FahrenHYPE 9/11

[Guest Vitamin X]

this idea is so fucking retarded.

 

i eagerly await the arrival of some right-wing documentary that can actually STAND ON ITS OWN AS A DOCUMENTARY.

 

hopefully moore has pissed off a whole generation of young right-leaning college students who will go to film school and make documentaries that will actually be taken seriously.

Conservatives would have a harder time getting press for documentaries with virtually no factual info involved.

-=Mike

That's because Republicans aren't funny or entertaining.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

That's because Republicans aren't funny or entertaining.

Arnold?

 

Speaking of which, one of the theaters here is going to be showing Going Upriver, Hijacking Catastrophe, Outfoxed (already seen it), Silver City, and "Uncovered: The War In Iraq" tomorrow. Whoo! Living here does have it's advantages.

[NoCalMike 0]

That's because Republicans aren't funny or entertaining.

Arnold?

 

Speaking of which, one of the theaters here is going to be showing Going Upriver, Hijacking Catastrophe, Outfoxed (already seen it), Silver City, and "Uncovered: The War In Iraq" tomorrow. Whoo! Living here does have it's advantages.

Damn you priveliged Bay Area folks.

[Jericholic82 0]

EDIT: I REGISTERED MONTHS AGO AND I STAND BY MY OPINIONS THANK YOU AND PLEASE STOP INSULTING PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIFFERING OPINIONS OK?

 

 

 

GO YANKS IN GAME 3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest GreatOne]

I have come to the conclusion that all politicians are full of crap.

v

v

v

v

I finally registered to vote at age 21 and I am not afraid to admit im going with the democrats on this one.

So democrats aren't politicians I guess...........

 

Hell I run into a lot of anti-Bush people frequently who say 'Kerry may be less crap, but at the end of the day he's still crap'.

 

At least voting for Nader, Badnarik, whoever, you're saying that both candidates suck and neither deserve your vote.

[Guest MikeSC]

this idea is so fucking retarded.

 

i eagerly await the arrival of some right-wing documentary that can actually STAND ON ITS OWN AS A DOCUMENTARY.

 

hopefully moore has pissed off a whole generation of young right-leaning college students who will go to film school and make documentaries that will actually be taken seriously.

Conservatives would have a harder time getting press for documentaries with virtually no factual info involved.

-=Mike

That's because Republicans aren't funny or entertaining.

Moore is?

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Conservatives would have a harder time getting press for documentaries with virtually no factual info involved.

          -=Mike

Oh you mean like "Stolen Honor" that affiliates are being FORCED to air right before an election, by a huge republican contributor who just this morning said, "every time a carbomb goes off in Iraq, it is good news for Kerry" which subtly hints at any time the NEWS is reported, it is good for Kerry.

And PBS aired a fervently pro-Kerry doc.

 

Your point is...?

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

I finally saw moores film, and I thought he did a tremendous job. Sure hes really partisan, but for the most part he just uses actual footage and facts to back up his case. I think the strongest part of it, is showing some of the actual realness of Iraq. Seeing soldiers and then little kids all suffering makes you put a real face on this. and the part about the terror color chart was totally what I have been thinking. as tarrantino put it in the extras showing the cannes festival, this movie won an award not due to politics but because it was the best film.

 

as for my thoughts

 

I think that for the most part, bush appeals to both the very rich and the blue collar average joe who doesnt question much and is all like yay usa number 1 These people dismiss movies like fahrenheit without seeing it cuz they think they are just anti-bush propaganda (which it is , but it has some content in it, that needs to be seen by americans)

 

 

us free thinkers see past the politics. I have come to the conclusion that all politicians are full of crap.

 

The country has gone to crap in the past 4 years. I guess you cant say its all the administartions fault, but who else do you blame for this but the governement? this is how many people have voted in the past.

 

 

I finally registered to vote at age 21 and I am not afraid to admit im going with the democrats on this one.

 

 

Even if the leaders are full of baloney, I do disagree with alot of the current poilices so I will use my right as an american to voice my concerns and opinions

 

I hope you all can understand me and respect my opinion becuase I respect yours regardless of whether you agree with me or not.

 

 

 

BTW I have seen hijacking catastrophe and it is a must see. gives a lot more than just oil facts

Wow, nice of you "free thinkers" to be such lemmings.

 

I can give you a LITANY of lies and problems with Moore's movie, if you'd like.

-=Mike

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

I finally saw moores film, and I thought he did a tremendous job. Sure hes really partisan, but for the most part he just uses actual footage and facts to back up his case.  I think the strongest part of it, is showing some of the actual realness of Iraq.  Seeing soldiers and then little kids all suffering makes you put a real face on this.  and the part about the terror color chart was totally what I have been thinking. as tarrantino put it in the extras showing the cannes festival, this movie won an award not due to politics but because it was the best film. 

 

as for my thoughts

 

I think that for the most part, bush appeals to both the very rich and the blue collar average joe who doesnt question much and is all like yay usa number 1  These people dismiss movies like fahrenheit without seeing it cuz they think they are just anti-bush propaganda (which it is , but it has some content in it, that needs to be seen by americans)

 

 

us free thinkers see past the politics.  I have come to the conclusion that all politicians are full of crap. 

 

The country has gone to crap in the past 4 years.  I guess you cant say its all the administartions fault, but who else do you blame for this but the governement?  this is how many people have voted in the past.

 

 

I finally registered to vote at age 21 and I am not afraid to admit im going with the democrats on this one. 

