Chris Hitchens.....and Michael Moore

[JustRalph]

Hitchens Reviews Moore's new movie.

If you don't want to read this long review.....just read the section I put in Bold........It is disgusting to me.
Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.

http://www.justralph.com/m_moore.jpg

By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT

Moore: Trying to have it three ways
One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.

Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. 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.
In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.
Recruiters in Michigan
Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.

2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.

3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.

5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction. In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. 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. And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures. This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that—as you might expect—Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. So, that's another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic "key to all mythologies."

A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.

The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm. More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup. This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book that also revives the charge of FDR's collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least Moore's film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back in their paranoid box.

But it won't because it encourages their half-baked fantasies in so many other ways. We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003. I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now, either. I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)

That this—his pro-American moment—was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Munich and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) 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. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)

Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem. No problem at all. Now look again at the facts I have cited above. If these things had been allowed to happen under any other administration, you can be sure that Moore and others would now glibly be accusing the president of ignoring, or of having ignored, some fairly unmistakable "warnings."

The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism infects his treatment of another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy. From being accused of overlooking too many warnings—not exactly an original point—the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many. (Would there not have been "fear" if the harbingers of 9/11 had been taken seriously?) We are shown some American civilians who have had absurd encounters with idiotic "security" staff. (Have you ever met anyone who can't tell such a story?) Then we are immediately shown underfunded police departments that don't have the means or the manpower to do any stop-and-search: a power suddenly demanded by Moore on their behalf that we know by definition would at least lead to some ridiculous interrogations. Finally, Moore complains that there isn't enough intrusion and confiscation at airports and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters. (Cue mood music for sinister influence of Big Tobacco.) So—he wants even more pocket-rummaging by airport officials? Uh, no, not exactly. But by this stage, who's counting? Moore is having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing. Again—simply not serious.

Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq's recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly. They fear the liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film's "theory." Perhaps Moore prefers the pro-Saudi Kissinger/Scowcroft plan for the Middle East, where stability trumps every other consideration and where one dare not upset the local house of cards, or killing-field of Kurds? This would be a strange position for a purported radical. Then again, perhaps he does not take this conservative line because his real pitch is not to any audience member with a serious interest in foreign policy. It is to the provincial isolationist.

I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that. Back in Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this time. Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away. I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights. I'll merely ask this: In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft—the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he think—as he seems to suggest—that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve in their place? Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack) riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it's a waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much like taking him seriously. He'll just try anything once and see if it floats or flies or gets a cheer.


Trying to talk congressmen into sending their sons to war

Indeed, Moore's affected and ostentatious concern for black America is one of the most suspect ingredients of his pitch package. In a recent interview, he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women (and children). Never mind for now how many black passengers were on those planes—we happen to know what Moore does not care to mention: that Todd Beamer and a few of his co-passengers, shouting "Let's roll," rammed the hijackers with a trolley, fought them tooth and nail, and helped bring down a United Airlines plane, in Pennsylvania, that was speeding toward either the White House or the Capitol. There are no words for real, impromptu bravery like that, which helped save our republic from worse than actually befell. The Pennsylvania drama also reminds one of the self-evident fact that this war is not fought only "overseas" or in uniform, but is being brought to our cities. Yet Moore is a silly and shady man who does not recognize courage of any sort even when he sees it because he cannot summon it in himself. To him, easy applause, in front of credulous audiences, is everything.

Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet. Some right-wing hack groups, I gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to drop the film. How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one form of stupidity and cowardice with another? By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.

However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. And as for the scary lawyers—get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of.

Some people soothingly say that one should relax about all this. It's only a movie. No biggie. It's no worse than the tomfoolery of Oliver Stone. It's kick-ass entertainment. It might even help get out "the youth vote." Yeah, well, I have myself written and presented about a dozen low-budget made-for-TV documentaries, on subjects as various as Mother Teresa and Bill Clinton and the Cyprus crisis, and I also helped produce a slightly more polished one on Henry Kissinger that was shown in movie theaters. So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage.

Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.


Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His latest book, Blood, Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship, is out in paperback.[

[Secretariat]

JR,

I didn't read this review because I want to see the movie rather than somebody's interpretation of the movie for me, but I assume it's not positive or you wouldn't have posted it. The film has received universal acclaim winning at Cannes to a half hour standing ovation. Despite this success Disney decided not to distibute the film and it took a Canadian firm Lion's Gate to get it distributed. From Moore's site:

1. Roger Friedman at FOX News reported that the head of the company which first agreed to fund our film "got calls from Republican friends" pressuring them to back out. And they did. But... Miramax immediately picked up the film! Except...

2. Michael Eisner, the chairman of Disney, then blocked Miramax (a company owned by Disney) from releasing the film once it was
finished. But... public attention and embarrassment forced Disney to let the Weinstein brothers of Miramax find another distributor!
But...

3. Instead of a new distributor stepping right in -- as all the
media predicted would happen -- it took another month to find
distributors who would take on this movie. A number of other
distributors, thanks to various pressures, were afraid to get
involved. It looked for a while that we would be distributing this
ourselves. But then Lions Gate and IFC Films rode in to the rescue!

So I'll look at Mr. Hutchins article after Friday when I see the film, but I did see this recently posted by a real movie critic.

"Everybody in this country should see this film ... a powerful piece of filmmaking by Michael Moore." -- Richard Roeper, EBERT & ROEPER

Better get your tickets early JR, I hear Friday's opening in NYC is already sold out.

................................................

"Bob Hope was a fool, and nearly a clown, but he was never even remotely a comedian."

Chirstopher Hitchens on Bob Hope's death.....now there's a reviewer.

[PaceAdvantage]

More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse.

I'm still laughing at these lines from Hitchens. What a great piece. I'm not surprised Sec hasn't read it yet.

Thanks JR.

[Lefty]

Hitchen's has it right...
Moore and the rest of the libs constantly want it three ways.
The libs are great 2nd and 3rd guessers but have a terrible record at first guessing.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Better get your tickets early JR, I hear Friday's opening in NYC is already sold out.

yeah.........right! There won't be any of my money lining Moore's pockets...........

I can't wait for your glowing review. This clown is being shown for what he truly is.............

[bill]

jr wins the prize for the longest cut and paste (i think)

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by bill
jr wins the prize for the longest cut and paste (i think)

no way...........there are a few longer ones in here........at least I warned about mine..........

[Lefty]

JR, thanks for posting Hitchen's review.

[schweitz]

Now here is a movie I will go see!

http://michaelmoorehatesamerica.com

[Lefty]

schweitz, great link. I'd like to see that movie also. How about you, sec?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
schweitz, great link. I'd like to see that movie also. How about you, sec?

I might. I certainly wouldn't prejudge it without seeing it.

[Secretariat]

I really do want to read the review PA, but I can wait...But I have been doing a little research on this guy Hitchens....I hope this isn't who you're basing your judgments on...Apparently he disliked Bob Hope and a slew of others so maybe Moore's in good company..

Christopher Hitchens on Ronald Reagan

“..I only saw [Reagan] once up close, which happened to be when he got a question he didn't like. Was it true that his staff in the 1980 debates had stolen President Carter's briefing book? (They had.) The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard. His reply was that maybe his staff had, and maybe they hadn't, but what about the leak of the Pentagon Papers? Thus, a secret theft of presidential documents was equated with the public disclosure of needful information. This was a man never short of a cheap jibe or the sort of falsehood that would, however laughable, buy him some time.

The fox, as has been pointed out by more than one philosopher, knows many small things, whereas the hedgehog knows one big thing. Ronald Reagan was neither a fox nor a hedgehog. He was as dumb as a stump. He could have had anyone in the world to dinner, any night of the week, but took most of his meals on a White House TV tray. He had no friends, only cronies. His children didn't like him all that much. He met his second wife—the one that you remember—because she needed to get off a Hollywood blacklist and he was the man to see. Year in and year out in Washington, I could not believe that such a man had even been a poor governor of California in a bad year, let alone that such a smart country would put up with such an obvious phony and loon.”

