« Herman Munster's Long Lost Twin | Main | Kerry Continues to Soar »

July 11, 2004

"Fahrenheit 9/11": How Bush became the #1 Hated Man

Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" has broken box office records as the most lucrative documentary. Good for Moore but bad for Bush. Even though we don't like to admit it sometimes we sway our opinion towards by what the media says and by what the film industry finds acceptable. Right now its cool to hate Bush, more so than ever. In "Fahrenheit 9/11", Bush is made fun of clip after clip by Moore and seen as a rambling buffoon.

Posted by Tuck at July 11, 2004 09:57 PM

Comments

this movie is the bigest piece of garbage and lies ever perpetrated on the American public. The fat slob that made this movie should be exiled to France

Posted by: guy at July 12, 2004 01:46 PM

I used to love Bush, but once you know the truth you can't go back to not knowing.

Even if half of the movie is true, we, as Americans have been lied to and deceived at the highest moral and ethical levels. It sickens me. I saw the movie on Friday night with a packed theater in Philadelphia. I had the seats right next to the door, which was upsetting at first, but for the entire 2 hours, no one moved, went to the bathroom or left the theater. The people faces after watching explain everything. They ranged from scared, betrayed, angry, unbelievably sad, some crying, while we left the theater it was completely silent, we were numb. We want to thank you Mr. Bush for the last four years, we will never forget you!

Posted by: monica at July 12, 2004 02:38 PM

You can believe 411 or you can believe sombody murdered 3000 Americans on Sept 11th.
Would Kerry just set back and let them get away with it? He most likely would. Kerry would have been afraid to make a move without world approval.
WE have had to save the world twice before with American blood. Euorpe and now Americans seems to have fogotten that. Bush has started us on the right track towards world peace. May God help those that attack our country again. We can not be soft.

Posted by: Don Blumer at July 12, 2004 04:22 PM

I recently saw the documentary and was sickened by what I saw. If even half of it is true George Bush is the worst president that we have ever had. Let's take back our country for the people, and again become honorable in our eyes and the eyes of the world.

Posted by: James Kelly at July 12, 2004 08:26 PM

Democracy works when the people avail themselves to THE FACTS not party line. Acess all the Information and make a decision based on THERE value.

Bush Lie to the American people about Iraq and 1000 of our Hero Troops are dead.Bill Clinton lied about sex and no one died.

Posted by: Gav at July 12, 2004 09:13 PM

Read Richard A. Clarke's book Agaist All Enemies. He can not be called anything other than a patriot.

Posted by: crab apple at July 12, 2004 10:04 PM

who cares what the world thinks. Did they do anything to protect us from 9/11 happening? They have no right to tell us what to do. For Moor I hope you burn in hell for your lies. When I go to visit hell I'll see your movie.

Posted by: richard evans at July 12, 2004 11:36 PM

I applaud Michael Moore for always having the courage to stand against the right, who are very good at telling anyone who disagrees to sit down and shut up (as well as making personal attacks instead of proving why this movie is supposedly "full of lies". Gee...have you even seen it? I didn't think so...But then again, they didn't even read the Patriot Act before they signed it, so speaking out of turn dosen't really surprise me. May the farce be with you...but not for long!

Posted by: emaline496 at July 12, 2004 11:55 PM

This movie does not surprise me. We all know that Iraq has no link to 9/11, and a lot of people have died because of Bush's lie. We are fighting and dying for his oil. For the first time in my life, I'm ashamed of our president. We can not afford another 4 years of this maddness.

Posted by: Min at July 13, 2004 12:47 AM

Like father and son! Our current president now only did his father a favor. He accomplished what his father did not. He is ignorant to see how this war has affected so many families. He should be impeached for his lies and he should be the one exiled to France! The director of this movie is an example of a true American; expressing his view on our president. He should be praised for his efforts.

Posted by: tasha at July 13, 2004 03:53 AM

Farenheit 911 is defintley have subjective portions which is expected from Moore. However video footage of our disatisfied soilders and mixed messages sent from the Adminstration is hard to refute. The movie as a whole disturbed me as well as a packed audience at the whole situation of our war in Iraq.

Posted by: OREN at July 13, 2004 05:21 AM

I feel bad for people like crab apple and monica. You guys are still hypnotised by the illusion that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I know that evrybody feels alot of anger about 9/11. Bush and friends have managed to direct that anger using false intellegence at Saddam Hussein, who actually had nothing to do with it. I'd like a leader who will take a few minutes to think things through, and figure out exactly whats going on before sending American troops out to die!

peace

Posted by: King Kos at July 13, 2004 08:17 AM

Oops.....sorry crab apple and monica, I meant Richard Evans and Don Blumer.

peace

Posted by: King Kos at July 13, 2004 08:19 AM

Even if 25% of the movie Farenheit 911 is accurate, that is more than enough to vote the Bush-Chaney administration out of office. I was once an undecided voter who typically did not vote, but now I feel obligated to vote this administration out of office.

Posted by: ramrod at July 13, 2004 09:57 AM

Did I read someone write that they wished Michael Moore to "burn in hell"? OUCH!! That's some strong language just for a movie. All I can say is for someone to carry that much anomosity there must be some truth to what the documentary said. Whether you agree or disagree video tape doesen't lie. One thing that video does reveal is one of the most intellectually deficient individuals to ever sit in the Oval Office. For those who support him all I can say is "Birds of a Feather Flock Together."

Posted by: Douglas Betts at July 13, 2004 10:18 AM

I think it's good that people have strong opinions. It's sad though that many use hatred to express themselves. Nobody knows everything and there's an infinite number of sides to every story. With great power comes even greater responsibilty. Moore thinks we can do better, so do I.

Posted by: reason at July 13, 2004 01:06 PM

I think it is crititzing 9/11 and the familys that is affeted about it. The familys that lost their loved ones in there and the ones who servived.

Posted by: Amanda at July 13, 2004 01:19 PM

anyone who accutily believes mikel moors movie is an idiot. I see you say if only 25 or 50% is correct you should impeach bush well i would like to ask you if any of it is made up how can you believe any of it or do you just believe what you want to believe?

Posted by: james watkinsw at July 13, 2004 03:26 PM

vote bush in 2004 HELL YEA!!!

Posted by: james watkinsw at July 13, 2004 03:29 PM

It's obvious that many of people commenting have not seen the film and are reacting out of FEAR. In Moores' own words:
Every single fact I state in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the absolute and irrefutable truth. This movie is perhaps the most thoroughly researched and vetted documentary of our time. No fewer than a dozen people, including three teams of lawyers and the venerable one-time fact-checkers from The New Yorker went through this movie with a fine-tooth comb so that we can make this guarantee to you. Do not let anyone say this or that isn't true. If they say that, they are lying. Let them know that the OPINIONS in the film are mine, and anyone certainly has a right to disagree with them. And the questions I pose in the movie, based on these irrefutable facts, are also mine. And I have a right to ask them. And I will continue to ask them until they are answered. (Source: michaelmoore.com)

Posted by: Michelle at July 13, 2004 03:56 PM

Why would anyone make a movie to BLAST the president of the United States? Dont you liberals get enough BS from ABC and CBS? The is the most UNAMERICAN thing I have ever seen. Moore should be arrested for treason.

Posted by: andrew at July 13, 2004 03:58 PM

mikel moore sucks and his movie does too!!!

Posted by: james watkins at July 13, 2004 04:05 PM

I had recently seen the movie and was flabergasted and quite disturbed at its message. I have been doing some research about the verasity of the movie and most of it checks out; all but for the Carlyle Group of which Bush Sr. did not become a member until 2 months later. I must say that with all of the intelligence "flaws" that are now being reported, I can't help but to belive that the administration had a personal interest in making Iraq happen. For all of those that believe that this movie is a total lie and is only propaganda, please research the facts on your own. Its all out there. It is your civic duty. This country has changed, and I must admit for the worst. Here is a quote that I had found said by the Nazi equivlent of a Secutary of State. Taken by Herman Goreing at the Nuremburg Trials "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in every country" ------ It is our American right to speak out against a sitting president. Dissent is the pillar of our democracy. And for those that suggest we should shut up and take it, you're the ones being unpatriotic.

Posted by: Jock at July 13, 2004 04:41 PM

It seems to me that Michael Moore could make a movie having Hitler comming out as the good guy, and I bet everyone in hollywood would follow right along like little sheep. Who doesn't want to be cool and trendy right?

Posted by: Summer Hill at July 13, 2004 07:43 PM

Why do we have to give in to what "the rest of the world thinks"? Its about time we have a president who isnt afraid to go after the crud of this planet. If "F"... 9?11 is nothing but a dollar sign for Michael Moore. If he really wanted a "documentary" as he calls, why wasn't it put on TV for evetone to see for free?

Posted by: Brian at July 13, 2004 10:00 PM

It amazes me to read and hear people take sides with someone with no regard to whether they're right or wrong just because they have the same political affiliation. Personally I'm appalled at the idea that our president has used the effects of 9/11 to invade a country to over throw a leader and cause more American lives to be lost for his own personal revenge. Think about who was responsible for the tragedy. It wasn't Huessen, it was BinLadin. Remember the president saying that BinLadin would be found and bought to justice?? Why hasn't "anything" been said about him during the past 12-18 months? Why was all the anger diverted from BinLadin when he was the one responsible? Hasn't anyone read the articles about the Bush's being lifelong friends with BinLadin's family? Doesn't that friendship and the fact there is NO attention on BinLadin now cause any red flags go up? I wish the American people could get their heads out of their butts and see that we have been lied to and have been taken into a war that has "NOTHING" to do with 9/11. Another thing that really bothers me is when our president made the statement that he believes that he is "the chosen one" by GOD to led the world. In my opinion his religious beliefs are more like "jail house religion" where criminals all of a sudden find religion when they get in prision with hopes of it getting them out of trouble. He did a good job convincing the religious sector that he had morals when all the while deceiving them.

Posted by: Steve at July 13, 2004 10:41 PM

I told my Republican family that I thought we were going to Iraq after Bush was elected, and I was told I was crazy. I may be crazy, but I turned out to be right. The old gang with young Bush were going to complete the job they didn't finish with old Bush. That gang had years to dream how much money could be made in a free Iraq and that it would solve all our economic problems, so as soon as they could they charged into WWIII without many allies so that they could reap all the profits from a prosperous Iraq. I didn't need Moore to figure out that Bush isn't worthy of our presidency.

Posted by: antibush christian at July 14, 2004 01:10 AM

We shouldn't care what the rest of the world thinks, yet we have to have free trade with them and live in the same world until we're able to live on another planet. If we keep saying we don't care what anyone thinks, how can we expect them to help out in Iraq? We can't do it alone.

Posted by: antibush christian at July 14, 2004 01:17 AM

I have to say Moore is a prophet of American politics. He spoke the truth and supported his views with facts..... As individuals, it is up to us whether we believe them or not. I am totally anti-Bush. I didn't need a movie to make up my mind. I decided how I felt the moment Bush took on the role of president... Bush is playing God and using the military to his unleash his power. A perfect example is when my husband, a soldier of the U.S. Army, received his orders to got back to Iraq. The top sent them down a month after he came back the first time! The Adminstration knew long before our soldiers came back that they were going to send them to Iraq again!!!!

Posted by: A Soldier's Wife at July 14, 2004 11:14 AM

dear andrew, just because F9/11 is too far to one side to be considered a true documentary, doesn't mean that Moore is unamerican. Also he's not just "blasting" our commander and chief. I am not sure if you know this andrew but our country's politics is increasingly being run by enormous corporations that give contributions in exchange for certain benefits, e.g. tax breaks, contracts to certain construction companies to rebuild Iraq, etc. In other words legalized bribery. Why do you think there's so much corporate corruption? And it's not just the Republican party. I suppose if the American way is to close your eyes to the ever changing politics and how it affects the rest of the world. Then you're right Michael Moore is unamerican.

Posted by: reason at July 14, 2004 02:10 PM

It amazes me how simplistic some view the world. It is not "a might makes "right" situation that the U.S. has embroiled itself in. It is quite laughable when those few suggest that the US has the responsibility of targeting and eliminating those countries that we do not agree with. This is a global world. Every nation depends on another for its viability; it is irrefutable. Long gone are the days of isolationism. We have a global economy, global communications grid, global agri-sytem, and the last time I remembered, terrorism is a global problem. It all boils down to a global network, in which we must create amicable relationships in order not to destroy ourselves. We, the US, depend on other countries for our own nation's sustainable viability. Just look around you. When people suggest that we don't need anyone, and that we can take care of ourselves, it really shows how uneducated and ignorant some really are; "power" depends on this. Every expert on terrorism agrees that Iraq was quite erroneous if we are to combat terror. Granted, Saddam was a bad man, but this does not negate the fact that Iraq only diverted resources and human power, and most importantly, allies away from the real battle of terror. It was not in our best interest. Of course the main argument that this administration has about Iraq, is that Saddam "was a madman", and therefore could not be trusted. For those that take it upon themselves to research the facts, and by facts I don't mean the media, but real facts, this will undoubtedly clarify itself. Saddam did not want to share power with Islamic extremist, for they were a threat to his dictatorship, e.g. the Iran revolution. People will do anything in the name of religion and overthrowing a government that is secular would be at the top of their list. Saddam understood this threat quite well and therefore outlawed religion. (Funny how some believe that Iraq was a religious country). Saddam did not use religion until after his defeat in the first gulf war, and even then, it was just a sample to pacify the masses such as putting a religious message on the national flag. Saddam's only main interest was self-preservation. He had WMDs for 20 years or so, and new quite well that if he disseminated those weapons to terrorist groups, the wrath of the US would have come down upon him, and is the main reason he destroyed them. That is why we can not find them, because they are not there. AND I will believe this until they find the stockpiles that were mentioned in the case for going to war. But the most ironic part of this is, is that NOW, the administration, and the "right" want more time to find the weapons, when he did not want to give the UN inspectors more time to do their job.

"Information is the currency of democracy"
-Thomas Jefferson-

Posted by: Jock at July 14, 2004 03:52 PM

I keep seeing people say if this movie is even half true, well it's not. Moore cuts out the stuff that would explain most of the movie, and manipulates the truth so that all you idiots believe everything he said. If you don't believe me, go back and review Moore's other movies. He's lied before. He changes the time lines, and makes outrageous accusations, and America believes him. I saw him on TV the Wednesday before the movie opened, and he admitted that the Saudi's leaving the country was proven wrong by Richard Clark. Clark admitted that he ordered the flights. Yet, 2 days later on Howard Stern, Moore goes right back to accusing Bush of this after he admitted he was wrong.

Posted by: kevin ward at July 14, 2004 04:40 PM

This message is to Michelle and anyone else who has been fooled by the propaganda of fanatical zeal. One of the biggest misunderstandings in conservative America right now is that disagreeing with the decisions of the administration is un-patriotic. Allow me to refresh some to the definition of democracy:

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

The government officials are elected by the people and for the people. If those officials are not doing what is in the best interest of the people according to the people, then the people not only have the right, but the obligation to speak up. Moore has done exactly that and good for him. Blindly following your party line or current administration is not democratic or patriotic, in fact, it is much closer to a totalitarian or dictatorship political system. Michael Moore did the right thing in expressing his opinion of our current president and his administration, if you dismiss it as un-patriotic from the get-go via the fact that it not in support of said administration, than I feel truly sorry for you. Whether you are liberal of conservative, you are doing the right thing showing your support or scorn for the job the administration is doing. Anything less is un-patriotic and un-American. It makes me said the things people will say out of fear and ignorance.

Posted by: Jeff T. at July 14, 2004 05:39 PM

Please give a great big welcome to CENTIGRADE 911, a new website billing tiself as a place for "Alternative views of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911." The site offers a wealth of worthy, informative links injecting some truth and rationality into the debate about Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 911. Make them part of your daily read.

People I cannot believe that you are being brainwashed by this communist. Everything out of his mouth is lies. He has nothing to back up any of this garbage. Things in this movie are either incorrect or taken out of context. Don't sit there and tell me that this world is not better off without Iraq serving as a safe haven for terrorists. If flipflopping Kerry is ever elected into office (God forbid) and we have another terrorist attack, I hope that every single person who voted for Kerry holds themselves accountable. Stop paying attention to the biggest propaganda campaign ever and start getting the facts, not what this slob is spewing out of his big fat mouth. If Michael Moore really cares about Americans why doesn't he donate the proceeds of his movie to the families of the soldiers fighting for our freedom.

God Bless America

Posted by: CJ at July 14, 2004 10:14 PM

All I have to say is that there have been no terroist attacks on the US since 911 and I believe the president is doing a good job at keeping our country safe. If we pull out of war in Iraq, I believe that the terroists will view us as being weak and will come here and attack us again....Also, reguarding Michael Moore's movie...here's a LIST of DECEITS.....

www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Posted by: Leah at July 15, 2004 02:29 AM

Just like james watkins, I researched this movie, and found out that almost everything in this movie is true.
Before I saw this movie, I had liked Bush, And not trusted Moore. But after seeing it and proofed the facts, my belifs have completly switched directions.
I feel sorry for all you people just blindly following Bush and saying (without even seeing it) that F9/11 is all lies. When I was a younger, I grew up thinking that the president knew what was good for America and would always do the right thing. Now, i realise how people can be lied to. I think Bush is doing to America, the same thing Nero did to Rome. Burning it to the ground. Don't you think you owe it to this country's founding fathers to at least question if Bush is doing the right thing for America?
If being Un-Patriotic means wondering if our leader might not be doing whats best for the American people, but whats best for himself, and being Un-American means exposing the truth, than charge me and Moore with Treason.

P.S. NO ONE DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED

Posted by: Jim at July 15, 2004 03:12 AM

Michael Moore is an oaf and a liar, but he cannot easily be dismissed. His technique is to simply issue one bald-faced lie after another, hoping to convince enough people who are too lazy too think critically about what he's saying. The technique was quite effective in Germany during the late 1930s and the murder of millions of Jews and Gypsies was the result.

I continue to be amazed how otherwise intelligent people can be made to believe things that a simple review of the facts would prove to be wrong. Perhaps the 'idiot Americans' to which Michael Moore has repeatedly referred are those that believe his lies and are willing to pay $8.00 each to watch them for two hours.

Posted by: Mike Morgan at July 15, 2004 06:01 AM

After watching the film I knew it had to be slanted. After all, we heard only one side of the "story". However, I'm still wondering why Bush and his administration hasn't come out and defended itself.

We need to remember that it is American to be skeptical. We have the RIGHT (unlike the Iraqis) to question our government. I also think we have the right to answers.

Personally attacking people for their political views doesn't help anything. If you are pro Bush, and want to convince others of your political views, then you should watch the movie and help us see the errors in the film. I don't think that anyone wants a scandalous president in office, so if you can convince us that he is honorable, then please do so.

Posted by: Jennifer at July 15, 2004 10:43 AM

Mike Morgan, How can you say he's a liar without researching. This is just what I was talking about. You have such a closed mind that you won't even be open to the POSSIBILITY that what Moore is saying is true. I am Republican and have liked Bush. I was open-minded enough to see what the other side has to say. I didn't dismiss it right away like Mike Morgan. If Mike Morgan will blindly follow Bush, and automaticly dismiss Moore, Than he is acting just like his "idiot Americans" but in Bush's favor.

Posted by: Jim at July 15, 2004 02:00 PM

www.moorewatch.com. Check it out if you want some truth. For example, quotes were cut short through editing, leaving them to imply the opposite of what was said. As a film student, I can tell you just how easy that is. And yeah, Bush read to children for 7 minutes after the first impact, but living in NYC at the time, I can tell you that EVERYONE thought it was a small-craft accident, not an attack. 7 minutes is not that long. The moment it was confirmed it was an attack, Bush was notified and exited immediately. And guess what ... he then followed up on what he promised at ground zero. "The people who brought down these buildings will be hearing from all of us soon." Contrast that to the follow-up of the first attack in 1993.

Posted by: bill at July 15, 2004 03:00 PM

Granted that we have not had a major terror attack since 9-11, but certainly it is not because of Bush. Do you people realize that Al Queda is already walking among us!? Terrorist are quite versed in the art of guerilla warfare. Like any other discipline it is an art. These extremist are following Sun Tzu war principles to the "T". Tzu preaches that there is a time to fight and a time not too. That is why we have not experienced an attack. With the increased vigilance of our nation, they do not see a window of opportunity, but this does not negated the fact that they will attack sooner or later. This is a disconcerting truth. In addition, the most valuable asset that Tzu states is patience. As in a game of chess, you must draw your lines mentally and then formulate an attack. The administration has already confirmed that it is not a question of "if" but "when" another attack will occur. No matter who is in the White House it is almost a mathematical certainty that these extremist will attack again and again. The main principles of War are never to under estimate your enemy, and secondly, only attack the enemy when the enemy does not expect it. The only way to perfome this action, is through covert operations done by law enforemcent, the gain would be the element of suprise and most importantly intellegence. If the enemy is far away and challenges you to do battle, he wants you to advance. Sadly to say that this administration, failed to follow these two tenets of war. The administration grossly under estimated Iraq in suggesting "the people would throw candy and flowers at the feet" of an invading army. Follwinig this flawed theory, has only left our military incapacitated with no alternatives or recources. Second, attacking countries with no direct link to Al Queda only embolden the organization both in numbers and resolve. Al Queda knew that they would not have to recruit, but that the US would recruit for them. There is a quote that best summerizes this, " only an Arab can conqueor and Arab" the opposite of this only united the entire Arab region. I can only assume that it played right into their hands. Of course the US has won wars in foreign lands, i.e. Germany and Japan. These two conflicts are not comparable to Iraq, or Al Queda.; first, Nazi Germany for instance, whether we like it or not did have commonalities with the U.S. They were predominantly a "white" nation as was the U.S.; they were industrial; and most importantly, the largest ethnicity in the U.S are German Americans. The composite of these variables would make enforcing subjugation more attainable. In the case of Japan, the Japan culture embraces the concept of defeat. The defeated will honor the victor, stated by the Codes of the Samurai. With this in mind, one can surmise that defeating the extremist will not be an easy venture. The Islamic culture does not value defeat, but only revenge. The more you win, the more they will fight. This administration again, misunderstood the enemy. Sun Tzu best summarizes this by stating, "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." The ugly truth is that you can't force someone to be vulnerable. You can, however, sometimes persuade them to weaken themselves. If you can't get them to weaken themselves, and you decide to attack them anyway, be prepared for a long war. This is where war was not the right action to take. With an enemy that has no country, and is virtually a shadow, Law enforcement and covert operations are the only way to defeat an unseen enemy. Gathering intelligence is the only way to have understood the enemy, and protecting our homeland through proactivity, was our best defense. The result of our actions in Iraq, make these less attainable. Intelligence only works with global cooperation, which our allies have been split due to Bush's arogance, proven by the gain in animosity towards France and Germany. In the case of proactivity, our borders are not safe, nor do are first responders have the nessacery resources to thwart an attacker. We are spending our entire resources on a country that had no direct linkage to our enemy because the " Just in case factor" which was fed to the American people. It is more logical to invest our resources in our own country if we know the enemy is here and an attack is inevitable. We would have been much better off in enhancing our technology, and giving our law enforcement agencies the proper resources to gather intelligence. i.e. recruiting more men and women in law enforcement, more airport screeners, developing better technology for our intelligence agencies, and giving our first responders the necessary equipment to aid in a disaster when and I mean when an attack occurs. What it all boils down too is BUSH BLEW IT!

Posted by: Jock at July 15, 2004 03:39 PM

Americans absolutely amaze me sometimes. I mean if you can sit there and tell me that you don't believe that Saddam had WMDs then you're delusional. He was a mad man and THANK GOD, the President acted when others lacked the courage!

#1. Bush has fought 2 wars here and won them both with less casulties than any war in history.
#2. Bush has turned recession into economic growth in very short time even when 9/11.
#3. Since, 9/11 there have not been any more successful terrorists attacks, even though we have been over in their backyard kicking the crap out of them!

HUUUUUUM?? Let's see here, kicking terrorists butt, better economy, safer country... yeah let's get rid of him today! DUH!!

Posted by: Olan Carder at July 15, 2004 04:03 PM

To those of you who say that Michael Moore's movie had convincing footage, let me say that in this modern age you have cameras and paper trails just about everywhere. A Republican could find footage about 9/11 and the war in Iraq that would make President Bush look like a saint. Any flimmaker with the right access could make just about any argument about any political issue. And because there is so much material to choose from [much of which is at least somewhat false] one must take what they're give in perspective.