 

 

  Even if the leaders are full of baloney, I do disagree with alot of the current poilices so I will use my right as  an american to voice my concerns and opinions

 

I hope you all can understand me and respect my opinion becuase I respect yours regardless of whether you agree with me or not.

 

 

 

BTW I have seen hijacking catastrophe and it is a must see.  gives a lot more than just oil facts

Wow, nice of you "free thinkers" to be such lemmings.

 

I can give you a LITANY of lies and problems with Moore's movie, if you'd like.

-=Mike

Having seen Moore's film, and being past the point of registration, I would love to read these.

[Guest MikeSC]

Since you asked, here ya go:

Courtesy:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-D...renheit-911.htm

 

1) Bush was in the school for five (not seven) minutes and the school principal --- who is not a supporter --- thinks he did the right thing.

2) FOX called FL early for Gore. CBS retracted the call first, not FOX.

3) Bush won the recount undertaken by the major media.

4) Bush's Presidency was not in any trouble, whatsoever, before 9/11. He was getting his policies passed.

5) Bush was not on vacation for 42% of the time. Fahrenhype actually gives a really solid timeline for everything Bush did during one week of his "vacation".

6) On the golf course, Bush was discussing ISRAEL, not any attacks on the US.

7) The 8/6/01 PDB --- nobody can say that Bush even saw it. The FBI, in that briefing, stated that they could not corroborate the rumor.

8) No Saudi royal famly member were flown out before air traffic was opened up post-9/11 and the FBI stated that they had no further questions for any of the ones who were permitted to leave.

9) Bath invested in Arbuto with his own money, not bin Laden money.

10) Bath's name was blacked out because federal law REQUIRES it --- health-related personal info cannot be released to te public.

11) The US/Saud relationship has gone on since the days of FDR. It's not a new thing.

12) Bush sold Harken stock when his lawyer said it was OK for him to do so --- there was no evidence of insider trading.

13) The Carlyle group has many people besides Bush --- including George Soros and several Clinton cabinet officials. In fact, Bush's cancellation of the Crusader missile hurt Carlyle substantially.

14) Vast majority of Saudi money in Carlyle was taken out before Bush Sr. joined.

15) The sources Craig Unger (whose book gave Moore much of his material) cited for the $860B investment in the US do not actually support a figure nearly that large. Even if you accept the numbers, the Saudis do not have 7% of all investment in the US --- they own 7% of FOREIGN INVESTMENT in America.

16) The Saudi embassy is not the only one protected by the Secret Service. Any embassy that requests it is protected by the Secret Service.

17) The Saudis OPPOSED us toppling the Taliban and the Iraq War.

18) Gov. Bush had no say about Taliban officials coming to TX. Pres. Clinton allowed them in and nobody can state that they ever met with Bush.

19) The Unocal pipeline was not supported by Bush (he supported the Enron plan which didn't go into Afghanistan). Clinton did support the Unocal plan, but it was dropped back in '98. Enron had no benefits from the pipeline at any point.

20) Bush did not welcome Taliban officials to Washington in 2001, but instead, CONDEMNED them for not handing over OBL.

21) Moore opposed the Afghan War and as recently as Dec. 2002, argued that OBL might be innocent.

22) In 2/04, Chairman Kean of the 9/11 Commission praised the administration for unprecedented access.

23) The FBI did not know about AQ operatives in flight school. The info never left the local office level.

24) Porter Goss DOES have a toll-free number.

25) Saddam sheltered the bomb-maker for the 1993 WTC bombing and paid for bombings in Israel with killed Americans. Plus, he did attempt to assassinate Pres. Bush.

26) In 1997, the Hussein regime stated that American and British interests, embassies, etc. should be targets of military action.

27) There is substantial evidence of Saddam/AQ connections. Even the 9/11 Commission states that.

28) Iraq under Saddam was a shithole. 1/6 of the population fled. Kurds were gassed. Mass graves are STILL being unearthed.

29) Most of the destroyed buildings Moore showed were military installations where citizens were not permitted to enter.

30) Bush has not cut funding for the VA.

31) Bush raised military pay 3.7% in 1993.

32) According to Census data, Congressional families are more likely to have children in Iraq than other families.

33) The $1.4B Saudi royalty gave to the Bushes? 90% came from contracts given to BDC --- fascinating, except Bush Sr. did not have any involvement with Carlyle when the contracts were awarded.

 

That's a few, for starters.

-=Mike

[Dangerous A 0]

I finally registered to vote at age 21 and I am not afraid to admit im going with the democrats on this one.

 

 

I finally registered to vote at age 27 and am not afraid to admit I'm going to write in a vote for rapper Lil' Jon. That's how much I dislike both Dem and GOP candidates.

[Guest Vitamin X]

That's because Republicans aren't funny or entertaining.

Arnold?

Yes, exactly. Arnold's a parody of himself anyhow, he even knows it. ("Girlie men"?)

 

Moore is?

-=Mike

 

Sure, why not. Even you guys have used him for plenty of your own entertainment purposes, at his expense, but still entertaining for you.

[Guest GreatOne]

Moore is?

-=Mike

 

Sure, why not. Even you guys have used him for plenty of your own entertainment purposes, at his expense, but still entertaining for you.

That would be entertaining on the unintentional scale though. Not the same as actually being entertaining.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I finally registered to vote at age 21 and I am not afraid to admit im going with the democrats on this one.

 

 

I finally registered to vote at age 27 and am not afraid to admit I'm going to write in a vote for rapper Lil' Jon. That's how much I dislike both Dem and GOP candidates.

