I really hope this is not another lame bush hater thread.I mean come on people!
Ok I am calm now!Anyway I think he is a good man and a great Republican!He is also prolife and is againt gay marriages.
So far that is all I have to know before I decided who to vote for.(that is if I could vote,I can't however)but so far he shown that he is a good president and having a Republican in the white house seen to be doing great so far.
So all I have to say is FOUR MORE YEARS WITH PRESIDENT BUSH!JM Do the Bush dance!
__________________ Lord Matt Parker Clare moose Clovie Danii furryman Shellie Jason Yoda(Son) chris Slipknot English(son)a1hsauce ROB Penny Alice and Taft Napalm Sim Telperala Bardock42 Aku Lara Spriderman Lady Slytherin Mike Cherrypie and Fearnix Raggie Dark1365 Syren Tired Hiker LadyGrim and Spoonly(mypimp)Puddin Gisele FEDfan316 and Dean spazzymcgee14 Kharhmah Pink Diamond Lazerus(Husband) Syko Freak Lance Bordom Laurie kelly jason Bert Tecknoyashi Maya Grand Moff Gav(Lawer) Fopret Ketchuptome23453245 Gen Grevious(son) Chelsea17 Snehin Apollox Shaggy2dope(son)Big Evil Twelling4ever Powerfulone DamienB Mew Cherry Leowyatt.
Another Bush supporter...It's good to have a few others. Just so you know your gonna get slammed like hell for saying that you agree with pro life and against gay marriages...but I also agree with you and Bush on those matters.
your only attempt at pointing out a lie and proving it to be so was the nra rally, which DID take place days after the columbine shootings, as a 'message' against those using columbine as a justification for gun control.
and the purpose of the bank/gun scene was to point out how engrained guns are in american society. where you can go INTO a bank and get a gun...you cant see the irony?
and as far as bush talking about the terrorists who murdered 3000+ and following up his statement with "now watch this drive", that was 100 unedited. its not to point out that he wrote that speach, its to point out that he just spews his readymade rhetoric as easily as he boast his golf game. sorry, but he should have put the f***ing driver down and addressed the topic seriously, or just refused the interview. either would have been acceptable.
Hey I don't really care I am use to it!It no longer brothers me.
Anyway if someone on this site starts flaming for one someone who has the right to freedom of speech and thoughts of there own.Well that person should be a shame of them selfs.
Are we any better then the person who we are judging?No we are not.So why flame someone for no reason?
Sorry I had to say that.Yea another bush supporter.JM
__________________ Lord Matt Parker Clare moose Clovie Danii furryman Shellie Jason Yoda(Son) chris Slipknot English(son)a1hsauce ROB Penny Alice and Taft Napalm Sim Telperala Bardock42 Aku Lara Spriderman Lady Slytherin Mike Cherrypie and Fearnix Raggie Dark1365 Syren Tired Hiker LadyGrim and Spoonly(mypimp)Puddin Gisele FEDfan316 and Dean spazzymcgee14 Kharhmah Pink Diamond Lazerus(Husband) Syko Freak Lance Bordom Laurie kelly jason Bert Tecknoyashi Maya Grand Moff Gav(Lawer) Fopret Ketchuptome23453245 Gen Grevious(son) Chelsea17 Snehin Apollox Shaggy2dope(son)Big Evil Twelling4ever Powerfulone DamienB Mew Cherry Leowyatt.
A lot of typing for nothing said...you constantly say that I am talking to myself...I was responding to what you said...and those were not my points of Michael Moore's lies...Go to Bowlingfortruth.com and watch the video and read what they have to say...you still keep avoiding the things I'm trying to show you to prove my point. For instance, a good section of Fahrenheit 9/11 was spent on Bush and the Saudis. How about this:
"In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film" liberal columnist Christopher Hitchens says Moore "makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11". As Hitchens notes in a recent article, he too had a problem with this, but changed his position when the facts came out. So why didn't Moore? From Hitchens:
I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights.
Moore interviews former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke, who, as Newsmax noted, served as a principal source for Fahrenheit 9/11. However, Clarke has gone on record saying that the central premise of Moore's film is "a mistake." From Newsmax:
In an interview with the Associated Press, Clarke took issue with Moore's criticism that President Bush allowed prominent Saudis, including members of Osama bin Laden's family, to fly out of the U.S. in the days after the 9/11 attacks.