Posted by: Jordan Jones at July 15, 2004 04:06 PM

Olan Carder, Those wars are not over, or have you not seen the news or casualty list lately! How can you win against an ideology! HUMMMM let me see, YOU CAN'T

Posted by: Jock at July 15, 2004 04:13 PM

All I can say is at least the movie got people asking questions (Most of us anyway). Anyone who says the movie is full of lies is as guilty as anyone who says it's all truth. The fact is, unless we are leading OURSELVES we are being MISLED! Accept NOTHING, question EVERYTHING.

P.S. Best Movie Ever:-)

Posted by: Anitra at July 15, 2004 04:29 PM

So what is it we have here, exactly? With thousands upon thousands of opinions out there, we find it not only satisfactory but natural to fall into two groups, aptly named right and left. Why is it that no one can attempt a realization of our "melting pot" of a country? Someone seems to have decided that there are only two opinons to choose from, and if you happen to be on the left, then the right is wrong (no pun intended) and if you're on the right, then the left is wrong. I'm glad that there is no room for discussion anymore... with school, highway, and national violence poliferating this country at the rate it is maybe we'll kill each other off before this beautiful country is completely consumed by our decadence and waste and we are forced to take more and more from those not willing to give to us. Through following world news lately, we Americans do not deserve the power and freedom that out forefathers intended us to have. Discussion is dead. Long live hatred and violence.

Signed,
Tired of it all.

Posted by: Stymied at July 15, 2004 04:56 PM

The dignity of human life has suffered in Iraq.
1,000 American troops lost forever. America's heart is broken.
It reminds me of a summer in New York City before Giuliani was mayor and the homicide rate dropped down.

Rudy for President

Posted by: Queens, NY at July 15, 2004 06:10 PM

To address two of the responses to my post:

1) I did not call Michael Moore a liar without researching it, nor am I closed-minded or following Bush blindly. There are a number of credible sources to which you can turn to determine the truth of Moore's allegations. An excellent one will be published by Dave Kopel and can be found at http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm. Further, there are some things that bother me about the Bush administration, such as search warrants that can be kept secret for 90 days, holding people without charging them, etc., so I'm not following anyone blindly.

2) Another individual asked why Bush has not defended himself. Exactly how would he do that? Should he address the American people from the Oval Office with a point-by-point refutation of the lies in Moore's film? That would be a highly inappropriate use of a Presidential address IMHO. Could he possibly get his points across in the 10-second sound bites that the media would give him? Should he write an op-ed for the NY Times?

If someone lied about you for two hours and millions of people had heard the lie, how would you defend yourself?

Posted by: Mike Morgan at July 15, 2004 07:03 PM

this movie is true 100% maybe your dady can help you find a new job after 11-2-004

Posted by: tim mulholland at July 15, 2004 07:12 PM

The Bush lovers remain in denial and this time choose to use Moore as their whipping boy in another spin on reality. Homeland insecurity a half billion dollar budget deficit, record high trade deficit, rising interest rates, outsourcing of American jobs overseas, high unemployment, overcommitted and mis-allocated military forces (we're in 134 countries), nearly 1000 American and another 1000 coalition troops killed, over 10,000 innocent Iraqi's killed, 7000 coalition forces wounded, another 10,000 returned from the war due to "mental" disorders, the true 9/11 villain Bin Laden is still loose, North Korea developing nuclear weapons and a delivery system while Bush watches, and I could just go on. Those self-annointed patriots out there that hate everyone that challenges Bush and his administration should be responding to these emails from their post in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army is having difficulty meeting recruitment quotas! Read the declassified Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) titled "Bin Laden to Strike in US). Go back through newspaper and video archives and the trail of Bush's lies are there, from his cocaine use, alcoholism, draft dodging, DUI's, through his lies about Nigerian aluminum tubes and weapons of mass destruction. The Bush lovers can now attack my truth instead of Moore's. In my opinion, Moore left way too much incriminating evidence against Bush out of the movie. But then, had he tried to include it, the documentary might have lasted 10 hours instead of two.

Posted by: Joel at July 15, 2004 07:44 PM

To believe anyone blindly is unpatriotic. It is the duty of every citizen to question the leadership of their government, especially , when the facts of engaging our solders to a war in a country that has nothing to do with 911. If you go back and read the background of the terrorists, 15 were Saudis , we did not go after Saudi Arabia and bomb them. Why not? Even the Saudi government admitted this week ,that some of their citizens are crossing their borders to fight in Iraq against the American forces. Why hasn't the Saudi's stopped them ? To be accepting of anything the leaders of a government says and does, invites the likes of another Hitler, and yes, such a thing can be made right here in the good ole U.S.A. Remember, Hitler wasn't an intelligent man, neither is our president ("c" average) but they both possessed manipulating skills. Be alert, don't allow yourself to be duped!!!

Posted by: buddbo1 at July 15, 2004 08:16 PM

To address a few of Joel's points:

Record high trade deficit: how did Bush cause that?

Rising interest rates: rising slightly after their lowest point in more than 40 years.

We're in 134 countries: about the same number we were in under Bill Clinton.

Nearly 1000 American and another 1000 coalition troops killed (liberating Iraq): we lost 6,000 taking a chunk of rock called Guadalcanal (Joel, that's an island in the Pacific Ocean).

North Korea developing nuclear weapons: which they have been doing for more than 10 years.

...while Bush watches: are you proposing that we invade North Korea?

As soon as present some truth for us to attack, we would be pleased to do so.

Posted by: Mike Morgan at July 15, 2004 08:32 PM

Dear Tim Mulholland: GW has a job until 1-20-05 (and probably until 1-20-09). :)

Posted by: Mike Morgan at July 15, 2004 08:34 PM

hey: where is it you are looking for the facts>? Do you question the think tank or the newspaper and its own biases? Check out what Moore actually portrays about the man who doesn't read or think for himself. See the film and then let's talk. M and M

Posted by: kax at July 15, 2004 09:21 PM

People Get to emotional over this crap. Everyone has a right to express there opinion, that is a privlige of living on the US. I think people made and still are making too big of an issue about 9/11. The "terrorist" got what they wanted, nation wide panic. Do I think is was right to invade Iraq? Sure, why not. I don't know all the information the president received on the subject, nobody does. I think Bush would have got slammed with any thing he desided to do. As for the Troops over seas and their families, if they didn't want to go to war, why did they sign up? The knew there was a chance of war, there always is a chance. So quite crying about it. Well there is my opinion. make of it what you will.

PS Would you have wanted to be in Bush's place these past few years so you could get slammed by the media for every little move you make. I think not, at least for most of you. I give credit to ALL the men that have been or will be President. You are all brave to stand up to the media and the people of the world and give us all your thoughts and beliefs.

Posted by: Eagle7796 at July 15, 2004 09:25 PM

i don't like michael moore and i don't like his movie. he took clips from random places and tried to make Bush look like the bad guy. i guess he did a good job, from the way everyone is saying how much they hate Bush after seeing the movie. i think that Bush is awesome. I think that he handled the terriorst attacks very well. If kerry had been president, would he have let the terriosts win? would he have not gone to war because it's not 'politically correct'? Oh and by the way, yes bush may not be book smart, but many many good leaders were not book smart..and a lot of the book smart ones were lacking in common sense ((**cough cough**clinton**cough cough**))
If you don't like Bush, fine that's your opinion. But don't attack my opinion about liking Bush.

Posted by: Kay at July 15, 2004 11:26 PM

I Just saw Far. 9/11 and thought it was a wonderful documentry. I hope people realize how much power we do not have as so-called "citizens" with scary s**t like the Patriot act. If one takes the time to read it, its a definite outrage!!! examples: TITLE II--"ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES" --taken from the control act. I dont know about you all but I prefer to walk down the street not being video taped - "be brother will be watching" - SEC. 201. "AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM". (yeah, great--but how broad is the definition of terrorism???) SEC. 212. "EMERGENCY DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS TO PROTECT LIFE AND LIMB."---(what the hell is that? life and limb???)`Sec. 2703. "Required disclosure of customer communications or records--(better watch what you say on the old mobile or home phone.)
SEC. 101. "COUNTERTERRORISM FUND". More moola going to the wrong place!!! SEC. 103. "INCREASED FUNDING FOR THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT CENTER AT THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION". "to help meet the demands for activities to combat terrorism and support and enhance the technical support and tactical operations of the FBI, $200,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004." (do you think we could use that money for something better???) Anyway...lots more, but I wont bore you to death. I do believe this one should have been scrutinized a little better, before getting the approval. But maybe thats just me. link to check out if you have a minute-- http://wwwaclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207

I also hope you all are aware of the latest control act!!!
By Charles Lewis and Adam Mayle
(WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2003) -- "The Bush Administration is preparing a bold, comprehensive sequel to the USA Patriot Act passed in the wake of September 11, 2001, which will give the government broad, sweeping new powers to increase domestic intelligence-gathering, surveillance and law enforcement prerogatives, and simultaneously decrease judicial review and public access to information."
What to do? What to do? Stand up and get involved!!!
one less vote, means one less person who really cares about TRUE FREEDOM and CIVIL RIGHTS!!!
There may be only 2 crappy candidates, that have a real shot, but for god sake pick one! Show you care about your rights and freedom!!!!

Posted by: DMAN at July 16, 2004 01:42 AM

I take it none of yall have seen them kneel to the mecca, the mecca is in Saudi land. If we were to go after the Sauds we would be fighting a United Arab front. Moore needs to do less fiction writing and more history and cultural reading and thinking. Use your head for something more than a towelrack there Michael. As for truth of the movie, maybe , from a certain point of view, right Obi.

Posted by: Athos at July 16, 2004 06:28 AM

i thought fahrenheit 9/11 was an impressive documentary and upon researching many of the facts layed out by Moore, I was convinced Bush was a fraud, a liar, and an incompetent president. He invaded Iraq for his own personal gains, and furthermore he isnt protecting Americans or the world for that matter either. I was shocked to find out he had connections w/ the Bin Laden family, and even let them leave back to their country 2 days after 9/11 without even questioning them! Now how can you say hes a good president? He cant even take care of domestic issues. The other day in my class, a kid was spewing about how great Bush was cause he got back 1,000 jobs..blah blah.. but my teacher shut him up by telling him that was hardly enough for the 3 million jobs that HE LOST. I mean really people, the only thing that Bush has succeeded in doing is...oh wait thats right he hasnt succeeded in doing a damn thing.

Hes taking away affirmative action rights but so far hes one of the individuals who has received the most affirmative action...come on, the man got into Yale w/ a 2.5 GPA, became governor of Texas and President of the United States w/ very little political experience. I'd say hes a lucky man, and he hasnt done anything for us. Im not a huge Kerry supporter, but I think at this point anyone is better than Bush. VOTE KERRY 2004, for a better America for all of us!

Posted by: mahlet at July 16, 2004 10:15 AM

It is necessary for the leader of America to be dynamic. Someone who is WELL SEASONED. Someone who is willing to ACCEPT other points of view. Someone who is FIRM. Someone who READS. Someone who understands REAL ISSUES. Someone who DOESN'T THINK THAT HE WAS APPOINTED BY GOD.

Oh one more thing. There's a couple people in here who need a history lesson. Hint: Why did we get involved in WW 1 and 2??? If you look it up you will see that history will tell that we (America) were isolationists. Isolationists. We didn't want to get involved in either war until we were brought into them. Europe probably would have crumbled, yes, but FDR wasn't going to a thing about it. I'm sure you would be saying he was a coward too, or would you?

Peace.

Posted by: Gmonet at July 16, 2004 01:00 PM

America - 1% of the wealth in this country run this country. Why is it so hard to understand this? If you are a poor or middle income family in this country, Bush is using fear of terrorists to get your vote. Yes america has enemies, but they are Bushes creation! Stand up and take your freedom back, before it is gone. Anyone making less than $149,000 per year shouldn,t be supporting BUSH. If you make less than the 149K, you won't recieve any breaks from Dubya's tax plans. Be patriotic, protect your freedom and our constitution from oil hungry, power freak business men who don't know you or care about you and your family!

Posted by: PATRIOT at July 16, 2004 01:23 PM

Back at you Mike Morgan. Do you remember Dubya's first international crisis which occured in the first weeks of his administration? The Chinese forced down our spy plane and held the crew prisoner. Weeks later after the Chinese recovered sensitive files and reverse-engineered the hardware, they trashed the plane, released the prisoners but charged the US $1,000,000 for room and board, and forced the US to have the Russians recover the remnants of the plane. What was Dubya's response? He gave China "Most Favored Nation" trading status. Mike, can you say "record trade deficits"? Here's another: Just prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq, it was discovered that many of the bio-chem protective masks were faulty but got mixed up with the good ones. While some of the bad masks were found, approximately 64,000 of the faulty ones were unaccounted for. Now, either Bush sent our troops to Iraq knowing in advance that there were no weapons of mass destruction or he decided his need to take out Saddam was greater than the lives to be lost with faulty masks. Which is it?I could go on, but trying to respond with facts
to the Limbaugh dittoheads would take up too much space. Just go see Moore's movie. While it lacks many issues I would have addressed, it paints an otherwise accurate portrayal of the failings of Bush, both as a president and human being.

Posted by: Joel at July 16, 2004 01:33 PM

If you support Bush please give me at least one reason why, other than comparing him to what you think Kerry would have done after 911. So far I don't think any of the comments made by Bush supporters have displayed a single reason why he is a good president. I can be persuaded if I hear a logical argument, in fact I want to hear about the good things Bush has done. The only problem is you're too busy defending Bush's War to explain how he has help at least 50% of this country. Otherwise, all the things you say about Bush add to the case that he has split this nation like no other time since the civil war.

Posted by: reason at July 16, 2004 01:59 PM

I just dont understand the people who still support Bush after knowing that this war on Iraq is based on MONEY. Trying to get Bush and his little friends RIcher while young soldiers risk their lives and hundreds of innocent lives are killed!!! This whole movie showed that all those innocent lives that died in this war was due to the greedy politicians and businessmen !! why the hell did we invade Iraq ?? They had nothing to do with 9/11, Bush just decieved the American people into thinking that Iraq was to blame. Bush is working with the enemy here .. he worked with bin laden's family !!?! Osama is the one responsible for 9/11 and yet we are not even working to capture him, instead we are trying to contain Iraq !! >. what the hell is going on ?!?.. Bush lied and betrayed the American people, and brought us into a war that was unjustifiable and absolutely unnecessary ! Some of you may think that im unpatriotic and against america but YOu are DEad wrong. IF you support a man who decieved AMERICa and is willing to risk the lives of innocent american soldiers in order obtain his own selfish needs, WHO is the UNPatriotic ONE??? WHy are people still supporting BUSH when all he has done was lie, and manipulate the AMErican PEOple !! ..

Posted by: REDD at July 16, 2004 02:15 PM

Moore is a player hater. The Bush Family are great Americans who create or at least try to create corperations which create jobs and prosperity. They partcipate in the political arena and are great role models to emulate. If George W. Bush was fated to lead our country against the evil-doers, we should thank God we have a man of courage and fortitude. Life is not always a grey area. In some rare instances their is black and white. In our case America is right in its war against terror and if Moore and the oil grubbing French don't like it so be it.
God Bless the Bush Family

Posted by: Queens, NY at July 16, 2004 02:16 PM

Olan Carder, I noticed your 3 reasons for supporting Bush. They seem to make sense. Please give me more information, i.e. how exactly are we kicking terrorists' butts? Seems to me we kicked Iraq's butts and innocent civilians butts, but then again the terrorist are also kicking Iraq's butts and innocent civilians butts, so I am confused on your butt kicking point. Also, I am no economist so please explain to me what "economic growth" means to you and how you you feel we are achieving that through Bush's policies. As for your point on no attacks since 911, well that might be your best point so far. But keep in mind that we had the intelligence to possibly hinder the terrorists threat before 911, but the Bush administration wasn't able or willing to put the pieces together. I am interested in knowledge and facts, not persuading people to believe what I do. I am actually tired of being so liberal minded, so conservatives please tell me something interesting. I'll listen.

Posted by: reason at July 16, 2004 02:38 PM

Hello Joel: I agree that China should not have "Most Favored Nation" trade status (the name was changed to "Normal Trade Relations" in 1998. However, two points for your consideration: a) China has been granted NTR status since 1980, and so pinning our trade deficit on Bush because China has NTR status doesn't seem to hold water; and b) NTR is the norm for virtually all countries on earth. Only a few nations don't have NTR status, such as Cuba, North Korea, etc.

With regard to the faulty gas masks, government auditors found gas mask defects in 1994, 1997, 1998 and 1999. I'm not saying you're wrong about the allegation you make, but the military was replacing defective masks back in late 2002, well before the invasion of Iraq.

With regard to Fahrenheit 9/11 painting an accurate portrayal of the failings of Bush, I would suggest that you read a good critique of the movie rather than accept what Moore says at face value. Moore has taken so many things out of context and lied about so many other things in the film that his piece cannot be taken seriously. While there are a number of things that are troubling about the Bush administration that Moore could have discussed, Moore's hatred of Bush and his complete lack of even a pretense of objectivity makes his film worthless.

Posted by: Mike Morgan at July 16, 2004 04:12 PM

I am glad to have had a second showing, and strongly recommend it. There is so much detail in the film, a lot to take in and digest.

After the first viewing, I was a bit overwhelmed because some of the video had me and everyone else in tears. And there were also moments of unbridled hilarity. It's unusual for a film to elicit powerful laughs and deep sorrow in one big dose. I came away from the second viewing with a sense of more objectivity and less editorial manipulation by Michael Moore than I had first thought. He has his own potent agenda and cinematic inflection, but during the second viewing I was less concerned with his political views and more keenly interested in just attending to people speaking in their own voices and words. And one of the most revelatory aspects of the film has to be its selections of video footage that no U.S. media outlet has had the guts or common sense to show. I mean unfiltered scenes of the war itself, cameras accompanying our soldiers doing their actual jobs in Iraq, the unbearable personal cost of it and immense sacrifice of lives and limbs. Two soldiers are standing by a palm tree, a bomb goes off and one just disappears. Glimpses into the homes of Iraqi and American families who lost children to the war; a multiplicity of statements from people in the military and from potential recruits back home and the lack of emotion from our leaders in govt. Most were very smug, The living price of war is so painfully evident in this film that it goes well beyond any agenda to something that reaches deep into the hearts of everyone regardless of political outlook. So I think that whatever one's "affiliation" might be, every American should see this film because there is a LOT of undoctored material available for processing with your own intellect and moral sensibility. As for Michael Moore, my take is that he has courage of convictions, is a patriot in the truest sense, and supports our troops as much as anyone. And is just tired of the American people constantly being manipulated and lied to..

I love my country even though I may not agree with a lot of things, but I do have to say our president and our Govt does scare me… they all have their own agenda that seems to be nothing more than greed at any cost, as long as it’s no cost to them.

Ya gotta see the movie……

Posted by: sandy at July 16, 2004 05:21 PM

To Jim who posted on 7/15... you wrote,

"Michael Moore is an oaf and a liar, but he cannot easily be dismissed. His technique is to simply issue one bald-faced lie after another, hoping to convince enough people who are too lazy too think critically about what he's saying. The technique was quite effective in Germany during the late 1930s and the murder of millions of Jews and Gypsies was the result.

I continue to be amazed how otherwise intelligent people can be made to believe things that a simple review of the facts would prove to be wrong. Perhaps the 'idiot Americans' to which Michael Moore has repeatedly referred are those that believe his lies and are willing to pay $8.00 each to watch them for two hours"

If you consider yourself intelligent than you would realize that the Bush-Cheney camp are doing the exact things you accuse Moore of, specifically where you state, "His technique is to simply issue one bald-faced lie after another, hoping to convince enough people who are too lazy too think critically about what he's saying. The technique was quite effective."

Please tell me how Mr. Bush is not doing this with the American people.

I am not supporting or defending Moore's views, but videotape don't lie my friend and most of his facts check out and have been by independent sources.

So if I can give you a bit of advice, stop being brainwashed by Bush-Cheney and learn to think for yourself. Those two are investing your tax dollars for their own personal return. I suppose you belive Kenneth Lay is innocent as well?

On behalf of who you refer to as an "idiot American."

Posted by: Kevin at July 17, 2004 01:00 AM

Liberal movies have no place in our society. Farenheit 9/11 should be banned, because it is a worthless piece of propaganda. People do not need to see this movie, because it promotes the democratic party, I strongly believe that Michael Moore worships Satan on a daily basis. Let's all stand up for God and President Bush.

Posted by: henryclay at July 17, 2004 09:19 AM

Dear Mike Morgan,

How much is Bush paying you to be his press secretary? It has to be at least six figures. I've never seen someone so adamently defend a point of view while at the same time so blindly close their eyes to the obvious.

The war was not about terrorism.

This war in Iraq is not over.

Iraq and America are even less safe now because of destabilization.

Your children will be paying the bill for this fiasco for years to come. (Are you happy about that)?

Yet Republicans continue to stand on their soap boxes spewing the same tired rhetoric. This country will come together when Bush is out of office once and for all!!!

Posted by: Douglas Betts at July 17, 2004 10:12 AM

Posted by: monica at July 12, 2004 02:38 PM

You can believe 411 or you can believe sombody murdered 3000 Americans on Sept 11th.
Would Kerry just set back and let them get away with it? He most likely would. Kerry would have been afraid to make a move without world approval.
WE have had to save the world twice before with American blood. Euorpe and now Americans seems to have fogotten that. Bush has started us on the right track towards world peace. May God help those that attack our country again. We can not be soft.

I just wanted to respond to this idiot's post(a little late probably). So have we caught bin Laden yet? No. Have we put up a good fight to get him. No again, we sent a measly 11,000 troops to find him. As far as I'm concern, Mr. Bush (I refuse to call him President now) has let him get away with it. And how can you compair this to WWI/II (I'm assuming that's what you meant). Did YOU forget that we were fighting Germany, a nation hell bent on World domination. Now we're on that side of the fence. How can you even compair the two. And are you implying that the only way to world peace and through war; conqureing all nations who oppose our vision as to what government should be. Oh yeah, about that cute little remark about Bush getting us on the right track to world peace. Did you know he broke just about every international treaty we had. Doesn't sound like he wants world peace, he just want to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, just like a little kid. And you are just a puppet.

P.S. It's 9/11, not 411. 411 is the number you call for information. Pawn.

Posted by: Jirai at July 17, 2004 10:49 PM

Mr. Moore is evil because he has to know the facts do not support the claims he makes in his film. This is why he refuses to go on talk radio and be confronted on the claims he makes in his film. Mr. Moore's film is a desperate attempt to use anti-american propaganda to sway an election. Mr. Moore, like the terrorists who swayed the election in Spain, forgets that unlike the voting public in Spain, Americans are not stupid. Following our President's re-election, we all can't wait to hear Mr. Moore's sour grapes conspiracy theory to explain why our President was re-elected. We all know why our President will be re-elected and will have a good time laughing at Mr. Moore whose idiocy always hit a new low.

Posted by: David at July 18, 2004 06:43 PM

The American public love Mr.Bush for taking the tuff action required to fight the terrorists!

So... Why did he attack Iraq??? Since now it is official no link exists with Al Qaeda? And that non ever existed, and they had NOTHING to do with 9/11?

If we are going after terrorists why don't we GO AFTER THEM!! Why waste time, money, and lives in "a war of choice".

The USA is NOT soft. It never has been. It has taken the tuff road in history.

We sold weapons to Iran and Iraq and thousands of other countries. We have invaded many a country and still benefit from those wars and invasions.

Perhaps we have been too hard, too tuff, too self-centered, too greedy, too arrogant!

If we are going to get terrorists... let do it with dignity, care, honesty, and without acting like thugs and terrorists ourselves!

Shame on Bush for not checking our own history, for starting a war in a country that was NOT NECESSARY, and for not going AFTER Al Qaeda.

We had 9/11 and we now have a "new frontline" in the war on terror. A front line created by Bush for his own self indulgence.

Bush supports should be forced to living in Iraq for 6 months to smell the blood of a "war of choice". The Japs started "a war of choice" in 1941. How did that go for them?

Posted by: tom at July 19, 2004 06:05 AM

if you would like to view the facts that back up this controversial documentary, please visit www.michaelmoore.com. The activist has provided countless references to EVERY statement he makes in the film. JUST GO! SEE FOR YOURSELF! THERE IS MORE THAN JUST ONE SECTION OF REFERENCES. STOP SAYING TO YOURSELF THAT ALL THIS IS BULLSHIT.