Lil' Jon is 35?

 

[Dangerous A 0]

I finally registered to vote at age 21 and I am not afraid to admit im going with the democrats on this one.

 

 

I finally registered to vote at age 27 and am not afraid to admit I'm going to write in a vote for rapper Lil' Jon. That's how much I dislike both Dem and GOP candidates.

Lil' Jon is 35?

 

Dammit Rob! You've ruined my vote. I don't think Jon is 35.

 

 

:: paces back and forth pondering who to write in ::

[Downhome 0]

Vote for Snoopy, he's 35+.

 

[Jericholic82 0]

I never said that I completely agree with the film guys, I just said it was entertaining (save for the 9/11 footage and the war images)

 

Chill out guys.

 

 

 

 

check my earlier post for a new edit

 

 

 

peace

[bob_barron 0]

Just because you stand by your opinions doesn't make them correct.

 

You need to make your posts easier to read.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Wow, nice of you "free thinkers" to be such lemmings.

Isn't it funny how the so-called free thinkers are always the biggest lemmings of all?

 

If they were thinking so freely, maybe I could tell one Bush-hating, Satanism-embracing, idealistic college student from another, right?

[cbacon 0]

2) FOX called FL early for Gore. CBS retracted the call first, not FOX.

 

“With information provided from the Voter News Service, NBC was the first network to project Gore the winner in Florida at 7:48 pm.  At 7:50 pm ,CNN and CBS project Gore the winner in Florida as well.” By 8:02 pm , all five networks and the Associated Press had called Gore the winner in Florida. Even the VNS called Gore the winner at 7:52 pm. At 2:16 am, Fox calls Florida for Bush, NBC follows at 2:16 am. ABC is the last network to call the Florida for Bush, at 2:20 am, while AP and VNS never call Florida for Bush. CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/02/

cnn.report/cnn.pdf

 

1) Bush was in the school for five (not seven) minutes and the school principal --- who is not a supporter --- thinks he did the right thing.

 

  “[H]e lingered in the room for another six minutes [after being informed of the second plane]… [At] 9:12, he abruptly retreated, speaking to Mr. Cheney and New York officials.” David E. Sanger and Don Van Natta Jr., “After The Attacks: The Events;In Four Days, A National Crisis Changes Bush's Presidency,” The New York Times, September 16, 2001  .

 

3) Bush won the recount undertaken by the major media.

[A] consortium [Tribune Co., owner of the Times; Associated Press; CNN; the New York Times; the Palm Beach Post; the St. Petersburg Times; the Wall Street Journal; and the Washington Post] hired the NORC [National Opinion Research Center, a nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the University of Chicago] to view each untallied ballot and gather information about how it was marked. The media organizations then used computers to sort and tabulate votes, based on varying scenarios that had been raised during the post-election scramble in Florida. Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Mr. Gore erased Mr. Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes.  Donald Lambro, “Recount Provides No Firm Answers,” Washington Times, November 12, 2001

 

4) Bush's Presidency was not in any trouble, whatsoever, before 9/11. He was getting his policies passed.

 

    *  In a poll conducted September 5 to September 9, 2001, Investor’s Business Daily and the Christian Science Monitor showed President Bush’s approval rating at 45%, down from 52% in May ( Investor’s Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor Poll, conducted by TIPP, 9/5 to 9/9, 2001). Zogby’s polling had Bush at 47% in late July 2001, down from 57% in February (Zogby, 7/26 to 7/29, 2001).

 

    * In June 2001, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed President Bush's approval rating at 50 percent, which was the lowest presidential approval rating in five years. Richard L. Berke, “G.O.P. Defends Bush in Face of Dip in Poll Ratings,” The New York Times, June 29 2001

 

    * On July 26, 2001, in an article entitled “Bush Lacks the Ability To Force Action on Hill,” Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote, “ It may be premature to conclude that Bush has lost control of his agenda, but lawmakers and strategists in both parties said that Bush's next year is much more likely to look like the fractious month of July than like the orderly march toward Bush's tax cut this spring.… The troubles began, of course, with Vermont Sen. James M. Jeffords' departure from the GOP, giving control of the Senate to the Democrats. But the problems are nearly as bad in the House, where moderates who supported Bush's tax cut are proving recalcitrant on other issues. They rebelled against GOP leaders on campaign finance reform and held up Bush's "faith-based" legislation over concerns about discrimination. Next week, they're likely to oppose Bush's proposal to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.”

 

    * California energy crisis also took a toll on Bush’s approval ratings.  Due to rolling blackouts and rising utility bills Bush’s ratings took a toll among Californians.  The poll showed that almost as many Californians disapproved of the President’s job as approved of it with an approve/disapprove of 42/40. “Calif. Governor Says He'll Sue to Force Government Action,” The Houston Chronicle, May 30, 2001. 

 

5) Bush was not on vacation for 42% of the time. Fahrenhype actually gives a really solid timeline for everything Bush did during one week of his "vacation".

 

“News coverage has pointedly stressed that W.'s month-long stay at his ranch in Crawford is the longest presidential vacation in 32 years. Washington Post supercomputers calculated that if you add up all his weekends at Camp David, layovers at Kennebunkport and assorted to-ing and fro-ing, W. will have spent 42 percent of his presidency ‘at vacation spots or en route.’”  Charles Krauthammer, “A Vacation Bush Deserves,” The Washington Post, August 10, 2001.

