Just got back from Farenheit 9/11

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Chubby

So you're saying it's common practice for a president to walk into unsecured areas?

Somehow this and the "he was praying" don't exactly seem plausible to me. Being the religous person he is, why wouldn't Bush have wanted to pray with everyone in the school?

That's what I said, maybe they were securing the area.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

That's what I said, maybe they were securing the area.

So again, is it common practice for a president to walk into unsecured areas? The area should have been secured before he got there, try again.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Since you have posted this in every Moore thread and every time I have posted links showing that the lies alleged are almost entirely wrong, I think maybe you should document the "alleged" lies of Moore. TroyF has posted links for lies with a Fred Barnes article (which is unimpressive because it is really just he said/he said), but there seem to be some damning things in Moore's book (although I haven't researched those). The lies in BfC, however, are really not lies at all (with the now corrected error in the Horton TV ad). To see Moore's documentation for the alleged lies, go to:

hxxp://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

Sorry, I choose to believe those that have a shred of credibility, not someone who can't even control himself.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Sorry, I choose to believe those that have a shred of credibility, not someone who can't even control himself.

Like Hitchens right? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. wait.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[AENeuman]

Just saw it. Watching it here in SF i now know what watching "the passion" in colorado springs must have been like....

I think the that-dumb-bush stuff was cute, but not really telling, good music though.

I also did not like his making the Iraq war personal and unique. All war is always ugly, sad, devastating. I just finished an ernie pyle book on his time in italy and france in ww2 and the soldiers were making the same complaints and telling of the same senseless loss of life.

The best thing, I think, about the movie was the poor fighting the billionaire's war. it's a dirty little secret that the US gives citizenship to those that join, and depends on poor communities.

Finally, I think he was a bit washy on the notion of using fear. He is very right about this threat level and patriot act stuff. But on one hand he shows how the US missed important chatter and memos pre-9/11, and on another he claims that after 9/11 chatter and warnings have been made up (exaggerated) and should be dismissed as propaganda.

[Driftwood]

This is beyond stupid. When you`re the President of the most powerful country in the history of the world and you`ve just been attacked by suicidal zealots, I hope the first 7 minutes go exactly as you`ve imagined. And God forbid your face show a little of the shock I`m sure you`d be feeling...

Back to topic, I haven`t seen the movie yet but I plan on entering the movie with an open mind. Although I personally believe Bush and his religious zealots are destroying the country while stealing the bread from my family`s table, I`m going to open my heart for 2 hours and allow myself to be open to a new perspective. I`m personally excited to have my belief system challenged!

[MrBug708]

Religious Zealots. LOL!

Stephen was called a Zealot for dying. Something tells me none of Bush's "religious zealot's" have any plans on dying anytime soon.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by chinaski

This is completely inaccurate. During the 'enlist your family members' bit Moore explicitly states there is one son of a senator currently enlisted and deployed in the Middle East. He is 100% correct. Tim Johnson, Democrat of South Dakota, has a son Brooks, 31, and he is a sergeant in the 101st Airborne Division. He is the only relative of any senator or congressman serving our country.

If you're going to attack my statement as completely inaccurate, you might want to choose your words better. Son/Daughter and relative are two different issues. It also appears that Moore is referring only to Senators, not Reps (but don't expect him to make that clear.) And knowing this and Moore's past work, it is quite possible that there are others who are serving but not deployed in the ME. He isn't lying, he is just choosing his words very carefully and then trying to give a different impression.

JG - What about the get a gun at the bank stunt? It was arranged weeks in advance to allow for the necessary backround checks and all to be completed, but in the film he either explicitly states or strongly implies that anyone can just walk in off the street and get a gun.

I love how some of the Moore supporters in this thread attack Hitchens as unhinged, not worthy of reading and mock him while simultaneously attacking those who would do so to Moore. Since y'all don't want to address him, I'll sum up some of the criticism from him and others.