THE MAN IS CREDIBLE IN MY BOOK.

Posted by: Miranda at July 19, 2004 09:32 AM

Miranda, just because someone gives references to his point doesn't mean he's telling the truth. I checked out his website and the references there don't even make much sense. You may think he's credible, but the facts say differently. Most of the "facts" in the movie have already been proven wrong (eg: it was Clark who spirited the Suadis out of the US after 9/11 and he admits it).
The movie contradicts itself everywhere. In one part it says Saddam never threatened the US. Later it says he threatened to kill Bush Sn. I'm sure most people won't notice the contradictions because it's very craftily done. I must commend Moore on disguising a work of propaganda as a "documentary." He certainly has a talent for deception.

As the Vanity Fair reviewer said: "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."

If you want to read the rest of the review with all of the many contradictions and lies in the movie, go to the link below or use this URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723

It's sad, but ignorant and lazy people will believe what Moore says and won't really care what the truth is or have any desire to try to find the truth. It's much easier to just sit back and let nuts like that fill your mind with garbage.

Posted by: Les Moore at July 19, 2004 04:58 PM

I can almost feel so sorry for Bush supporters. He talks about his God and some day he will have to answer to him!!! He should be impeached. I pray Kerry/Edwards will do this.

Posted by: gammy at July 19, 2004 05:18 PM

We apologize for gammy. He's not supposed to be using the computer. We're still getting him back onto solid foods. Wish him luck, ok? A frontal lobotomy is a long recovery.

Posted by: gammy's nurse at July 19, 2004 08:26 PM

I havn't seen 911 yet as I can't be in a movie house due to my disability but I'll buy it as soon as it comes out on DVD.
Bush is like no other president that I've ever seen, and I've seen quite a few of them having been born in 1919. He's trying to make this country into a theocracy with his frequent references vis a vis "Jesus is my political advisor," or words to that effect. And his prayers before cabinet meetings. It should be amply clear to anyone who uses their head for something other than a hatrack, how bad it is from our experiences with the Arab world how the mixture of religion and state doesn't work. Bush, like many before him, in times past, have tried to put God into the Constitution. May all so inclined, continue to fail to do so.

R. E. Lyon

Posted by: Royal Lyon at July 19, 2004 09:03 PM

Kevin wrote (excerpted): "I am not supporting or defending Moore's views, but videotape don't lie my friend and most of his facts check out and have been by independent sources. So if I can give you a bit of advice, stop being brainwashed by Bush-Cheney and learn to think for yourself."

Some comments and questions for you Kevin:

1) Videotape, like other facts, can certainly be used to lie if they are intentionally taken out of context. Consider the following: a) the Boston Strangler killed 11 women between June 14, 1962 and January 4, 1964; b) John Kerry lived much of his life in the Boston area; c) not long after the Boston Strangler killed his last victim, John Kerry left the United States for an extended stay abroad; d) the Boston Strangler has never been found.

If I was to present only those facts to someone who knew nothing more than that, the obvious inference would be that I was implying that Kerry was the Boston Strangler, something that clearly is not true. However, by presenting only certain facts and not others, many can be manipulated into believing another's agenda.

2) What are the independent sources that have verified Moore's facts?

3) Is it possible that someone can disagree with you and not be brainwashed?

Posted by: Mike Morgan at July 19, 2004 11:14 PM

Dear Douglas Betts:

To address some of your points:

1) I am not Bush's press secretary, I am blessed to make six figures and I am not blindly closing my eyes to obvious. Perhaps at some point you will admit that someone can disagree with you without being blind.

2) The current and past administration both believed that Iraq was a key sponsor of terrorism, Hussein was giving $25,000 to the family of each suicide bomber in Israel, Hussein gassed 5,000 Kurds, etc. Opinions may vary over whether or not the war was about terrorism, but Iraq under Hussein was clearly a key player in world terrorism.

3) Of course the war in Iraq is not over. Neither was World War II over for several years after we "won". For example, there were still insurgents in Germany that were launching attacks on Allied troops as late as 1948.

4) I am a bit stunned that someone would call the overthrow of a dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people "destabilization". Apparently unlike you, I believe that when brutal tyrants are overthrown and people are given freedom, that makes things more stable.

5) If Iraq becomes a democracy and its people no longer have to live under a brutal tyrant, I will be happy to have paid for that.

Posted by: Mike Morgan at July 19, 2004 11:26 PM

I find it ironic that people are praying for John Kerry, the man who defies his own religion every time he steps on to the Senate floor (for the 15% of the time he's there). It's not surprising how many of you are eating up Michael Moore's "documentary", which is time and again refuted by so many of the people he cites and interviews in the movie. It's funny how Michael Moore is declared a true American patriot while he wanders around Europe calling Americans "the stupidest people on the planet." Well, he certainly has the ticket sales to prove it. To all of you, I have just one word to say: SHEEP! I may make a documentary of my own detailing the dark side of John Kerry; the difference between my flick and Moore's is that it would be backed by the facts. For those of you who don't wish to remain ignorant of John Kerry's true nature, visit Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as well as Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry. You'll see hundreds of men who served with and commanded over John Kerry in Vietnam speak out against his self-serving, dishonest, and opportunistic nature. You'll learn how John Kerry turned Vietnam into Vietnam and robbed a generation of its heroes. You'll see why John Kerry is the reason why those soldiers died in vain. You'll laugh at the idea of John Kerry preaching about integrity. You'll see how John Kerry's lead in the investigation into Vietnam POW/MIA turned into one final betrayal for those still alive in Vietnam and how it brought billions of dollars in reconstruction contracts to Kerry's already wealthy Forbes cousin. And for those of you who are truly objective, take some time to seek out how many of these caricature assasinations on President Bush's integrity aren't backed up by the facts. To give you some examples, Iraq and Al Qaeda connections (such as providing safe harbor to Al Qaeda operatives such as Al-Zarqawi and 93 WTC mastermind Ramsi Youseff), Iraq seeking Uranium from Niger which is backed up by British Intelligence, support from nations such as Russia and Denmark who advised the U.S. that Iraq presented a significant WMD threat, so on and so forth. And for those of you who preach that we went at it alone, well, you're ignoring over 30 legitimate nations when you make that statement - nations such as Italy and Poland. I believe there are about 30,000 non-American troops in Iraq right now. Anybody who talks about Abu Ghraib and the Geneva Convention should familiarize themselves with the guidelines established in Geneva. Should you happen to do that, you'd learn that terrorists who do not wear the uniform or serve the interest of a nation are not protected under Geneva Rules. By the way, why weren't any of you howling for revenge after they decapitated Nick Berg or Paul Johnson? Why were you instead saying "Withdraw! Withdraw!" as if the most powerful nation on Earth is powerless against a network of Rogue terrorists whose numbers have dwindled since the Iraq War. Only Osama and his #2 man remain at the top of Al Qaeda now, but you didn't know that, did you? Is it so hard to understand that the American presence sucked so much of Al Qaeda's resources and fighters into a futile jihad in Iraq? Is it so hard to understand that when someone hates you enough to want you dead, finances those who try to kill you, repeatedly denies weapons inspectors and then give you his word that he's not pursuing WMD...is it so hard to see that as a threat? I certainly do. Call me a war-mongering if you will. Diplomacy will not work against an enemy who hates you so much that it'd blindly kill any one of us, from infant to elderyl, who it associates with Western Christianity. We saw it on 9/11 or have you forgotten? Why do you think Michael blacked out the powerful images of the Towers collapsing, relying instead on the sound effects. Because he knows how much of his audience HAS FORGOTTEN. For any of you who still have a soul, I should hope the sound of it made you remember why we took the offensive against every terrorist bed on the face of the Earth. To those of you who are so stubbornly ignorant and arrogant, I call you all damn fools. If you think there's no threat in the Middle East, go to Iran or Iraq under Saddam Hussein and wave an American flag and see what happens. You should be proud of how much good our troops have accomplished. A brutal murderer is out of power; a reign of terror has ended. Iraq is a democracy with schools and Universities. People can speak freely - a right you obviously take for granted when you burn your flags and undermine the soldiers who fight and die just so you can protest what they're fighting for. It's all lost on you because you hate the President for being firm in his convictions; for agreeing with the Bible in calling gays sinners and abortion murder. America is great because she is good, not because she is politically correct. Time and again, Americans have proven that we are not the self-serving imperialists we are so often accused of being, but so easily people forget. You should be ashamed of yourselves for undermining those still fighting in Iraq, for those who've died for a cause you declare to be in vain. Do the nation a favor and quit preaching about human rights because if you're not glad that Saddam is gone, then you're nothing more than a hypocrite - PERIOD! I won't stand idly by while you arrogant, ignorant, angry, venemous bastards try to turn Iraq into another Vietnam. This is my generation too, and I won't let you rob us of our heroes. The time has come for you to quit buying the dope which puts guns and suitcase nukes (that's right, Osama bought suitcase-sized nuclear weapons from a former Soviet General with money and 2 tons of heroin from his drug cartel) into Al Qaeda's hands. Quit shooting up and making yourself paranoid. Quit eating up these conspiracy theories and take some time to research your opinions. You have my word that if you do, you'll be offering President Bush a tearful apology. And if you're still full of venom, I've got bad news for you. I have faith in the good people of America - the silent majority. We'll dominate the polls and Bush will win - I swear it on my life, you won't steal this country with your hatist agenda.

Posted by: Ryan at July 19, 2004 11:57 PM

To Royal Lion:

I absolutely agree with you that video can be taken out context and there is no denying that Micahel Moore has put his own slant on the movie. I would say that portions of the movie are his opinion. However, the New York Times and Washington Post have both published articles verifying Micahel Moore's claims.

The Bush administration has filed nothing in the way of a libel and slander suit against Moore to defend their position. I believe a man in such a position of power would step up to the plate and disprove the allegations. I know that if false allegations were brought against me, I would defend myself to the bitter end. Especially with something as serious as this.

As many government documents are kept under lock and key, I think it would be possible for any of us to create what might be considered a biased piece based on our own best efforts at intelligence gathering.

You are absolutely entitled not to agree with me. That is what makes free speech vital.

It doesn't seem that you provided any commentary in support of Bush, and I, like many others are waiting patiently to see anything credible to be posted that support Bush and the effectiveness of his presidency and policies.

I consider myself to be very middle of the road when it comes to politics and my voting record will show that I have supported both sides of the arena on various issues.

George Bush is the most ineffective President we have had in my lifetime. This is not a Republican attack from a bleeding heart liberal. It is my own observation against this one individual and we can agree to disagree. I find no redeeming qualities in this man and would welcome a change in leadership.

Do I think John Kerry is the best man, absolutely not. Do I think John Kerry is better suited to be president, yes because there are only two choices other than not voting. I am taking the position of the lesser of two evils rather than outright Kerry support.

It is a shame that only the elite in this country have the power and backing to be President. I am sure there are perfectly competent people out there that could do a better job than either of these gentlemen.

If someone can provide a compelling reason why Bush deserves another 4 years in office, I'm all ears. But until I read something that makes sense and is credible. Personally, I feel we are less safe with him in power.

As an American I want to believe my president, listen to what he has to say, support his policies and support the decisions of our nation. I have tried very hard and in fact changed my mind towards Bush post 9/11. However, when the dust settled he was up to his old tricks and once again I formed a very negative impression of him and his administration.

What I see are lies, misrepresentations, diversions, scare tactics, venemous slams against anyone who speaks out against him, extreme religious influences and a loss of respect from our allies around the world. I know, most politicians lie... but Bush is the biggest violator so far. There's no room to challenge or debate this administration and it saddens me that our nation is so divided on this issue. To me it is crystal clear and scary what is going on in Washington and I feel bad for those of you out there that merely believe Bush because we are supposed to believe our president.

Posted by: Kevin at July 20, 2004 02:30 PM

"I am a bit stunned that someone would call the overthrow of a dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people "destabilization". Apparently unlike you, I believe that when brutal tyrants are overthrown and people are given freedom, that makes things more stable."

No, it makes things more stable when a country's own citizens rise up and take their freedom. For they worked and fought for it. It IS destabilizing when a country half way across the world comes and gives you your freedom and you didn't have to do anything for it.

"If Iraq becomes a democracy and its people no longer have to live under a brutal tyrant, I will be happy to have paid for that."

Unless you yourself are over there securing Iraqi citizen's freedom and dying in insurgent bomb attacks, you did not pay.

Posted by: Chris Palmertree at July 20, 2004 05:10 PM

Do you liberals think at all before you speak? It is amazing some of you have let this worthless piece of propaganda brainwash you at the speed of sound. If you've seen the "movie" I D-A-R-E you to go to the following websites and see for yourself just who the liar is. You liberals hate Bush so bad you can't even think straight. And for straight-thinking people like me, it's actually kind of funny to watch.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
http://www.moorewatch.com/
http://www.moorelies.com/

Posted by: David at July 20, 2004 10:02 PM

well i couldnt have said it better my self Ryan. Truthfully unlike most of the dems, I actually care less about myself and more about how people "were" living in Iraq. We in America got it so good here and yet people here whine "boohoo our economy isnt good and we a losing soliers in Iraq" thats what comes from every dems mouth. We Americans take everything we have here for granted. We have the most multi-racial country. Why? cause everyone wants to live in America. I believe we have the most illegal alians than any other country. Maybe thats a reason why other countries hate us. Other countries think of us as whine babies. Like the iraqi country they used to just wish they could speak up against their leader. but that would be their death. they actually had a right to speak up against their president. you all cry how evil bush is. I tell you the iraqis would much rather have bush as their leader. you democrats are like a child who wants more and more and cries about not having enough. When there are other children that would just be happy with one toy. get my point? quit being a baby and think of other people than just yourself. I dont mean just think of the people in America but i mean think of the people in Iraq that actually need what you just want. I even tried to get into the army but i was rejected cause i had surgery. I just thank God for what i have. I am fine with our country. i would much rather live here than any other country and you all know you would too. I dont think any Americans are saying " I hate America so much that im going to Iraq" i would laugh if some one said that.

Posted by: Jeff Sosnowski at July 20, 2004 10:54 PM

Correction: Above was adressed to Mike Morgan, not Royal Lion.

Posted by: Kevin at July 21, 2004 01:10 AM

If we are talking facts, why don't you Bush lovers get at least one of your mis-guided arguments for supporting him right. I am so sick of hearing about the 3,000 Americans killed in the preventable 9/11 tragedy, when around half of those killed were actually citizens of dozens of other countries. Its tremendously insensitive to dismiss and use for a personal agenda the non-Americans that also lost their lives. Its akin to dismissing the three million non-Jewish Poles that died in concentration camps and "lumped" in but not identified as being part of the six million Jews killed by Hitler. Furthermore, the circus atomosphere created by the money-grubbing heirs of American casulties cheapened their sacrifice.

We'll probably never even get to the real failings which led to the attack since it became politicized by both parties and the Bush-Chaney puppet show refused to give sworn testimony. Chaney then had the audacity after the first draft report of the fact-finding committee to chide the report as incomplete because it lacked evidence he claimed to know but did not present in testimony. How incredible is that?

Bush supporters just cannot seem to be able to let go of the notion Iraq was not responsible for the twin towers destruction. There was more of a Rumsfeld & Chaney connection to Saddam than one between Saddam and bin Laden. Afterall, Rumsfeld and Chaney met with and provided biological weapon material to Saddam to use on Iranians, which he did (as well as his own people). Its well documented.

The timing of Bush's adventures into Iraq coincided with an election and followed very closely on the heels of the failed Operation Anaconda in which bin Laden, surrounded in the mountains of Afghanistan, was able to escape. Since bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia, striking terror from posts in Afghanistan but escaped to the mountains of Pakistan, why did Bush invade Iraq? Connect the dots!

If nothing else, Moore's 9/11 movie made me as disgusted towards the Democrats failure to force a debate on the need for war as Bush's and Blair's lies justifying it. The cowardice of our elected officials by failing to debate the need for war makes me sick as does their "sanitizing" the 9/11 report with anectdotal testimony by Bush and Chaney. Its becoming quite clear that Kerry nor Bush really have our interest at heart, but in the final analysis, I'd choose Kerry in a heartbeat over Bush. Bush has run this country like he has run his oil business, into the ground and ready to sell out to the highest bidder.

Posted by: Joel at July 21, 2004 01:11 AM

Mike Morgan,

Thank you for your commentary. I'm glad you were paying attention to me. In response let me reply with the following. Now that the dust has settled and we know based on every reliable source that WMD's have not been found on Iraqi soil what can we conclude? Initially Bush stated the reason to invade Iraq was WMD. Okay no WMD's now what? Remove a tyranical madman whose guilty of human rights abuses correct? Is that our reason for risking american lives? If we want to make that our argument now, what of the other 23 countries world wide that are guilty of the same human rights abuses? (Rowanda, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea to name a few). What's the difference between those nations and Iraq? Oil perhaps? For the lies that Bush has used to mislead us he shouldn't be celebrated or even applauded, he should be impeached!!!

Posted by: Douglas Betts at July 21, 2004 01:49 PM

I was a republican, I was a Bush supporter. Now I am independent and seriously anti-bush. I went to the movie thinking it was a pack of lies and walked out wondering if I had been mislead before I even went in. So I did some research and you know what, in every case so far the facts are still facts, they haven't miraculously changed.
Bush was a 'C' average student
Bush skipped a medical exam and was dropped from service (in the National Gaurd, here in America) when he should have been fighting in the war
Bush failed in most of his business ventures
I could go on and on. That is enough in my book to say that somebody is unworthy of the highest office of our country. We should be picking the best of the best to run our country, not some mediocre rich spoilt kid. "My daddy's the President!" La-dee-da! What a jack*ss?
Bush represents us. Is that what we want the world to see? A guy who can barely speak in public and has never achieved anything even remotely interesting in his life? Did you realize that Bush is the one and only president in the history of this country to have never published a single work of any kind? THE ONLY ONE, EVER! NOT EVEN ONE PAPER!
How the hell did our standards get so low? Are we really becoming trailer trash? The whole country?

As far as the movie goes, how do you twist the fact that the former CEO of Halliburton quit to become vise president, still holds stock in the company, and then the company gets awarded their largest contract ever, no bid, after he works so hard on shady evidence to invade Iraq? Did he ever really quit? Tell me how I can I make that story up with camera angles? To all you flat-worlder blind bush supporters who have never seen the movie. Grow a brain and think for yourselves.
Yes, it is slanted, no one said otherwise, but to call facts of public record flat out lies is just plane ignorant.

Posted by: Bill at July 21, 2004 05:51 PM

Is it just me or is Bush not only the worst ..but most despised President we ever had ?? The folks I talk to are ready for revolution !!

Posted by: Dave R at July 21, 2004 09:50 PM

Does anyone actually think that a film producer with a twisted opinion dealing with no proof or facts actually knows more (or anything) about the security and running of this Great Nation of ours...than the current President? Does M. Moore know more than everyone?

I would think that anyone with bucks and hollywood contacts could put out a movie about anything they wish...good or bad.

Yet should not most intelligent people do their OWN research...learn their own facts instead of taking the word of someone who has such hate in them?

It's a movie folks....just a movie bashing someone that I find steps up to the plate when others attack him...steps up to the plate when this COUNTRY is attacked. So glad he didn't say he would protect our interests then flip flop and sign us over to Iraq. So glad he didn't change his mind about our troops...and throw their medals over the wall and forget them, betray them. He did what needed to be done.

I mean...do you believe everything you read in the press, everything you see on TV, do you believe every movie you have seen?

Most everyone who went to see F 911....went there wanting to see the worst on Bush...they got it...they didn't get facts...they got hate.

Since when has Hollywood ever protected YOUR interests...since when has it started being oh so honest and factual?

Posted by: GreenEyes at July 22, 2004 05:31 AM

I would like to know where Michael Moore was during the Vietnam war? I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that he was not in Vietnam with President Bush fighting the VC. President Bush volunteered for service in Vietnam, he was wounded in action and was awarded the purple heart, and he saved the life of his fellow soldiers and was awarded the silver star. Meanwhile back in the United States, John Kerry was spending all of his time drinking and partying. His father managed to pull some strings and get him into the national guard so that he would not be drafted and be shipped out to Vietnam, John Kerry is a coward, plain and simple. Anyone who attacks our president is in league with Satan, although it was perfectly acceptable to attack Bill Clinton because he was a democrat, during the 1990s I drove around with a confederate bumber sticker on my truck, but when President Bush took office, I replaced that confederate bumper sticker with the American flag.

Posted by: henryclay at July 22, 2004 10:46 AM

Aynone who attacks this movie has A) never seen it, or B) gets all there news from right wing talk radio...probally B. IF YOU WANT TO STOP TERRORIST THAN STOP ACTING LIKE TERRORIST! Steping up to the plate does not mean that YOU HAVE TO GO TO WAR. WAR SOLVES NOTHING... Does anybody on this whole forum feel safer now that we have killed 11,000 civilans in Iraq? If you said yes your full of sh*t. Now we have there familys out for revenge....DOES IT REALLY SUPRISE ANYONE THAT MORE SOLDIERS (GOD REST THERE SOUL) HAVE BEEN KILLED SINCE "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" THAN BEFORE?

Posted by: joe at July 22, 2004 05:25 PM

Michael moore is very talented and is a good director. Many posting commenting that they believe this movie to be true and factual I recently saw lord of the rings the return of the king and i got to tell you if half of that movie is true well,I try to get my info from the three or four major news organizations and my entertainment from the movies.I am a wild and crazy guy.

Posted by: mike Republican at July 22, 2004 09:30 PM

Dear Chris Palmertree:

You wrote, "No, it makes things more stable when a country's own citizens rise up and take their freedom. For they worked and fought for it. It IS destabilizing when a country half way across the world comes and gives you your freedom and you didn't have to do anything for it."

Are you implying that we should not have freed France, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc. in World War II? I think those countries have been relatively stable since the Allies gave them their freedom by overthrowing a brutal tyrant. Haven't Germany and Japan been pretty stable during the last 59 years since we conquered them? Should France not have helped us during the Revolutionary War?

You wrote, "Unless you yourself are over there securing Iraqi citizen's freedom and dying in insurgent bomb attacks, you did not pay."

If you had read the post to which I was responding, my comment was directed to the individual who was referring to monetary payment for the war in Iraq.

Posted by: Mike Morgan at July 22, 2004 09:35 PM

boycottliberhollywood.com- this website lists all the deceits the movie has to offer. 59 to be exact and they are all there for you to read. Sorry. But I dont need to waste my time to see some garbage fake documentry to know its. I feel bad for anyone who actually thinks this B.S. "film" is real.

Posted by: Camo at July 22, 2004 11:27 PM

Dear Douglas Betts:

To address the points you've made:

1) If Bush should be impeached for the supposed "lies" surrounding Iraq's possession of WMDs, then you would have had to impeach Bill Clinton for the same thing, since he also believed that Iraq had WMDs. So did Tony Blair. And the French. And lots of other governments. Ask the 5,000 Kurds who were gassed years ago if Iraq had possessed WMDs at some point.

2) Our reason for risking American lives was never Iraq's human rights abuses, but rather because Iraq was directly involved in sponsoring terrorism against the United States; for example:

- The FBI's New York branch, which investigated the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, concluded that Iraq was responsible for that attack.

- Documents have been found in Iraq that showed that Abdul Rahman Yasin, a key figure in the 1993 WTC bombing, was paid by the Iraqi government. Court documents show that Ramzi Yousef, another key figure in the attack, was an Iraqi intelligence agent.

- Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is credited with creating the plan for the 9/11 attacks, is also an Iraqi intelligence agent.

3) Saddam Hussein was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel. While that does not represent support of terrorism directly against the US, it does represent support against an ally.

It's easy to sit back and say we haven't found any WMDs (actually we have found some) and assume that we never will. It's also easy to ignore Iraq's clear connection to terrorism against the United States, particularly when the major news media outlets won't discuss it. However, some honest research into Iraq's role in both WTC attacks might yield some interesting insights.

Posted by: Mike Morgan at July 23, 2004 04:24 AM

Hey Green Eyes, when are you and the other Bushies going to accept the fact that IRAQ DID NOT CAUSE 9/11. To say that Bush "stepped up to the plate when others attacked" falls into the "brainwashed" category. Look at the facts. Think for yourself. It was bin Laden that attacked. All together now, bin Laden! Even Wolfowitz said pursuing WMD in Iraq was a reason he could sell to the world as a reason to invade them. But, when Bush showed the intel to world leaders, they did not buy into it.