 

7) The 8/6/01 PDB --- nobody can say that Bush even saw it. The FBI, in that briefing, stated that they could not corroborate the rumor.

 

“[T]hey didn't allow me to brief him on terrorism. You know, they're saying now that when I was afforded the opportunity to talk to him about cybersecurity, it was my choice. I could have talked about terrorism or cybersecurity. That's not true. I asked in January to brief him, the president, on terrorism, to give him the same briefing I had given Vice President Cheney, Colin Powell and Condi Rice. And I was told, ‘You can't do that briefing, Dick, until after the policy development process.’” Richard Clarke interview with Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press, March 28, 2004.

 

19) The Unocal pipeline was not supported by Bush (he supported the Enron plan which didn't go into Afghanistan). Clinton did support the Unocal plan, but it was dropped back in '98. Enron had no benefits from the pipeline at any point.

 

Dr. Zaher Wahab of Afghanistan, a professor in the US speaking at International Human Rights Day event, “explained that Delta, Unocal as well as Russian, Pakistani and Japanese oil and gas companies have signed agreements with the Turkmenistan government, immediately north of Afghanistan, which has the fourth largest gas reserve in the world. Agreements also have been signed with the Taliban, allowing these oil and gas giants to pump Turkmenistan gas and oil through western Afghanistan to Pakistan, from which it then will be shipped all over the world. The energy consortium Enron plans to be one of the builders of the pipeline.” Elaine Kelly, “Northwest Groups Discuss Afghan, Iranian and Turkish Rights Violations,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 31, 1997. 

 

20) Bush did not welcome Taliban officials to Washington in 2001, but instead, CONDEMNED them for not handing over OBL

 

“A Taliban envoy appealed to the Bush administration Monday to overlook his group's support of extremist Osama bin Laden and the destruction of priceless centuries-old Buddhist sculptures and lift sanctions on Afghanistan to help alleviate a humanitarian crisis threatening the lives of a million people.  Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi delivered a letter from the Taliban for President Bush that called for better U.S.-Afghan relations and negotiations to solve the dispute over the Saudi-born Bin Laden. Robin Wright, “Taliban Asks US to Lift its Economic Sanctions,” Los Angeles Times, March 20, 2001.

 

 

23) The FBI did not know about AQ operatives in flight school. The info never left the local office level.

 

Excerpt from "Phoenix Memo": "The purpose of this communication is to advise the Bureau and New York of the possibility of a coordinated effort by USAMA BIN LADEN (UBL) to send students to the United States to attend civil aviation universities and colleges. Phoenix has observed an inordinate number of individuals of investigative interest who are attending or who have attended civil aviation universities and colleges in the State of Arizona." Read the entire Phoenix Memo at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/

creports/911.html 

 

These are of course from Mike's website, but links are provided to the actual sources. I wasn't really trying to defend Moore here, but rather make a point of how you can easily use facts to contradict other facts. Some of it trivial, some of it not. If two reliable sources (Not referring to Mike as a source here, but rather whatever sources he used to provide these arguments, if any) contradict each other, who is to tell which is right or wrong? Moore may spin doctor, mis-lead and skew things to fit his agenda for the sake of his argument. But to insinuate that he lies is a stretch. If you want to argue that the sources he is using is wrong, then so be it.

 

The fact of the matter is, attacks against Moore usually stem from arguments sources he's used as evidence, or the focus is on the more 'trivial' aspects, such as whether Bush continued speaking to the elementary students for 5 minutes instead of 7, or when the Bin Laden's were really allowed to leave US soil. If he's wrong in matters like these, it can hurt is credibility, sure. But in the grand scheme of things, his stance against the Bush Administration is general just, and it is echoed by voices that follow suit pre or post F9/11. The question is whether Moore is really being attacked for his inaccuracies or the fact he made a movie that deals with topics that people would rather not discuss. For many, it's a taboo notion that The United States is wrong with their current foreign policy, an issue that many have a hard time coming to gripes with and it dosen't necessarily divide the line between the left and the right. Now, we can argue whether Moore is a lying scumbug till the cows come home, but even if half of what Moore is saying is correct, it should prompt further investigation into the issues at hand, and thanks in part to his movie, many have done so. That dosen't mean taking what Moore says or implies as 100% truth, but rather a stepping stone to other outlets - from which the viewer can come to their own conclusion.

[Guest GreatOne]

but even if half of what Moore is saying is correct, it should prompt further investigation into the issues at hand,

Hmmmm, so now to investigate, we only need a POSSIBLE HINT of accuracy, where have I seen this recently? Oh yeah........................

 

 

'Mr. President, answer these questions'.............................

 

Worked well didn't it?

[Dangerous A 0]

GreatOne's got a zinger there, C-Bacon.

 

Gotta hate that slippery slope, eh?

[Guest MikeSC]

2) FOX called FL early for Gore. CBS retracted the call first, not FOX.

 

“With information provided from the Voter News Service, NBC was the first network to project Gore the winner in Florida at 7:48 pm.  At 7:50 pm ,CNN and CBS project Gore the winner in Florida as well.” By 8:02 pm , all five networks and the Associated Press had called Gore the winner in Florida. Even the VNS called Gore the winner at 7:52 pm. At 2:16 am, Fox calls Florida for Bush, NBC follows at 2:16 am. ABC is the last network to call the Florida for Bush, at 2:20 am, while AP and VNS never call Florida for Bush. CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/02/

cnn.report/cnn.pdf

Which, shockingly enough, is bullshit. FOX called FL early, as did EVERYBODY who used VNS --- despite Gore never leading in the vote count at any point in the evening. It was becoming apparent by people looking at the ACTUAL numbers that the call was not right and it was corrected.