Christopher Hitchens on Mother Teresa

[Mother Teresa] is a poster girl for the right-to-life wing in America. She was used as the example of Christian idealism and family values, of all things, by Ralph Reed - the front man of the Pat Robertson forces.

In private Pat Robertson has nothing but contempt for other Christian denominations, including many other extreme Protestant ones. But in public the Christian Coalition stresses that it is very, very keen to make an alliance with Catholics. There is a shallow, opportunist ecumenicism among religious extremists, and Mother Teresa is quite willingly and happily in its service. She knows exactly who she is working for and with.

…I think there are many fraudulent things about Mother Teresa.”

[Lefty]

There's much to disagree with Hitchens about, but not on his views of Michael Moore.

[Suff]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Hitchens Reviews Moore's new movie.

If you don't want to read this long review.....just read the section I put in Bold........It is disgusting to me.
Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.

[.[

he's not an american you know? So when I or anyone else elects to use a Foriegner don't claim foul..ok?

Remember when a 1/2 Million people protested Bush in italy...and PA said,,, maybe they should vote for kerry?

This guy aint one of us,, ]

Did you listen to Rushs show today? His stand in said Moore is a Kamikazi Journalist and the USA needs men like him on both sides.

When dan rather interviews VIP's.. he needs to be careful... Moore does'nt care. He's a man of principle. he does'nt care.

Did you see the Movie? Or are you "getting sick" off a review?

[Lefty]

Why won't Moore appear on the O'Reilly show. Cowardice?
Myself, I was sick of Michael Moore long before this movie.

[Suff]

Originally posted by Lefty
Why won't Moore appear on the O'Reilly show. Cowardice?
Myself, I was sick of Michael Moore long before this movie.

Lefty read my lips,, ORIELLY IS A CLOWN!!!

Lets see.. I knew Orielly,, He earned his bones right here in Boston.. He was dismissed as irrelavant and sent of to inside edtion where for 7 years he told america who was gay and who was screwiing who...

And now he is "looking out for the Folks"...

Lefty if it wasn't so silly I'd cry. Bill Orielly? Thats Your hero?

He sells ads to GM and Ford... he sells Coffee cups and Door mats (factor gear) to his audience.. He's a a fool.

yet you think he is smart? lefty Your twice as smart as that nit wit, I would'nt go on that morons show either.

He a socio-path>


BTW,, I remeber when you bashed Richard Clarke when he bashed yoru prez. You said that he was profiteering off his NEW BOOK,,


yet Orielly is making millions selling advertizements to BUDWEISER and your falling over yourself to glorify him...

If Orielly is your political God then your a PAGAN

[Tom]

Wonder what Moore is afraid of that he won't do an interview? hehehe
Love that blank look on his face most of the time, like he is thinking."What is that smell....oh, it's ME!"
People like Moore contribute nothing. To call him a jornalist is ignorance. He is a guy with a grudge and money to go out and slander anyone he wants to. He is nothing more than one of us Off Topic thread crwlers, but with some cash. And a pig.
:D

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Lefty
Why won't Moore appear on the O'Reilly show. Cowardice?
Myself, I was sick of Michael Moore long before this movie.

It's not only O'Reilly that he is avoiding---he won't be showing up on any program that won't do a softball interview.

[Lefty]

suff, oh just a sec, calling Jeanine Garafalo, here's another one of those nice liberals you spoke of; his name is suf.
suf, Bill O'Reilly is a clown? Damned high paid one then. Yep he was on Inside Edition, so what? He has the highest rated cable show on the air today. He's not my hero, but I respect him. He says he's Indepenent and i'd rather he be on the far right, like me. If he's such a clown he should be easy to debate, yet Michael Moor and Bill Clinton, dodge him.
Ya know, I blve in Capitalism and do not begrudge anyone making a profit on a book or anything else. I do mind they make a profit telling lies about a very courageous Presodent.
O'Reilly selling Budweiser? Tell me you didn't just say that? O'Reilly called for a boycott of Budweiser because they used the rapper Ludicris in their ads.
My hero is Rush.
Thanks for revealing yourself, once again.

[Lefty]

suff, just a parting thght: All tha Factor Gear that O'Reilly sells: All the money goes to charity and all the merchandise is made in Amerivca. You should love this guy!

[Lefty]

suf, extra parting shot: I used to be a pagan but now i'm a semi-health nut.

[cryptic1]

Some of the worst drivel on celluloid has won the Palme D'or,
so I wouldn't take much pride in that as a recommendation
for mr. moore's bombastic piece of propaganda.
He was in Toronto earlier this week to attend its premiere
here but of course he would only grant interviews to anyone
who hadn't written negative things about him in the past. A
journalist from the Globe and Mail was refused an interview as
Mr. Moore point blankly stated,he scrupulously read all reviews
of his movies from local papers, and kept lists of who he would
or would not give interviews to. The man not only manipulates
facts but also image, a true man of integrity.

cryptically yours

[Secretariat]

Here's what the NY Daily News wrote about the O'Reilly - Moore encounter which occurred in front of witnesses:

"Give Fox News Channel star Bill O'Reilly credit for even attending Monday night's lefty celeb-glutted premiere of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" - even if he walked out of the 110-minute Bush-bashing movie halfway through.

Only last week on his syndicated radio show, O'Reilly likened Moore to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels - author of the "Big Lie" theory of political communication.

As O'Reilly explained to his radio audience, "Joseph Goebbels was the minister of propaganda for the Nazi regime and whose very famous quote was, 'If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth.'"

So it was a tad awkward when O'Reilly, trying to sneak out of the Ziegfeld Theater and almost at the exit, came jowl to jowl with Moore himself.

Busted!

"Don't you want to stay and watch the whole film?" the director demanded.

A Lowdown spy reports that O'Reilly blushed, shook Moore's hand and muttered something about having to "tape something," and then slunk off into the night.

But "The O'Reilly Factor" tapes in the afternoon, hours before it airs at 8 and 11 p.m. - and well before Monday night's premiere.

Moore - who didn't return Lowdown's call for comment - was apparently skeptical. When his wife, Kathleen Glynn, came inside the theater a moment later, the filmmaker excitedly repeated O'Reilly's alibi in a scoffing tone.

Yesterday, a Fox News spokesman explained: "The movie started 40 minutes late, and Bill had a previous commitment to go to."

The flack added that O'Reilly was simply confirming Moore's booking on his Fox News show next week and that O'Reilly had already asked "Fahrenheit 9/11" producer Harvey Weinstein's office for a screener.

Again, problematic: A source close to the movie says no videotapes are being given out to anyone under any circumstances.

Surely not a little white lie!

Source: "Heated exchange at 'Fahrenheit'?", New York Daily News

'''''''''''''''

I read elsewhere that Moore said he would agree to appear on the show if O'Reilly sat down and actually watched the whole thing. He didn't.

I'll tell you something, someone who can't even watch something that they are going to criticize and interview a person on, and then O'Reilley lies to that person's face about it, and then accuses that same person of being a Nazi propagandist on the air. Well, I guess its to be expected. He's gutless. Another chickenhawk. The people who were they know. The Daily News isn't exactly the liberal press.

But I've got to stop posting on this thread until I see the movie. Just this crap from people who haven't even seen the movie yet irk me.

[Lefty]

You got some hearsay here and you don't know if it's true. The bottom line is Moore has not appeared on O'Reilly's show and that is a fact.
As far as the comparason to Geoebbels O'Reilly said Moore was a propagandist just like Goebbels. If you know the meaning of propaganda then you'd have to say O'reilly speaks the truth.

[Suff]

Originally posted by Lefty
suff, oh \.
O'Reilly selling Budweiser? Tell me you didn't just say that? O'Reilly called for a boycott of Budweiser because they used the rapper Ludicris in their ads.
My hero is Rush.
Thanks for revealing yourself, once again.

Its a metaphor for "Big Business"... come on lefty.. don't split hairs. Fight a good fight.