The so-called coalition forces of which 5 have just pulled out includes only the US, Brits and Poland as the major players. Poland is beholden to the US because in order to join NATO, which they very much wanted to do, they needed to upgrade their air fleet. The Bush admininstration entered into a zero interest sales agreement to sell them fighter jets to comply with NATO requirements. I'm sure most of that debt will somehow be forgiven. An overwhelming majority of Poles are against Poland's participation in the Iraq occupation.

As far as the Brits are concerned, Tony Blair lied to his country's citizens as did Bush. Let Britan match our 130,000 troops there if he is so committed to his war. Instead, he is talking about reducing the British military by 15,000 troops while we are flirting with a draft reinstatement just to maintain our hold there.

I heard that Moore is working on a similar 9/11 documentary but in Britain against Tony Blair. I hope he pulls that one off too as Blair should get the boot as Bush surely will once Americans come to their senses and think for themselves.

Re-Defeat Bush in 2004!!

Moore's movie uses real footage from the media and private individuals. To say his movie is all false is to disclaim

Posted by: Joel at July 23, 2004 09:15 AM

Isn't it about time for someone to do a "documentary" on Jabba the Moore?

Posted by: Sam D. at July 23, 2004 09:31 AM

Dear Dave R:

> Is it just me or is Bush not only the worst ..but most despised President we ever had ?? The folks I talk to are ready for revolution !!

It's just you! :)

Posted by: Mike Morgan at July 23, 2004 03:19 PM

To Ryan Mergenthal

I speak on the behalf of the people you just labeled as sheep. You are very naive to believe that we as Americans are ill. You have attempted to create an argument, which in my own opinion you have failed to defend. The Iraq and Al Qaeda connection has already been discredited. Although Osama bin Laden briefly explored the idea of forging ties with Iraq in the mid-1990s, the terrorist leader was hostile to Hussein's secular government, and Iraq never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or weapons. The main reason that Saddam, did not collaborate with Al Qaeda is due to the fact that they would have been a threat to his establishment. Saddam knew quite well that with a religious uprising by the masses, he could be potentially deposed. You can make anyone do anything in the name of god. Saddam’s main interest was self-preservation and power and how to keep it. To suggest that Abu Al-Zarqawi is the missing link between Saddam and Al Qaeda again is misinforming the people. In May 2002 Zarqawi traveled to Iraq. He had his leg amputated and had a prosthetic limb to replace it. May-July 2002 Zarqawi spent time recovering in Baghdad. Of course, there is a natural curiosity as to why he chose Baghdad, but this is not a smoking gun, that allows a sovereign country to attack another. If you are going by a housing policy, which is, if you contain a terrorist then you are a terrorist, then we should of already bombed Saudi Arabia back into the stone age. Lets not forget that 9-11 was executed by mostly Saudis, and yet, we have not fired a single shot. There is no constituency. The Niger yellow cake incident, again, has been discredited by the CIA, regardless of what British intelligence suggests. NOT TRUE! When President Bush said the sixteen infamous words, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa", people were terrified, and most supported going to war. He was referring to a document originally obtained from Italian intelligence, which purported that Hussein had purchased a grade of enriched uranium commonly referred to as "yellow cake" from the African nation of Niger. Former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, had traveled to Africa, and had warned the CIA that the document was a forgery. The CIA told the state department, and they told the White House. It was obvious that the claim simply did not belong in the State of the Union speech. Everyone under the sun but Bush himself was eventually blamed for the gaffe by White House spokesman, and media pundits. And my friend, yes, we are alone even with 30 nations in our “coalition” Here is your coalition: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, UK, Uzbekistan. If some of these countries do not sound familiar to you, don’t feel bad. Most are insignificant, and have no geopolitical authority, or wealth. Let me put this into perspective, their combined GDP and purchasing power, is roughly that of California’s. Let’s not forget that most of our causalities have been Americans. You come out being so self-righteous. It made me almost want to puke. You are blinded by your ignorance. (Funny how we believe the other is ignorant). The president only created more terrorist and not destroyed them. But I will give you that these people cannot be bartered with, nor dealt with in any diplomatic fashion, but the war in Iraq was wrong. You are very naive to think that if we kill them off one by one, they will stop. you can not destroy and ideology, it is bigger than one person or a thousand people. For every one we kill, there will be two to take their fathers place. Their culture embraces vengeance and revenge, you remember that when you sleep. The only deterrent to war is Death, and you cannot defeat enemy that is not afraid to die, especially one that has no face, and nation. We had no business turning nations into democracy unless we are directly attacked. Are you ready to go to K. Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Jordan, Palestine, and the other numerous counties that we do not disagree with? If your not, then don’t talk about Iraq and freedom and blah blah blah. Remember you have to be consistent or your argument will have holes. Do you really think that Iraq will flourish on the banner of democracy? Then you do not know your history. The only other Democracy in the Mid East is Jerusalem and look how much fun they are having. You can not replace 5000 years of tribal rule with 3 distinct divisions (Sunni, Shiites, and Kurds) and make them live in peace. The real fun will begin when we start pulling out little by little, and the Iraq civil war commences. God Bless John Kerry

Posted by: Jock at July 23, 2004 04:01 PM

To Dave R -

You said:
"Does anyone actually think that a film producer with a twisted opinion dealing with no proof or facts actually knows more (or anything) about the security and running of this Great Nation of ours...than the current President? Does M. Moore know more than everyone?"

Dealing with no proof or facts? NO PROOF OR FACTS? You have to be kidding me! You haven't seen the movie have? No, I'm sure you haven't! What did Michael Moore go back in time and change public records? Rewrite press articles? Are you telling me that Bush really did go to Viet Nam? Really did get better grades? That the old footage of his dad and the Bin Ladens was actually faked? That he didn't sit on the board of a defense contractor? That they didn't do all that business with Saudi? That his first cousin didn't actually announce his predicted victory on Fox? That all those people of color didn't really stand in the white house and demand a recount, only to be rejected? Was that faked? Was the inaugural protest faked? Was the recount data after the fact faked? Cheney quitting Halliburten to become Vip is a lie? Halliburten getting award their biggest contract of ALL TIME after the Iraq invasion which the Bush administration pushed on shadey evidence, that's all a bunch of lies??? What are you, dense? Half of the stuff in that movie is common knowledge. Yes, there is slant, good achievements are left out, bad things are blown out of proportion at times, but to dismiss the entire thing as lies is just down right silly. If you get a speeding ticket, is that your defense to the judge? "I don't like it so it's all a pact of lies! None of it is based on fact or truth!"

Besides, did anyone say that Michael Moore claimed to know more about running this country than Bush? NO! There is not one single mention of any such nonsense anywhere in that film. If I say that a point-gaurd for a sport team sucks and that there are tons of better players out there, does that equate to me thinking I could do a better job? NO! It's a simple observation that the team would win more with a more professional player with greater abilities. I don't believe you people sometimes.

Bottom line, SHUT UP OR GO SEE THE MOVIE! How can you have an opinion on something you haven't even see for yourself?

Posted by: Bill at July 23, 2004 05:35 PM

Well said Kevin...well said.

Posted by: Jirai at July 24, 2004 12:13 AM

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq
during the month of January..... In the fair
city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the
month of January.

That's just one American city, about as deadly
as the entire war torn country of Iraq.

Some claim President Bush shouldn't have
started this war ...however,

FDR...led us into World War II.

Germany never attacked us: Japan did.

From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost,
an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman...finished that war and started one in Korea,
North Korea never attacked us.

From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost,
an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy...started the Vietnam
conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire.

From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost,
an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton...went to war in Bosnia without UN
or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us.

He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.

Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us
President Bush has: liberated two countries,
crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida,
put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and
North Korea without firing a shot, and
captured a terrorist who slaughtered
300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining
about how long the war is taking, but...
It took less time to take Iraq
than it took Janet Reno to take the
Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of
chemical weapons in Iraq for less
time than it took Hillary Clinton to
find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division
and the Marines to destroy the Medina
Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to
call the police after his Oldsmobile
sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took
to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!

The Military moral is high!

The biased media hopes we are too
ignorant to realize the facts.

Posted by: Wade at July 24, 2004 12:46 AM

Michael Moore/Lying *SS$&^*,
He said that 75% percent of the American soldiers who died in this Iraq war were Minorities and that is a bold faced lie. The fact is that the 75% percent of American soldiers who died were in fact WHITE!!! He should be sued for his sick lies. He also said that the Bin Laden family was allowed to leave the Country when all the planes were grounded. Another damn lie from a worthless fat slob/Traitor. He said he interviewed several Senators and Congressman and asked them if they wouldn't mind having there sons or daughters sent to Iraq to fight in this war and no one said yes to this!! Another lie by the fact ugly bastard. Several Congressman and Senators do have there sons and daughters fighting in Iraq and when he got aswers that he didn't like he said none of them answered yes. I saw two Congressman who were asked by Moore and when they said yes to that question he walked away like a crying baby and did not show the facts. He wants all the Minorities and other gullable idiots out there to vote for his man Kerry. He is a sick bastard as well because he hit on Hillary Clinton and that is one sick SOB!! He is a sick hound with no morals. If you want taxes to be 10% percent or more higher than Vote for Kerry and his boyfriend Edwards. They are both for same sex marriages and what a coincidence that the first State to approve it was MASS. Kerry's State!!! I myself don't want another Sodem and Gomora. Eveyone says Bush is stupid but wait until the debates and watch him make a fool of Kerry. If Kerry is so sure that he will win the election then he should step down from his Senate seat like Bob Dole did. He has missed over a hundred VOTES in the Senate and one of them being the best supplies and equipment for our troops in Iraq. If your want a strong leader and Country then vote for Bush but if you want another embarrassing leader that has affairs and has no morals then vote for Kerry/Scary!!! We need to send Michael FAT *SS Moore to Iraq on a one way ticket and our own troops would probably waste him. When Clinton was in office we had a scandal every month even from his wife or his sluts he messed around with and lied about. That really made us look good around the World. Kerry looks like Herman Monster and will be one in the White House. I pray that President Bush gets re elected and wins by ten percent or more. What ever happened to the Baldwin actors who said they would leave the Country if Bush became President?? We should have shipped them off to Sudan!!! Michael Moore and Kerry/Edwards are worthless immoral sick bastards and Kerry's wife is a B%*#%!! We are safer now then before 911 and Bush had the balls to get rid of a sick Dictator.
Sincerely
Pete G.
(Edited)

Posted by: Peter G. at July 24, 2004 04:00 AM

Has ANYONE noticed a pattern on this bulletin board; everyone who is pro Bush exhibit intellectual deficiencies in the way the express their opinions. This only proves that people who support Bush are mindless sheep and utterly clueless. There is one chap who posted his opinion (JOEL) who was right on point and I wish to commend him on his thoughts. I was compelled to repost his note but made one correction. North Korea admitted that it has WMD’s and would them on America.

Posted by: Joel at July 21, 2004 01:11 AM

Mike Morgan,

Thank you for your commentary. I'm glad you were paying attention to me. In response let me reply with the following. Now that the dust has settled and we know based on every reliable source that WMD's have not been found on Iraqi soil what can we conclude? Initially Bush stated the reason to invade Iraq was WMD. Okay no WMD's now what? Remove a tyrannical madman who’s guilty of human rights abuses correct? Is that our reason for risking American lives? If we want to make that our argument now, what of the other 23 countries worldwide that is guilty of the same human rights abuses? (Rwanda, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea who has threatened to use it’s WMD’s on America to name a few). What's the difference between those nations and Iraq? Oil perhaps? For the lies that Bush has used to mislead us he shouldn't be celebrated or even applauded, he should be impeached!!!

Posted by: David at July 24, 2004 08:33 AM

I dare anyone to read the 911 report and tell me where it says president Bush knew about the attacks and let it happen or any of the many liberal lies the president has been accused of. I feel sorry for a nation that can believe a stupid movie like unfair911. I have no problem on debate over issues but to listen to lies or start them for political gain is wrong. This election year has shown the pure hate that the left has at heart and it should turn the stomach of all good Americans to see their true colors from Al Gore to Ted Kennedy with their complete lies. Vote for Bush and let the liberal left know this country cannot be won with hate and lies.

Posted by: 4America at July 24, 2004 11:39 AM

Response to Jirai:
George invaded a country that did not pose a threat to us and was not responsible for the destruction of the WTC. His boys: Rumsfeld and Powell both stated that Iraq did not have WMD and did not have the capability to manufacture them in 2001. The country that did and still does pose a threat to us because of their involvement in 9/11 (weren’t the hijackers Saudi?) is Saudi Arabia but we’re not going to touch them. George is too personally involved in them and their oil. Wouldn’t want to hurt daddy’s work. But he’s willing to put your child’s life in danger.

The U.S. fought against the Axis – of which Japan was a part, not just Germany and the number of lives lost was closer to 300,000 (if you want to be picky).

Truman’s domestic policy called the Fair Deal brought changes, which could have been large changes if the typically conservative Republicans in Congress weren’t worried about the effect it would have on their economic hierarchy.
What is george’s domestic policy? Tax cuts for the rich, flip/flop on his “No Child Left Behind” stunt, cut funding for veterans and benefits for the families of those serving in the military RIGHT NOW.
Truman also took responsibility for his actions as president – he didn’t look for a scapegoat.

No doubt that our current usurper did not read his history book. We entered the Vietnam “Conflict” because of fabricated intelligence and the unsubstantiated aggression from an unknown enemy – communism. (“Terrorism” being the 21st century’s communism).
BTW: Eisnehower started the "conflict"

What is it with you guys? You either want the UN or not! Clinton went to “war” without US consent and you gripe – george creates a war without UN consent and you don’t complain?

NOW, Consider THIS:
In the two years since terrorists attacked us,
President Bush
has liberated two countries, Liberated two countries? According to who…george?
crushed the Taliban – the same Taliban that he so lovingly entertained in Texas as investors?
crippled al-Qaida – but not out –as george promised – again a lie.
put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea – sounds like george is taking credit for the work of the UN.

captured a terrorist – Would that be Osama Bin Ladin? I think not!
Saddam Hussein may have terrorized his countrymen, but don’t you think that if we were concerned about the mistreatment of citizens and WMD’s we should have invaded and imperialized North Korea, too? Of course not, because, according to Wolfowitz, “there’s oil in Iraq.”

INSTEAD OF TERRORIST ATTACKING AMERICA…GEORGE TOOK IT UPON HIMSELF
• In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.
• Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.
• Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.
• Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.
• Signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any president in US history.
• Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
• Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
• Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.
• Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. (http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/)
• Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
• The most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.
• Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice has an Chevron oil tanker named after her).
• First president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt.
• Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.
• First president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation.
• Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
• Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.
• First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.
• First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.
• Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.
• Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
• Withdrew from the World Court of Law.
• Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
• First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).
• All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.
• My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
• Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.
• First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.
• First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)
• First US president to establish a secret shadow government.
• Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
• With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.
• First US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
• First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.
• Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
• Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.
• Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.
• Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.
• In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.
• Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.
• In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.
• Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

Worst president in history? You Bet!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...
The democrats are NOT complaining about the length of the “war” but the necessity of it and the motive for going to war.

Your "Talking points" about Janet Reno, Hillary CLinton (two powerful fear-striking women!) Ted Kennedy and the lies in Florida excuses did not put our military in harms way.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS! STOP GEORGE!

Posted by: nobody's fool at July 24, 2004 08:46 PM

Michael Moore won't so much as go on a single interview (not even Larry King) where his points can be refuted. If he had his way, you'd judge the bush administration solely on his movie (and despite what Moore claims, at least half of his points ARE upright lies, and a good portion of the rest are gross perversions of the truth). I dont know if he actually has convinced himself of the garbage he preaches, but if so, he'd best grow the balls to defend it. I left the movie theater feeling disgusted that this movie was made by a man calling himself american.

Posted by: Nick at July 25, 2004 09:45 AM

In response to crabapple's comments of July 12th:
As a matter of fact the Bush administration was warned by foriegn intelligence services (Egyptian,German etc.) that a major attack from al Qaeda was probably imminent. We actually enjoyed reasonably good relations with our traditional European allies (including France)
before Bush decided that international corporate business interests were far more important than
the safety of the american people and national security. This is the only logical explanation for deceiving the people and the congress in order to launch an illegal "preventive" war on Iraq. The buildup to the invasion of Iraq made it necessary to divert much needed military resources
from the hunt for bin Laden (read: bin Forgotten) in the Pakistani/Afgani border region. The 9-11
comission (chaired by a Republican) has made it clear that there was no operational relationship between bin Laden and Iraq. The reasons for the Iraq fiasco have to do with the geopolitical/military value of oil and also with corporate business interests, not as Bush has implied with national security 9unless one includes the right of corporate business interests to exploit all the people of the world(including American workers) as ruthlessly as they wish.
I can also assert that there is no reason to doubt that had John been president at 9-11 we would have comitted all the needed military and intelligence resources necessary to capture or kill bin Laden. There's also a good chance that a Kerry administration would have actually prevented tha World Trade Center attack. The fact is that Bush has been unduely inflenced by neoconservatives of the Project for a New American Century in his foriegn policy. A major terrorist attack on U.S. soil was actually in the interests of PNAC people like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz because it gave them the excuse to make war in the middle east (not for American security)for purposes of world domination. John Kerry is a real patriot who would put the national security (of people) before the corporate desire to exploit the resources and people of the world. Perhaps the saddest element of Bush's fictional superiority on national security is that as he has demonstrated he actuall has very little incentive to catch bin Laden because trhis would again bring forth media coverage of his own long standing business relationship with the bin Laden family. The only way to be rid of such conflicts of interests regarding our national security is to elect the war hero Kerry and send the unelected draft dodger and deserter back to Crawford Texas.

Posted by: Louis Rue at July 25, 2004 01:19 PM

Responding to "Nobody's fool", typical democrat - doesn't post his real name. Democrats alonf with the liberal press are always quoting "unnamed sorces". There are so many wrong facts in your posting, that I won't even attempt to correct them. As far as the UN goes, do you think the food for oil contract with Sadaam might have been a reason they were protecting Sadaam. And possibly the money Germany, France and Russia were making selling arms to Sadaam might have been a reason they didn't side with us. The world is run by oil- we all have to understand that. Using up a thirty day reserve supply only puts the US in a worse dependency on OPEC. Why don't we stop worry about the Carabou in Alaska, and start refining our own oil - 1 to 1.5 million barrels a day in our own country. Because the liberals put more importance on animals in Alaska then they do our own natural resources. Take a look at the Carter Admin - when he had both The House and The Senate and look what he did to our economy. Peta (a support group of the Democrats) cries about chickens getting thrown against a wall - but show me one democrat that has stood up and opposed the beheading of U.S. and other civilians in Iraq. That is disgusting, that they don't have the balls to stand up and say that it is wrong. And last of all - if Bush is really as bad as you say he is - why is he leading in most of the polls? - people believe overwhelming that they feel safer against terrorism then if Kerry where in office.
George Bush will be re-elected and you liberals will be crying for another four years.

Posted by: Steve Plamann at July 25, 2004 04:12 PM

This is the LIFE of your 'upstanding' Kerry....if you dare...read it and weap.

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/page2.html

He is nothing but a coward and someone who will say and do whatever it takes...to gain favor, money, votes...he stands for nothing...he believes in nothing...he has accomplished nothing...has he ever even had a REAL job?

You think Kerry is going to protect the USA? You think he will be a strong leader? Read a few things you may not know....I hope SOMEONE makes a movie of kerry...opening with a pair of flip flops...with the words traitor on them...he seems to want to be VERY close with all other countries...but yet seems to neglect his own....missing votes, or voting for abortion, partial birth abortion...voting against laws to protect pregnant mothers....yea...he is a real man...

NOT....read on....

The Washington Times
December 6, 2002

John Kerry's war record

As Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, considers a bid for the White House, Americans should know a few things about him that he might prefer go unmentioned — and I don't mean his $75 haircuts.

When Mr. Kerry pontificated at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on Veterans Day, a group of veterans turned their backs on him and walked away. They remembered Mr. Kerry as the anti-war activist who testified before Congress during the war, accusing veterans of being war criminals. The dust jacket of Mr. Kerry's pro-Hanoi book, "The New Soldier," features a photograph of his ragged band of radicals mocking the U.S. Marine Corps Memorial, which depicts the flag-raising on Iwo Jima, with an upside-down American flag.

Retired Gen. George S. Patton III charged that Mr. Kerry's actions as an anti-war activist had "given aid and comfort to the enemy," as had the actions of Ramsey Clark and Jane Fonda. Also, Mr. Kerry lied when he threw what he claimed were his war medals over the White House fence; he later admitted they weren't his. Now they are displayed on his office wall.

Long after he changed sides in congressional hearings, Mr. Kerry lobbied for renewed trade relations with Hanoi. At the same time, his cousin C. Stewart Forbes, chief executive for Colliers International, assisted in brokering a $905 million deal to develop a deep-sea port at Vung Tau, Vietnam — an odd coincidence.

As noted in the Inside Politics column of Nov. 14 (Nation), historian Douglas Brinkley is writing Mr. Kerry's biography. Hopefully, he'll include the senator's latest ignominious feat: preventing the Vietnam Human Rights Act (HR2833) from coming to a vote in the Senate, claiming human rights would deteriorate as a result. His actions sent a clear signal to Hanoi that Congress cares little about the human rights for which so many Americans fought and died.

The State Department ranked Vietnam among the 10 regimes worldwide least tolerant of religious freedom. Recently, 354 churches of the Montagnards, a Christian ethnic minority, were forcibly disbanded, and by mid-October, more than 50 Christian pastors and elders had been arrested in Dak Lak province alone. On Oct. 29, the secret police executed three Montagnards by lethal injection simply for protesting religious repression. The communists are conducting a pogrom against the Montagnards, forcing Christians to drink a mixture of goat's blood and alcohol and renounce Christianity.

Thousands have been killed or imprisoned or have just "disappeared." The Montagnards lost one-half of their adult male population fighting for the United States, and without them, there might be thousands more American names on that somber black granite wall at the Vietnam memorial.

As Mr. Kerry contemplates a run for the presidency, people must remember that he has fought harder for Hanoi as an anti-war activist and a senator than he did against the Vietnamese communists while serving in the Navy in Vietnam.

MICHAEL BENGE
Foreign Service officer and former Vietnam POW (1968 to 1973)
Washington

Posted by: GreenEyes at July 26, 2004 02:39 AM

To HenryClay:

Regarding your reference to Michael Moore and his service in Vietnam or lack thereof you compared him to Bush and his service during the war? I have only to wonder what news copy have you been reading? Or what record have you been following? Bush, unlike Kerry did like most priviledged americans did. He stayed home, while the poor and disadvantaged went off to fight!!!

Bush's military record was very undistinguished. PLEASE READ UP ON THE FACTS !!! Finally I'm a bit bewildered by the congratualatory praise given Bush for his actions after 9/11. He did what any commander and chief should have done, talk tough and take action!!! I believe Kerry and or any other president would have done the same! It is naive to think that any President Republican or Democrat would not have taken action after the bombing of the trade towers, especially given the political pressure.

My problem with Bush is the same as most others who feel the way I do. He led us in a misguided, meaningless campaign against an government which despite many of the ramblings of pro-Bush supporters have no link to Al-Queda and Bin-Laden. READ THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORTS PEOPLE!!! It was a bi-partisan study so you can't claim bias.

After months of babble and rebuttle I have yet to hear or read a legitimate reason for why we are in Iraq. It's for this reason along with many others BUSH MOST GO!!!

Posted by: Douglas Betts at July 26, 2004 02:17 PM

In response to nobody's fool - I must start with full disclosure. Although I am not a registered Republican nor do I support the Republican party in any financial way, I am more conservative person (married, 2 kids, living in the suburbs) and I like President Bush and probably will vote for him again.

I am always amazed how our distain for a person clouds our judgement or our willingness to search for the truth. I was never a fan of former President Clinton however the distain and hate for this man from the far right was incredible. The Democrats called these folks out and shined a light on the the hate mongers that they were. The press really hounded the right wing wacks during President Clinton's years in office. Since President Bush became President, the bashing of the President has become the "in" thing for the Press and Hollywood left (Whoopi, Moore, Sarandon, Robbins, Penn, Baldwin, I could go on....). The disrespect and hate mongering is as bad as (if not worse) when President Clinton was in office. Yet if anyone calls the Hollywood elitest hate mongers, then you are infringing on their "free speech". Oh well - I guess all closed minded party loyalists are blind. It goes both ways....