Saying Moore's version of the episode has provoked "a tempest in a tea pot," Clarke called his decision to make the bin Laden family flyout a big part of the film's indictment against Bush "a mistake."
Note the word "HIS". Not president Bush's decision...Richard Clarke's (a published Bush critic) decision. Once again, Moore's own source proves him wrong.
"After 9/11, I think the Saudis were perfectly justified ... in fearing the possibility of vigilantism against Saudis in this country. When they asked to evacuate their citizens ... I thought it was a perfectly normal request," he explained.
In May, Clarke confessed that he, and he alone made the decision to approve the flyouts.
Yes, that was a lot of writing. But it takes a lot of writing to explain how Michael Moore lies...
Last edited by hunchy on Oct 23rd, 2004 at 01:45 AM
so bush accepts responsability for nothing.
as usual its clarke's fault, or its rummsfeld's fault, or its the fault of british intelligence...never bush's fault.
sure, he's the commader in chief, but how can anything be his fault?
and i thought it was the democrats' job to pass the buck?
Stop avoiding the point, PVS, by saying how I did something wrong...Clarke HIMSELF said that he allowed them...so NO, it wasn't Bush's fault...and yes, he has made mistakes that were his own...So stop pulling stupid shit.
National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice is depicted in the movie telling a reporter, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.”
The scene deceptively shows the Administration directly blaming Saddam and his regime for the attacks on 9/11 by taking her comments out of context. Now read the entire statement made by Ms. Rice to the reporter:
“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11. But if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that led people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.” (CBS News, November 28, 2003 Interview)
Fahrenheit Lie #2
In the film, Moore leads viewers to believe that members of bin Laden’s family were allowed to exit the country after the attacks without questioning by authorities. o The September 11th commission, on the other hand, reported that 22 of the 26 people on the flight that took most of the bin Laden family out of the country were interviewed and found to be innocent of suspicion. (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)
The commission reported that “each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.”
Fahrenheit Lie #3
Moore claims that James Bath, a friend of President Bush from his time with the Texas Air National Guard, might have funneled bin Laden money to an unsuccessful Bush oil-drilling firm called Arbusto Energy.
Bill Allison, managing editor for the Center for Public Integrity (an independent watchdog group in Washington, D.C.), on the other hand, said, “We looked into bin Laden money going to Arbusto, and we never found anything to back that up,” (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)
Fahrenheit Lie #4
The movie claims that the Bush administration “supported closing veterans hospitals.” o “The Department of Veterans Affairs did propose closing seven hospitals in areas with declining populations where the hospitals were underutilized, and whose veterans could be served by other hospitals” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)
But Moore’s film fails to mention that the Department also proposed building new hospitals in areas where needs were growing, and also proposed building blind rehabilitation centers and spinal cord injury centers (News Release, Department of Veterans Affairs, www.va.gov, 10/24/03)
Fahrenheit Lie #5
Conspiracy theories abound about the reasons for the War on Terror, but none is more outlandish than the one propagandized in Moore’s film: that the Afghan war was fought solely to enable the Unocal company to build an oil pipeline (the plan for which was abandoned by the company in 1998).
Moore “suggests that one of the first official acts of Afghan President Hamid Karzai … was to help seal a deal for … Unocal to build an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean. It alleges that Karzai had been a Unocal consultant.” (emphasis added) (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)
Unocal spokesman, Barry Lane, says unequivocally, “Karzai was never, in any capacity, an employee, consultant or a consultant of a consultant,” and Unocal never had a plan to build a Caspian Sea pipeline. (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)
Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while President Bush was governor to discuss a potential project with Unocal.
While Moore implies that then-Governor Bush met with the Taliban, no such meeting occurred. The Taliban delegation did, however, meet with the Clinton Administration on this visit. (Matt Labash, “Un-Moored From Reality; Fahrenheit 9/11 Connects Dots That Aren’t There,” Weekly Standard, July 5-July 12 Issue)
Fahrenheit Lie #6
Even readily available figures are exaggerated for effect in Fahrenheit 9/11. The claims have a basis in reality, making them believable, but are false nonetheless. ü In the film, Moore asks Craig Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud, “How much money do the Saudis have invested in America, roughly?” to which Unger responds, “Uh, I’ve heard figures as high as $860 billion.”