And please tell me that if Michael Moore was an Opiate Addict like RUSH,.,, and had michael Mooore been too, not one, Not two , but, THREE count um... 123... 3 stints at rehabs to kick his "Habit"... Tell me you would'nt be bashing him. WE BOTH know you would be. So where are your principles? Huh

3 failed marriages, 3 bouts with Dope.. and he's yoru hero.

You cannot even say with confidence that Rush isn't in ANOTHER drug induced haze now.... I'd bet he is. The man is weak.

He cannot stay off drugs,,, he cannot keep a healthy Marriage, he cannot keep a Job, (he was fired 8 times counting his RACIST NFL stint) Every time Rush goes to work for someone they can him.,,Usually quick. How long did he last on Fox? a week? 2 weeks>? he probably was sniffing Heroin in his dressing room and they just used that racial thingto get rid of him.

I bet you Deion Sanders and Don Madden did an "intervetion" on him,, Something like "Rush you need help"! and Rush probably was crying and weeping but he still manged to say

"But i'm talent on loan from God" "God wants me to use Heroin and anything the great RUSHBO wants,," I need a new wife and another 30 Milliuon dollar palm Beach house,,,

Poor poor Rushbo... still seaking his fathers love.. never happy...

marriage after marriage after marriage,,, Drugs after drugs after drugs,,, rehab after rehab after rehab, Job after Job after Job...

Hey lefty, you see the Dems pick up the south Dakota House seat last week? the only seat in the state,, they went Dem

Hey lefty,, did you see the Republican Governer of conneticut resign today,,, yup,, Bribes , Kickbacks, Gifts,,, selling his power.
Another moral repiublican

Hey lefty ,, you following the Illnois senate contest? You see where it came out today that the Republican went to sex shops and wife swapping parties... he he,, family values,,

Democrats are picking that seat up in a few weeks,,,

Man o man,,, 8 years of clinton... things were great , you stole the show in Florida and in three years you guys have ended the republican party. This Bush admistriation is like the Republican Funeral... Your party is dead after 2004 election.

another thing. Charity,,>? Lefty lefty Lefty,,, oh lefty.

[dav4463]

I don't believe in censorship, but the downfall of this great country may well be the fact that we let anyone say and do anything they want to whether it affects national security or just pisses people off. If you want to be unpatriotic, this is the country for you. If you want to criticize your leader... express hatred to the point that is threatening even, this is your country too. If you flat-out hate America, America makes you a hero. I'm sick of seeing these unpatriotic scumbags being made into heroes.

Sometimes, I wish we could get tough and if you hate the president, hate the country, hate everything America stands for.....then we kick the crap out of you and send you to some country where you criticize the leader...then you get your tongue cut out....

America....Love it or Leave It .....maybe the rednecks that wrote that had something after all !!

[Lefty]

suff, no pal, you fight the good and truthful fight. You said O'reilly was selling Budweiser and I cght you in a lie, so now it's metaphor. Gimme a brk. And now you delight in trashing Rush who is addicted because of his pain and for all you know, is prob. clean now, but you prefer to blve the wost because he was the first and the best at it to decry the liberal lie. You mean there are no divorces among libs or are they just like Bill and Hillary and do pretty much want, and to hell with the vows. You don't know me pal, so don't presume what i'd say about Moore if he were on drugs. BTW, you libs are big on missing important distinctions, aren't you?
And the guy who resigned for taking bribes. I guess he's guilty but does that make all Repubs bad? If so, I refer you to Toreccilli and who was that guy in Chicago duting the Clinton yrs that had to resign for taking bribes. And remember the Congressional check scandal with the Dems?
And the Ryan guy... It didn't come out that he was involved in a sex scandal; it came out that his exwife accused him of that, as exwives are wont to do. So it's not proven, but a lib like you cares little of proof.
Good old suf, just another "nice" liberal.

[JustRalph]

boy......you post one review and look what it turns into. I am not such a big fan of hitchens.........he is a little wacky sometimes. He swings both ways..........oh.....sorry he is just British.

O'reilly? He sold himself a long time ago. But when he wants to do a good interview he can. He also can do the "no spin" thing pretty well. But I can't stand a guy who wants to play both sides of the fence. And that is what he does on some stuff. Nothing I hate more than a dyed in the wool far left winger.........who won't admit it..........but beyond that it's "Moderates". Indecision is a result of weak character. Be left, Be Right, but don't tell me you are in the middle?

[Suff]

Originally posted by Lefty


And now you delight in trashing Rush who is.

You bet your ass I do...

Ole saying,,, Be careful how you treat people on the way up... Because you see the same people on the way down.

[Suff]

Originally posted by dav4463
I don't believe in censorship, but the downfall of this great country may well be the fact that we let anyone say and do anything they want to whether it affects America....Love it or Leave It .....maybe the rednecks that wrote that had something after all !!

You must not watch C-span. I watch Senato and congressman critize the other side all day long.

Downfall? What Downfall. Every Speech George Bush makes he and others say "america is the best country on earth.

I swear.. if your don't praise the right and praise Jesus then the next step is getting your tongue cut out. Thats a Big Drop. This president we have.,.,. and this Republican Congress and senate have made grave errors.

They Botched Setp 11th,,, They fought the wrong war and misplayed that hand..and they've wittled away at our constitution They're wrong men for the wrong time. And I'll speak and vote as such until they are gone. Its the Amertican way

I don't see any downfall except we have an Unqualified and Inpet President. That'll be solved in November so I'm even too worried about that.

By your ananlogy we woulda Kicked Newt Gingrich and Ken Starr out of the USA 6 years ago.


One thing I meant to mention this week,,, You know Al Sadr,,, The Cleric whose Miltia we've been Fighting.. The One who is wanted on a Murder warrant,, The one who MARINES DIED trying to capture,, You know that Guy?> We'll we seem to have a hasd Policy change.. here's the new poilicy

If he is unarmed, and unthreatening he is to be left alone,, They made a deal that allows him a GO FREE card. YOUNG MEN DIED trying to capture him.,,, but thats all part of war right?

Study Vietnam and more importantly Vietnamization,,, and while your at it read FOG OF WAR by Mcnamara.. Then talk

[Lefty]

Yeah, I figured you did. You're not a hard guy to discern. But this statement you just made, don't get it at all. I have never heard of Rush mistreating anyone. He exposes libs and does a mighty fine and truthful job of it. But conservatives are not haters too bad we can't say the same for you libs. You can't truthfully go up against him so you just trash the man himself.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by dav4463
I don't believe in censorship, but the downfall of this great country may well be the fact that we let anyone say and do anything they want to whether it affects national security or just pisses people off. If you want to be unpatriotic, this is the country for you. If you want to criticize your leader... express hatred to the point that is threatening even, this is your country too. If you flat-out hate America, America makes you a hero. I'm sick of seeing these unpatriotic scumbags being made into heroes.

Sometimes, I wish we could get tough and if you hate the president, hate the country, hate everything America stands for.....then we kick the crap out of you and send you to some country where you criticize the leader...then you get your tongue cut out....

America....Love it or Leave It .....maybe the rednecks that wrote that had something after all !!

Well, let's see, you went from "I don't believe in censorship" in the beginning of your post to "America..Love it or Leave It" by the end.

The problem is you equate patriotism with dissent, and criticism of the president as being a bad thing. It isn't. And as Teddy Roosevelt says, It's not unpatriotic, and Teddy was no liberal - far from it. If we never had dissent we'd still be a colony of Britain.

When you state "I wish we could get tough and if you hate ...everything America stands for...then we get your tongue cut out." Hmmm...is this what America stands for...Reread the Bill of Rights.

The problem is one man's hero is another man's patriot. Pick up a book on Thomas Paine and read it, or Martin Luther King. One is not being unpatriotic when one speaks out. One is exercising the magnificence of this country and that is the freedom to speak, to change things, to improve America.

.........................

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

[Lefty]

I love it when people speak out, but it's a shame the left can't stick with the truth. But when Bush wins the election, truth will prevail and the lying likes of people like Michael Moore will be exposed.