Now when I read the list of things George Bush took upon himself in your posting, I was amazed that you actually posted those things. A majority of the list was from a Bush bashing e-mail going around the last year called "Bush's Resume". I did some research on the claims to see how truthful the resume was (My experince over the last 12 years has shown how un-truthful most of these postings are).

Now I am not going to try and convince you to vote for President Bush nor do I care if you vote for John Kerry - what I do care about is posting half truths to further your obvious anti-Bush agenda. Since many people who have not yet made up their minds will read your response, I am offering a counter view to the statements in your posting.

For those interested in seeking the truth - Read the investigation to the Bush Resume found at the link below and make your own judgement on whether the statements are accurate. I also encourage you to further investigate statements on these and other postings. Educate yourself on the positions of each candidate and vote for the one that is most aligned with your views.

To nobody's fool - I look forward to more debate, however I expect you to do your homework because I certainly will do mine.....

http://www.filestash.net/The_Truth.pdf

Posted by: search4truth at July 26, 2004 05:35 PM

To Jock

93 WTC is the "missing link" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Iraq sponsored terrorism pure and simple. They may not be able to prove a working relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda in recent years, but the facts dictate that Iraq financed and supported Al Qaeda operatives and did it regularly. Your logic seems to overlook that, and you only addressed the points I made which you thought you could bring a counterfactual to. Bah. Very Michael Moore-ish of you. Quite frankly, Jock, you had nothing to say that I hadn't heard a million times already, and hearing you regurgitate it only made it more illegitimate. I have to laugh when you cite Joseph Wilson as a legitimate source; a man who never would have gone to Africa if not for his wife's, Valeri Plume, recommendation. His report was based on his own personal and miserable intelligence gathering. His report was based on questions he asked high-ranking officials. He didn't perform any surprise inspections or espionage of any secret government documents. He only had statements from Nigerian officials who had enough plausible deniability to deny they were standing in the same room as him. And he's even assaulted his own credibility after contradicting his own reports. So don't throw the "Old Reliable Joe" argument out there because it proves nothing, only that you're susceptible to fallacy. And I believe you're foolish to think spreading democracy wouldn't root out and destroy the terrorists. Not every person in the Middle East is a terrorist. The majority aren't, and terrorists today are striking and killing Muslim people of the Middle East in their so-called jihad. The only uprising that will result from that is free people versus the terrorist plague destroying their nations. One by one, the dictatorships will fall and free people will emerge. The terrorists will have no place to hide, and with freedom, the ideology of hatred will die in impotence when people stop committing themselves to the death taught by Islamic extremists. Hell, you don't even want to give them a chance at freedom. You look down upon them as blood-thirsty savages who could never set aside their differences and live in peace. If you think peace is so universally effective, then why don't you think it could triumph in a free middle east? Why does peace have to come at the price of oppression in your book? That's the difference between you and me - I'd give them a chance at freedom. And by the way, I'm enrolling in Marine Corps OCS school to be a pilot. If war were to break out between us and Iran, Syria, N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, or Sudan...I would be there proudly waving my American flag as I drop bombs on the forces of oppression. Quite frankly, your pessimistic blame everybody else, talk a big game but never walk attitude isn't going to make our world any safer. It's easy to hop on the band-wagon and criticize the President for taking initiative while the U.N. sat on its thumbs getting rich off the tyranny in Iraq. The U.N. didn't give a damn about human rights in Iraq. It's proven its anti-human rights stance numerous times throughout the world. Yet you say we should've gotten them involved. How would you have done that - given them a big fat check on the taxpayers' dime and say, "This is for all the money you're about to lose with this regime change?" Ha! One final note, I become more and more self-righteous each day I hear the crap people like you spew. YOU make ME sick! And for all of you who support Kerry and say "Support Our Troops," I just thought I'd point out how Kerry voted against the $87 billion aid package for our soldiers still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan then said he was proud of doing so. Well, looks like you guys are trying to have it both ways too. Peas in a pod.

Posted by: Ryan at July 26, 2004 05:47 PM

Missing links?

Well, it's proven the USA sold biological agents (anthrax) and chemicals to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.

It's well known, and no secret the USA funded Osama Bin Laden in the war in Afganistan against the soviets!

Hey!! Maybe that old phrase, "those who live by the sword, die by the sword" has something in it!!!

Gosh!! I wonder where an irresponsible attack of Iraq will lead??

Well done Bush!!! YOu've secured terrorism for the USA and for our grandchildren.

Posted by: tom at July 26, 2004 08:49 PM

All this banter. How many of you are old enough to vote? Has any one read the 911 commission report? There are links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, just not a collarboration on 911. They have found WMD, just not nuclear ones. You can bet they are out there some where. Was Iraq planning an attack against the US? Yes, just ask Putin. To suggest that our President alone has the power to launch a war is ignorant. The President (he is President not king) and every one else in Congress were privy to the same information. Just ask Kerry. Only he did not bother to read it. No one wants war. No one likes war. This is a volunteer army. America does not "take over the world". We have helped numerous nations over the course of time be free to govern themselves.
Having listened to numerous interviews from people who live in Iraq, they are happy the US ousted Saddam, now they just want us to go home. We are attempting to do just that.

Posted by: Carol at July 27, 2004 11:19 AM

To Ryan Mergenthal

Your Idealism is quite shocking. You apparently do not understand how global politics works nor follow the tenets of philosophy and history. To suggest that the nations containing dictators of the world will fall one by one and would ultimately be replaced by freedom is absurd. The campaign in Iraq has nothing to do with freedom, but an exercise in world conquest. To believe that Iraq had all to do with the liberation of the Iraqi people is only to be naive and uninformative. Since when has the Republican Party been in the business of nation building, other than wanting to expand or protect their world dominance? In March of 1988, allegedly, Saddam gassed the Kurds in Halabja, and if civil rights have always been part of the Republican Party's platform, then why didn't the US address this during the G. Bush Sr. administration? Common you can say it! Because it was not in the U.S. geopolitical interest at the time. So this- let Freedom Ring mentality you have is bull. Iraq and Iran were in a heated conflict, in which we sided with Iraq because of our fears of Iran. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend' - nothing less nothing more. And now, it is too convenient to tie the atrocities of Saddam with our world expansion interest. It is no accident that the largest embassy that the US will be in Iraq; not to mention that the person heading up the new embassy is a creature of the CIA, the same John Negroponte who played a significant role in the CIA-sponsored terrorism of Hondurans during the Nicaraguan Contra War. First and foremost, I am a realist. I am not a lefti-pinko that thinks that we can all get along, but having studied geo-politics for 8 years now, I understand that the world is much more complex than many understand. It is not a matter of might makes right anymore. There are many more nuances and dynamics than in the time of a bi-polarized world such as during a cold war when they were more easily definable. But today if over looked, they could have severe ramifications politically. Iraq has to be one of the U.S most erroneous and political blunders that we will be paying for, for generations to come, both financially and politically. I look at policy objectively in order to find the best policy initiative. Of course, there are many scholars of who agree with this administration, but of course when all is put aside, every political figure has his or her own personal agenda. Policy makers must create policy in the best interest of the U.S., and not let emotions guide their intentions. Look through the looking glass, and ask yourself, what is to gain and what is to lose. I leave you with that.

Posted by: Jock at July 27, 2004 03:31 PM

To Steve P.
You are the reason that America is despised around the world. It is money grubbing, self-serving capitalist pigs such as yourself who are so blind to the bigger picture and can ONLY be concerned with their own wallet. No wonder we are in such environmental trouble. Why are republicans so greedy? Can they not see what the party is about. Such extreme narcissists and a good ol' boy mentality that makes me ill. If this redneck fool is allowed to steal another election it is a sad sad day for all. BEAT Mr. Bush AGAIN in 2004!!!!

Posted by: emily shore at July 27, 2004 05:02 PM

Carol;

How are the links between Saddam an Al Quada any more or less then the links between Bin Laden and Bush himself? Or Saddam and the US (ie, where he baught his army from)?

What kind of WMDs are you talking about? There have been reports of some chemical warheads found, however it should be noted that these are not, and were never, classified as WMDs.

Are these selective interviews? I've heard just as many interviews to the contrary.

Posted by: Aaron at July 27, 2004 05:49 PM

To Jock:

I won't even address your comment about world conquest because it is nothing more than the conspiracy theory of a paranoid closet-case dope-head. And by the way, you can't blame the mistakes of 20 years ago on President Bush. He had nothing to do with what was going on then. Besides, containing the threat of Communism was a much more important agenda, and if you want to blame that "evil" on the Republican party, you ought to read the Truman Doctrine. I believe George W. Bush is a different man than his father. Hell, look at Ron Reagan Jr. Would you say he is the same man as his father? I sure wouldn't. You seem convinced that Nicarague becoming a Communist state would have been just fine for U.S. Security. I think that's foolish because Nicaragua would have become another nuclear missile deployment base for the Soviet Union. That's why Communism had to go - because it put that nation in league with a very, very real threat. And I won't deny that a lot of what we're dealing with today has to do with our efforts to contain Communism in the past. But the Middle East crisis began with Carter, not Reagan. He screwed up, and he screwed up big time. Why do you think 46 states in the Union voted him out of office. Hell, Reagan is the last winning President to carry the majority of the popular vote. You can't blame Bush for what we're dealing with today. It's senselessly and obviously partisan. He had nothing to do with it. They hated us before Iraq, and they were willing to blindly murder us out of hatred. We went to Iraq because of faulty intelligence, regardless of how many of you believe Michael Moore is the bible. I don't care what the ramifications were for that war, so much good has been accomplished, but none of that matters because as you say, "Bush is a liar conspiring for oil." What a joke. This president has given more for humanitarian aid than any other President. He has spent more on the research of alternative energy sources than any other President. Reagan followed his emotions and asked God for guidance, and most people agree he was one of, if not the, greatest president ever. 46 states in 1980, 49 in 1984 (I'm ashamed to say Minnesota was the one oddball state that went to Mondale). Bush is no different from Reagan. Reagan waged an ideological war against Communism. Bush waged one against terrorism. Both men cared nothing about private interests. They cared only about containing what they perceived as a threat. And for this election, the biggest difference between Bush and Kerry is that Bush is devout religiously which means he fears his accountability before God. Kerry defies his church's teachings on a regular basis. I don't know about you, but I trust Bush infinitely for trusting God. Kerry thinks he's above God's laws. Good for him. He and God will have a lot to talk about, I'm sure. After writing yet another long-winded post, I need to go get some food and maybe a beer. I think that's something almost everybody can agree on. My final words to you, Jock, are that I believe in freedom. I believe it works. It may take years for the wonders of freedom to sink into the minds of Iraqis, but I believe it will. I believe they don't truly want to kill eachother. I believe they don't want to see their country destroyed. I believe they rise up because after decades under a brutal dictator, hell, I wouldn't expect them to trust anyone. And for a student who has "studied geo-politics for 8 years now," you sure don't seem willing to share any information about yourself. I've taken Political Science, International Relations, and Economics courses, too, and it's funny how we arrived on different sides. Don't think you've got higher academic credentials than me, because you're only diving into a shallow pond without checking the depth of the water. If you want to carry a civilized debate through email, my email address is mergentr@carleton.edu. Have a good one.

Posted by: Ryan at July 27, 2004 08:36 PM

LOL These comments are freakin hillarious.. I once saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disapeer. I once saw Sandra Bullek jump a bus 50 feet into the air at 70 mph and land on the other side.. But yet people honestly believe that "Film doesn't lie".. It's all about how you cut and splice to tell Micheals Moores Truth.. In the actuall events and factual outline that these things took place it is a totally different story. But Micheal Moore himself has proven that a lot of americans are so stupid that they believe whatever the media shooves down their throat. Want REAL QUOTES.. Visit http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/moore.htm . Then you can decide of Micheal Moore is a Man to be admireed or a man to flock in public..

Posted by: John May at July 28, 2004 01:35 PM

I personally believe like Ronald Reagan who was a president who stuck to what he believed was right despite what the media or what people said negative about him and turns out what he did was right u know it i know it anyways i believe President Bush is very much like ronald reagan he is goin into this war against terrorism knowing that its the right thing to do despite the negativity of the media(cbs,nbc,abc), micheal moore, tree huggers, pida animal rights activist, people who believe they are born gay, illegal immagrents, reverse descriminators who support affirmative action, people that support abortion knowing that if there mom had an abortion they wouldnt be here, well that about sums up the majority of our beloved democrat party all i can say is move to france if u hate america so much u have a right to express urself against are president but it doesnt mean its the right thing to do. tax the rich give to the poor now thats the right thing to do dont u think, how about we also make it impossible to ever give a tax cut again making a universal health care system that will only guarentee higher taxes in the future cause medicince prices only get higher with the ongoing technoligy and new medicinces being produced. and the people who dont recieve any of the benifits cause really they dont need it are the wealthy but they will be paying for 80 percent of it cause the top 10% in wealth pay about 80 percent of our taxes just like they do for other wealfare cases that they will not recieve benifits too cause most welfare cases are for lower income middle class people. well this is what our beloved kerry is goin to do. fair isnt it well i dont think so gotta love bush u will all see that he is doing the right thing and the world will be better off in the long run cause of bush's action against terroism. micheal moore if u hate america so much just move to france they will love u.

Posted by: nathan at July 28, 2004 03:59 PM

It's sad some people still have blind allegiance for our (daddy's boy) president. He has repeatedly lied about and hidden vital information from the American people. Michael Moore is just exposing these lies through his movie, so DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER.

Posted by: concened in California at July 28, 2004 04:00 PM

You Bushies are the telltale of what's happening to America. We are being overrun by bush-voting, remote-clicking, pigshit ignorant slobs. How anyone can vote for Bush, not only once but twice, just shows that you don't have the IQ to cast a vote in the first place.
If you all love America so much, do her a favor and let someone a little higher up on the food chain select the next leader of the country? If you don't, you are doing nothing but damaging the country you claim to love.

Posted by: Bushwhacked at July 28, 2004 04:13 PM

To concerned:

Wow - "Don't Shoot the messenger"? Have you read the 9/11 report recently released by the bi-partisan commission? That is the "messenger" you should be listening to. Michael Moore movie is FAR from an unbiased commentary. The only one lying here is Mr. Moore - READ the report.

To Bushwacked:

I love the elitist attitude - yeah, you are so smart , I am so stupid. So liberal typical! My goodness , it would be utopia if all the Democrats were in charge. LOL - what are you a college student or a professor?

Posted by: search4truth at July 28, 2004 05:03 PM

'If only half of the Film is true...' then I have a bridge in San Francisco for sale. The half truth is there is a bridge, only I don't own it. You thought you were outraged when you saw the film? Wait 'til you get the "rest of the story"... assuming you are interested in reality or are simply satisfied with fictionalized history labeled "Documentary".

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Posted by: SemperFi at July 28, 2004 05:04 PM

the anger among you moore sorry souls upset and sicken me
and this is the simple reason you and your mind sets will never get to the white house
mike moore is freak of nature a fat little man that never got enough attention
he has all the money ( exploting hard working just people i might add ) but cant even loose a pound never mind set an example for america notice kerry has distanced himself from him bottom line he and all you that support his sick lies and denile of all truths of this government are just simple minded unhappy people with no careers no motivation and no insight to the difference of freedom and terrorist keep feeding the terrorist with your temper trandrums people dont see it like me they are wrong
i believe in the power of the united states of american I believe in our constitution and I believe in one nation under god
you got a problem with that then do us and yourselves a huge favor move to france or better yet as charlie daniels has said work hard and buy yourselves an island cause some how i am sure if you have all this piled up anger you need to run jump play maybe jog ..
god bless american and god bless george w bush
i am registered and i will ( will whole lot of others ) vote for bush again
i will not cow tie to france and the euros of ungratefulness ..

Posted by: breezy at July 28, 2004 05:10 PM

How can you idiots be swayed by a liberal weenee like Mr. Moore and his satirical look at the Bush administration? I even read on here that some (sissies) were crying in the theater. Good grief, I hope you sissies never control this Country again!!.

Posted by: BushforPresident at July 28, 2004 09:48 PM

The last man I trusted in the oval office was Ronald Reagan and before him, Jimmy Carter. Now I'm a middle aged cynic who doesn't trust most politicians from either side of the aisle. Today there is a lot of corruption and waste in govenment, so reading the passionate arguments in this forum give me hope that 'We the People' still have the desire to monitor and direct our public officials with the power of the vote. Having said that, I am also disturbed by the naiveté of many who, perhaps with their first political voice, choose to jump on the band wagon of this theatrical presentation by Mr. Moore and herald it as something of substance. The man has a talent for creating these types of productions and, God bless America, lives in a society where he can earn a decent wage for his talents. But honestly, he is the Jerry Springer of 'documentary films', the WWF of journalism, or the video tabloid for 'enquiring minds'. (No offense intended for the respected entertainment venues alluded to above.) Mr. Moore has a history of simular videos (see the review of Bowling for Columbine at http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp). I don't share his political views, and frankly don't know what they are for sure. But I do envy his skill and wish I could afford to hire his accountant. As for Farenheit 911 is concerned, it was masterfully edited. For those of you who want to look behind the curtain and meet the wizard, go to http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm. And those who aren't ready release their newfound political passion, I salute you and welcome you to the greatest country on earth. Take your anger and outrage to the polls in November. Activate your neighbors and above all never take anything at face value. This may sound patronizing, but the greatness of the USA is it's diversity and the Left hand keeping the Right in check (and vise versa.) I am of a conservative nature and will vote for Bush, but truth be told, if he could be president, I'd vote for Glade Schramm, my father-in-law. He is hard working, full of common sense, wisdom and concern for his neighbors. His honor and integrity are beyound reproach. Of course, most of these traits preclude him from all but the lowest of politcal aspirations.

Posted by: SemperFi at July 28, 2004 10:34 PM

Just like he sat back while North Korea cut the UN tags on radioactive fuel rods and began nuclear weapon developement, Bush watched Iran cut the UN tags on centrifuges yesterday which they admit will be used to process nuclear material for weapons. Are Americans safer now since Bush has been in office? Anthrax, bin Laden, North Korea, and now Iran are neglected threats while we spend 1 1/2 billion dollars a week in Iraq on a previously contained threat. 9/11 happened while Bush was on a month long vacation (his fourth vacation in the first 8 months of his presidency)and days after refusing to take serious the FBI's Presidential Daily Briefing describing the imminent threat of bin Laden staging an air attack against the US. College graduate or not, duh!! Intellectual curiousity anyone?

Posted by: joel at July 28, 2004 11:11 PM

Michael Moore the Goebbels of our time.
What are you going to do about it. I did something - so all you Bush bashers eat your potato chips, drink your wine and eventually die having never accomplished anything in your life. On one hand you believe the rich right is out to get everyone and on the other hand you believe the rich white left is out to save you - fools. Oh, just substitute Moore for Goebbels and Kerry for Hitler!
Goebbels, Paul Joseph (1897-1945), German propagandist and politician, born in Rheydt, and educated at the universities of Bonn, Berlin, and Heidelberg. He joined the National Socialist (Nazi) Party in 1922 and began directing the students who entered the organization. In 1925 Goebbels met the party leader Adolf Hitler. In 1926 he was made Gauleiter, or party leader, for the region of Berlin, and in 1927 he founded and became editor of the official National Socialist periodical Der Angriff (The Attack). He was elected to the Reichstag, the German parliament, in 1928 and a year later was chosen as propaganda leader of the Nazi Party, in which capacity he became the apostle of unreasoning hatred of the Jews and other “non-Aryan” groups such as the Slavs. His work as a propagandist materially aided Hitler's rise to power in 1933. In that year, Goebbels was appointed Reichsminister for propaganda and national enlightenment. From then until his death, Goebbels used all media of education and communications to further Nazi propagandistic aims, instilling in the Germans the concept of their leader as a veritable god and of their destiny as the rulers of the world. In 1938 he became a member of the Hitler cabinet council. Late in World War II, in 1944, Hitler placed him in charge of total mobilization. On May 1, 1945, as Soviet troops were storming Berlin, Goebbels committed suicide. The Goebbels Diary for 1942-43, found among his papers, was published in English in 1948.

Posted by: GI Iraq at July 29, 2004 01:19 AM

I voted for Bush--unfortunately, in 2000--and I hated Michael Moore for what I thought were unAmerican sentiments, but I believe that Americans should see his film in order to get the full picture. Bush was the only "minority president" elected in the 20th century! The first presidential election in the 21st century should correct the error and elect a new president. Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: David at July 29, 2004 10:19 AM

Obviously, there are people out there that don't know the old saying "Don't believe anything you hear & only 1/2 of what you see". Has no one ever heard of a little thing called editing? When Bush was on the golf course, the question asked to him was about Israel & Palestine, not about Iraq. What Moore did was a lot of editing, & 95% of what was shown was taken out of context. Get the facts. If you honestly believe the movie, you are extremely gullible.

Posted by: Connie Hehner at July 29, 2004 03:05 PM

WHY ARE WE BLAMING BUSH FOR 9/11? CLINTON IS THE ONE WHO IGNORED ALL THE WARNING SIGNS FOR YEARS. NOW BUSH IS FIGHTING BACK AND BEING CRITISIZED FOR IT. I BELIEVE BUSH IS DOING WHAT CLINTON WAS TOO AFRAID TO. BUSH IS JUST TRYING TO CLAEN UP CLINTON'S MESS, MICHAEL MOORE NEEDS A REALITY CHECK!

Posted by: MYSSIE at July 29, 2004 03:31 PM

To Joel:

I had to think of the irony of your comment about Bush being critizied for sitting back and "watching" North Korea and Iran cut the UN tags on radioactive fuel rods and centrifuges respectively. Are you critizing Bush for sitting back and letting these rouge countries thumb their noses at the US and the UN? Hmmm - this sounds familiar? Rather than sitting back and watching, maybe he should take action? Maybe take action only after working through the UN? OK, lets say we give these countries 12 years of UN sanctions then after that if they don't comply let's have Bush take action. That is exactly what he did in Iraq but yet you criticize him for that. What is your point?

Just a little intellectual curiosity!

Are Americans safer now? You point out Antrax, Bin Laden, North Korea, and now Iran. OK - let's get this straight - Bin Laden appeared on the "scene" 9/11/2001? Previous President's never heard of this guy - right? Bin Laden never declared War on the US in say the year 1996 - right? Bin Laden never said he wanted to kill every American Man, Woman and Child as a called to by "God" - right? Do you think 9/11/2001 was planned (antrax scare included) in the eight month's Bush was in office?

Just a little intellectual curiosity!

Now onto North Korea - Now let me get this straight? You think the reason NK started seeking these WMDs is because why? Bush did what? Bush went to war in Iraq? Or could it possibly be that North Korea since 1993 has quit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and rejoined each time they negotiated with the US for some kind of deal? That we have always buckled to their demands including providing them (in 1994) $$ for a power-producing nuclear reactor? They were so grateful that in 1998 they fired a multi-stage missle over Japan. Back to North Korea the US crawls and in 1999 and we have yet another agreement where the US eases economic sanctions and an agrees to upgrade to their nuclear reactors. In 2000, North Korea threatens to restart their nuclear program if the US doesn't compensate them for loss of electricity caused by delays in building the new reactors. NOW, Bush comes to office in 2001 (I can see how this was all Bush's fault prior to 2001???) and in June of that year, North Korea warns that it will restart missle testing if the Bush administrations does not resume contracts (AKA - $$) aimed at "normalizing" relations. Bush in December of 2001 (remember - it is finally after 9/11/2001 and 2 years before the war in Iraq) warns Iraq and North Korea that they will be held accountable if the develop WMDs to terrorize nations. I guess that is how you come to the conclusion that Bush going into Iraq caused North Korea to thumb their nose at the UN.

Just a little intellectual curiosity!

I could go on about Iran, the "vacation", the daily briefing, etc... but I think I made my point - unless you want me to go on.

Do a little more reading before you dribble out the same old sound bites that the anti-Bush folks keep spewing. You can disagree with Bush, just don't keep spreading mis-information or an obvious ignorance of the facts - College Student or not!

Again, Intellectual curiosity anyone?

Posted by: search4truth at July 29, 2004 05:44 PM

Michael Moore should be run out of the country, how could he put something like this out with so meny troops in harms way. I think Bush did the right thing and is protecting the country.