When it comes to the Saudi part of the film, apart from never really getting into why the Saudis are so bad (and I've been saying they are for years, but there are probably a lot of people going to this film who don't know why) he also attacks Bush for allowing members of the bin Laden family to leave the US (singling them out because of the name even if they've never done anything seriously wrong) when it was actually Richard Clarke, held up later as someone who opposes Bush's actions, who has said he was the one who authorized the flights. Then he seems to imply that, because of the close personal relationship, the Saudis have too much control over our actions, (a charge that doesn't really seem to hold up. Witness our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, over Saudi objections, that we've now moved our troops out of the country and have started putting more pressure on them to crack down) without ever presenting situations where they this control manifests itself. In the end, if as Moore claims it really was all about oil, then no one would oppose it more than the Saudis who would be most threatened and lose the most from the #2 nation getting its full capabilities back online. This is just one of the many contradictions Moore has.

Then the 7 minutes part. Other than authorizing a jet to shoot down an aircraft there isn't anything that the President does in that situation, the system in place and qualified professionals and specialists are in charge of the response, so I'm not sure what people wanted him to do. Meanwhile, I'm also certain that if he had been seen getting angry and/or saying something along the lines of "Let's find out who did this and kill them." that would also be used to support the assertion that he's just an irresponsible cowboy with bloodlust.

Then we get to the Iraq war. His footage of Saddam-era Iraq is a joke. Everyone was happy and smiling until we came and overthrew Saddam (ignore every poll taken which show that overwhelming majorities support our removal of said tyrant.) He even goes so far as to say that Iraq under Saddam had never killed or even threatened an American. Um, Gulf War I, the assassination attempt on Bush I, giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers?

Another part of the film that Moore spends time on is Homeland Security. He attacks the Administration for not doing enough pre-9/11, then for issuing too many threats after 9/11. He makes fun of the often ridiculous airport searches, then claims they should do more.

One claim repeated over and over is that we didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. While he also complains about the soldiers there dying needlessly. And he never mentions his opposition to the Afghanistan conflict.

These multiple contradictions just show that, even when Moore makes no attempt to show the other side of the story, he still can't present something that actually makes a coherent, well-thought out point. He consistently makes fun of what is being done, often from both sides, but never presents an alternative plan of action. Someone who I was talking to today about the film said she was glad that someone had the "courage to make the film." I nearly threw up in my mouth. Then I see that it has also been said in this thread. Give me a break, the guy is making millions of dollars and there is no threat of being imprisoned or injured because of what he is doing. If that's courage I guess we should be applauding the executives at GM who made the decision to lay off the workers in Roger & Me.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

If you're going to attack my statement as completely inaccurate, you might want to choose your words better. Son/Daughter and relative are two different issues.

JG - What about the get a gun at the bank stunt? It was arranged weeks in advance to allow for the necessary backround checks and all to be completed, but in the film he either explicitly states or strongly implies that anyone can just walk in off the street and get a gun.

I love how some of the Moore supporters in this thread attack Hitchens as unhinged, not worthy of reading and mock him while simultaneously attacking those who would do so to Moore. Since y'all don't want to address him, I'll sum up some of the criticism from him and others.

When it comes to the Saudi part of the film, apart from never really getting into why the Saudis are so bad (and I've been saying they are for years, but there are probably a lot of people going to this film who don't know why) he also attacks Bush for allowing members of the bin Laden family to leave the US (singling them out because of the name even if they've never done anything seriously wrong) when it was actually Richard Clarke, held up later as someone who opposes Bush's actions, who has said he was the one who authorized the flights. Then he seems to imply that, because of the close personal relationship, the Saudis have too much control over our actions, (a charge that doesn't really seem to hold up. Witness our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, over Saudi objections, that we've now moved our troops out of the country and have started putting more pressure on them to crack down) without ever presenting situations where they this control manifests itself. In the end, if as Moore claims it really was all about oil, then no one would oppose it more than the Saudis who would be most threatened and lose the most from the #2 nation getting its full capabilities back online. This is just one of the many contradictions Moore has.

Then the 7 minutes part. Other than authorizing a jet to shoot down an aircraft there isn't anything that the President does in that situation, the system in place and qualified professionals and specialists are in charge of the response, so I'm not sure what people wanted him to do. Meanwhile, I'm also certain that if he had been seen getting angry and/or saying something along the lines of "Let's find out who did this and kill them." that would also be used to support the assertion that he's just an irresponsible cowboy with bloodlust.

Then we get to the Iraq war. His footage of Saddam-era Iraq is a joke. Everyone was happy and smiling until we came and overthrew Saddam (ignore every poll taken which show that overwhelming majorities support our removal of said tyrant.) He even goes so far as to say that Iraq under Saddam had never killed or even threatened an American. Um, Gulf War I, the assassination attempt on Bush I, giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers?