[Lefty]

suf, since you think being divorced disqualifies people on some level explain this to me: How come some of the KENNEDY's are divorced and they're Catholic. 'splain that and don't tryy to bring in another specious and spurious separation of church and state argument thingy.

[Suff]

Originally posted by Lefty
I love it when people speak out, but it's a shame the left can't stick with the truth. But when Bush wins the election, truth will prevail and the lying likes of people like Michael Moore will be exposed.

Lefty your so Blind,,,p. I'm one of a hundred posters you've gone at it with in here. And No matter what the situation or evidence... Its the same ole same ole in here with you.
You have no idea what you stand for..

[Suff]

Originally posted by Lefty
suf, since you think being divorced disqualifies people on some level explain this to me: How come some of the KENNEDY's are divorced and they're Catholic. 'splain that and don't tryy to bring in another specious and spurious separation of church and state argument thingy.

Is John Kerry claiming a Higher Moral Ground than many? Limbaugh did. You want I should go get you 100 quoates when he called Drug addicts a Stain on america?

He's a fraud,,,and so are you for sticking by him..

and further,,, do you think I take notes on the factors commercials? I used GM and Ford as well,, I have no idea if thats accurfate.,... But I do know this.. He works for the ADVERTISERS NOT THE FOLKS,, because when he did Inside edition he didn't mutter a word badly about liberals,,, he sold his principes to the Highest Bidder,, Just like limbaugh.

And then you use "I caught you in a llie" so petty. Its comical

[Lefty]

suf, you know exactly what I stand for as I've said it a hundred times. So if you knoew, guess I should know. Here's your problem: I defend Rush because he quotes the truth about liberals. Rush was the first to come along and espouse a lot of the same things I stood for. His becoming addicted to painkillers because he had pain is not even close to ther recreational user. But you can't make the distinction nor do you want to. A hundred, a thousand libs, come one come all; makes no diff to me. You can't answer the question I posed about the Kennedies so you further trash Rush and me. I asked you not Kerry about the Kennedies. You're the one who is so dn on divorce yet you evade the question. How can a good Catholic be divorced?
Kerry is not in any position, btw, to claim any moral highground on anything. This self-admitted war criminal can't even take the heat for speeches he's made but blames the speechwriters. I don't want a weakling like Kerry as President, that's for sure.
Oreilly works for advertisers? Gee, that's a newsflash. Everybody on tv and radio works for advertisers, oh, except that airamerica crowd who can't get any. I don't think it's a crime to have advertisers in a capitalist country except to you libs who really are Socialists at heart.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Suff
BTW,, I remeber when you bashed Richard Clarke when he bashed yoru prez. You said that he was profiteering off his NEW BOOK,,

Funny you should mention Richard Clarke. Isn't he the same guy who recently came out and said he claims FULL RESPONSIBILITY for authorizing the flights that carried the bin Laden family members OUT of the USA right after 9/11?? Oh yes, that's right, HE IS:

“It didn’t get any higher than me,” he said. “On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn’t get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.”

and

“I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again.”


Quite an admission. The added benefit of this admission is that it pretty much quashes one of the main "juicy" tidbits from Michael Moore's new film. If you read the Hitchens piece, he explains this nicely.

BTW, you can read the full story behind Mr. Clarke and his doings just after 9/11 regarding the bin Laden family right here:

http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/clarke.aspx

It's quite eye-opening.

Now, don't come back at me and say, "Well, Clarke is just doing this to cover up for Bush." Because, well, you CAN'T say this, because Clarke is a stand-up guy, remember? REMEMBER? REMEMBER????

[Lefty]

and suf, why is it okay for you to sell your time and talent to a profit making co. or corp but not ok for For Rush and O'reilly to do the same?

[PaceAdvantage]

yeah, I don't get it. People who bash Rush, O'Reilly, and even Franken for that matter....who CARES? These guys, to me, are infoTAINERS. They are NOT elected officials. They are TALKING HEADS.

You can TURN THE CHANNEL if you don't care for what they have to say. They don't HAVE to maintain perfect personal lives. They don't HAVE to be consistent in their opinions. The only thing they HAVE to do is PULL RATINGS!!

Their message may or may not be valid. It's up to you to decide that for yourself. But criticizing them for the personal screw ups in life is nothing more than a big waste of time....


my 3 cents

[PaceAdvantage]

Why isn't the Richard Clarke admission that he was responsible for the bin Laden flights out of the US not a top story on any major news site? It's a question the 9/11 commission has been asking since day 1 "Who authorized these flights???"

Apparently this story broke on May 26. I missed it!! Why? Nobody major covered it!!! LOL

Unreal, isn't it? I thought Richard Clarke was one of the "good guys" A hero to the Bush-bashers.

Funny how the bad stuff doesn't make the front page, or the 60 minutes interview.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
yeah, I don't get it. People who bash Rush, O'Reilly, and even Franken for that matter....who CARES? These guys, to me, are infoTAINERS. They are NOT elected officials. They are TALKING HEADS.

You can TURN THE CHANNEL if you don't care for what they have to say. They don't HAVE to maintain perfect personal lives. They don't HAVE to be consistent in their opinions. The only thing they HAVE to do is PULL RATINGS!!

Their message may or may not be valid. It's up to you to decide that for yourself. But criticizing them for the personal screw ups in life is nothing more than a big waste of time....


my 3 cents the only quarrel i have with your statement about people having personal problems is when they don't follow around their own advice.Rush on his moral authorityand bashing namecallers,O reilly putting down a porn star in an interview,and after the show asking her for some free movies and Al Franken telling his callers to have a interesting point........
And who was the guest host today on Rush?Tuesday afternoon I was flippin thru the dial heard a strange guy on rush's show and he happened to mention that his passion was horseracing.
Horseracing fan and Rush Limbaugh fill in?Got to be a special place in Hell for him:p

[Lefty]

O'reilly asks a pornstar for free movies. Now where did that tidbit emerge from?

[dav4463]

I know it is idealistic to think this way, but I long for the day when Americans had respect for the presidential office, the man who was elected to lead the country..........I guess I should have been born in the fifties.........Oh well, back to watching Leave It to Beaver on TVLand and I can pretend that Americans have respect for the government and the police and all that is right with America.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by superfecta
the only quarrel i have with your statement about people having personal problems is when they don't follow around their own advice.Rush on his moral authorityand bashing namecallers,O reilly putting down a porn star in an interview,and after the show asking her for some free movies and Al Franken telling his callers to have a interesting point........
And who was the guest host today on Rush?Tuesday afternoon I was flippin thru the dial heard a strange guy on rush's show and he happened to mention that his passion was horseracing.
Horseracing fan and Rush Limbaugh fill in?Got to be a special place in Hell for him:p

If I remember right, O'reilly was kidding about the free movies? Rush, is different. I have heard him put down "drug dealers" etc. but I think that is a leap from his problem. His was medical and is shared by tons of people in this country. I have never heard him say something that would lead me to believe he was a "moral authority" on anything. I don't listen more than a day or two a week..........but you got it wrong based on my two days a week. As a matter of fact I heard the last 1/2 hour of Rush's show and heard that guy say he is a Horse racing fan. he said it was his "avocation" and hobby. Where you come off with "a special place in hell" is beyong me. Come on Super.........you are way off base and only prove that you don't listen to Rush and aren't qualifed to make the comment. You can get what you want out of anything you listen to. But if you ain't following along.........and are missing the point.......I must call you out on it. You are wrong! What is wrong with Franken telling his callers to have an interesting point. That is done all across America on Talk radio every day. Usually the call screener takes care of that. But if Franken is getting hundreds of inane calls........I don't have a problem with him making that statement?

[PaceAdvantage]

Superfecta was just kidding....I think....people got to take a joke around here once in a while!!! LOL

[ljb]

You guys can say anything you want about Michael Moore but he does have at least one good trait.
He slaps the snot out of right wing blowhards, and all he uses is the TRUTH!:D :D :D

[Lefty]

yeah, I find it screamingly funny how transparent the left is: The libs can say the most hateful and vile things and when asked about it, it was a joke. Repubs or O'reilly or conservatives can say things in an obviously joking manner and the libs get their knickers in a twist. They have probs with discernment.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Did it hurt that much?