 

You also don't actually DISPROVE my statement, nor explain why networks would simply abandon all "journalistic integrity" to agree with whatever FOX stated. I've never heard of networks doing that before or since, but hey, if you can provide evidence...

1) Bush was in the school for five (not seven) minutes and the school principal --- who is not a supporter --- thinks he did the right thing.

 

  “[H]e lingered in the room for another six minutes [after being informed of the second plane]… [At] 9:12, he abruptly retreated, speaking to Mr. Cheney and New York officials.” David E. Sanger and Don Van Natta Jr., “After The Attacks: The Events;In Four Days, A National Crisis Changes Bush's Presidency,” The New York Times, September 16, 2001  .

The NY Times, in a shocking revelation, are wrong --- by about 2 minutes.

 

And, again, no mention of what, you know, Bush was SUPPOSED to do. I suppose he could sit in a Senate office, unable to think for 40 minutes like a certain Presidential candidate...

 

The principal of the school, who is not a supporter, said he did the right thing. I'll take her word over Moore's.

3) Bush won the recount undertaken by the major media.

[A] consortium [Tribune Co., owner of the Times; Associated Press; CNN; the New York Times; the Palm Beach Post; the St. Petersburg Times; the Wall Street Journal; and the Washington Post] hired the NORC [National Opinion Research Center, a nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the University of Chicago] to view each untallied ballot and gather information about how it was marked. The media organizations then used computers to sort and tabulate votes, based on varying scenarios that had been raised during the post-election scramble in Florida. Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Mr. Gore erased Mr. Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes.  Donald Lambro, “Recount Provides No Firm Answers,” Washington Times, November 12, 2001

http://dir.salon.com/politics/wire/2001/11...ount/index.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...DA80994D9404482

 

Which ALSO doesn't explain why the largest category of overvotes --- were people voting for Gore and Bush, not Gore and Buchanan. Or why Bush got so low a percentage of Republican votes in certain counties (well below 80% of the GOP vote in areas, which flies very much in the face of all polling).

4) Bush's Presidency was not in any trouble, whatsoever, before 9/11. He was getting his policies passed.

 

    *  In a poll conducted September 5 to September 9, 2001, Investor’s Business Daily and the Christian Science Monitor showed President Bush’s approval rating at 45%, down from 52% in May ( Investor’s Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor Poll, conducted by TIPP, 9/5 to 9/9, 2001). Zogby’s polling had Bush at 47% in late July 2001, down from 57% in February (Zogby, 7/26 to 7/29, 2001).

And as anybody who has EVER followed Presidential polling, that is hardly a crisis.

 

Keep in mind, Clinton's numbers were in the exact same range at the exact same point.

* On July 26, 2001, in an article entitled “Bush Lacks the Ability To Force Action on Hill,” Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote, “ It may be premature to conclude that Bush has lost control of his agenda, but lawmakers and strategists in both parties said that Bush's next year is much more likely to look like the fractious month of July than like the orderly march toward Bush's tax cut this spring.… The troubles began, of course, with Vermont Sen. James M. Jeffords' departure from the GOP, giving control of the Senate to the Democrats. But the problems are nearly as bad in the House, where moderates who supported Bush's tax cut are proving recalcitrant on other issues. They rebelled against GOP leaders on campaign finance reform and held up Bush's "faith-based" legislation over concerns about discrimination. Next week, they're likely to oppose Bush's proposal to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.”

Dana Milibank? What, were Paul Begala's quotes too hard to find?

 

Bush got his tax cuts passed. Bush was getting the major policies he wanted done passed.

5) Bush was not on vacation for 42% of the time. Fahrenhype actually gives a really solid timeline for everything Bush did during one week of his "vacation".

 

“News coverage has pointedly stressed that W.'s month-long stay at his ranch in Crawford is the longest presidential vacation in 32 years. Washington Post supercomputers calculated that if you add up all his weekends at Camp David, layovers at Kennebunkport and assorted to-ing and fro-ing, W. will have spent 42 percent of his presidency ‘at vacation spots or en route.’”  Charles Krauthammer, “A Vacation Bush Deserves,” The Washington Post, August 10, 2001.

While in Crawford, he also met with Fox and Putin, signed numerous pieces of legislation, proposed numerous nominees for positions, gave numerous speeches to various groups...

 

And, of course, mentioning that Camp David is, you know, a fully functional second White House, and that counting "travel time" to locations is something nobody has ever done --- well, the point is more than mildly moot.

7) The 8/6/01 PDB --- nobody can say that Bush even saw it. The FBI, in that briefing, stated that they could not corroborate the rumor.

 

“[T]hey didn't allow me to brief him on terrorism. You know, they're saying now that when I was afforded the opportunity to talk to him about cybersecurity, it was my choice. I could have talked about terrorism or cybersecurity. That's not true. I asked in January to brief him, the president, on terrorism, to give him the same briefing I had given Vice President Cheney, Colin Powell and Condi Rice. And I was told, ‘You can't do that briefing, Dick, until after the policy development process.’” Richard Clarke interview with Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press, March 28, 2004.

Clarke is pissy that he did not have direct access to the President --- which he should not have had. And Clarke's record on terrorism was so shoddy that he certainly does not hold up as an expert.

19) The Unocal pipeline was not supported by Bush (he supported the Enron plan which didn't go into Afghanistan). Clinton did support the Unocal plan, but it was dropped back in '98. Enron had no benefits from the pipeline at any point.