Another part of the film that Moore spends time on is Homeland Security. He attacks the Administration for not doing enough pre-9/11, then for issuing too many threats after 9/11. He makes fun of the often ridiculous airport searches, then claims they should do more.

One claim repeated over and over is that we didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. While he also complains about the soldiers there dying needlessly. And he never mentions his opposition to the Afghanistan conflict.

These multiple contradictions just show that, even when Moore makes no attempt to show the other side of the story, he still can't present something that actually makes a coherent, well-thought out point. He consistently makes fun of what is being done, often from both sides, but never presents an alternative plan of action. Someone who I was talking to today about the film said she was glad that someone had the "courage to make the film." I nearly threw up in my mouth. Then I see that it has also been said in this thread. Give me a break, the guy is making millions of dollars and there is no threat of being imprisoned or injured because of what he is doing. If that's courage I guess we should be applauding the executives at GM who made the decision to lay off the workers in Roger & Me.

As far as the gun in the bank thing: it doesn't discredit any of the major points made in the film. So maybe they had contacted the bank ahead of time. It is basically a minor moment, just irony. I guess that makes it fair for Bill O'Reilly to compare Michael Moore to nazi propagandaists? (Which he has done repeatedly over the past couple weeks.) I don't think this discredits his work (and particularly facts presented about Bush) much or really at all.

If you'd seen the film you'd know that the pre-war Iraq footage you're speaking of was about 30 seconds long. Certainly no more than 45. I actually thought it was interesting as I'd only heard about rape rooms and torture chambers over there. Seeing Iraqis going through every day things made them more real to me as people basically just like me. (I guess it's one of those things you know, but seeing it on film makes you really realize.) So in no way was he trying to sum up the history of Iraq under Saddam Hussein. He was just showing a little footage from March 2003, the time immediately before the bombs started going off.

As the article that tears the Hitchens article to shreds says, Mike worded things terribly when he suggested no Iraqi had harmed/threatened us. I noticed that at the theatre. I assume, like the forementioned article, that he meant since 9/11. Even then, it's an iffy statement at best. Perhaps he meant the people of Iraq as opposed to Saddam? In any case, this is certainly a valid criticism.

As far as not sending enough troops... This was meant strictly in terms of Afghanistan. It is absolutely clear, if you watch the film, that he thinks no troops should've been sent to Iraq, and that he agrees with Richard Clarke that more troops should've been sent to Afghanistan.

A lot of people have likewise suggested that Richard Clarke is a "saint" in the film which is ironic with the fact that Clarke has taken responsibility for authorizing the Saudi flights. I didn't get the impression that Clarke was considered a saint. He was in the movie for about 30 seconds as I recall, and aside from the more troops in Afghanistan part he is basically not a factor.

I took all the Homeland Security footage to mean that we are not safer at all and that Homeland Security is being mishandled. We are giving up rights (patriot act and flight searches) and yet we are surely not safer. (One officer is in charge of guarding the entire Oregon coast, and it's a part time shift.)

I don't really get the "other side of the story" stuff. Nobody would suggest that Bush should take some time to clearly explain Kerry's view point. I don't see why it's any different in this case. The movie at times does contradict itself, as did Bowling for Columbine. A lot of people praised Bowling for Columbine for asking more questions than it answered, and I think Fahrneheit 9/11 is about the same. It stimulates the viewer. How can it be propaganda if it doesn't tell you exactly what to think?

[Sharpieman]

I finally saw this film today. Let me first say that I think anyone who has an IQ that is better than a chimps can understand this is a propaganda film. Moore is a liberal film maker who makes propaganda films, and no one can really dispute that. You can attack Moore all you want and say that he leaves out things etc etc. And you will be correct, it is a biased film, very biased.

I knew that a lot of the facts were slanted in his favor to make a better film. However, two facts jumped out at me which are true until someone harks in and says otherwise. First, the US sent 11,000 troops into Afganistan, more police are in New York than that. How many troops have we sent to Iraq? This is something that pisses me off a lot. How the fuck can you send only 11,000 troops to a place that is harboring the man behind the 9/11 attacks? This is the enemy and everyone knows it and everyone knows that he was a bigger threat than Saddam. Absolute bullshit.