[Lefty]

Michael Moore uses the truth? Did you read Hitchens review? Did you read what PA said about the bin ladins leaving U.S. after 9-11? Michael Moore also said the Pres was deserter. Is that your truth? No wonder you're so naive.

[Lefty]

Pa, I got that about Super kidding about the guy having a special place in hell cause he liked the horses. But what was not a joke was him saying O'Reilly asked the porn star for free movies. O'Reilly was joking but don't think Super was on this.

[Suff]

Originally posted by dav4463
I know it is idealistic to think this way, but I long for the day when Americans had respect for the presidential office, the man who was elected to lead the country..........I guess I should have been born in the fifties.........Oh well, back to watching Leave It to Beaver on TVLand and I can pretend that Americans have respect for the government and the police and all that is right with America.

If You were born in teh fiftys you would have been alive to hear the Religous Bigotry that Kennedy dealt with,,, You would have been aware that the Military (NG) shot and Killed College Kids at kent state.. you would have been aware that BOBBY kennedy was murdered in LA on his way to the Presidency... and you would have been aware that Martin LUther King was Murdered while trying to achiece Peace in race relations,, and you would have been aware that your president Committed Felonies while in Office and resigned in Disgrace,,, and you would have been alive when MILLIONS protested the war in Vietnam in our nations Capital,, you would have bee aware that the Defense Secy during Vietnam broke down in tears when he confronted his truth..
That he sent men to die in battles he knew he had no intention of winning..

Please,,, Look up The FOG of War by mCnamara,,, If even you only get captions,, Read that. Its our DUTY and RESPONIBILITY to criticize our Govt in time of war.

[Kappa]

Originally posted by Suff
If You were born in teh fiftys you would have been alive to hear the Religous Bigotry that Kennedy dealt with,,, You would have been aware that the Military (NG) shot and Killed College Kids at kent state.. you would have been aware that BOBBY kennedy was murdered in LA on his way to the Presidency... and you would have been aware that Martin LUther King was Murdered while trying to achiece Peace in race relations,, and you would have been aware that your president Committed Felonies while in Office and resigned in Disgrace,,, and you would have been alive when MILLIONS protested the war in Vietnam in our nations Capital,, you would have bee aware that the Defense Secy during Vietnam broke down in tears when he confronted his truth..
That he sent men to die in battles he knew he had no intention of winning..

Please,,, Look up The FOG of War by mCnamara,,, If even you only get captions,, Read that. Its our DUTY and RESPONIBILITY to criticize our Govt in time of war.

WOW!!

Well said, Suff.

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
You guys can say anything you want about Michael Moore but he does have at least one good trait.
He slaps the snot out of right wing blowhards, and all he uses is the TRUTH!:D :D :D

He ambushes people, edits film to make thing LOOK the way he wants them to look. He is not even remotley close to being anything more that a cartoon editor.
He took advantage of Charleton Heston when he was old and unable to really defend himself or his position adequatey. So did Matt Lauer. They are both sniveling cowards, neither one with an ounce of courage or intelligence. On his worst day 20 years ago, CH would have kicked the snot out of both these weinnies at the same time and left them crying for health care.

[Tom]

And you would have been able to buy Sargent Pepper brand spankin' new for $2.98! :D

[Suff]

Originally posted by Kappa
WOW!!

Well said, Suff.

And he would have been alive when a black kid needed a Soldier with an M-16 to get equal education..

and that wasn't 100 years ago,, it was a short 35 years ago.

Tell me we're not a better country now? Of course we are.

[ljb]

Looks like just mentioning Michael Moore has an affect of Tom. Need a hanky Tom?

:D

[schweitz]

[i]Originally posted by Suff


Please,,, Look up The FOG of War by mCnamara,,, If even you only get captions,, Read that. Its our DUTY and RESPONIBILITY to criticize our Govt in time of war.

Criticize?---Well, you are certainly good at that---might be more productive if you QUESTION rather than criticize.

[ljb]

Schweitz,
I am still waiting for the answer to why in the hell we invaded Iraq. If we ever get that answer we can move on to others.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by ljb
Schweitz,
I am still waiting for the answer to why in the hell we invaded Iraq. If we ever get that answer we can move on to others.

The answer is all too obvious. But if you want just one reason, they shot at our planes. They also harbored and aided al-Queda. Those two are good enough for me, even though there are plenty more reasons. The more level-headed among us "Get It"

Here's a question for you...what will you do if President Bush gets re-elected in November. I'm being serious here. What will your reaction be?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
The answer is all too obvious. But if you want just one reason, they shot at our planes. They also harbored and aided al-Queda. Those two are good enough for me, even though there are plenty more reasons. The more level-headed among us "Get It"

Here's a question for you...what will you do if President Bush gets re-elected in November. I'm being serious here. What will your reaction be?

Actually here are Bush's own words on why he invaded Iraq on his speech on March 17, 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. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people. The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.”

THE INTELLIGENCE WAS FLAWED AND FINALLY ADMITTED WHETHER YOU WANT TO BLAME OUR NAIVETE REGARDING CHALABI OR NOT. IT IS NOT METIONED THAT WE GAVE IRAQ ITS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION TO USE AGAINST ITS NEIGHBOR - IRAN.

"The danger is clear: using chemical, biological, or one day nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other."

IRAQ HAD NO NUCLEAR CAPABiLITY, WAS ADMITTED LATER THEY WERE NOT AN IMMINENT THREAT. PLEASE INFORM WHERE IRAQ AIDED AL QUAEDA TO OBTAIN NUCLEAR WEAPONS, CHEMICAL WEAPONS OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS. AS A MATTER OF FACT OUR COUNTRY USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN VIETNAM - AGENT ORANGE.

"Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed. The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me as commander in chief by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep."

SO SCREW THE UN. BASCIALLY HERE HE IS ACCEPTING THE USE OF FORCE IN IRAQ.

"And a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world."

WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR THAT BROAD COALITION

"In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms."

I GUESS THIS WAS PRE-ABU GHARIB

"Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say "I was just following orders.""

IT WILL BE NO DEFENSE TO SAY I WAS JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS. HE HAS HELD UP TO THAT. PRIVATES ARE BEING PROSECUTED, NOT THE HIGHER UPS.

If Bush is elected, I will first throw up. Then I will immediately peittion my congressmen and senators to impeach him.

.................................................. .................................................. .

"Before he announced his candidacy, Bush met with Texas-based evangelist James Robison and told him that he believed God wanted him to be president."

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Actually here are Bush's own words on why he invaded Iraq on his speech on March 17, 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. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people. The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.”

THE INTELLIGENCE WAS FLAWED AND FINALLY ADMITTED WHETHER YOU WANT TO BLAME OUR NAIVETE REGARDING CHALABI OR NOT. IT IS NOT METIONED THAT WE GAVE IRAQ ITS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION TO USE AGAINST ITS NEIGHBOR - IRAN.

"The danger is clear: using chemical, biological, or one day nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other."

IRAQ HAD NO NUCLEAR CAPABiLITY, WAS ADMITTED LATER THEY WERE NOT AN IMMINENT THREAT. PLEASE INFORM WHERE IRAQ AIDED AL QUAEDA TO OBTAIN NUCLEAR WEAPONS, CHEMICAL WEAPONS OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS. AS A MATTER OF FACT OUR COUNTRY USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN VIETNAM - AGENT ORANGE.

"Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed. The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me as commander in chief by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep."

SO SCREW THE UN. BASCIALLY HERE HE IS ACCEPTING THE USE OF FORCE IN IRAQ.

"And a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world."

WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR THAT BROAD COALITION

"In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms."

I GUESS THIS WAS PRE-ABU GHARIB

"Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say "I was just following orders.""

IT WILL BE NO DEFENSE TO SAY I WAS JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS. HE HAS HELD UP TO THAT. PRIVATES ARE BEING PROSECUTED, NOT THE HIGHER UPS.

If Bush is elected, I will first throw up. Then I will immediately peittion my congressmen and senators to impeach him.