 

Dr. Zaher Wahab of Afghanistan, a professor in the US speaking at International Human Rights Day event, “explained that Delta, Unocal as well as Russian, Pakistani and Japanese oil and gas companies have signed agreements with the Turkmenistan government, immediately north of Afghanistan, which has the fourth largest gas reserve in the world. Agreements also have been signed with the Taliban, allowing these oil and gas giants to pump Turkmenistan gas and oil through western Afghanistan to Pakistan, from which it then will be shipped all over the world. The energy consortium Enron plans to be one of the builders of the pipeline.” Elaine Kelly, “Northwest Groups Discuss Afghan, Iranian and Turkish Rights Violations,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 31, 1997.

Gee, what part of Bush didn't support it (he supported Enron's plan that didn't go anywhere near Afghanistan) and they dropped it in 1998 (about a year after your article was printed) did you miss?

20) Bush did not welcome Taliban officials to Washington in 2001, but instead, CONDEMNED them for not handing over OBL

 

“A Taliban envoy appealed to the Bush administration Monday to overlook his group's support of extremist Osama bin Laden and the destruction of priceless centuries-old Buddhist sculptures and lift sanctions on Afghanistan to help alleviate a humanitarian crisis threatening the lives of a million people.  Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi delivered a letter from the Taliban for President Bush that called for better U.S.-Afghan relations and negotiations to solve the dispute over the Saudi-born Bin Laden. Robin Wright, “Taliban Asks US to Lift its Economic Sanctions,” Los Angeles Times, March 20, 2001.

Let me guess --- you'll explain the relevance of this at some point, since they were asking Bush to ignore OBL's terrorism and improve relations --- which Bush, you know, refused to do.

23) The FBI did not know about AQ operatives in flight school. The info never left the local office level.

Excerpt from "Phoenix Memo": "The purpose of this communication is to advise the Bureau and New York of the possibility of a coordinated effort by USAMA BIN LADEN (UBL) to send students to the United States to attend civil aviation universities and colleges. Phoenix has observed an inordinate number of individuals of investigative interest who are attending or who have attended civil aviation universities and colleges in the State of Arizona." Read the entire Phoenix Memo at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/

creports/911.html

Gee, shocking that the link doesn't, you know, actually link to the memo.

 

The memo --- http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/phoenix-memo (I love doing Moore's work for him) --- only states rumors and assumptions without any basis of real info.

These are of course from Mike's website, but links are provided to the actual sources.

With the memo, no. And they don't actually PROVE his case, while mine shred his "case" nicely.

I wasn't really trying to defend Moore here, but rather make a point of how you can easily use facts to contradict other facts.

Except you, you know, didn't actually do that.

Some of it trivial, some of it not. If two reliable sources (Not referring to Mike as a source here, but rather whatever sources he used to provide these arguments, if any) contradict each other, who is to tell which is right or wrong? Moore may spin doctor, mis-lead and skew things to fit his agenda for the sake of his argument. But to insinuate that he lies is a stretch. If you want to argue that the sources he is using is wrong, then so be it.

No, I'll argue he lies. His Caryle conspiracy theories are EASILY proven false with minimal effort. His belief that the networks called FL for Bush because FOX did so is laughable.

The fact of the matter is, attacks against Moore usually stem from arguments sources he's used as evidence, or the focus is on the more 'trivial' aspects, such as whether Bush continued speaking to the elementary students for 5 minutes instead of 7

Blame Mikey for trying to make it an issue when it clearly is not one.

or when the Bin Laden's were really allowed to leave US soil.

One of the "trivial aspects", mind you, that he claims shows that Bush was unfairly partial towards them, despite them receiving no real preferential treatment outside of being permitted to leave after the FBI said they had no further questions for them.

If he's wrong in matters like these, it can hurt is credibility, sure.

It hasn't yet. It's not like him lying through the crullers in his teeth has harmed him in the eyes of his fawning public yet.

But in the grand scheme of things, his stance against the Bush Administration is general just, and it is echoed by voices that follow suit pre or post F9/11.

No, his stand against Bush is moronic and wrong on almost every conceivable level. If Stewart wants to bitch about things "hurting America", he should speak to Michael Moore first and foremost.

The question is whether Moore is really being attacked for his inaccuracies or the fact he made a movie that deals with topics that people would rather not discuss.

Spinsanity.com, hardly a Bush defender, printed a SCATHING critique of his movie. You should read it.

For many, it's a taboo notion that The United States is wrong with their current foreign policy, an issue that many have a hard time coming to gripes with and it dosen't necessarily divide the line between the left and the right.

Yup, we caused 9/11. Our fault. Bush wasn't elected President, FOX simply put him there.

 

Hell, if somebody wishes to make a critique, they have all the rights to do so. When it's patently false and borderline moronic like Moore's, then don't bitch that it's getting dissected.

Now, we can argue whether Moore is a lying scumbug till the cows come home, but even if half of what Moore is saying is correct, it should prompt further investigation into the issues at hand, and thanks in part to his movie, many have done so.

Wow, some people buy "False but accurate" as a justification?

 

In case you missed it, his movie HAS been investigated.

 

And it came up lacking.

That dosen't mean taking what Moore says or implies as 100% truth, but rather a stepping stone to other outlets - from which the viewer can come to their own conclusion.

Moore hasn't made a SINGLE documentary that was accurate on ANY level. Even "Roger & Me" was an utter joke.