Second, as I stated this is a propaganda film. But wait, it can't be any worse than the bullshit the Bush admin shits out. Everyone attacks Moore for his inaccuracy. What about the Bush admin inaccuracy? The only difference between the inaccuracy and propaganda between the Bush admin and the Moore films is the fact that the Bush admin's accuracy has cost civilian and military lifes.

My opinion of the Bush admin hasn't changed since seeing this film. I already knew how the Bush admin has botched the war on terror and how they started a war that really no reasons except for the fact that Saddam was a tyrant and killed his own people. Can you really name any Middle East country that doesn't kill its own people?

Those who agree this war feel that Saddam had WMD, he was allies with Al-Qaeda and that he was a humans right violator. WMD: Iran has 'em. Big deal. Allies with Al-Qaeda: Not true whatsoever, although there may have been talks with Al-Qaeda by senior Iraqi officals there is no evidence that they collaborated on attacks. Did Saddam "harbor" Al-Qaeda? Maybe, but I can name a couple other Middle East countries that we havent attacked that still "harbor" Al-Qaeda. Humans right violator: Please, show me a country in the Middle East that ISNT a significant humans right violator.

My rant is over...OK now those who disagree or got mad reading what I wrote can attack me.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

As far as the gun in the bank thing: it doesn't discredit any of the major points made in the film. So maybe they had contacted the bank ahead of time. It is basically a minor moment, just irony. I guess that makes it fair for Bill O'Reilly to compare Michael Moore to nazi propagandaists? (Which he has done repeatedly over the past couple weeks.) I don't think this discredits his work (and particularly facts presented about Bush) much or really at all.

He asked for a part of BfC that was fabricated, I provided one. Using this to imply that I agree with calling Moore a Nazi propagandist or that everything in the film was wrong is quite a leap of logic.

As far as not sending enough troops... This was meant strictly in terms of Afghanistan. It is absolutely clear, if you watch the film, that he thinks no troops should've been sent to Iraq, and that he agrees with Richard Clarke that more troops should've been sent to Afghanistan.

Unless he has changed his mind, he disagreed with sending any troops to Afghanistan.

I took all the Homeland Security footage to mean that we are not safer at all and that Homeland Security is being mishandled. We are giving up rights (patriot act and flight searches) and yet we are surely not safer. (One officer is in charge of guarding the entire Oregon coast, and it's a part time shift.)

So then what the hell are his alternate plans? Giving the cops more power and money seems to be the closest he gets to an answer.

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

I knew that a lot of the facts were slanted in his favor to make a better film. However, two facts jumped out at me which are true until someone harks in and says otherwise. First, the US sent 11,000 troops into Afganistan, more police are in New York than that. How many troops have we sent to Iraq? This is something that pisses me off a lot. How the fuck can you send only 11,000 troops to a place that is harboring the man behind the 9/11 attacks? This is the enemy and everyone knows it and everyone knows that he was a bigger threat than Saddam. Absolute bullshit.

In the 80's, when the Soviets rolled in with tens of thousands of men, we funded basically every Afghan of any significance. That isn't a place you can go in with a lot of people and overpower the Afghanis, so we allied with a large number of them instead. Maybe it was a mistake, but considering that is a small enough number as to be easily doubled or tripled, I'm guessing the Pentagon had some very good reasons not to send in more. Whether we then pulled out many of the elite troops and special forces to use in Iraq is a different issue.

Everyone attacks Moore for his inaccuracy. What about the Bush admin inaccuracy?

I'm kind of shocked that Moore didn't spend more time on this. I figured holes in the administration's rationale for the war would make up the majority of the film. I also love the defense of "The other side does it too, how dare they point it out."

Can you really name any Middle East country that doesn't kill its own people?

Israel, Turkey, Iraq come the closest.

Those who agree this war feel that Saddam had WMD, he was allies with Al-Qaeda and that he was a humans right violator. WMD: Iran has 'em. Big deal.

So we should a)not attack a country because there are others doing equally bad or worse things b)attack Iran or c)bitch about whatever choice Bush ends up making? (I hope we find out soon on whether b or c works for you) And I find your flippant attitude about one of the, if not the foremost state sponsor of terrorism acquiring WMD disturbing.