.................................................. .................................................. .

"Before he announced his candidacy, Bush met with Texas-based evangelist James Robison and told him that he believed God wanted him to be president."


You know--sometimes---I almost believe that you believe the stuff you post---but then I remember---you have an agenda.

[Secretariat]

Schweitz,

Since most of what I posted is Bush's own words, please inform me what was inaccurate....

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Schweitz,

Since most of what I posted is Bush's own words, please inform me what was inaccurate....

It's not Bush's words that I have a problem with--your interpretation and editorializing is another thing.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
If Bush is elected, I will first throw up. Then I will immediately peittion my congressmen and senators to impeach him.


LOL. Now I have something else to look forward to on November 2, 2004!

[Tom]

Originally posted by schweitz
You know--sometimes---I almost believe that you believe the stuff you post---but then I remember---you have an agenda.

And a long one at that. He traded his brains for it! :D

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Schweitz,
I am still waiting for the answer to why in the hell we invaded Iraq. If we ever get that answer we can move on to others.

Your recent hiatus from the board.... a frontal lobotomy???

[Tom]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
.......The more level-headed among us "Get It".......




Even those of us on the outer fringe get it! :rolleyes:

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
LOL. Now I have something else to look forward to on November 2, 2004!

lol..and to be fair what will you and schweitz do if Kerry is elected?

[Secretariat]

I just couldn't resist this on this webpage from the Patriots for Bush site on Hitchens:

http://www.patriotsforbush.com/archives/000161.html

Let's see -

Not only has he trashed Bob Hope, Ronald Reagan, Mother Teresa, I guess he needed to attack Mel Gibson and his Passion movie as well.

If the review above is an attack on Moore, then perhaps he is in good company..

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
lol..and to be fair what will you and schweitz do if Kerry is elected?

Can't speak for Schweitz, but I will give him all the respect and support that I give to any President of the United States of America. And I will hope he will lead this nation to even greater heights then his predecessors.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
I just couldn't resist this on this webpage from the Patriots for Bush site on Hitchens:

http://www.patriotsforbush.com/archives/000161.html

Let's see -

Not only has he trashed Bob Hope, Ronald Reagan, Mother Teresa, I guess he needed to attack Mel Gibson and his Passion movie as well.

If the review above is an attack on Moore, then perhaps he is in good company..

Boy, I would think Mr. Hitchens would be a man after your own political heart. After all, everyone is fair game, so you can't call him a radical conservative or a radical liberal. He attacks the most conservative of institutions, as well as the most liberal.

For this, I would think his opinion on Michael Moore and his film may carry a bit more weight than an opinion from Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken. At least that's the way I view Hitchens.

[Lefty]

sec, I see you take a page from Ted Kennedy and equate abu ghraib to the torture and rape rooms of Saddam. That's the problem with you libs inabilty to discern big differences.

[Lefty]

What will I do if Kerry elected? Just wait and see if his wife starts paying her fair share of taxes. Hope my wife's 401k don't go completely bust...
and PRAY!

[dav4463]

It just seems to me that there is no respect for the government, no respect for the police, no respect for anyone in authority. That's bad. The country will fall from within.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by JustRalph
If I remember right, O'reilly was kidding about the free movies? Rush, is different. I have heard him put down "drug dealers" etc. but I think that is a leap from his problem. His was medical and is shared by tons of people in this country. I have never heard him say something that would lead me to believe he was a "moral authority" on anything. I don't listen more than a day or two a week..........but you got it wrong based on my two days a week. As a matter of fact I heard the last 1/2 hour of Rush's show and heard that guy say he is a Horse racing fan. he said it was his "avocation" and hobby. Where you come off with "a special place in hell" is beyong me. Come on Super.........you are way off base and only prove that you don't listen to Rush and aren't qualifed to make the comment. You can get what you want out of anything you listen to. But if you ain't following along.........and are missing the point.......I must call you out on it. You are wrong! What is wrong with Franken telling his callers to have an interesting point. That is done all across America on Talk radio every day. Usually the call screener takes care of that. But if Franken is getting hundreds of inane calls........I don't have a problem with him making that statement? Evidently Oreilly didn't let jenna in on the joke,her version is he asked her to be on the show to explain her choosing to do adult movies,then sandbagged her when the cameras were rolling.then after the show was over he asked for some freebees.She said you got to be kidding and left.And I have listened to rush since August of 88.After 15 years of listening to the same diatribe,our local stations started carring more diverse programming so I have listened to less and less of ol Rushie and his talent on loan from God.He was enteraining for awhile and then it was either listen to him or nothing at all.He talks a good game,but it became obvious that he accuses others of namecalling and then ridicules the way they talk or look.Or calls them by his own pet name,whether its flattering or not..And on drugs,he said "what is wrong with just saying no?",implying that Nancy Reagan has it right.
And as franken goes..do you listen to him at all??I would but he makes no sense when i tune in.hence the interesting point.And having a seat in hell was a joke ralph,thats why I put :p beside the sentence.Doesn't the majority of right wingers think gambling is a sin?They cast their lot on morality and gambling is not looked upon too favorably by the Republican Party.I thought you guys figured me out by now,I aint too stable,can't be too serious all the time, its just too much work.SO I KEED,I KEED.But just like Fat Albert said,you can have some fun and if your not careful you may learn somethin after its dun.Little Freenese there for you.;)

[ljb]

Tom said:
Your recent hiatus from the board.... a frontal lobotomy???

Actually I was doing more work in the presidential campaign. And in my discussions with the people one of the top questions I heard was "Why in the hell did we invade Iraq?".
I just thought I would post it here. Thinking next time I go on a registration / get out the vote drive I could give the rightys answer to this question.

[ljb]

From Dav
It just seems to me that there is no respect for the government, no respect for the police, no respect for anyone in authority. That's bad. The country will fall from within.

This is nothing new. I remember and old joke they told about Harry Truman and and airplane.
But much of the current dis-respect comes from the politicians themselves and their attack ads. Think about it, if for a year or so leading up to an election all you see on tv are ads depicting the candidates as sniveling, lying bastards what will your opinion be once the election is over.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by superfecta
Evidently Oreilly didn't let jenna in on the joke,her version is he asked her to be on the show to explain her choosing to do adult movies,then sandbagged her when the cameras were rolling.then after the show was over he asked for some freebees.She said you got to be kidding and left.And I have listened to rush since August of 88.After 15 years of listening to the same diatribe,our local stations started carring more diverse programming so I have listened to less and less of ol Rushie and his talent on loan from God.He was enteraining for awhile and then it was either listen to him or nothing at all.He talks a good game,but it became obvious that he accuses others of namecalling and then ridicules the way they talk or look.Or calls them by his own pet name,whether its flattering or not..And on drugs,he said "what is wrong with just saying no?",implying that Nancy Reagan has it right.
And as franken goes..do you listen to him at all??I would but he makes no sense when i tune in.hence the interesting point.And having a seat in hell was a joke ralph,thats why I put :p beside the sentence.Doesn't the majority of right wingers think gambling is a sin?They cast their lot on morality and gambling is not looked upon too favorably by the Republican Party.I thought you guys figured me out by now,I aint too stable,can't be too serious all the time, its just too much work.SO I KEED,I KEED.But just like Fat Albert said,you can have some fun and if your not careful you may learn somethin after its dun.Little Freenese there for you.;)

Ok........

[Secretariat]

Thanks Pa, then I also have something to look forward to on Nov .3.

Dave, respect is something earned. We give people the beenfit of the doubt unti lthey abuse that respect, and GW and Mr. Cheyney have gone over the cliff in that regard.

As to Hitchens, so PA you are pretty much in agreement then with his Mother Teresa was a con, Bob Hope wasn't a comedian, Reagan is an idiot, and Mel Gibson is a FACIST remarks.

I shake my head what ship you guys will get on just to trash Michael Moore. He must really frighten you righties.