Posted by: John at July 29, 2004 07:59 PM

From www.billoreilly.com:

Michael Moore debated Bill O'Reilly on 7-27-04 for ten minutes and put forth the following:

- That President Bush "lied" about Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction even though the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee Investigation and Lord Butler's British Investigation all say Bush did not lie.

- Moore defines a "lie" as anything that turns out not to be true. By following this logic, weather forecasters everywhere must now be categorized as pathologically dishonest.

- Moore said he would not have attacked the Taliban government in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attack. Instead, he would have captured Bin laden by using "commandos." Apparently, Moore believes the Taliban would have allowed his "commandos" to root out Osama and his boys with impunity. Moore related the "commando" strategy to me with a straight face.

- Moore denied that Ronald Reagan's arms build up had anything to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union and freedom for Eastern Europe.

- The filmmaker then went on to say that pre-emptive war is wrong and would have been immoral even in the case of Adolf Hitler. Moore said he would have prevented Hitler from assuming power in the first place. I didn't have time ask him how he would have done that but I assume commandos would have been involved.

Posted by: David at July 29, 2004 09:16 PM

The September 11 Commission's 567-page final report has confirmed key facts presented in Fahrenheit 9/11. These include:

Attorney General John Ashcroft told acting FBI director Thomas Pickard that he did not want to hear anything more about terrorist threats. Confirmed, Commission Report at p. 265
After Bush was informed of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center, he went ahead with his classroom event. After Bush was informed that the nation was under attack after the second plane hit, Bush stayed in the classroom for nearly seven more minutes, continuing to read with the children. Confirmed, Commission Report at pp. 35, 38-39.
Bush failed to have even one meeting to discuss the threat of terrorism with his head of counterterrorism Richard Clarke. Confirmed, Commission Report at p. 201.
Bush failed to react to the August 6, 2001 security briefing, ?Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.? Confirmed, Commission Report at pp. 260-262.
142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country after September 13. Confirmed, Commission Report at p. 556, n. 25 [Note that Fahrenheit 9/11 understates the number of Saudis who left.]
Individuals were interviewed by the FBI before being allowed to leave (although the report confirms that most individuals on these flights were not interviewed.) Confirmed, Commission Report at p. 557, n. 28.
White House former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke approved these flights. Confirmed, Commission Report at p. 329.

It should also be noted that the 9/11 Commission does not address or deem important a number of other issues either addressed in Fahrenheit 9/11 or revealed since completion of the film, including:

What exactly was the rush in getting these individuals out of the country so soon after the worst attack in U.S. history, why did Saudi Royals and bin Laden family members receive such special treatment at a time when most Americans still could not get flights (even though airspace may have been open), and how exactly were the flights arranged by the U.S. government?
Several unanswered questions posed by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) in a July 20, 2004, Grand Forks Herald column: ?At a time when 14 of the 19 terrorists from Sept. 11 were Saudi citizens, how and why were six secret flights allowed to sneak 142 Saudi citizens out of the United States in the days after Sept. 11 before they were properly interrogated? How do we know they weren't properly questioned? Because Dale Watson, the No. 2 man and former head of counterterrorism at the FBI has said none of them were subjected to ?serious? interrogation or questions before being allowed to leave. In fact, we now know that at least two and perhaps more of the Saudis who were allowed to leave after Sept. 11 were under investigation by the FBI for alleged terrorist connections.?
Information that came to light in Dana Milbank?s July 22, 2004 Washington Post article, including the fact that at least one bin Laden family member who was allowed to leave lived with a nephew of Osama bin Laden, who "was involved in forming the U.S. branch of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth" (WAMY), which the FBI has described as ?a suspected terrorist organization,? and that the bin Ladens flew out of the country on the same airplane that ?has been chartered frequently by the White House for the press corps traveling with President Bush.?
A full comparison of the findings of the 9/11 Commission and Fahrenheit 9/11 will be posted shortly.

check out the facts people... here they are... theres 6 Sections, so read them all... and look up the sources he sites... its all there:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/index.php?id=16

Posted by: Peace + Love at July 29, 2004 10:30 PM

Hey John, don't forget that it was Bush that put the soldiers in harms way, not Moore. I can give you the name of a recruiter. The troops in Iraq would be happy to take a break.

And to you search4truth, I am trying to help you find the truth. How can you justify his vacations, the neglect of the PDB citing imminent threat by bin Laden? After Bush's axis of evil speech, he cut off the oil supply to North Korea thus forcing them to shut down their power plants. With that, NK kept threatening to revive their nuclear power program if Bush did not release the oil. Bush refused, they cut the UN tags on nuclear fuel and fired up the plants and their nuclear weapons program. I'm tired and its getting too tedious trying to explain the facts to you. Exploit your own intellectual curiosity if you have any.

Hey, before I go, how come the anti-Moore people have not said anything about their icon of conservatism and resident drug dealer, Rush Limbaugh? You know, the guy on the radio that tells his listeners that they dont have to think because he'll tell them everything they need to know. I sense many of the Bushie's in this Blog are Rush dittoheads.

Hope y'all caught Kerry's speech. Spectacular!

Posted by: Joel at July 29, 2004 11:20 PM

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE JULY 27, 2004 16:02:35 ET XXXXX

MICHAEL MOORE/O'REILLY SHOWDOWN AT CONVENTION
Tue Jul 27 2004 16:51:50 ET

FOX NEWS is planning to air a redhot interview between Bill O'Reilly and boxoffice sensation Michael Moore on Tuesday.

The DRUDGE REPORT has obtained an embargoed transcript of the session:

Moore: That?s fair, we?ll just stick to the issues

O?Reilly: The issues? alright good, now, one of the issues is you because you?ve been calling Bush a liar on weapons of mass destruction, the senate intelligence committee, Lord Butler?s investigation in Britain, and now the 911 Commission have all come out and said there was no lying on the part of President Bush. Plus, Gladimir Putin has said his intelligence told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction. Wanna apologize to the president now or later?

M: He didn?t tell the truth, he said there were weapons of mass destruction.

O: Yeah, but he didn?t lie, he was misinformed by - all of those investigations come to the same conclusion, that?s not a lie.

M: uh huh, so in other words if I told you right now that nothing was going on down here on the stage?

O: That would be a lie because we could see that wasn?t the truth

M: Well, I?d have to turn around to see it, and then I would realize, oh, Bill, I just told you something that wasn?t true? actually it?s president Bush that needs to apologize to the nation for telling an entire country that there were weapons of mass destruction, that they had evidence of this, and that there was some sort of connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th, and he used that as a ?

O: Ok, He never said that, but back to the other thing, if you, if Michael Moore is president ?

M: I thought you said you saw the movie, I show all that in the movie

O: Which may happen if Hollywood, yeah, OK, fine ?

M: But that was your question ?

O: Just the issues. You?ve got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying? British intelligence, US intelligence, Russian intelligence, told the president there were weapons of mass destruction, you say, ?he lied.? This is not a lie if you believe it to be true, now he may have made a mistake, which is obvious ?

M: Well, that?s almost pathological ? I mean, many criminals believe what they say is true, they could pass a lie detector test ?

O: Alright, now you?re dancing around a question ?

M: No I?m not, there?s no dancing

O: He didn?t lie

M: He said something that wasn?t true

O: Based upon bad information given to him by legitimate sources

M: Now you know that they went to the CIA, Cheney went to the CIA, they wanted that information, they wouldn?t listen to anybody

O: They wouldn?t go by Russian intelligence and Blair?s intelligence too

M: His own people told him, I mean he went to Richard Clarke the day after September 11th and said ?What you got on Iraq?? and Richard Clarke?s going ?Oh well this wasn?t Iraq that did this sir, this was Al Qaeda.?

O: You?re diverting the issue?did you read Woodward?s book?

M: No, I haven?t read his book.

O: Woodward?s a good reporter, right? Good guy, you know who he is right?

M: I know who he is.

O: Ok, he says in his book George Tenet looked the president in the eye, like how I am looking you in the eye right now and said ?President, weapons of mass destruction are a quote, end quote, ?slam dunk? if you?re the president, you ignore all that?

M: Yeah, I would say that the CIA had done a pretty poor job.

O: I agree. The lieutenant was fired.

M: Yeah, but not before they took us to war based on his intelligence. This is a man who ran the CIA, a CIA that was so poorly organized and run that it wouldn?t communicate with the FBI before September 11th and as a result in part we didn?t have a very good intelligence system set up before September 11th

O: Nobody disputes that

M: Ok, so he screws up September 11th. Why would you then listen to him, he says this is a ?slam dunk? and your going to go to war.

O: You?ve got MI-6 and Russian intelligence because they?re all saying the same thing that?s why. You?re not going to apologize to Bush, you are going to continue to call him a liar.

M: Oh, he lied to the nation, Bill, I can?t think of a worse thing to do for a president to lie to a country to take them to war, I mean, I don?t know a worse ?

O: It wasn?t a lie

M: He did not tell the truth, what do you call that?

O: I call that bad information, acting on bad information ? not a lie

M: A seven year old can get away with that ?

O: Alright, your turn to ask me a question?

M: ?Mom and Dad it was just bad information??

O: I?m not going to get you to admit it wasn?t a lie, go ahead

M: It was a lie, and now, which leads us to my question

O: OK

M: Over 900 of our brave soldiers are dead. What do you say to their parents?

O: What do I say to their parents? I say what every patriotic American would say. We are proud of your sons and daughters. They answered the call that their country gave them. We respect them and we feel terrible that they were killed.

M: And, but what were they killed for?

O: They were removing a brutal dictator who himself killed hundreds of thousands of people

M: Um, but that was not the reason that was given to them to go to war, to remove a brutal dictator

O: Well we?re back to the weapons of mass destruction

M: But that was the reason

O: The weapons of mass destruction

M: That we were told we were under some sort of imminent threat

O: That?s right

M: And there was no threat, was there?

O: It was a mistake

M: Oh, just a mistake, and that?s what you tell all the parents with a deceased child, ?We?re sorry.? I don?t think that is good enough.

O: I don?t think its good enough either for those parents

M: So we agree on that

O: but that is the historical nature of what happened

M: Bill, if I made a mistake and I said something or did something as a result of my mistake but it resulted in the death of your child, how would you feel towards me?

O: It depends on whether the mistake was unintentional

M: No, not intentional, it was a mistake

O: Then if it was an unintentional mistake I cannot hold you morally responsible for that

M: Really, I?m driving down the road and I hit your child and your child is dead

O: If it were unintentional and you weren?t impaired or anything like that

M: So that?s all it is, if it was alcohol, even though it was a mistake ? how would you feel towards me

O: Ok, now we are wandering

M: No, but my point is ?

O: I saw what your point is and I answered your question

M: But why? What did they die for?

O: They died to remove a brutal dictator who had killed hundreds of thousands of people ?

M: No, that was not the reason ?

O: That?s what they died for

M: -they were given ?

O: The weapons of mass destruction was a mistake

M: Well there were 30 other brutal dictators in this world ?

O: Alright, I?ve got anther question?

M: Would you sacrifice?just finish on this. Would you sacrifice your child to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet?

O: Depends what the circumstances were.

M: You would sacrifice your child?

O: I would sacrifice myself?I?m not talking for any children?to remove the Taliban. Would you?

M: Uh huh.

O: Would you? That?s my next question. Would you sacrifice yourself to remove the Taliban?

M: I would be willing to sacrifice my life to track down the people that killed 3,000 people on our soil.

O: Al Qeada was given refuge by the Taliban.

M: But we didn?t go after them?did we?

O: We removed the Taliban and killed three quarters of Al Qeada.

M: That?s why the Taliban are still killing our soldiers there.

O: OK, well look you cant kill everybody. You wouldn?t have invaded Afghanistan?you wouldn?t have invaded Afghanistan, would you?

M: No, I would have gone after the man that killed 3,000 people.

O: How?

M: As Richard Clarke says, our special forces were prohibited for two months from going to the area that we believed Osama was?

O: Why was that?

M: That?s my question.

O: Because Pakistan didn?t want its territory of sovereignty violated.

M: Not his was in Afghanistan, on the border, we didn?t go there. He got a two month head start.

O: Alright, you would not have removed the Taliban. You would not have removed that government?

M: No, unless it is a threat to us.

O: Any government? Hitler, in Germany, not a threat to us the beginning but over there executing people all day long?you would have let him go?

M: That?s not true. Hitler with Japan, attacked the United States.

O: Before?from 33-until 41 he wasn?t an imminent threat to the United States.

M: There?s a lot of things we should have done.

O: You wouldn?t have removed him.

M: I wouldn?t have even allowed him to come to power.

O: That was a preemption from Michael Moore?you would have invaded.

M: If we?d done our job, you want to get into to talking about what happened before WWI, woah, I?m trying to stop this war right now.

O: I know you are but?

M: Are you against that? Stopping this war?

O: No we cannot leave Iraq right now, we have to?

M: So you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.

O: I would sacrifice myself?

M: Your child?Its Bush sending the children there.

O: I would sacrifice myself.

M: You and I don?t go to war, because we?re too old?

O: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it.

M: Say ?I Bill O?Reilly would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah?

O: I?m not going to say what you say, you?re a, that?s ridiculous

M: You don?t believe that. Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?

O: Look it?s a worldwide terrorism?I know that escapes you?

M: Wait a minute, terrorism? Iraq?

O: Yes. There are terrorist in Iraq.

M: Oh really? So Iraq now is responsible for the terrorism here?

O: Iraq aided terrorist?don?t you know anything about any of that?

M: So you?re saying Iraq is responsible for what?

O: I?m saying that Saddam Hussein aided all day long.

M: You?re not going to get me to defend Saddam Hussein.

O: I?m not? You?re his biggest defender in the media.

M: Now come on.

O: Look, if you were running he would still be sitting there.

M: How do you know that?

O: If you were running the country, he?d still be sitting there.

M: How do you know that?

O: You wouldn?t have removed him.

M: Look let me tell you something in the 1990s look at all the brutal dictators that were removed. Things were done, you take any of a number of countries whether its Eastern Europe, the people rose up. South Africa the whole world boycotted---

O: When Reagan was building up the arms, you were against that.

M: And the dictators were gone. Building up the arms did not cause the fall of Eastern Europe.

O: Of course it did, it bankrupted the Soviet Union and then it collapsed.

M: The people rose up.

O: why? Because they went bankrupt.

M: the same way we did in our country, the way we had our revolution. People rose up?

O: Alright alright.

M:--that?s how you, let me ask you this question.

O: One more.

M: How do you deliver democracy to a country? You don?t do it down the barrel of a gun. That?s not how you deliver it.

O: You give the people some kind of self-determination, which they never would have had under Saddam?

M: Why didn?t they rise up?

O: Because they couldn?t, it was a Gestapo-led place where they got their heads cut off?

M: well that?s true in many countries throughout the world__

O: It is, it?s a shame?

M:--and you know what people have done, they?ve risen up. You can do it in a number of ways . You can do it our way through a violent revolution, which we won, the French did it that way. You can do it by boycotting South Africa, they overthrew the dictator there. There?s many ways?

O: I?m glad we?ve had this discussion because it just shows you that I see the world my way, you see the world your way, alright?and the audience is watching us here and they can decide who is right and who is wrong and that?s the fair way to do it. Right?

M: Right, I would not sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah and you would?

O: I would sacrifice myself.

M: You wouldn?t send another child, another parents child to Fallujah, would you? You would sacrifice your life to secure Fallujah?

O: I would.

M: Can we sign him up? Can we sign him up right now?

O: That?s right.

M: Where?s the recruiter?

O: You?d love to get rid of me.

M: No I don?t want?I want you to live. I want you to live.

O: I appreciate that. Michael Moore everybody. There he is?

END

Posted by: JudeForYourself at July 29, 2004 11:48 PM

oh and david, weather forecasters arent liars, they tell you that there is a percentage chance of whatever... remember that, they dont tell you for sure its going to rain or storm or anything.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio Address
October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

He seems pretty certain to me...
--
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, while offering no new evidence, assured Congress that WMDs will indeed be found. And he advised that a new unit called the Iraq Survey Group, composed of some 1400 experts and technicians from around the world, is being deployed to assist in the searching.

But, as Time magazine reported, the leads are running out. According to Time, the Marine general in charge explained that "[w]e've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad," and remarked flatly, "They're simply not there."
---quoted from this article:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html

Posted by: JudgeForYourself at July 30, 2004 12:25 AM

President Bush had the balls to have a ammendment to the Constitution changed to ban gay marriages. Of course it didn't get passed due to the liberal democrats!!! This is sick and I hope one day we will be looked upon from the rest of the World that we are a good Country and have morals. But with Kerry in office we will goe down the tubes fast. The only way he would be able to get other Countries to send troops to Iraq would be by paying them BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!! France would take the money and so would Germany and Russia. And that would be our tax dollars being used to try and make himself look good!! One more thing Kerry said that Bush had cut the VETERAN'S BUDGET over the last 4 years and thats a lie!! He has incresed the budget by 40% percent. That's right forty percent increase. He did more for the Veteran's then Clinton did in the whole 8 years of him being in the White House!! Kerry is a lying bastard!!! Kerry will probably get caught messing around before the election like Gary Hart. You don't have to worry about Bush doing that. As for the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq we know they sent some to Syria and where it's buried. Also we found some sarin gas which is deadly. We sold the chemical and biological weapons to Iraq when we were allies years ago and so did other Countries like France the cowards and Germany/Russia. We know he did not destroy them and he kicked the inspectors out becasuse they were getting close to finding some. The World is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power. He also allowed terrorists to train in northern Iraq. Libya has turned over there weapons of mass destruction and we haven't gone to war with them. Bush has put fear in the terrorists and Countries that support them. Syria or Iraq may be next down the road but we would have to bring back the Draft because we are spread too thin. North Korea needs to be stableized by making a olitical assasination on there leader. They would probably stop there nuclear program. VOTE for President BUSH and our Country and economy will get even stronger. Kerry wants the rich to pay for health care for all the poor and middle class with higher taxes for anyone who makes over 200 thousand dollars. I don't see that ever happening and if it does then you'll see that it failed and he would then tax the poor and middle class. He lies so much and his hillbilly but buddy Edwards is a a%^$#!&* that can't talk right and is not qualifed to be President and his own running mate said it when they were running against each other. Vote BUSH and we will be respected around the World even more!!! God Bless our President and his Family and may GOD always bless AMERICA and the WORLD!!
Sincerely

Pete G.
(Edited)

Posted by: Peter G. at July 30, 2004 01:43 AM

I think it is important for everyone to remember that even Moore and DNC chairman McAuliffe, admit this is a movie... not a documentary... it is an opinion, it is conjecture and because it is presented by an individual (Moore), there is no accountability for it's content... which if you do any independent research you can disprove most of Mr. Moore's assertions.

Please keep an open mind some of what you see and hear is true, some is simply political rhetoric.

This election and our country are far too important to be decided by special interests whether they be Hollywood or Energy companies... remember they are all big business!!!

Thank You, and God bless America!

Posted by: john at July 30, 2004 03:16 AM

How in the world can Michael Moore (idiot) call his film a documentary? There is about as much truth in that film as there is in "Starship Troopers". C'mon people, can anyone out there seriously believe that Michael Moore (idiot) didn't manipulate statements, footage, and documents (taking statements out of context) in order to make Bush look bad? Michael Moore (idiot) has even stated on record during an interview with Sean Hannity that he would do ANYTHING he could to get Bush out of office. He couldn't do that based on fact so he distorts and manipulates reality to create his own version of the truth. I think that is called being a historical revisionist. I pity those of you out there who depend upon Michael Moore (idiot) to do your thinking for you. Try doing research and you will find the truth and see that Bush was on target. Here are two examples of research:

UN Confirms: WMDs Smuggled Out of Iraq
© June 18, 2004, Rod D. Martin
(About Nuclear bomb making components and chemical/biological weapons possessed by Iraq)

Russia 'warned U.S. about Saddam'
Friday, June 18, 2004, CNN Moscow Bureau Chief Jill Dougherty
(details the terrorist link to Iraq)

Like Michael Moore (idiot) really wanted to get the truth out. If he did he would have no choice but to support Bush!

Posted by: Lawmann at July 30, 2004 10:32 AM

Do Democrats ever feel uncomfortable defending Saddam Hussein, do they really thing they or us would be better off with him still in power, cheering that an ever increasing body count somehow helps their political cause? Do they really think France and Germany are better able to decide what is best for our country? I will tell you this when it comes election time there- no one stops to consider whether America approves of their candidate. Dems happen to spend more money on european causes, Repubs tend to spend more on American causes. You can believe everything Michael Moore says, but it says more about your gullibility and lack of intelligence than it does about the current administration.

Posted by: Christopher at July 30, 2004 12:27 PM

This is scary. People voting a certain way because of a documentary. Don't you have minds of your own? Check out the facts before you follow like sheep.
Bill O'Reilly asked former San Franciso mayor, Willie Brown, why the African American always vote for the democrats, even though the Democrats have never done anything for them. He answers, "They give up hope". That's it? Everyone on the government doll will definitely vote for Kerry. God help us.

Posted by: clhp at July 30, 2004 12:31 PM

Liberals are so deep.
Liberals are so sophisticated.
Liberals with ponytails and sandals.
Smarter than the rest of us.
Vote Team Bush

P.S. maybe if I was a student for life instead of trying to create jobs and prosperity in my firm I would write deeper poetry.

Posted by: Queens,NY at July 30, 2004 01:30 PM

Bush es un sanguinario el guey nomas piensa en su padre y el petrolio en Iraq.
VOTE FOR KERRY!!!!!

Posted by: Papo at July 30, 2004 06:37 PM

Anyone NOT opposed to Bush should:

A)Go F%$# Themselves

B)Get a mental checkup

C)Shoot themselves in the street

D)Get the f%$# outta here

E) All Of The Above

If You Answered E, you're right

KERRY/EDWARDS 2004
(Edited)

Posted by: Jeff at July 30, 2004 10:07 PM

Where were all you right wing freaks when daddy Bush pulled out of Iraq, leaving Saddam in power and leaving the Kurds to defend themselves against chemical weapons Rumsfeld gave him in the first place? I didnt hear Republicans complaining when Saddam was killing tens of thousands of his countrymen.

Where were all you right wing freaks when daddy Bush left a political vacuum in Afghanistan after the Soviets left with their tails between their legs, leaving the Taliban to become established and allow al Qaida to set up terrorist camps? I don't remember hearing Republican outrage at the brutal killings by Taliban against Afghans.

When we went into Afghanistan to ferret out bin Laden, how come you self anointed patriots did not call for Bush's head after perhaps the largest military failure in recent history, Operation Anaconda? With bin Laden surrounded in the mountains of Afghanistan, Rumsfeld was in charge of a half-ass military operation in which there were too few troops (sound familiar) with attack helicopters most of which failed at that altitude. Had it not been for the last minute rescue by the US Air Force, its likely that most of the Army troops there would have been killed. Meanwhile, bin Laden escaped.

It was shortly after that failure, that Bush invaded Iraq. In doing that, he diverted attention away from his failure to capture bin Laden and politically exploited American's patriotism for the mid-term election.

The Taliban had gotten the poppy crop in Afghanistan down below 5000 acres, sadly, by killing those found to be growing them (once again, where was Republican outrage). Once the Taliban were removed and with no Bush plan in place (sound familiar) to prevent expanded production, the acreage is now over a quarter million. The druglords are now raking in the cash to fund additional terrorist activities against the US! Finally realizing the errors of his ways, Bush is now throwing $70 million trying to stop the flow of opium from Afghanistan into the US. Good luck with that!

Rumsfeld is a failed military wannabe and Bush is an idiot who has no grasp of the potential consequences of his actions. Sadly, I voted for George senior the first time, but his leaving Iraq and Afghanistan open to brutal regimes made me go Democratic. Dubya and his group of liars just reinforces my politics. These are the facts. Michael Moore has nothing to do with the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. He had an agenda with 9/11, and whether you believe all, some, or none of it, he should be applauded for finally opening a dialogue between Americans on the war.

Posted by: Joel at July 30, 2004 11:07 PM

About the O'Rielly/ Moore dialogue, I guess O'rielly approves of the war but not enough to send his kids to fight.

Posted by: joel at July 30, 2004 11:12 PM

Jeff gives all Liberals a bad name. They're not all ignorant bigoted fools like him, who would vote for Charles Manson if he were running on a Democratic ticket. I think if Jeff were to use his head and maybe cut down on the hard drugs he would probably apologize for such juvenile behavior.
Aw, who am I kidding? The guy's an embarrassment to all humans. What a waste...