The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy reports that worldwide Saudi investment approximated $700 billion – a figure much lower than Unger alleges the Saudi government to have invested in the U.S. (Tanya C. Hsu, Institute For Research: Middle Eastern Policy, “The United States Must Not Neglect Saudi Arabian Investment,” www.irmep.org, Accessed 07/11/04)
The Institute reports that 60 percent of that $700 billion – roughly $420 billion, less than half of what Unger “heard” – was actually invested in the United States by the Saudi government.
Fahrenheit Lie #7
“Moore’s film suggests that [President] Bush has close family ties to the bin Laden family – principally through [President] Bush’s father’s relationship with the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm. The president’s father, George H.W. Bush, was a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group’s Asian affiliate until recently; members of the bin Laden family – who own one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest construction firms – had invested $2 million in a Carlyle Group fund. Bush Sr. and the bin Ladens have since severed ties with the Carlyle Group, which in any case has a bipartisan roster of partners, including Bill Clinton’s former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt. The movie quotes author Dan Briody claiming that the Carlyle Group ‘gained’ from September 11 because it owned United Defense, a military contractor. Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman notes that United Defense holds a special distinction among U.S. defense contractors that is not mentioned in Moore’s movie: the firm’s $11 billion Crusader artillery rocket system developed for the U.S. Army is one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration.” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)
“There is another famous investor in Carlyle whom Moore does not reveal: George Soros. But the fact that the anti-Bush billionaire [Soros] has invested in Carlyle would detract from Moore’s simplistic conspiracy theory.” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)
Fahrenheit Lie #8
Not revealing relevant facts is dishonest enough. But to paint the Bush Administration as sympathetic and friendly to the Taliban prior to September 11, is not only dishonest, but maliciously so. ü Moore shows film of a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban delegation, claiming that the Administration “welcomed” the Taliban official, Sayed Hashemi, “to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban.”
But the Administration did not welcome the Taliban with open arms. In fact, the State Department rejected the Taliban’s claim that it had complied with U.S. requests to isolate bin Laden.
To demonstrate even further the Administration’s contempt for the Taliban and its illegitimacy, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher – on the day of the terrorist regime’s visit – said, “We don’t recognize any government in Afghanistan.”
Fahrenheit Lie #9
Moore does more than simply downplay the threat posed to the U.S. by the former Hussein regime in Iraq. He goes so far as to assert that Saddam “never threatened to attack the United States.”
If by “attack the United States” one interprets this claim to mean that Saddam never threatened to send troops to the United States, then Mr. Moore has a point. ü But Saddam Hussein clearly sought to attack the United States within his own sphere of influence, even though he didn’t have the resources to attack U.S. soil from his side of the world:
On November 15, 1997, “the main propaganda organ for the Saddam regime, the newspaper Babel (which was run by Saddam Hussein’s son Uday), ordered: ‘American and British interests, embassies, and naval ships in the Arab region should be the targets of military operations and commando attacks by Arab political forces.’” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)
In addition, “Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country,” (Source: New York Times, 12/1/03).
Saddam Hussein also provided safe haven to terrorists who killed Americans, like Abu Nidal; funded suicide bombers in Israel who certainly killed Americans; and ran the Iraqi police, which plotted to assassinate former President George Bush.
I liked Moore's film. I was already voting against Bush so it didn't sway me one way or the other. I sure not everything is exactly the way Moore portrayed it. I am not sure that is the point. If even a couple of the things in the film are true it should be enough for people not to vote for Bush.
For those just joining the debate... IE Jackie Malfoy. PVC and Hunchy have been going back and forth in many different threads. It might have seemed like a flame in here but actually a continuation from another message.
Hunchy certainly has the right to voice his opinion. Some of us are a little tired of the continual posts that have little of nothing to do with what is being discussed. The above post he just did is long but at least it is on topic. Previously he had posted upwards of 6 posts in a row. stating stuff over and over. I don't know if that is supposed to make it true by saying it again and again? Shrug. Anyway, nothing personal against hunchy is intended. I am all for keeping the discussion moving.
Sometimes truth is in the eye of the beholder. Or ear for that matter. Maybe some of the things in F 9/11 are not the truth but yet there are many people who are willing to believe them. Why is that? What has Bush done that has caused 47% of the country to want him out of office? Do you think there is anything that Bush could do to change this trend or has he lost all credibility?
__________________
Duct tape is like the force; it has a light side and a dark side and holds the universe together.