[OTM Al]

Personally, I don't agree with everything Mr. Moore does and sometimes I think he goes a bit far, but I do respect him for standing up and saying his mind. That said, even if what he says disgusts you, you should be more disgusted by this

http://www.thehill.com/news/062404/moore.aspx

I leave you with one truth, spoke by one of the more reprehensible people to live the last century, but it hits pretty close to the point Mr. Moore is trying to make. This is an excerpt of an interview with Herman Goering at Nuremburg shortly before he committed suicide

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come 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 for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, 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 danger. It works the same way in any country."

[ljb]

Otm al
Thanks for the link, it clarifies the right wings grasping for complete control of the world.
Also the quote from Goering was enlightening. However I would urge you to use caution here. Last year I was called an unpatriotic anti-American for posting similiar opinions. Only yesterday another poster on this board told me I was not an American . The right wing has plans to eliminate those who choose to dissent from their views in any way they can. :rolleyes:

[OTM Al]

Honestly, I'm going with Goering on this one. I don't really think it matters anymore who is in charge. It's all one giant power grab. Maybe it always was.

The one thesis Moore has that I absolutely agree with though is that we are becoming a nation controlled by fear. Its hitting us from the left and right. Its gobbling up time and dollars that we could spend in so many more productive ways--education and housing for 2 to start. Its a pity.

[Lefty]

So your answer is not to go to war and let us be taken over? Don't you blve in self defense?
BTW, we've spent billions on education and housing is in the private sector or do you think the govt should provide housing for all?
lbj, dissent all you want, but bring truth and reality to the table please.
We are in a war for our very existence and you don't seem to grasp the concept. You can dissent, but I also have the right to point out socialist agendas when i see em, even if you don't realize that's what you're purveying.

[Lefty]

rightwing control of the world? I didn't see you object when they leftwing tried to stop Fox from even getting on the air or a few yrs ago they tried to bting back the socalled fairness doctrine to try and get Rush off the air. No objections there, right?
Personally, I don't care if Moore shows his panache of lies but I wish he'd have the guts to show up on O'Reilly and similar shows to debate his and the film's veracity.

[ljb]

Lefty said
lbj, dissent all you want, but bring truth and reality to the table please.
Lefty, everytime I bring truth to the table the rightys get bit in the arse and start calling me names.

[Secretariat]

Yes, OTM I agree with LJB. Mention a remark by Goerrring and that might be considered unpatriotic.

That said, the assertion that government and power are intermingled probably have existed since the pre-USA. There is a lot of money at stake, and as you said the poor farmer just wants to get back in one piece and make a living. The "fear" of America collapsing to Iraq are as naive as Vietnam being the battlground for stopping Communism worldwide. I remeber those arguments back then as Lefty reiterates here "better to fight them over there than on the beaches in America." The rhetoric always cycles back.

The culprits behind the WTC is what we want, and this adminstration has deviated from getting those culprits with diverting man power and lots and lots of money to Iraq. If there was an al Queda presence in Iraq during Hussein's regime under the lands he controlled, (and that is questionable), there surely are now, because they can now hit Americans easier, they can inflict terroism over there so much easier. And they are doing so, as the amended terror report issued just revealed. They will stike in Saudi Arabia because America is there, they will strike in Iraq because America is there. Our presence there destabilizes the region. Terroism has increased in those regions due to Iraqi destabilziation, not been reduced. We had the world behind us in support of going after the cuprits of 911 - Al Queda and Bin Laden. We've lost that support because we became embroiled in Iraq and snubbed our nose at the nations of the world preferrring pre-emption with bad intelligence, rather than working with nations to help get the WTC culprits.

I hope we are not reduced to Israel one day building a moat and wall around our country because of the hatred of our nation. As Ronald Reagan said, tear down that wall Mr. Gorbachev. But nobody says tear down that wall Mr. Sharon, and work out an honest piece with the Palestinains. Our tax money goes to help build that wall. It stands as a concession of our failure to make common ground between people. Yassar Arafat, a pig, offered a hope to Sharon and Bush to agree to Clinton's 2000 plan for peace, but neither Bush nor Sharon agreed. Blood begets blood.

It bothers me when I keep reading about Hallburton ripping off the taxpayers, and when the administration keeps trying to cover things up, but I will refrain from making comparisions to Goerring because as Bush said "God wanted him to be President". I think Bin Laden said God told him to do what he did as well.

I think we need to subpoena God before a Grand Jury and get some answers here.

[OTM Al]

Secretariat-

I think you've finally nailed the true culprit in all this :)

I'm not going to argue my feelings here. Same reason why it would be silly for Moore to go on O'Reilly. No real debate and no point. I know where I stand and its good enough for me. It all reminds me of that very un-PC joke about the similarity between arguing on the net and competing in the Special Olympics, but at least the Special Olympic kids know what the hell they are all about.

[Lefty]

otm, no real debate and no point? Are you amazin under another name? There's plenty of debate to be had about this film and plenty of point. A film that in the guise of a documentarythat is really a propaganda piece against the current Pres. and in an election yr should be debated aplenty. Seems it's the left that's afraid of healthy debate.

[OTM Al]

You are correct sir. There is plenty of debate that should come of this work. I am just at a complete loss where one can find real debate. Sure can't find itanywhere on my TV dial. All I see are polarized shouting matches.

[Lefty]

Oreilly is an independent and as such I don't agree with everything he says, but I think he has some good and fair debates. Prob is, Michael Moore and Bill Clinton only want to appear on shows that agree with everything they say. The other night a guy didn't agree and Clinton "lit" into him with some disgusting diatribe and plain lies. This guy being English evidently didn't know about Billy Dale and how Clinton personally destryed this man who did nothing wrong. But I digress: What's Michael Moore afraid of? The answer of course, is the truth.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by OTM Al
You are correct sir. There is plenty of debate that should come of this work. I am just at a complete loss where one can find real debate. Sure can't find itanywhere on my TV dial. All I see are polarized shouting matches.

Exactly,

And Lefty, when's the last time Rush or O'Reilly went onto Franken's show. He's invited them often. No response. And interestingly John Kerry has asked Bush for a debate every month leading up to the election, and what has Bush's respone been? Silence.

If you want to call it one way, don't call it another, as Yogi might say.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Exactly,

And Lefty, when's the last time Rush or O'Reilly went onto Franken's show. He's invited them often. No response. And interestingly John Kerry has asked Bush for a debate every month leading up to the election, and what has Bush's respone been? Silence.

If you want to call it one way, don't call it another, as Yogi might say.

Why would they want to leave the highest rated shows in America and help boost the ratings in all three markets for Franken? Get real..........

[Tom]

Franken will never be anything more than a "guest."

[cryptic1]

SEC, I won't waste my time arguing with you over U.S.
politics but I will say you are either ignorant or completely
disingenuous when you claim that Arafat offered hope to Bush
and Sharon in 2000. READ CLINTON"S BOOK, he spells it out,
Arafat was a two faced liar. He created the infitadah purposely
without ever attempting to resolve matters by peaceful
negotiations. He only offered deception, guile and more blood.
Stick to U.S. politics, at least there you can post links to your
hearts content, leave the thinking to those that can.

cryptic1

[Tom]

Arafat has always been a terrorist and there was never a minute of doubt in my mind about that. What amzed me was the hundreds of opportunities multiple people had to kill this cockroach and failed to do so.
I was extremely disappointed that Irael let him live when they had him conrened in his little hol ein the wall. That mistake will cost them in the future. This camel turd must be a to 5 target-kill on sight with extreme prejudice.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Why would they want to leave the highest rated shows in America and help boost the ratings in all three markets for Franken? Get real..........

Yeah, well then, why would an Academy Award Winner and Cannes film Award Winner want to go on a two bit reject from Inside Edition, or waste his time talking to a guy who compares him to Goebbels or walks out on his show?