Allies with Al-Qaeda: Not true whatsoever, although there may have been talks with Al-Qaeda by senior Iraqi officals there is no evidence that they collaborated on attacks. Did Saddam "harbor" Al-Qaeda? Maybe, but I can name a couple other Middle East countries that we havent attacked that still "harbor" Al-Qaeda. Humans right violator: Please, show me a country in the Middle East that ISNT a significant humans right violator.

This is such a weak defense I can't believe people consistently trot it out. The, yes Saddam was bad, but so is _____, so we shouldn't have done anything about Saddam. To use an analogy, if 10 people commit murders and the authorities only lock up 1, you would complain about not getting the other 9, not that they chose the wrong one. Either Saddam was a problem and we would have had to deal with him at some point or he wasn't. If he was why does it matter if he came before the others (even ignoring that there was no better option on the table, other than possibly Iran, due to NK getting nukes and the fact that invading SA would turn into a true jihad.)

[Sharpieman]

Iran and Syria are bigger state sponsors of terrorism than Iraq. Iran has WMD, we know they do, they, like Iraq, have used them (Gulf War). And even if Iraq had WMD, it doesnt mean that they were planning to attack the US, there is no credible evidence stating that Iraq or Saddam planned to attack the US. I understand that Saddam had to be taken out of power at some point. But Why do it now, when we were already waging war in Afganistan? It probably would have been a better plan to send more troops into Afganistan, try to capture or kill that bastard Bin Laden and not spread our military thin. Smells like opportunism to me.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Fritz

have I ever mentioned that I wish moore would choke on a ham biscut?

And get off of my damned YIM!

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

JG - What about the get a gun at the bank stunt? It was arranged weeks in advance to allow for the necessary backround checks and all to be completed, but in the film he either explicitly states or strongly implies that anyone can just walk in off the street and get a gun.

This is Moore's explanation from the link I posted earlier (you'll have to go to the website to use the hyperlinks that provide documentation for what he is saying):

The Truth: In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a Certificate of Deposit account. They promoted this in publications all over the country – "More Bang for Your Buck!"

There was news coverage of this bank giving away guns, long before I even shot the scene there. The Chicago Sun Times wrote about how the bank would "hand you a gun" with the purchase of a CD. Those are the precise words used by a bank employee in the film.

When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" – that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 – and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") – which I am filling out here for the first time – the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database—which includes all federally approved gun dealers—lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).

Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle (If you'd like to see the outtakes, click here).

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by chinaski

The 7 minutes is just the icing on the cake. before he even entered that school, the 1st plane had already hit and he was fully informed of this.

He is informed during the classroom reading that "The United States is under attack" and continues to sit there. Then once the reading is over, he stayed at the school for another 30 minutes.

i dont think its that big of deal, there are plenty of other more important things GW has mishandled.

But the thing is, when this happened nobody (at least not in the media, certainly) immediately knew this was an attack. Sure, it's easy to recognize that in hindsight. But it was completely unexpected, and I remember watching NBC news soon after the first plane hit - they didn't know what was going on. The plane could have been just an amateur pilot who strayed off course and happened to run into a building. They didn't know. Not until the second plane hit.

[HornedFrog Purple]

You know what is interesting is Moore left out footage he has of abuse of Iraqi prisoners he received from an independent reporter in October of last year. I wonder why.

[HornedFrog Purple]

dola it's Fahrenheit!

[Daimyo]

In a situation where you may have to make a decision to shoot down a civilian aircraft, 7 minutes seems like a long time to me... if it was me I'd want to spend as many of them as possible talking to the appropriate advisors trying to figure out at least what was going on.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Chubby

So again, is it common practice for a president to walk into unsecured areas? The area should have been secured before he got there, try again.

You're right. If it's secure at one time, it's always secure. Nothing changes. Ever.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Like Hitchens right? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. wait.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So you admit Moore is just as crazy? Cool.

[Joe]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0628041moore1.html

[Mac Howard]

I think you guys misinterpret Hitchens' criticism. The major force behind it is not that Moore is necessarily wrong but that his arguments are sloppy and lack intellectual integrity.