Re: I really hope this is not another lame bush hater thread.I mean come on people!
I wouldn't consider a president who sends a thousand young brave American soldiers to their deaths and is responsible for the deaths of tens upon tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizines pro life.
I guess you can apply that to any war President then...Yes, war is not fun. Yes people die...But Moore trying to get Senators to have their sons join the army...well, its not parents or even Bush telling them to go to war...its their choice to join the army...and fight for the country...that's why we don't have a draft and don't need one...and WON'T have one...I appreciate your comments though Zanthor. I respect you because you don't shut me down like some others because of my opinion. Sorry for the many posts, however I was responding to more than one person, usually three or four at a time...but for now I will be more aware of that. Thanks.
Dude, sometimes war is nessecary. Sometimes you need to wage war in order to achieve peace and all that. I think there will never be total peace as long as humans live. Illegal war? You may think it was unnecessary, but it was legal.
To defeat terrorism. That is one reason and a major reason. Why am I voting for Bush? Bush is a strong leader who I think is not a liar, had motives to go to war, he does what he believes is right even if it isn't popular, he has morals that I share, and he does what he says he's gonna do...he seems like a nice guy, and one who I'd want for a leader over Kerry any day...Kerry is good at debating, but I think that's about it...He has no strong opinons on anything. Again, people who do not respect others opinions and call me an idiot...
Gender: Male Location: Dreaming...Or am I living...
so Bush has done a good job defeating terrorism?
not really! That like studying division in math but 1/3 of the way through tangenting off to learning about english. There's nothing wrong with learning about english, but you did not accomplish what you originally set out to do.
Bush, strong leader? Sorry don't agree with you there either. A strong leader does not need to keep his people in fear in order to pass bills he wants and fight wars that he wants. Bush's main reason he is in office is to show offto is daddy, notice how he is replicating everything Bush sr. did? Iraq? Taxes? He should follow his dad's footsteps more and get kicked out after one term to a better president.
You'll never defeat terrorism!
Someone can throw a burning can of paint thinner into a school room, that's terrorism.
The war in Iraq is not a war on terrorism.
So I guess you'll resort to the old...
"We gave those Iraqi's their freedom"!!!
We sure did!
By locking them up in Abu Ghurayb and kicking their doors down in the middle of the night, dragging them off leaving their families terrified and traumatized.
Iraq, the land of the free...and traumatized and terrorised.
Yes, we are defeating terrorists all the time...will we defeat terrorism completely? Of course not! But we can at least try and stop it...you think we should just sit back and let the terrorists do whatever...what are you for? We've captured many of Osama Bin Laden's members, and Al-Qaeda members and other terrorists, and Saddam whether or not what you think about him...he was evil, and needed to be removed. He massacred his people. Keep us in fear? Well, you might be...but I'm not...I'll tell you that. Actually Bush and his dad disagree on many points...I'm sick of the "Bush is just trying to be like his daddy" speech...You said his dad got kicked out to a better President...Not a ton of Presidents stay on for two terms actually. Well, Clinton said that Saddam was a threat when he left office and that he knew he had weapons of mass destruction and he agreed with the war with Iraq...he just said he would have done it a little differently...like all the Democrats...they can't have the same opinion as the Republicans...same goes for both sides...but the point is, Clinton himself knew that he needed to be removed and he was. Many Iraqis and other people in the Middle East are a lot happier now that he is gone...Yes of course there will still be terrorism, maybe even more that Saddam is gone...but with him out of power at least he can stop slaughtering his people.
Gender: Male Location: Dreaming...Or am I living...
BUT CLINTON DIDN'T ATTACK IRAQ!!!!!!!!
Cheney going "If Kerry's elected Terrorists will striek again" Those arn't fear tactics? The stupid Terror alert piece of crap. Thats not fear tactics.
The Bush administration is so underhanded. This so called homeland security POC is being under cut to fuel Bush's Nam.
But Clinton WOULD have invaded Iraq..don't you understand...he said he was for the war...how much clearer can I put it? he would have done the same thing...because he saw the evidence...And Clinton did many bombings over many Middle Eastern cities while President...
KMC Community Forums
I really hope this is not another lame bush hater thread.I mean come on people!
Do the Bush dance! 
Oct 23rd, 2004 01:16 AM
Hey I don't really care I am use to it!It no longer brothers me.