Posted by: ffeJ at July 31, 2004 12:26 AM

Oh what power a movie can have on our culture. You know a movies stopped the vietnam war?

I have never seen the movie fahrenheit 9/11, why would I? Everyone says even if half of the movie was true Bush deserves to be out of office. I am well versed with democratic views, hey I went to public school and yes it is saturated liberalism, But I like to see what each party has to say before I come to conclusions about what they are saying. Remember a one sided story is easily belived when there is no one to object to it. I'm not a blind Bush follower, but I still believe in him.

My point is why would I go spend my own money to see a movie of propapaganda? Is there anything else to expect but a one sided view? Aren't the most powerful lies the ones mixed with just the right amount of truth? I really don't expect half of the movie to be true; more like 10%; just the right amount to give wieght such accusations.

Posted by: Ben Spencer at July 31, 2004 11:24 AM

Dear Senator Kerry:
Since it has become clear that you will probably be the Democratic nominee for President, I have spent a great deal of time researching your war record and your record as a professional politician. The reason is simple, you aspire to be the Commander in Chief who would lead my sons and their fellow soldiers in time of war. I simply wanted to know if you possess the necessary qualifications to be trusted in that respect.

You see, I belong to a family of proud U.S. veterans. I was a Captain in the Army Reserve, my father was a decorated Lieutenant in World War II; and I have four sons who have either served, or are currently serving in the military. The oldest is an Army Lieutenant still on active duty in Afghanistan after already being honored for his service in Iraq.

The youngest is an E-4 with the military police. His National Guard unit just finished their second tour of active duty, including six months in Guantanamo Bay. My two other sons have served in the national guard and the navy.

In looking at your record I found myself comparing it not only to that of my father and my sons, but to the people they served with. My father served with the 87th Chemical Mortar Battalion in Europe. They landed on Utah Beach and fought for 317 straight days including the Cherbourg Peninsula, Aachen, the Hurtgen Forest, and the Battle of the Bulge.

You earned a Silver Star in Vietnam for chasing down and finishing off a wounded and retreating enemy soldier. My father won a Bronze Star for single handedly charging and knocking out a German machine gun nest that had his men pinned down. You received three purple hearts for what appears to be three minor scratches. In fact you only missed a combined total of two days of duty for these wounds. The men of my father’s unit, the 87th, had to be admonished by their commanding officer because: “It has been brought to our attention that some men are covering up wounds and refusing medical attention for fear of being evacuated and permanently separated from this organization…” It was also a common problem for seriously wounded soldiers to go AWOL from hospitals in order to rejoin their units. You used your three purple hearts to leave Vietnam early.

My oldest boy came home from Iraq with numerous commendations and then proceeded to volunteer to go to Afghanistan and from there back to Iraq again. My sons and father have never had anything but the highest regard and respect for their fellow soldiers. Yet, you came home to publicly charge your fellow fighting men with being war criminals and to urge their defeat by the enemy. You even wrote a book that had a cover which mocked the heroism of the U.S. Marines who raised the flag on Iwo Jima.

Our current crop of soldiers has a philosophy that no one gets left behind; and they have practiced that from Somalia to the battlefields of the Middle East. Yet as chairman of a Senate committee looking into allegations that many of your fellow servicemen had been left behind as prisoners in Vietnam, you chose to defend the brutal Vietnamese regime.

You even went so far as to refer to the families of the POWs and MIAs as Professional malcontents, conspiracy mongers, con artists, and dime-store Rambos.

As a Senator you voted against the 1991 Gulf War, and have repeatedly voted against funds to supply our troops with the best equipment, and against money to improve our intelligence capability. I find this particularly ironic since as a Presidential candidate you are highly critical of our pre-war intelligence in Iraq. However, you did vote to authorize the President to go to war, but have since proceeded to do everything you can to undermine the efforts of our government and our troops to win. Is this what our fighting men and women can expect of you if you are their Commander in Chief? Will you gladly send them to war, only to then aid the enemy by undermining the morale of our troops and cutting off the weapons they need to win?

Our country is at war Senator, and as has been the case in every war since the American Revolution, a member of my family is serving their country during the war. Now you want me to trust you to lead my sons in this fight. Sorry Senator, but when I compare your record to those who have fought and died for this nation, and are currently fighting and dying, the answer is NO!

Sincerely,
Michael

Posted by: Ben Spencer at July 31, 2004 12:54 PM

Why blame Michael Moore and Dems for everything from gay marriage to the war. The Republicans control the white house, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court and the majority of state governorships. Seems to me if any one is to blame for all the failings, its the GOP.

While we are spending 1 1/2 billion dollars a week on the war (about 20% of which is unaccounted for), and have done little to nothing about protecting this country from another 9/11 attack (note Tom Ridge is quitting Homeland Security), they thought a gay marriage constitutional amendment debate was worth the precious time left before going on their vacation. They even admitted in advance that they did not have enough REPUBLICAN support to bring it to a vote. Meanwhile the CIA directorship goes unfilled, another country is about to pull out of the Iraqi coalition, Iran has reconstituted their nuclear weapons program, etc, etc.!

WAKE UP! You tunnel-visioned Taliban-like right wingers are blaming others for the very things you've created and condoned. Who's in charge? Look in the mirror! Who's to blame? Again, look in the mirror!

Posted by: joel at July 31, 2004 02:30 PM

It amazes me every time I read or hear comments from the right it has to do with that anyone on the other side of their views are un patriotic or are classified as liberals. It is a fact that most self portray conservative are the biggest sinners and hipocrates in this world. They only want to push their value system on everyone and if you do not believe in them they must make you out to be bad people. This was a country founded on the freedoms this administration is steadily taking from us all one at a time. This is a government of the people by the people not the Bush and Chenney's of the world. It is time to show them this still holds true and take our country and government back this November!

Go Kerry/Edwards 2004!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at July 31, 2004 04:53 PM

That letter to Kerry is a misinformed peice of writing. They obviously didn't reseach Kerry's voting record, in fact, I think they prolly used the information provided straight out of Bush's attack ads. STOP POSTING B^$#@*%! UNLESS YOU CAN BACK IT UP WITH SOLID EVIDENCE. A Simple link to an article that justifies the facts presented would be nice. Or is that too muich to ask in a world full of dittoheads?
If you haven't found multiple sources to back up your story, then its prolly not true. Simple point in fact here... if its justifyable information, you can bet on it getting published about more than once. The bottom line here is, you cant trust everything you read, see or hear. If your not gonna take the time to find out for yourself, then you are being truly unpatriotic, because you are disregarding a call from a fellow american to wake up and find the facts.
No, its not fair that we can't rely on most of our media to do a proper job of reporting, and no its not fair that there are extremists on both sides who claim that the other side is lying. One day I asked myself, what if they are right? how can I know? Do I judge them because I don't share their opinions on abortion or gay marraige? No... I mustn't judge them for their convictions, it is after alla right that they have, and I mustn't judge them at all. So what must I do?
I listen to both sides, I listen to every side... but more than that, I check the veracity of their facts. And upon doing that, you can separate the "right-wing pundits" from the consevatives. And you can separate the Left extremists from the liberals. The problems we face are those of stereotyping. The problems we face are those of, I hate republicans therefore I will never vote for one, even when the republican is obviously the better candidate. Or I hate democrats, so I'll never vote for kerry, and I'll listen to all the hate spewed about him and believe it, cause if I believe that he might be a good parson who cares about this country, I WOULD BE WRONG ABOUT MY OPINIONS. AND OF COURSE NEITHER SIDE IS EVER WRONG RIGHT?
Why is it then that conservatives have so much hatred for liberals. and liberals have compassion for conservatives, at least, until they exclude us from america because we are liberals. Liberals know that we all share common ground on important issues, and we understand the conservative reasoning and choices on their issues. so why are conservatives, who are mostly religeous by definition, because of their religeon...why are they so HATEFUL AND UNNACCEPTING of liberals. Do they forget the lessons of Jesus the Christ? Do they forget that god gave us free will so we could CHOOSE wether to live his way or our own? Do they forget that jesus associated with sinners, and yet did not treat them unfairly, make then stop sinning, or even judge them?
If you ask me there are a lot of self-righteous Religeous types who don't realize that they too are sinning. Because they are taking god's will into their own hands, and not living by the teachings of their messiah.
I think we all should wake up and see that what we are doing isn't gods will, it its fear. If you truly believe in god's will, then let god take care of us when we come to be judged, don't damn yourselves for our sake.
(Edited)

Posted by: ThinkForYourself at July 31, 2004 05:15 PM

I keep reading in these blogs, "....even if half of the movie is true......" Duh - doesnt that mean half the movie isnt true and now Michael Moore is lying? Moore has admitted that he did not strive to tell the truth in the movie - that the movie represents his opinions. OPINIONS! Opinions are known to deviate far from the truth. It is all moot anyway because in 100 years, history will look back and record that the US had to fight all islamic nations including Iran, Syria, Libya, and even Saudi Arabia. Wake up people - Islamic radicals are fighting Jihad - its not a political agenda they are fighting for - they believe they are fighting for their god, they will never stop until they are killed or they win. Wake up, why cant America see that? I understand why Europe does not see it - in WWII, France still wanted to negotiate with the Nazi's even when Germany had hundreds of thousands of troops on the border. France didnt wake up until American troops liberated them. Remind me though, never to liberate France again. Look through the liberal lies and see the truth - the truth is that we are fighting a global war against islamic radicals and these radicals are supported by the governments of Iran, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, and even highly connected Saudi Arabians. The goal of these radicals is to create one islamic state that recaptures the landmass and glory of the old Ottoman Empire. Saddams Baath Party was all about that. Reuniting the countries that used to make up the Ottoman Empire. One islamic state would be very powerful indeed, and have the military might to finally overrun and destroy Israel - their number one goal. Bush knows this and as such, views the war on terror as a global one, rightly so. Wake up and smell the coffee, folks, we dont live in a rose garden, we live in a mean and nasty world. Additionally, we also have Russia and China quietly forging an alliance to offset US power.

Posted by: Patriot at August 1, 2004 04:05 PM

Big fat Michael Moore is a modern day Josef Goebbels. He is a brilliant and creative fat film-maker with a completely slanted point of view, who can artistically portray his points the way he wants them to. The only good thing is he is only trying to destroy our President, not 50,000,000 people. The only bad thing is that so many can be so easily duped again by propaganda.

Posted by: Tom at August 1, 2004 06:54 PM

Michael Moore is a modern Josef Goebbels and has repeated the same success at duping a gullible public which any creative film-maker can. He is also a fat liar (just like Goebbels.

Posted by: Tom at August 1, 2004 06:58 PM

To Joel:

Justify vacations - do you have a job that requires 24x7x365 responsibilites - like the President? I do, I work in an IT operational role - and it is tough to get a vacation. But let me tell you something, I am NEVER on vacation - even if I am not in the office. Give me a break - ever hear of audio/video conferencing? Were you watching the President while he was on vacation? How do you know what he was or was not doing every moment of his vacation?

To the Bin Laden threat - I don't mean to sound repetitive but bin Laden declared war on the US in 1996! "He" blew up the Cole for crying out loud - what did Former President Clinton do from 1996 until he left office (Oh yeah - bombed Sudan - maybe you should read up on why he did that one since you seem to have a problem with your history)? Bush is in office for 9 months and is blamed for 9/11? He was threatening the US for over 5 years - with Bush in office for less than 1 of those five years. Quit the blame game for goodness sake. Let's get back to who the real enemy is - Al Qaeda, Bin Laden and all the other state sponsored terrorist organizations. President Clinton backs the War on Iraq for crying out loud (Read his book)! Talk about getting off focus here.

Now back to NK - did you even read my last posting? Let me make this clear yet again - NK in 1993 - I repeat - 1993 - quit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 1998 - fired multi-stage missle over Japan AFTER the US buckled to their demand and what does the US do? Again gives in and eases economic sanctions and gives NK a power plan, etc... etc... etc... Just like Saddam and the UN - the old cat and mouse. Bush finally said enough - and stuck to his word for a few years among all criticism, and NK finally understands that Bush meant what he said. I wonder why North Korea said this past week that it was ready to freeze its nuclear program for immediate rewards??? Sound familiar? Please, for the sake of my writing time, read up on NK and get your facts straight. Again - this blame US first is getting real old.

Come on, tell me the truth - you're a college student, aren't you? You were probably in grade school in 1993 - ha! ha! If not, you have a weak grasp of History.

And finally - I did see the Kerry speech. Besides laughing at him trying so desperately to paint this picture that he is a moderate, it was quite amusing. LOL - Help is on the way!! I think Kerry should move aside and let Edwards do all the talking. If you think that speech was spectacular, I'm quite exicted, because a speech like that is not going to motivate the 20% undecided. With a speech like that Bush has a lot better chance for re-election then I thought.

Posted by: search4truth at August 2, 2004 01:00 AM

M.M. is definately fat. Bush is definately dumb.

Posted by: scott at August 2, 2004 12:16 PM

To Michael-

Your letter to Senator Kerry is a complete piece of BS.

1) There was absolutely no reason for this country to go to war with Iraq.

2) Kerry voted in favor of the war due to false intelligence and lies from our adminisistration.

3) Kerry voted against the supply of additional funds due to the fact that Bush has no plan for the war, has no exit strategy and has allowed his cronie's, specifically Cheney and his famed Halliburton to suck funds out of this country for services they haven't supplied. Kerry wanted a more credible plan and not just another waste of tax payer dollars.

4) Get you facts straight. I would gladly see men dying for a just cause in an attempt to hunt down and find Bin Laden. Michael, when's the last time Mr. Bush has mentioned Bin Laden or any attempt to find him.

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a nut, but Bin Laden took down our towers, damsged the Pentagon and killed 3,000 people. If we're fighting a war on terrorism why are we letting troops in Iraq die at the frequency at which they are. Some Mission Accomplished huh?

Bush is a disgrace to this nation. Yes, Kerry has some spotty things, he ain't my favorite candidate, but please don't feed me your BS. I woudl hope that you would be prouder of your family being in Afghanistan to hunt down the person who caused us harm. Saddam Huseein was no threat to us. It was a personal agenda on behalf of Bush. Get your head out of your A**.

Posted by: Kevin at August 2, 2004 04:03 PM

Greetings, As recently shown on CNN's Crossfire.
The article in the Florida paper reading "Recount shows Al Gore winner" was found to be False. The paper reseached the day the article was published and found that this headline was not there. They even searched several days before and after the date that Mr. Moore's movie says the headline was published. Futhur reseaching the paper, they found this 'head line' was found in the opinion section of the Florida paper and was Never a Headline of the News paper.

If you look at the real re-count of the media stations and libral organizations they found that Bush would have WON the out come of ANY RECOUNT of the chadded ballots by several hundered votes!!

FACT, NOT FICTION. Secondly, Why doesn't anyone care that AL Gore had all the overseas ballots from our servicemen thrown out by a Judge!!! And the liberals tout "Every Vote must Count" Bah ha ha ha ha ha ha. They make me laugh!!!

Posted by: Glenn Orrell at August 2, 2004 06:23 PM

To Kevin -

You can call Michael's letter a piece of BS if you like however lets look at your brilliant comments.

1) No reason to go to war?

Really - Read the 9/11 commission report, British Report on 9/11, etc... I know this is hard for most liberals to swallow because it has been your battle cry but there was a tie between Al Qaeda and Senior Iraqi Military. Oh - and the beloved President Clinton BACKS the war (not the timing) and has stated publicly that this was not about oil. I wonder why Clinton feels this way - could it be he has been dealing with Radical Islamic fundamentalists for eight years? They are the enemy - NOT Bush!

2) Kerry voted in favor of the war due to false intelligence and lies from our adminisistration.

OK - So when Kerry received the false intelligence and voted to do what should be done it is due to false intelligence but when Bush reviewed the false intelligence he lied. LOL. Who gave both Bush and Kerry the intelligence information? Could it be the CIA under George Tenet? Who by the way served under President Clinton and President Bush. Tell me - what did President Bush lie about?

3) Kerry voted against additional funds due to the fact that Bush has no plan for the war, Bush has no exit strategy, Bush allowed Halliburton to suck funds out of this country, Kerry wanted a more credible plan and not just another waste of tax payer dollars.

This is a no win discussion because you have to look at the history of war to make a point. War is hell - you can never fully prepare or anticipate what will happen and you adjust your plans as you move forward. Read any battle plans over the 20th century and there is always setbacks and adjustments. In this day and age of immediate expectations without without a diligent effort, I am not surprised by your comment. Even with the number of coalition casualties in Iraq (I am not saying casualties are good - just pointing out the historical precedence), it pales in comparison to past wars and the progress of this war is incredible.

In regards to Halliburton - boy, what a weak comment. Halliburton was used by the Clinton Administration in no-bid contracts in the 1990's as well as in the Bush Administration. Results of an investigation as to the claims that Halliburton was price gauging were found to be false - a claim to try and paint a picture of misdealing. But I'm sure that won't change your closed mind anyways.

4) I would gladly see men dying for a just cause in an attempt to hunt down and find Bin Laden, when's the last time Mr. Bush has mentioned Bin Laden or any attempt to find him. Hussein was a nut, but Bin Laden took down our towers, etc... If we're fighting a war on terrorism why are we letting troops in Iraq die at the frequency at which they are. Some Mission Accomplished huh?

Do you think capturing Bin Laden is the resolution to the War on Terrorism? Do you think Al Qaeda is the only Terrorist organization we should be dealing with? Just because President Bush hasn't mentioned Bin Laden or any attempt to find him doesn't mean the hunt does not continue. What would you like him to say - "Ah, Yes we are still looking for him." This is a difficult war we are dealing with and to imply the hunt is not taking place is just ignorant.

Well the War on Terror does not stop with Al Qaeda. The war is on state sponsored terrorism - I guess when Saddam offers cash to anyone who kills Jews, he's not engaging in terrorist activity. Oh, and he had no terrorists training in Norther Iraq - right?

Oh and one more thing - Bush NEVER stated Mission Accomplished. Absent of facts does not seem to bother you.

4b) Bush is a disgrace to this nation. Saddam Huseein was no threat to us. It was a personal agenda on behalf of Bush.

To state that Saddam was no threat to the US is misguided. Russia has passed on information to the US that Iraq was planning attacks on the US - sure you missed that one too. He has already attempted to assassinate former President Bush senior. Call it a personal agenda if you will but don't act like he was no threat.

Posted by: search4truth at August 2, 2004 07:56 PM

"Why of course the people do not want war, why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is making back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country that determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a facist dictatorship, or a parlimant or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can alwasys be bought to the biddding of the leaders' that is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifist for a lack of patriotism for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

-Herman Goering, April 18, 1946-

Head of the Nazi Army's equivalent of the Joint Chief of Staff and Head of the Luftwaffe. From the Book Numberg Diary Farrar, Strauss and Co. 1947. By Gustave Gilibert - Allies Appointed Psychologist who visited daily with Goering, in his cell, and ultimatly wrote a book about his experiences.

Posted by: Jock at August 2, 2004 07:57 PM

Michael, I bet your dad had his shins blown off and killed 50 Nazis right.. Haha, My dad left an eye in Nam, you make me want to puke. The most partriotic thing one can do for a nation is dissent regarding matters of war when it does not passed the smell test. Oh, and where did you get that letter from the RNC Website.. HAHAHA Gag me dude

Posted by: Jock at August 2, 2004 08:06 PM

Hey Joel, you blame Repubs for everything that has happened since 2001? Fine, take a look at what having Dems in power did in the mid to late 70's? Anyone remember double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, and 50 hostages stuck in Iran? They could not tax their way out of any of it no matter how hard they tried.

Posted by: Christopher at August 2, 2004 09:15 PM

Search4truth, when you were begging off addressing Bush's vacations, he was on another week vacation at Crawford. Its hard to believe he is teleconferencing and such when he is cutting brush and riding his bike (and continually falling off) on his 1600 acre ranch. Sounds like a bonafide vacation to me. Sadly, my college days are long past but I work as a military logistics analyst. Nuff said on that. I'm surprised you are still employed in IT under Bush. Much of those jobs have been outsourced overseas. Rumsfeld even outsourced DOD IT to private contractors some of which went overseas.

I stand by my post on NK. They might have walked away from the nuke treaty years ago, but they refrained from reconstituting nuclear weapon production until just recently under Bush, because of Bush, and with his full knowledge. He did nothing. Please take the time to read my posts completely.

Even with 9/11, what did he propose? Send a man to the moon and tighten drug laws against professional athletes!

If you like his priorities, great for you. I just expect more out of the leader of the free world, the least of which would be the ability to speak more than a few sentences without the help of a telepromter. I would also expect the truth, especially on matters of war. I have yet to hear it from him.

Posted by: joel at August 2, 2004 09:59 PM

PREDICTION: By the end of 2005 Moore is going to need to find a new country to live in!? The guy is a complete fraud!(Do your research!)

Posted by: Tom at August 3, 2004 01:28 AM

I cannot believe half of the garbage I've been reading here. People want to believe every piece of c*** spewed out by the democrats and Michael Moore and continue to ignore hard facts. First off, does anyone remember that there was an investigation looking into intelligence prior to our invasion of Iraq? That investigation's findings concluded that there was faulty information given to President Bush - he made the best choice he could given the information he had. Secondly, if you vote for Kerry, who do you think is going to be running the country? Not Kerry, I can tell you that!! Kerry has been the junior senator of Massachusetts for many years and he has only voted contrary to Kennedy a few times in all those years. If you don't think that Kerry is merely a Kennedy puppet-- you're fooling yourself.
Kerry's voting record is like the weather, always changing and never predictable. He voted yes to go to war NOT because of lies by the administration, but because it was the popular thing to do. And then to vote no on the funding was just absurd. Sure you can say that was because Bush didn't have a clear plan, and that has been a statement Kerry has thrown out there alot, but I have one question. Where is Kerry's clear plan--on anything? Anyone can sit there and find fault in hindsight, but if you do, you had better have a better answer otherwise shut up.

Posted by: Chad at August 3, 2004 08:38 AM

To Kevin,
Kerry was a member of the Intelligence Commission. He read the same report that Bush read. He agreed we needed to do something. He voted to go to war. He was not in the dark about the intelligence of WMDs. How can he ever say Bush lied?

Posted by: clhp at August 3, 2004 12:02 PM

The bottom line here is that if George Bush wants to eliminate terror in this country he should step down. He had a hard on for Saddam the day he took office and it had nothing to do with 911. Instead of invading Iraq he should of sent a half million troops into Afganistan and hunted down Osama till he was found. Instead he used Osoma and 911 as a reason for invading Iraq. 900 + dead and 1000's and 1000's wounded in Iraq and we still have not found Osama, WMD's and we are all now under a terror threat again because of another planned attack from Alquida. If Bush wants to end Terror we need to mass our troops in Afganistan, leave Iraq and find the terror leader and exterminate him instead of allowing our kids to dye in a country that will fall back to extremists anyway once we leave. Our kids are dying and nothing is being done to eliminate the true threat in the world that Osama poses not Saddam. He is in Jail! Lets move on and move our kids out and find the true cause of terror and not the one made up by Bush and Cheney!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 4, 2004 11:21 AM

We should impeach Bush for all the wrongs he has layed on the American Citizens. What Bush has done is far worse than Bill Clinton's. Bush is the worst President in the history of our nation.

Posted by: Bill Todd at August 4, 2004 11:54 AM

To Joel:

I'll drop the vacation discussion because you obviously have made up your mind and there is no use arguing the point - which I am not sure what your point is. And if you want to talk about being on vacation - Check out Kerry's Senate attendance record this past year. How many votes did Kerry miss??

I had to laugh at your implication that you were surprised that I am still employed. Bush inherited a recession paper economy from Clinton/Gore (Please don't even try to dispute that one - for goodness sakes read ANY economic data) and this little thing called 9/11 (nine months into his presidency) and Bush gets the blame for a bad economy during his first 2 years. But since those first two years the US is in an economic recovery after the tax breaks have finally taken effect - Econ 101. Americans in the workforce has now reached a record-shattering 138.5 million, the most ever in the history of the U.S. Since you are not in the IT field, it doesn't surprise me that you have bought into this fear mongering by Kerry that all of the IT jobs have been outsourced overseas. Hello - we have been outsourcing some of our IT functions since 1994 (Clinton era). Do you think outsouring has just started? How about all the mfg-ing jobs that went to Mexico during the 1990s that are now going to China? Welcome to the Global economy. Some blame this on NAFTA - which by the way was supported by President Bush SR AND President Clinton - you blame it on Bush.

