Print

[Ween311]

QUOTE (gcskate27 @ Jul 3 2004, 06:33 AM)

i will admit that i was swayed by mr moores movie on this one, and i will take back what i said... i have since dled the 911 commisions briefs and will be reading them... i was previously missinformed... *notice not a single comment in retaliation to the evidence put forth... this is how all people should respond when they get shut down...   ** so who was the sole person ben?

The sole person that authorized the movement of the Bin Ladens was none other than...........





Richard Clark.  Go figure.

[BenJeremy]

QUOTE (Ween311 @ Jul 3 2004, 09:25 AM)

The sole person that authorized the movement of the Bin Ladens was none other than........... Richard Clark.  Go figure.

Exactly. The very person Moore idolizes and dotes over, it the one who actually committed the "heinous crime" Moore accuses the administration of.

Once you understand that, how can anybody continue to give this film any credibility? There are plenty more flaws with this film, many pointed out by liberal writers... who are just as upset with Moore idiotic game of playing loose and fast with the truth.

I point out this one item because it should raise the eyebrows of any educated, intelligent liberal who took the film at face value. The film is nothing but propoganda, from the same vehement crowd that gave you this:



As we can see, this is clearly a deranged bunch of people, hoping to sweep up an unsuspecting public with their paranoid, delusional, conspiracy-theory angles. When I see people who thought the film was "good" - I can only shake my head in sadness. People are easily duped, it seems.

[BenJeremy]

QUOTE (Spency234 @ Jul 3 2004, 10:47 AM)

I'm not saying there weren't flaws with his movie.  I'm not saying everything he said was true.  But he interviewed a few very influencial people on the whole issue, where is your proof?  Just throwing a name at us isn't going to do it.

Richard Clark himself said so.

Clarke Claims Responsibility

Is "from the horse's own mouth" good enough for you?

[67thRaptorBull]

yes, moore does present the facts in a very misleading way, but the basics of it is that there facts, abit untrue at times, but i dont care if people have to make fake docuements to get the president out of power, he doesnt belong there.

HE has not made one right decision, iraq is turning into a shit storm, and for what? the deficit is at what, -5 trillion? in a matter of a couple of decades, social security funds will be depleted (which is gonna screw us over), and hes a bumbiling idiot.

[Foe-hammer]

QUOTE (67thRaptorBull @ Jul 3 2004, 05:43 PM)

yes, moore does present the facts in a very misleading way, but the basics of it is that there facts, abit untrue at times, but i dont care if people have to make fake docuements to get the president out of power, he doesnt belong there.

QUOTE

yes, moore does present the facts in a very misleading way, but the basics of it is that there facts, abit untrue at times.

There's logic for you.

QUOTE

but i dont care if people have to make fake docuements to get the president out of power....

Sad.

[Ween311]

QUOTE

HE has not made one right decision, iraq is turning into a shit storm, and for what? the deficit is at what, -5 trillion? in a matter of a couple of decades, social security funds will be depleted (which is gonna screw us over), and hes a bumbiling idiot.

I think that almost all of Congress voted to go to war.  It was not GW's decision alone.  

Social Security was screwed long before Bush stepped into office.  

I am not saying that I support everything George Bush does (I have to put that in there so 67thRaptorBull doesn't accuse me of taking it in the behind from ol' GW) but I don't think that he is quite as bad as you make him out to be.  Really.

[67thRaptorBull]

QUOTE (Ween311 @ Jul 3 2004, 02:45 PM)

I think that almost all of Congress voted to go to war.  It was not GW's decision alone.   Social Security was screwed long before Bush stepped into office.   I am not saying that I support everything George Bush does (I have to put that in there so 67thRaptorBull doesn't accuse me of taking it in the behind from ol' GW) but I don't think that he is quite as bad as you make him out to be.  Really.

come one, negative 5 trillion in debt, when clinton was actually making money for the economy when he was in presidency

and foehammer, sometimes i dont know why you post
shit, give me a gun, ill shoot GWB myself


there ponder that for a while foehammer

[Mr. Chips]

What I can't stand is Michael Moore only tries to make Bush look dumb by showing embarrasing photos, or in makeup or golfing.  Like if you are at golfcourse talking to reporters, WTF else would you do?  It 's a golf course for cryin out loud.
Embarrasing photos are the job of Nation Enquirer.  A serious Documentarist would work with facts, not interviews!!  Sure, there are Interviews of people who have been "abducted" by Aliens, or have seen UFOs.  Does that mean that is solid evidence?  Well I guess if you consider that the Theory of Evolution still has a lot of momentum from being tax supported, if a person TELLS you something enough times it is true, again where is the evidence?  
thanks

[Ween311]

I don't think Richard Clarke was out of the loop.  He was the Chief of Counterterrorism at the White House.  He was appointed by Clinton and kept on by Bush when he took office.

I think he thinks he was out of the loop because his counterterrorism plan was not implemented and he thinks that he could have prevented a lot of tragedy if his plan was adopted.  Would it have?  I don't know.  But that is kind of beside the point.  Moore is blaming Bush for things that he didn't do.  Does that make Bush any better?  No, but it should make people think twice about what other facts have been misrepresented by Michael Moore.

Oh yeah, I think most of the US Presidents have had pretty close ties to the Saudis.  They do control most of the worlds oil.

[HeLiuM]

QUOTE (Foe-hammer @ Jul 3 2004, 06:27 AM)

It truly is sad. Try telling that to the people of Iraq, Saddam's people (men, women, and children), who he killed and/or brutally tortured and rapped (women).  You really have no idea how terrible Saddam was, do you?  Go ahead and ask one of them if you doubt.

Try telling that to dead coalition troops (and those who had to see others die).  Try telling that to the Iraqis who lost families to "collateral damage".  Try telling that to the otherwise innocent people who feel they have to rise against the invaders and form the resistance (You think abused prisoners gives the "terrorists" a recruiting boost?  Guess what, the simple invasion and occupation of their country does too.)
Have you talked to any of these people?  Have you even looked?  You really have no idea how bad a choice this was do you?
While you're at it, tell that to the whoever falls victim to whatever results from the poor foreign relations caused by the war.
War is a last resort, not just an shortcut to getting your way.

[Foe-hammer]

QUOTE (HeLiuM @ Jul 4 2004, 04:06 AM)

Have you talked to any of these people?

Yes.  You should too.

[Foe-hammer]

Question for you, Helium: How would have leaving saddam in power promote peace in iraq?  Don't go rambling off topic, just try answering the question.

[Mr. Chips]

QUOTE

You've talked to dead soldiers...?

funny you should mention it, I just spoke to one last night thru my crystal ball  

And you didn't aswer the question.
Let's keep this civil, guys !

[Foe-hammer]

QUOTE

You've talked to dead soldiers and the families of iraqis killed by friendly fire? Care to elaborate a little as to how that conversation went (or are you just making things up)?

I have talked to an Iraqi (names Muhammad) that came to the states.  His family still lives in Iraq.  He told me of some terrible stories about saddam, and recognized that possibly some of his innocent family members, "Allah forbid", might die due to friendly fire.  But concluded that their sacrifice would not be in vain if saddam was taken from power.  Question is have you talked to any Iraqi’s on this subject?

QUOTE (HeLiuM @ Jul 4 2004, 05:41 AM)

So question for you, Foe-Hammer: what gives Bush the right to make these decisions against the international community?

It was not just Bush's decision to use military force on saddam, the majority of his administration, vice pres, and Collin Powell felt that it was necessary.  Bush gave the final word to do so.  So if you want to criticize, criticize them all.  Anyway, after the current terrorist situations of 9/11, and saddam not allowing the US to look in certain areas that were suspected of WMD, even after warnings that if they were not allowed in that it would be considered an act of threat, Bush and his admin decided to stop wasting time (thus giving saddam time to hide his WMD) and us military force.  You ask what gives THEM the right to do this?  How about saving lives from possible WMD, stopping saddam’s barbaric dictatorship, or known ties with Alqueda between saddam.  And to say that we were lied to about WMD is incorrect.  Do you honestly think that WMD would have been mentioned if they knowingly knew none existed, and thus making them liars without question?  And just because no substantial evidence has surfaced doesn't mean it will not.  And if Bush and his admin were such liars on the subject, why would they not just lie and say they found WMD?  Common Helium, you’re more intelligent then this.

Now I ask you again, how would have leaving saddam in power promote peace in Iraq?

[Foe-hammer]

Then i guess we agree that leaving saddam in power would not promote peace in Iraq.  What we disagree on is how and in what manner he was relieved of power.  Regardless, a regime collapse could not be avoided if saddam were to be relieved from power (he wasn't going to go quietly), and chaos is what's expected under such conditions.  Whether Bush's approach was the right one only time will tell.  I'm just glad that you or I did not have to make that decision.  But instead of damning Pres. Bush for the decision he made, lets hope/pray that all will work out, and that Iraq will be a better place then what it was and now is.