 

If ANYBODY takes anything he says seriously, they deserve to be treated like a laughingstock.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

EDIT: I REGISTERED MONTHS AGO AND I STAND BY MY OPINIONS THANK YOU AND PLEASE STOP INSULTING PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIFFERING OPINIONS OK?

 

 

 

GO YANKS IN GAME 3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you weren't a douche, you wouldn't have been ripped.

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

Come on Mike, just because someone is a douche doesn't mean we have to give them a hard time.

 

I mean we as a board deal with your crap far more than almost anyone else here, and no one tears into you with nearly the severity that you tear into anyone who doubts you.

 

And your posts are so long and LBL...

[cbacon 0]

You summarized my point pefectly Mike. You can easily try to contradict these arguments by throwing up all the weblinks and thorougly dissect anything you want, while claiming the original source wrong. If thats the way you want to see it, so be it.

 

With the memo, no. And they don't actually PROVE his case, while mine shred his "case" nicely.

 

Uh huh, and you case is so much more credible why? You shredded it how now? You argued against his research? Somehow that makes your opinion the prevailing factor here? Or the sources you did use more reliable than the sources Moore used? Hmmmm.

 

I wasn't really trying to defend Moore here, but rather make a point of how you can easily use facts to contradict other facts.

Except you, you know, didn't actually do that.

I did, and you reciprocated.

 

No, I'll argue he lies. His Caryle conspiracy theories are EASILY proven false with minimal effort. His belief that the networks called FL for Bush because FOX did so is laughable.

 

Again, your arguing against substantial evidence. There's no way you can deny Caryle is profiting from the Iraq war. And if you want to believe that the soucre Moore used to base his argument that FOX called FL for Bush, who am I to argue?

 

Blame Mikey for trying to make it an issue when it clearly is not one.

 

Maybe so in some cases, i'm not denying that fact. I'm not implying that EVERYTHING he's saying though is 100% wrong as your claiming to be, as Moore isn't the only source for such issues.

 

No, his stand against Bush is moronic and wrong on almost every conceivable level. If Stewart wants to bitch about things "hurting America", he should speak to Michael Moore first and foremost.

 

Well I disagree wholeheartedly. The stand to remove Bush right now is the one of the most crucial issues facing your country now. That's a whole different argument altogether though

 

Spinsanity.com, hardly a Bush defender, printed a SCATHING critique of his movie. You should read it.

 

Again, you can pick and choose the theories it want to shoot down. I'm not denying that Moore may be innaccurate in some cases. Moore didn't write the book on "The Truth on American Foreign Policy" or "Why To Hate George Bush". His arguments are supplmentary and should be taken subjectively. F9/11 is not the be all and end all of political documentaries, but it's a start.

 

Yup, we caused 9/11. Our fault. Bush wasn't elected President, FOX simply put him there.

 

Hell, if somebody wishes to make a critique, they have all the rights to do so. When it's patently false and borderline moronic like Moore's, then don't bitch that it's getting dissected.

 

I'm not saying either of those instances is true, but the notion of criticising the government and foreign policy is definetly taboo. It's only false/moronic because you choose to see it that way.

 

Wow, some people buy "False but accurate" as a justification?

 

In case you missed it, his movie HAS been investigated.

 

And it came up lacking.

 

Yeah, F9/11 is a 100% inaccurate farce. Despite much of what he says being echoed by thousands of other sources. You can conveniently pick and choose which issues to discuss you want to dissect but when it comes down to it, the overall message is one that needs to be heard.

 

Moore hasn't made a SINGLE documentary that was accurate on ANY level. Even "Roger & Me" was an utter joke.

 

If ANYBODY takes anything he says seriously, they deserve to be treated like a laughingstock.

 

Getting into an argument of whether any Moore documentary is accurate won't get anywhere. But if your saying that what Moore is saying in F9/11 is wrong, your implying that "I (the extreme right winger) is right and everyone else (the crazy liberal hippies) are wrong". It's not really about that though, it's a documentary about a corrupt regieme that can be denyed and embraced by either side. To simply ignore it would be in denial. Like I said, this issue trancends anything Moore has said in this film, by many many others, which is a much broader argument in itself.

 

You seem so hard to attack Moore at every oppurtunity and make vain attempts to shoot down his theories. If, as you claim that everything Moore says is innaccurate and he's a joke, why not simply ignore him as the crazed conspiracy theorist as you claim him to be? Why should he be worth any effort of your time? Is it because you feel the need to point out the fact the 'truth', or the fact that even if it's minimal, the fact that what some of what Moore is saying contradicts your personal ideology or threatens your beliefs? It's hard to take anything you say seriously since it's always so one sided, and the fact you believe Bush has, or cannot do any wrong you can admit to is laughable.

[Guest MikeSC]

Come on Mike, just because someone is a douche doesn't mean we have to give them a hard time.

 

I mean we as a board deal with your crap far more than almost anyone else here, and no one tears into you with nearly the severity that you tear into anyone who doubts you.

 

And your posts are so long and LBL...

You also know my level of giving a shit of people doing anything to me is minimal, since I can almost always be markedly meaner and less pleasant.

Uh huh, and you case is so much more credible why? You shredded it how now? You argued against his research? Somehow that makes your opinion the prevailing factor here? Or the sources you did use more reliable than the sources Moore used? Hmmmm.

His facts are WRONG. His Unocal pipeline claim is weak since Bush didn't support it and it was abandoned.