Not surprised you stand by your post on NK (and I have read it completely - now I ask the same of you)- typical blame US first without regard to the facts. Your overlooking of NKs responsibility of walking away from the nuke treaty and their CONTINUAL blackmail threats of reconstituting nuclear weapon production unless we pay them off - floors me. When will the blackmail stop? When with the demands stop? New demands have been made as we continued this appeasement policy over the last 10+ years. Then to turn around and blame Bush for finally taking a stand and saying we will not be blackmailed - wow. Facts don't matter when you just don't like someone.

What did Bush propose - Hmmm.... Tax cuts for all American's across the board which produced record economic growth. Let's compare Clinton's first three years with Bush's first three years (Since the last year of Bush's first term is not complete, I can't include it) during which Clinton was running for re-election. Unemployment lower under Bush (5.5 vs 6.2), Inflation is lower (1.9 vs 2.6), Real GDP (30.3 trillion vs 23.4 trillion) and real exports (3.09 Trillion vs 2.13 Trillion). Captured Saddam and eliminated his two sons and has turned over sovereignty to the Iraqi interium gov't with democratic elections coming in 2005 - all done within less than 2 years. Unprecedented in world history. Eliminated the Taliban and most of the top Al Qaeda leadership in Afganistan. Won't backdown from the war on terror and doesn't think we should pull back - nor will we ever be able to pull back from this war. Women and girls are finally able to attend schools and not live in fear. I could go on - but it will take 10 years after GW Bush is out of office before he gets any credit - just like Reagan.

Yes - I do like his priorites - Economic Growth and prosperity and a committment to the War on Terror. I will give you this - I think Bush needs to cut back on his spending - however not cut back on the tax cuts.

And finally, I love to hear liberals talk about how dumb GW Bush is - The man who graduated from Yale (Undergrad) and Hardward (MBA). I LOVE when you underestimate him - doesn't make the dems work as hard for Kerry. He is so dumb that he was the first Governor of Texas to win two terms and is currently sitting in the White House and will probably be there in January of 2005.

And finally, the truth. I ask you - what specifically did Bush lie about? What did Bush say that was so different than what Kerry said about the threat of Iraq - until Dean started beating him in the primary (http://kerryoniraq.com)? That Germany, France and Russia said about the threat? The threat was never in dispute? The decision to go to war was the arguement - there was no lie there. Please enlighten me on the lie - but for gods sake please do not reference Michael Moore's "fear and hate" 9/11.

Posted by: search4truth at August 4, 2004 05:27 PM

And finally the truth, read the above posts on his WMD lies. I'm not going to rehash the same stuff. Call it exageration, embellishment, stretch of the truth or whatever euphemism you want to attach to them, they are outright lies. He lied about NK having current capability to deliver nuclear payload to US shore. Due to a reconstituted nuclear weapons program and long range missile development under Bush's nose (see this Wed news posted by Jane's Defence Weekly)he has made the world less safe, but still, NK's missiles might not even make it to Japan's shore. He lied about supporting Kyoto accord pre-election but within a week of inauguration, he said he would not support it. He lied about the number of useful lines of stem cells and has denied life saving research to future generations. I'm sure you will deny stem-cell derived therapies on principle as you lay on your death bed. Yeah, right.

He lied about his DUI's, military record, cocaine use, and alcoholism. All well documented. He lied calling himself a "uniter" when he has become the most devicive president in history. I could fill a book on his lies. And, it is one he would never read because he admits he does not read books, nor newspapers for that matter. He relies on others to selectively filter the news for him. Not an intellectual giant.

Why won't you tell me why he didnt have the curiosity to read his PDB titled bin Laden to strike US? Or did you not read it? He lied when he said there was never any indication that terrorists would strike us by air, yet that is exactly what the FBI's PDB said. What a liar.

He even made another serious blunder today. What a dunce. He's against college preference points to minorities but he benefited himself with his father's and grandfathers heritage points which allowed him to get into the ivy league. With his GPA, he could not even get into community college here. Oh, did I mention that he graduated third from the bottom of his class. Even that was a gimmme because of his heritage! I'd like to see if you would even get to visit the campus with grades like his. Reports from his college buds had him as a drunken, woman-chasing party animal. That explains the dead brain cells.

You bought his economic bull too with Bush and his friends saying outsourcing of American jobs is good for our economy. Shout that one in GM's parking lot during a shift change. I dare you. His largest campaign contributor, billionaire Betsy DeVos of Amway Corp. said American workers get paid too much money. She's a real compassionate conservative too, just like Dubya.

And, unless you were one of the fortunate few rich folk that got the big tax break for the wealthy, my meager one went right into my gas tank with the cash going to Bush's friends in Saudi Arabia. Look at the price of fuel since Bush has been in office, its the highest, sustained price in our history. Today, crude hit a record. At least Dick Halliburton Chaney is happy.

Posted by: joel at August 5, 2004 07:33 PM

Joel - you are obviously an Anti-Bush hater. If I recall from former President Clinton - a lie isn't a lie unless you intend to deceive. How did Bush intend to deceive Americans and the world about WMDs when everyone from France, Germany to Russia agreed with Bush that Iraq had WMDs, they just didn't agree to going to war. Now when the WMDs are not accounted for (which does not mean they do not exists) you say he lied. There were substantial amounts of biological and chemical weapons that were known at one point to exist in Iraq for which the U.N. and its weapons inspectors could not account - and still haven't accounted for. So my question to you Joel is - where are they? They existed at one point and are unaccounted for. If Saddam did destroyed them and no longer has them why wouldn't he come clean instead of risking a war with the US? Hmmmm - where are the WMDs? No one knows where they are. You still haven't told me specifically what he lied about? WMDs? If he lied about WMDs then President Clinton also lied. John Kerry also lied. France, Germany and Russia lied. If WMDs are found, you and all the other Bush haters will accuse Bush of planting the WMDs. I have already heard that "protect yourself in case you are proven wrong" claim. From the 9/11 commission to the British Report to Vladmir Putin himself - have all stated that Bush did not lie.

I love how your personal life is no one's business (for Clinton) unless you are a Republican (Bush) - then it is your business. Bush as already admitted he had a problem with Alcohol - and quit. I give the man credit for that. Never lied about his military record and has released it to the public. Now how about John Kerry and his military record. 250 vets - many that served with Kerry, have said he has lied to obtain his purple hearts - see - it goes both ways.

In regards to the PDB - I didn't even want to address your BS but you pushed me into a corner and I must respond. I know you hate Bush so you accuse him of not reading the PDB - which he said he has. Instead of using Michael Moore as your source - why not read unbiased media outlets. It is only conspiracy theorist like yourself that state he hasn't read it. I am amazed at how YOU have the knowledge that he didn't read it. LOL - wow you are smart. Contrary to your ignorant beliefs - I have read the PDB in full. I assume you did - and it clearly states that after US missles hit Bin Laden's base in 1998 he told his follwers he wanted to retaliate in Washington. AHHHHH - I see it was President Clinton's fault for the attack on 9/11. If Clinton would not have attacked Afganistan, Bin Laden wouldn't have wanted to retaliate. Clearly stated in the memo you keep referencing. Now I am making a point - I don't blame Clinton, I blame Bin Laden. We are at war with Islamic Fundamentalist and I wish we would stay focused on that. I was just applying your logic for blaming Bush for NK to Clinton for 9/11 for effect. Oh and another point on the PDB - if you read the part about the hijacking, it CLEARLY states that the CIA has not been able to corroborate the hijacking threat.

Oh - and I have a shocking new flash for you - and when this comes out you can say you heard it from me first - a December 4th, 1998 PDB to President Clinton stated the same threat! I'm sure I will here your equal critizisms of the former President.

I guess I do buy this supposed Economic Bull - better economy then Clinton's re-election numbers. Dispute it if you can - I haven't heard a response yet. And the outsourcing - hello, how long have you been in the work force - it has been happening for over 15+ years - but I didn't hear you blaming Clinton for outsourcing in the 1990s. And if you want to talk about campaign contributors - my goodness, President Clinton was a Campaign Funds Raising Machine - one of the best. Sleep in the Lincoln bedroom anyone?

And tax break's for the supposed rich - if you mean the people who PAY taxes, I guess that means me. And if you took all the money from your tax cuts and put it into your gas tank, then either you drive an awful lot or you have an SUV - save the environment and drive your bike.

To tell you the truth - anti-Bush and Anti-Clinton people make me sick. You are so full of venom you don't even acknowledge the truth. Hopefully you will grow up some day to be able to see the world through objective lenses.

You really shouldn't be so angry - life is too short....

Posted by: search4truth at August 6, 2004 03:58 PM

Hey search: Clinton disappointed most Americans with his actions. I will forever hold it against him for squandering what otherwise would have been a great presidency. And,I cannot address the economics of the Clinton administration in this blog because of its complexity. It would take too long. Suffice it to say that macroeconomic theories were overturned and re-written by the reality of low interest rates, low inflation, low unemployment, and rising real income under Clinton. Unprecedented! Dismayed all economists! Ancillary benefits: Crime went down, poverty rates went down, and environmental quality increased.

To Dubya's credit, I thought Greenspan should have been lowering interest rates at a faster rate toward the end of Clintons run and in the beginning of the Bush regime. But, its a very complex issue that goes deeper than interest rates.

To dispute your claim that Bush read the PDB on bin Laden, read White House Briefing of April 10, 2004 on PDB on that issue and a point blank question was "Did the president read the PDB regarding bin Laden"? Response: "We don't have any information on that. I actually do not know the answer to that". Going on 3 years after 9/11 and in a White House briefing specifically on the PDB regarding bin Laden and a "Senior White House Official" did not know the answer to that? Give me a break! Condi Rice also got caught in lies on that one. Point blank lies! Read it!

I give the Bush machine credit for being the spinmeisters! Sort of like Rummy saying he was glad the insurgents came to Iraq cause now he knows where they are. Bring em' on! Mission accomplished, yet three more dead yesterday. With so much at stake, why did Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, and others resist not only testifying before the 9/11 committee, but try to stop the committee from forming in the first place? Why wouldnt Bush and Chaney give "sworn" testimony? Why would Bush and Chaney give coordinated testimony and then afterwords chastise the committee for incomplete information they failed to provide?

No one died when Clinton lied! Michael Moore should be given the Nobel Peace Prize for finally challenging the Bush regime and forcing the media to question the lies perpetrated and perpetuated by this administration.

Posted by: joel at August 7, 2004 09:30 AM

Joel: For a minute there I thought we were making progress and actually having an intellectual disagreement until you stated "Michael Moore should be given the Nobel Peace Prize...." LOL - yes, like the Republican's giving Rush Limbaugh a Nobel Peace Price for forcing the media to question the Clinton Lies. Give me a break - you don't even see the parallels. Oh - and "No one died when Clinton lied!" I see you are concluding that Clinton did lie and that is OK - because??? Oh, no one died - ah..... What about kosovo? What about Somalia? What about the USS Cole? World Trade Center 1993? You're quite the revisionist historian. You still haven't once told me what it was that Bush lied about? Please tell me - specifically what did he lie about? Your rancor for anyone who doesn't agree with you politically limits your ability to see the facts. This is from both sides of the political spectrum. You just hate Bush and everything in your world fits into that view - regardless of facts. I don't think Bush is the greatest President of all time however I do see personal attacks on a man by the left leaning media and Hollywood "intellects". What a joke - Sharon Stone wanted to kiss Halle Barre in Catwoman and says she couldn't because of the Bush administration - my god, don't you even see the malevolence and detestation of these extremists. Weren't you sick of this bashing during the Clinton years? You left wing and right wing nuts are "out there" and I'll tell you this much, if you want to elect Kerry to the Presidency, you better stop with the bashing.... Bush will gain public support if you focus on personal attacks as opposed to political disagreements.

And in regards to economics, it did not dismay all economists. I have stated here and quoted many times the economic numbers and it is well known (by all non-partisan economists) that the economy was on the upswing when Clinton came into office and on the downswing when he left.

I did grew up during the Carter years, started working through the Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, and now W. Bush years. Interest rates near 20% during the late 70s - talk about families struggling. I was one of seven kids and I'll tell you something, Reagonomics was greatly embraced by my father after he saw the economic turnaround in the 80s. My dad worked in a brewery hardly the Republican back then - but even he saw the difference cutting taxes has on an economy.

I'll leave you with this to ponder:
Do you see the personal attacks against Bush? Did you see them against Clinton? Did you justify the criticism against Clinton but jumped on the bandwagon when it was against Bush? Only when you can get past the personal stuff will you be able to view the world objectively. Only then will you be able to search for the truth....

Posted by: search4truth at August 9, 2004 01:11 PM

Hey Search, i think we are getting closer to respecting one another. Michael Moore, as i've said before, whether you believe all, some, or none of his 9/11 movie, he and Howard Dean forced the gutless Dems to finally question the unfetterd power they gave to Dubya on the war, albeit too late. Even many Republicans are back peddling. I have issues with both Kerry and Edwards for voting to go to war, but let's not lose sight of the fact it was George Bush that started it as a war of choice and chose to go alone. There's plenty of guilt to go around on this fiasco.

Like you, I started my adult life under Carter and I thought then, as now, that he was a lousy president. But, I just hated Reagan from the get-go. It was Hollywood markteting that got him elected. I voted for his GOP opponent, George Herbert Walker Bush in the primary. I opted for the independent candidate in the general. I didnt like Bush enough to overlook Reagan.

Reagan hated federal workers thinking they were the major problem with the governemt, when in fact, it was the politicians. Some things never change. Everyone remembers the the air traffic controllers he fired, but he also got rid of half of the Border Patrol even after saying he wanted to stop illegal immigrants from coming into this country. My personal income tax went up under Reagan even though my income was below the national average. The benefits did not trickle down to me nor other members of my blue collar family.

Reread my comments about Clinton. His lies devastated this country and set the stage for the Bush machine to steal the election from Gore. Gore though, ran a terrible campaign and while he deserved to lose, did not deserve to have it stripped from him by the Supreme Court. That was a point Michael Moore attacked the Democrats on in his movie, but you don't hear Bushies criticizing Moore for bashing Democrats too.

As far as the attacks against Clinton were concerned, I detested those that were equally guilty of sexual indiscretions, spend $100 million of our money to prove Clinton had oral sex with an intern. Gingrich, Hyde, Limbaugh and many others were hypocritical. Had half as much money been spent investigating Dubya's cocaine use, alcoholism, DUI's, and desertion from duty, he would likely not be president today. He sealed all his records within the first several days in office so the truth will not be made public in our lifetime. Thats criminal.

Make no mistake about me, I'm not jumping on a bandwagon now against Bush. I've hated him since before he was anointed by the GOP. Liz Dole and John McCain were much more qualified. Liz saw the handwriting on the wall early and said Bush was a done deal before it even started. Bush destroyed McCain by lies about his war record (sound familiar) down in South Carolina. Those lies were the turning point in McCains campaign, one in which he was ahead up to that time. Bush's cocaine use, Vietnam-dodging history, insider trading, etc were floated by Republicans against Bush in the primary. I'll never get past that personal stuff with Dubya. To add insult to injury, since in office, he's been trying to jam his Southern Methodist beliefs down my Catholic throat and I resent it.

Posted by: Joel at August 9, 2004 10:24 PM

Joel: I think we are getting closer to a debate of facts instead of a debate of personal attacks and/or charges without facts to back it up.

I enjoy political discussion but it takes time to get through the anger and to the point - I thank you for continuing the discussion with your continuous posts.

OK - onto the discussion: My problem with Michael Moore is the way he presents his movie with innuendo and draws his conclusions by cutting out clips of videos and paints a picture that he wants to show - hardly an un-biased documentary. Read the 9/11 commission report and the many lies Moore stated in his movie (You can find them on the Internet fairly easy). To mix lies with facts to paint a picture because you hate someone is disingenuous. As I stated before, Rush Limbaugh and the right wing radicals did the EXACT same thing to Clinton. I see through radical BS - I hope you will too.

Now to state GWB started this war alone is just not true. First off, GW went to the US congress to get approval for military action (Both Kerry and Edwards voted yes). Then he went to the UN, got a unanimous approval UN resolution against Iraq/Saddam to come clean on WMDs or face military consequences. Once it was clear that Iraq was not going to cooperate, The US, under GW, built a coalition of 40+ nations - in alphabetical order: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech, Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. (Now we can argue about Spain and the Philippines due to their pulling out - but they were originally in the coalition.)

This is HARDLY going at it alone. Let's look at Kosovo - No UN resolution, No UN support, skipped UN and went straight to NATO - 19 nations. Like the War on Iraq, the US was really the sole contributor to the military operation. So when you say - going it alone - do you mean without Russia, Germany and France? And why do you think these three countries were SO against the war? Look at the commerce and debts they were to lose without Saddam in place. The oil for food scandal has a lot of ties back to these countries. It goes both ways - but I see both ways.

Reagan hated federal workers - disagree. Look at what happened during this time period. The Air Traffic Controllers went on an illegal strike. Reagan gave the Union 48 hours to go back to work or get fired. Many refused and Reagan kept to his word firing nearly 11,400 workers. By the way it is ILLEGAL for them to strike and the union knew this and advised their workers to strike anyways. What did it get them - a lifetime ban on working in the industry. Robert Poli, president of the Professional Air-Traffic Controllers Association, was found in contempt by a federal judge and ordered to pay $1,000 a day in fines. To be honest - I am not aware of the Border Patrol issue so after searching on the internet, I could not find any documented cuts in border patrol - please send me the link for verification. I did however find the following information interesting: Reagan allowed for a policy called Operation Hold the Line in South Texas, which eventually was adopted in El Paso, San Diego and Arizona. The Policy put Border Patrol agents on a line along the border to catch people before they went farther into the interior. Reagan was praised by local border cities for his policy. I’m not denying he cut border patrol; I just can’t find the proof.

Now this one I have a lot of questions on because mathematically it does not make sense. How did your personal income tax go up under Reagan when he cut the tax rate for all Americans? It is mathematically impossible – unless you are viewing if from year to year in which you earned more money? But that is not a tax increase – that is an income increase in which you are paying more total tax but at the same tax rate. Without the tax rate cut by Reagan you would have been paying even more.

Now onto Clinton and his lies. I agree that his lies devastated the country but only because he lied under oath. If he wouldn’t have done it under oath – it would not have been as big an issue. As far as having an affair – he’s human and he made a mistake. Not justifying it, just understand it. Now saying Bush stole the election just drives me crazy – another Moore fallacy. The Supreme Court did NOT strip it away from Gore. At NO time was Gore ever in the lead in Florida and contrary to popular belief; the election is determined by electors - not popular vote. In Moore’s movie he implies Gore won and that Fox News announced Bush and all followed – yeah CBS, NBC, CNN would not look at their own data and blindly follow Fox News? Give me a break. Check the facts on this one – Gore’s lawyers only wanted 4 Democratic counties recounted – not the whole state. Even the liberal Florida State Supreme Court denied this request. His team also had 80,000 overseas military ballots thrown out of the count – and the Democrats want to talk about disenfranchised? I could argue Gore was trying to pick and choose his vote to try and steal the election. And also contrary to popular belief, all the media recounts of the election all gave Bush the victory – ABC News, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times and the Wall Street Journal! Check for yourself –

http://search.looksmart.com/p/browse/us1/us317916/us53358/us155877/us10177918/us10179208/

To summarize the 2000 election:
- All ballots were counted twice by machine and Bush lead Gore
- Gore wanted to recount the ballots by hand in an unconstitutional way, and in only four counties
- The Florida Supreme Court recognized the flaw of recounting in only four counties and ruled it must be done in all Florida counties, but could still be done in the same unconstitutional way.
- The US Supreme Court rules 7-2 that the count, as it was being done, was unconstitutional, and stopped the count from continuing.
- The US Supreme Court also ruled, 5-4, that the was no way a different, constitutional way of recounting could be devised, certified, challenged and complete in five days.
NOTE: Whether there was five days or five years, the count could not have continued as it was being performed because it was done in an unconstitutional way. The time remaining after that to create a new, constitutional way of recounting the ballots manually would have required a new law after the election, which would have been contrary to federal election law.

And to say the Bushies (btw is derogatory – just shows your detestation for the President) criticize Moore for bashing democrats??? He slams Bush and says he stole the election but then blames Gore for running a bad campaign – yes, that is something a Bush supporter would cheer about?!?!?

Now here is something I agree with you on Joel – wasting millions of dollars on the Starr Commission however I would like to note that these commissions - or as I like to call them, “unaccountable fourth branch of government” - , were setup by the Democrats during the Reagan years to investigate the Iran/Contra scandal (Tower Commission). Which wasted million of dollars and proved nothing either but I hope you were as critical of the Tower Commission as the Starr Commission. Again, I see it both ways.

In your criminal charge that Bush sealed all his records within the first several days in office so the “truth” will not be made public – what specifically was sealed? President Bush has released his Military records in 2000 and again in 2004. What was sealed and who sealed them?

And finally, you don’t have to convince me you hated Bush before he was the Republican Presidential nominee – your posts are loud and clear. I didn’t like President Clinton – but I never hated him, never got into name calling, never got into the personal stuff. I disagree with President Clinton’s policies and I debate on that alone…. You need to move beyond the personal stuff because it clouds your judgment. You should try it sometime – it calms the nerves….

Posted by: search4truth at August 12, 2004 06:21 PM

Dear Mr. James Watsen,

I´m happy to tell you that Bush will not be voted again. There isn´t much fear of it, because we are not idiots forever. It´s enough. The 11.september is a trauma for america, which appears to be nonfinite, because Bush and his complicity take advantage of our swoon, fear, lability and frailty. After the election we have to bring him to low. This horrid and theft will be hamstrung.
By the way, I conjecture that you are emotionally disturbed. See you better! Best wishes.
Slavica Radic

Posted by: Slavica Radic at August 24, 2004 07:15 PM

Dear Mr. James Watsen,

I´m happy to tell you that Bush will not be voted again. There isn´t much fear of it, because we are not idiots forever. It´s enough. The 11.september is a trauma for america, which appears to be nonfinite, because Bush and his complicity take advantage of our swoon, fear, lability and frailty. After the election we have to bring him to low. This horrid and theft will be hamstrung.
By the way, I conjecture that you are emotionally disturbed. See you better! Best wishes.
Slavica Radic

Posted by: Slavica Radic at August 24, 2004 07:17 PM

Bush on 60 minutes, I have never seen the movie fahrenheit 9/11,it is not aloud to see,it remember me like ssadamm,He will become a President for alle the world in future with his Lie and He lied about his DUI's military record, cocaine use, and alcoholism. All well documented. He lied calling himself a "uniter" when he has become the most devicive president in history, I'am from Irak and I like Americans, I will say sorry for American soldier and Irakis.
Bush Family holds a horrific human rights record. Torture, disappearance, extrajudicial killings all over.and to not let
some Link for you

0. http://www.stileproject.com/flash/dubya.html
1. http://geocities.com/kurdan1997/kdp7.jpg
2. http://kurdishpoint.com/
3. http://kurdishpoint.com/

Posted by: Hushmand at September 16, 2004 04:46 PM

Bush on 60 minutes, I have never seen the movie fahrenheit 9/11,it is not aloud to see,it remember me like ssadamm,He will become a President for alle the world in future with his Lie and He lied about his DUI's military record, cocaine use, and alcoholism. All well documented. He lied calling himself a "uniter" when he has become the most devicive president in history, I'am from Irak and I like Americans, I will say sorry for American soldier and Irakis.
Bush Family holds a horrific human rights record. Torture, disappearance, extrajudicial killings all over.and to not let
some Link for you

0. http://www.stileproject.com/flash/dubya.html
1. http://geocities.com/kurdan1997/kdp7.jpg
2. http://kurdishpoint.com/
3. http://kurdishpoint.com/

Posted by: farag at September 16, 2004 04:49 PM

Hushmand,

You need to learn a little about the American Press. You want to talk about lies?? You reference 60 minutes - they doctored memos to try to bring Bush down? We can't even trust our media. Becareful what you believe. Bush will win.....

Posted by: search4truth at October 5, 2004 10:41 AM

hmmm....

Posted by: Anonymous at April 29, 2005 04:13 AM

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: