cause i think kerry sucks too, just not as bad as bush). just shut the hell up and go see the movie or just shutup entirely and dont. its that simple. THATS ALL THIS THREAD WAS MADE FOR. enough with the "argue until your blue in the face" nobody is going to change their mind because everyone is too stubborn to do so. This thread will just go on and on forever. Im sorry i even created this thread ***** christ. I hope some admin locks this thread down before someone kills theirself over a damn argument.

Democracy is messy. It's perfectly fine.

[kscoyote]

Originally Posted by countymounty

Then why are so many vets for Bush and so many vets against Kerry?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...1/225546.shtml


And for the record I read the Moor’s book Stupid White Men, and I can safely say that he is a POS he dose write propaganda and he is a complete moron, and I would not waste my time for any production the idiot makes. (the book was loaned to me so I didn’t give the bleeding heart one penny)

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/veterans/

http://www.veteransunitedforkerry.com/vote/index.php

NewsMax is (once again posting an asroturf organization and presenting the Republican Smear Organization as a real "grassroots" organization.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason.../index_np.html

The Vietnam smear -- from McCain to Kerry
As Bush's military record comes under harsh scrutiny, the same smear campaign used against John McCain in 2000 is being rolled out against John Kerry.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason

Feb. 10, 2004 |

Many months before the dormant controversy over George W. Bush's military career resurfaced, conservatives and Republicans were raking over yellowed clippings as they sought to revive dim memories of the Vietnam War. Their target was not the errant National Guard Lt. Bush, of course, but the decorated Navy Lt. John F. Kerry.

Last year, when Kerry was considered the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, he began to take flak from the far right over his antiwar activism and his war record. Those attacks slowed when his candidacy stalled and temporarily sank.

But now, as he claims primary victories and climbs past Bush in the polls, Kerry is again the prime target of conservative invective that depicts his peace activism as unpatriotic, anti-military, and somehow hostile to his brothers in arms.

[countymounty]

Originally Posted by kscoyote

NewsMax is (once again posting an asroturf organization and presenting the Republican Smear Organization as a real "grassroots" organization.
.

and just what is the deffrence between NewsMax and all the links you post..........

[countymounty]

Originally Posted by kscoyote

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/veterans/

http://www.veteransunitedforkerry.com/vote/index.php
- - - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason.../index_np.html

I can Google "Space Aliens father Moon Baby" and get references, that does not make it true.

[kscoyote]

Originally Posted by countymounty

I can Google "Space Aliens father Moon Baby" and get references, that does not make it true.

HAH!

Except Salon isn't the National Enquirer of the news media.

[countymounty]

Originally Posted by kscoyote

HAH!

Except Salon isn't the National Enquirer of the news media.

Ok when I can Google "Space Aliens father Moon Baby" and get references, that does not make it true but if you do then it’s the gospel. :thumbsup

[kscoyote]

Originally Posted by countymounty

Ok when I can Google "Space Aliens father Moon Baby" and get references, that does not make it true but if you do then it’s the gospel. :thumbsup

Name ONE thing about which you have proven to be correct!!! Just ONE!!

I think I've been proven right by history alot more than your sources have.

[countymounty]

Originally Posted by kscoyote

Personally, I've been watching 4 years of propaganda.

There were NO WMD, yet we pulled troops from Afghanistan when we were about to get Bush's buddy, Bin Laden.

Please. I guess you're just choosing your propaganda.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Wait Kerry! There were No WMD! You helped sent innocent Americans Soldiers to their deaths! You are a liar! LIAR, LIAR, LIAR, LIAR!

Yes someone is just choosing their propaganda!

[countymounty]

Originally Posted by kscoyote

Name ONE thing about which you have proven to be correct!!! Just ONE!!

The sky is blue!

Originally Posted by kscoyote

I think I've been proven right by history alot more than your sources have.

[kscoyote]

Originally Posted by countymounty

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Wait Kerry! There were No WMD! You helped sent innocent Americans Soldiers to their deaths! You are a liar! LIAR, LIAR, LIAR, LIAR!

Yes someone is just choosing their propaganda!

The Committee on Intelligence was given the same pile of garbage that was given to the rest of the country, and many members were willing to give the Bush Admin the benefit of a doubt. That was a wrong assumption. But at least Kerry is willing to admit he was wrong. Changing positions is the mark of intelligence. Not learning from your mistakes is a mark of stupidity.

I'm still waiting to see where MY sources have been wrong.

[kscoyote]

Originally Posted by countymounty

The sky is blue!

I didn't think there was . . .