 

His claims about bin Ladens having too much influence over Bush through Carlyle is weak since the group from which he manages to tie Carlyle to the US gov't was sold off before Bush Sr. joined.

 

His claims about the election in FL are weak since FOX is unable to make anybody claim anything and they all claimed FL early.

 

Do you want more?

Again, your arguing against substantial evidence. There's no way you can deny Caryle is profiting from the Iraq war.

One of the ONLY weapons system Bush HAS stopped was the Crusader missile. The Crusader missile was one of the precious few military projects that Carlyle had any stake in.

 

And Moore needs to prove that they are profiting, which he cannot.

Again, you can pick and choose the theories it want to shoot down. I'm not denying that Moore may be innaccurate in some cases. Moore didn't write the book on "The Truth on American Foreign Policy" or "Why To Hate George Bush". His arguments are supplmentary and should be taken subjectively. F9/11 is not the be all and end all of political documentaries, but it's a start.

It's a LIE. It's not the start of anything.

I'm not saying either of those instances is true, but the notion of criticising the government and foreign policy is definetly taboo. It's only false/moronic because you choose to see it that way.

If it was "taboo", it wouldn't be done routinely and regularly.

Yeah, F9/11 is a 100% inaccurate farce. Despite much of what he says being echoed by thousands of other sources.

No, his claims REALLY aren't. The pipeline claim has been debunked by NUMEROUS people. The "FOX called FL early for Bush" claim is laughable --- and disproven in many places. His "the recounts show Gore won" has been disproven repeatedly.

 

So, who are these "thousands of sources", since his sources don't even back up his claims (see the whole deal about what percentage of funding in the US the Saud family has)?

You can conveniently pick and choose which issues to discuss you want to dissect but when it comes down to it, the overall message is one that needs to be heard.

Lies should never be listened to. Period.

You seem so hard to attack Moore at every oppurtunity and make vain attempts to shoot down his theories. If, as you claim that everything Moore says is innaccurate and he's a joke, why not simply ignore him as the crazed conspiracy theorist as you claim him to be? Why should he be worth any effort of your time? Is it because you feel the need to point out the fact the 'truth', or the fact that even if it's minimal, the fact that what some of what Moore is saying contradicts your personal ideology or threatens your beliefs? It's hard to take anything you say seriously since it's always so one sided, and the fact you believe Bush has, or cannot do any wrong you can admit to is laughable.

C-Bacon, as a rule, you are in no position to ridicule anybody's opinions. I could mention your views on giving Europeans a vote in US elections and how saying that is wrong is "ethnocentric".

 

Moore should be shot down because he has a detrimental impact on society. He bleeds colleges dry for money and lies to students too fucking stupid to know better. He produces crap movies that sheep lap up without any critical thought of how insanely absurd his theories are.

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

I recognize your capacity to be meaner than almost anyone on the board.

 

Go you.

 

The point is, you RABIDLY attack anyone who supports Moore, or Kerry, let alone anyone more liberal, and diss anyone who does the opposite.

 

This guy was new, and you disagreed with him. Instead of arguing with a new guy you called him a quote, free thinker, unquote (obviously sarcastic) and a lemming, followed by a douche.

 

Only by disagreeing w/ you did he deserve this?

 

You, Mike, are the lemming, YOU mike are the douche. You make snap judgements about people based upon their decisions around one movie, or one candidate. Not only that, but you unleash such vitrol based upon ZERO cause, and you drive away so many people, it's staggering. The only people around here who can survive your noise are the people who learn to ignore that guy with the pink avatar and baby Edwards in his sig.

 

You debate nothing. You SCREAM.

[Guest MikeSC]

I recognize your capacity to be meaner than almost anyone on the board.

 

Go you.

Thanks. Excel in everything, I always say.

The point is, you RABIDLY attack anyone who supports Moore, or Kerry, let alone anyone more liberal, and diss anyone who does the opposite.

You call that "rabid"?

 

How much of a sheltered life have you lived?

This guy was new, and you disagreed with him.  Instead of arguing with a new guy you called him a quote, free thinker, unquote (obviously sarcastic) and a lemming, followed by a douche.

The douchebag decided to play the "I'm a free thinker and..." bullshit. If you're a free thinker, then learn to deal with your "free thoughts", which are little more than usual cliched bullshit, brought into serious question.

 

You don't see me pissing and moaning about the venom thrown my way by bitchy people such as, well, you.

Only by disagreeing w/ you did he deserve this?

Nope. If somebody disagrees politely, I'm more than happy to respond politely.

 

Somebody wants to play the prick, I will happily be equally unpleasant.

You, Mike, are the lemming, YOU mike are the douche.

You put me in my place there.

 

I haven't heard "No, YOU are!" since I was in, oh, middle school.

You make snap judgements about people based upon their decisions around one movie, or one candidate.  Not only that, but you unleash such vitrol based upon ZERO cause, and you drive away so many people, it's staggering.

*sniff* Care for a violin?

The only people around here who can survive your noise are the people who learn to ignore that guy with the pink avatar and baby Edwards in his sig.

 

You debate nothing.  You SCREAM.

*sniff* you've shown me the error of my ways.

 

I wish I could quote an old "Afterschool Special" --- but I just didn't watch them. But I bet one of them dealt with this kind of situation and I bet it was some impressive stuff.

 

Really.

-=Mike

[Guest GreatOne]

You debate nothing. You SCREAM.

 

Ah so somebody's taken the lead as Jon Stewart here I see,

 

Wonder how long before we start having 'X IS TEH RULZ' posts in this thread...................