Hitchens is not a nouveau Republican as the so called refutation says. His left-wing credentials are impeccable. But he is an intellectual, a purist, a perfectionist. He believes that if you distort the facts, omit relevant information, make cheap shots then you're unsure of your argument and you lose credibility. When he likens F9/11 to works by Riefenstahl etc he's not saying that Moore's views are fascist but that he's using the techniques used by Nazi propagandists - ie simplistic, populist, biased arguments that feed the prejudices of the intended audience.

I also think there's a great deal of professional envy in his position. Hitchens has made a number of documentaries which have never been popular or widely distributed. They're intelligent films with complex arguments, demand a lot from the audience and do not dodge the difficult issues (in his documentary of Mother Teresa he didn't so much criticise her but didn't shy away from saying that she was one of the last vestiges of imperial condescension).

In his mind, Moore has made a sloppy film and received great acclaim/notoriety for it when Hitchens' more sophisticated efforts have gone unnoticed. I think that's a major cause of his criticism. But that doesn't take anything from its relevance or accuracy. The motives may be impure but that doesn't mean the argument is invalid.

[33sherman]

Hitchens is a snobby, humorless, self-professed drunk who get offs on his own sense of being 'contrarian.' Moore's movie is not the masterpiece that some are calling it, but like usual Hitchens is way off the mark. He's one of those guys who walks around all day(drinking--his admission, not my allegation, see Vanity Fair) whispering "I am an intellectual" to himself.

I never really cared for Michael Moore--but it seems to me the most damaging moments in F911 came right out of Bush and Rumsfeld's mouths, right? Like those alleged satellite pictures of WMDs that with the chemical depots circled in yellow? So what did they turn out to be? Wood sheds? Moore's not spinning that, he's just presenting it for what it is--a bald lie by the President of The United States right to the faces of all us Americans(note: and yes, Clinton was a lying rapist, too, who deserved to be impeached, but a lot more people are dying for this particular lie.)

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

Iran and Syria are bigger state sponsors of terrorism than Iraq.

As recently as two or three months, we issued the same sanctions against Syria we initially issued against Iraq. So I guess if history follows, Syria is next.

Iran has WMD, we know they do, they, like Iraq, have used them (Gulf War).

As far as I remember, no one accused the Iranians of using WMD in the Iraq-Iran war, and only Saddam has used the agents in his own country (to put down Kurd uprisings -- one of the reasons the no-fly zones were established). Gee, you sound so certain that Iran has WMD...almost as sure as people who are "in-the-know" thought (including every nation on the U.N. security council) Iraq possessed them. Maybe you should share your sources with U.S. intelligence.

And even if Iraq had WMD, it doesnt mean that they were planning to attack the US, there is no credible evidence stating that Iraq or Saddam planned to attack the US. I understand that Saddam had to be taken out of power at some point. But Why do it now, when we were already waging war in Afganistan?

Probably the same reason General George Patton wanted the U.S. to go ahead and roll into Russia after defeating Germany -- he knew we'd be fighting our good "allies" the Commies some day and he figured 'why wait', especially when we had the manpower and equipment in place to do the job then and there. You can criticize Bush's timing all you want. Personally, I would have preferred to finish business in Afghanistan too before pushing into Iraq. Hell, I wish Bush's daddy had done the job right in Gulf War I. But (gasp) EVEN YOU admit Saddam had to go, and it is painfully obvious that with most of our NATO allies getting nice little bribes and kickbacks thanks to oil-for-food, we were the ones who would be doing it...either now or sometime in the future.

It probably would have been a better plan to send more troops into Afghanistan, try to capture or kill that bastard Bin Laden and not spread our military thin. Smells like opportunism to me.

Yes, Mr. Monday morning QB. I'm sure every lib on the board could have done a much better job planning our military operations. Oh wait, if it had been up to the libs, we'd still be negotiating with the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden to us. In fairness, I'm sure, even the libs would have taken a tough stance by now, ...economic sanctions against Afganistan would definitely be in place by this point if they ran the show.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by John Galt

This is Moore's explanation from the link I posted earlier (you'll have to go to the website to use the hyperlinks that provide documentation for what he is saying)

If you parse that statement (and as a lawyer you should be good at it) you'll see he chooses his words carefully and doesn't ever actually deny that it was set up in advance by members of his staff. A second, perhaps clearer outright lie is that we gave money to the Taliban. Moore himself has admitted it was for humanitarian aid, but neglects to mention it went through the UN and international NGO's, not the Taliban itself.

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

Iran has WMD, we know they do, they, like Iraq, have used them (Gulf War).

You seem awfully sure of that. While I certainly think they do too, there is nowhere near as much evidence in Iran's case as there was for Iraq before we invaded, so how can you be so certain? And for one reason we invaded Iraq before Iran, in addition to already have multiple UN Sanctions being continually violated, was that most of the Iranian people are very pro-American, and hopefully given a prospering somewhat Democratic country next door they would finally have the impetus to overthrow the Ayatollahs. Of course, the way Iran has been acting lately (moving divisions near the border, multiple Iranian army members being killed/captured in Iraq, taking Brits hostage) we may have enough for a casus belli fairly soon.

[Mac Howard]

>Hitchens is a snobby, humorless, self-professed drunk who get offs on his own sense of being 'contrarian.'

As an answer to the accusation that the debate lacks intellectual integrity, that is not impressive.

>I never really cared for Michael Moore.................................

Then you and Hitchens would seem to be like-minded. You both have some sympathy with what Moore says but are not too keen on the way he sets about communicating his message.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

If you parse that statement (and as a lawyer you should be good at it) you'll see he chooses his words carefully and doesn't ever actually deny that it was set up in advance by members of his staff. A second, perhaps clearer outright lie is that we gave money to the Taliban. Moore himself has admitted it was for humanitarian aid, but neglects to mention it went through the UN and international NGO's, not the Taliban itself.

Talk about seeing only what you want to see. This is from the above quote that I posted:

"When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" – that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account."

That says NOTHING was done other than phoning to make sure that filming was okay (something any filmmaker would do to avoid wasting time and money).

As for the Taliban aid, you can call it whatever you want, but the US government aided the Taliban government. NGO's were ultimately responsible for distributing the aid, but it went to the government first. And Moore didn't have to "admit" it was humanitarian aid, because that is what it clearly was under the budget. That is still aid to the government (and there is a wealth of literature about how humanitarian aid is used by oppressive governments for legitimacy and to hide the lack of social services provided by the government).

[Mac Howard]

>And Moore didn't have to "admit" it was humanitarian aid, because that is what it clearly was under the budget.

You're not that naive, John.

[clintl]

FWIW, Iran has democratic institutions that, if freed from the grip of the Ayatollahs, could serve as a model for the region. Yes, they have been a sponsor of terrorism. Yes, there is concern that they might have a WMD program. But they also have some things going on internally that are worth nurturing where we have the opportunity to do so, and we have mostly been blowing that opportunity.

[33sherman]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

>Hitchens is a snobby, humorless, self-professed drunk who get offs on his own sense of being 'contrarian.'

As an answer to the accusation that the debate lacks intellectual integrity, that is not impressive.

How does the term 'intellectual integrity' apply to footage of satellite photos shown to the UN and the American public? How does it apply to Bush and Rumsfeld's own words? Are you saying that only 'intellectuals' such as yourself should be allowed to discuss the war? Or have an opinion?

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

>Then you and Hitchens would seem to be like-minded. You both have some sympathy with what Moore says but are not too keen on the way he sets about communicating his message.

Nope, Hitchens is a war apololgist--an uppity, cranky bombastic war apologist--and I have been opposed the invasion since day one(not that my opinion matters for anything).

[Mac Howard]

>Nope, Hitchens is a war apololgist--an uppity, cranky bombastic war apologist

Not a lot of improvement there

[Bonegavel]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

You don't see Limbaugh or Franken trying to be fair and balanced. Even though they claim to be fair and balanced,

I don't know about Franken, but Limbaugh has never claimed to be "fair and balanced." He simply claims to be "balance" vs. the main stream liberal press.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by John Galt

"When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" – that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account."

That says NOTHING was done other than phoning to make sure that filming was okay (something any filmmaker would do to avoid wasting time and money).

It says nothing was done out of the ordinary. Phoning ahead and beginning the process of opening the CD/requesting the bank have the gun on the premises (the bank stored them at a warehouse miles away) both could easily fall under that definition.

As for the Taliban aid, you can call it whatever you want, but the US government aided the Taliban government. NGO's were ultimately responsible for distributing the aid, but it went to the government first.

No, it didn't. It went directly to wheat, food commodities and food security programs distributed through UN agencies, bypassing the Taliban.