[Lefty]

sec, in case you haven't noticed, Bush has a big job just to be Pres in these trbled times. Why does he need the distraction of debating Kerry at this time? The debates will come in due time.
Bush has not abandoned his Presidency like Kerry has abandoned the Senate, with his numerous missed votes, etc.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by cryptic1
SEC, I won't waste my time arguing with you over U.S.
politics but I will say you are either ignorant or completely
disingenuous when you claim that Arafat offered hope to Bush
and Sharon in 2000. READ CLINTON"S BOOK, he spells it out,
Arafat was a two faced liar. He created the infitadah purposely
without ever attempting to resolve matters by peaceful
negotiations. He only offered deception, guile and more blood.
Stick to U.S. politics, at least there you can post links to your
hearts content, leave the thinking to those that can.

cryptic1


You obviously missed Clinton's interview on Sixty Mintues when he said that Arafat was now reasdy to accept Clinton's proposal he made in 2000. These aren't my words or views but the words Clinton stated in his interview. Jeez...and for the record if you look at my post I called Arafat a pig.

[Suff]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, in case you haven't noticed, Bush has a big job just to be Pres in these trbled times. Why does he need the distraction of debating Kerry at this time? .

the debates were decided last week. There three scheduled. They are changing the format this time.

The first two debates will be on Domestic issues and the 3rd and final debate will be on Foriegn Policy.

They are done deal... we'll have 3 and thats how they'll go.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, in case you haven't noticed, Bush has a big job just to be Pres in these trbled times. Why does he need the distraction of debating Kerry at this time? The debates will come in due time.
Bush has not abandoned his Presidency like Kerry has abandoned the Senate, with his numerous missed votes, etc.


lol...yeah Bush has a big job in these troubled times ,but SOMEHOW he always has time for a campaign dinner or LOTS of vacation time in Crawford, Texas, but he can't find the time to debate John Kerry....Lefty, c'mon.....

Kerry offered to debate him EVERY month up to the election, but the WH only settled on the October debates.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
lol...yeah Bush has a big job in these troubled times ,but SOMEHOW he always has time for a campaign dinner or LOTS of vacation time in Crawford, Texas, but he can't find the time to debate John Kerry....Lefty, c'mon.....

Kerry offered to debate him EVERY month up to the election, but the WH only settled on the October debates.
You putting your Christmas tree up already???
What;s the rush? They are both going to lie anyway. Let it lay until the fall....why aggervate everyone in the summer?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
As to Hitchens, so PA you are pretty much in agreement then with his Mother Teresa was a con, Bob Hope wasn't a comedian, Reagan is an idiot, and Mel Gibson is a FACIST remarks.


So it is imperative that I agree with EVERY OPINION a commentator has if I happen to agree with his most recent one? Isn't that a bit slavish?

[ljb]

Pa,
Actually I think one should have some sort of agreement with the opinions of those he uses for endorsement of his personal ideas. This selective process is akin to taking words out of context. It should be fairly obvious from reading all the reviews of Hitchens that he is somewhat off the mark .

[PaceAdvantage]

How come no comment on the Richard Clarke admission? You and Sec and Hcap have been eerily silent on that post I made (and I think I made it twice).

[ljb]

PA,
I went back 3 or 4 pages and can't find you richard clarke note. Wasn't Richard Clarke one of the dudes that pointed out one of Bush's goofs and you guys said he was not credible?

[PaceAdvantage]

Page 3....eighth note on the page.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
How come no comment on the Richard Clarke admission? You and Sec and Hcap have been eerily silent on that post I made (and I think I made it twice).

I thought that post was to Suff...

Ok, since you asked me to address I'll take a crack. What Clarke quotes in his book, AND under oath to the 911 commission is that he did not approve the flights for the bin Laden family, now (not under oath by way) ABC reports that Clarke has reversed himself and said he may have approved the flights...

That is damaging to Clarke's crediblity, but really it has no bearing on Michael Moore. You're missing the jist of Moore's question which is not who "approved" the flights for takeoff, BUT

The only RELEVANT point and that is WHO REQUESTED THE FLIGHTS?

Who set those flights up before people were interviewed by FBI? why was the FBI asked to arrange those flights and by whom? You certainly don't mean to imply that Clarke set up and requested those filghts do you?

And WHY were they only cursorily interrogated. Why did the Bush adminstration lie about the recorded flights from Tampa? Tampa Airport has documented the flights. It's the secrecy thing all over.

And please tell Dick Cheyney to watch his language, it's very unchristian of him.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
So it is imperative that I agree with EVERY OPINION a commentator has if I happen to agree with his most recent one? Isn't that a bit slavish?

It speaks to credibility Pa. How can you agree with his opinion before you've even seen the film? You're simply seeking someone to support a foregone conclusion you already have, despite Hitchen's remarks ... Read the Mother Teresa article, or the Bob Hope, or the Mel Gibson, or the Ronald Reagan articles, and tell me what kind of credibility does this fellow have...is this really the bandwagon you want to get on

[ljb]

I say Hitchens on crossfire Friday. He is a real jerk. When faced with a question he didn't like, his response was "I said I would come I didn't say I would talk." This guy almost makes Rush sound sober/clean.

[Tom]

Sec, how can someone dismeiss the whole movie without seeing it?
Easy. ambush-editing is not a legitimate fomr of documentary. It is opinion media. MM has deomonstrted his ability totally igonore truth and support his arguments with tihngs taken out of context and eaggerated to git what he want sthem to mean. I saw part of Bowling for Columbine and found it to be a piece of celluloid trash with no redeeming value whatsoever. Almost the ramblings of a madman.
Centigrade 7-11 is noting more than a "crockumentary. And I wrote a new theme song for it, of course to the tune of an old folk song:

Michael throw the truth aside, halleluja
Michael throw the truth aside, hale-elu-u-ja.

He's the voice of the DBC, halleluja,
En-e-my, of you and me, Hal-e-lu-u-la.
Why let facts get in the way, hal-e-luu-ja
Lies sell better, anyway, hal-e-lu-u-ja.

Michael throw the truth aside, hal-e-lu-ja
Michael throw the truth aside, hal-e-lu-u-ja.

Couldn't find a distribu-ta, hal-e-lu-ja
Now gets checks from hes-ba-la, hal-e-lu-u-ja

Got awards at a festival, hal-e-lu-ja
For presenting a "cannes" of bull, hal-e-lu-u-ja.

[Lefty]

Michael Moore has even stated that his goal is to beat GW in the election. He has likened the terrrorists in Iraq to the minutemen in the American Revolution. Just another Jeanine Garafolo "nice" liberal!

[Tom]

Lefty, did you catch Hanity's radio program yesterday? He was off and the fill in was "Maurice"? Levin. He was absolutely a riot! Played audio from MM's own diary when he was friving across America whenthe plane were grounded.
and whnever a liberal called in to express stupiudity, he played this old "ice rink" or "merry-go-round" musinc in the background.
I taped it and will from now on, when I read Ljb, Sec, Hcap's post, I will play it on my computer, to add some persepective to the ideas.:D

[Lefty]

Tom, only cght part of it but you're right, Levin's a riot and knows how to "hang em" on their own petard.

[Big Bill]

ljb,

You wrote:

"I saw Hitchens on crossfire Friday. He is a real jerk".

You should read his book, "No One Left To Lie To". It is about what a liberal (Hitchens) thinks of Bill Clinton. Anyone who could peg Slick Willie as Hitchens did in this book is not a jerk!

Big Bill

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Big Bill
ljb,

You wrote:

"I saw Hitchens on crossfire Friday. He is a real jerk".

You should read his book, "No One Left To Lie To". It is about what a liberal (Hitchens) thinks of Bill Clinton. Anyone who could peg Slick Willie as Hitchens did in this book is not a jerk!

Big Bill

Or Ronald Reagan as an idiot, or mel Gibson as a facist, or Mother Teresa as a con artist and necromancer, and Bob Hope as not really a comedian...Yeah, this guy's a real winner.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Tom
Sec, how can someone dismeiss the whole movie without seeing it?
Easy. ambush-editing is not a legitimate fomr of documentary.

First of all which text book "rule" are you citing on what constitutes a legitimate form of documentary.

Second, who told you this? Rush? How do you know without seeing it?

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
First of all which text book "rule" are you citing on what constitutes a legitimate form of documentary.

Second, who told you this? Rush? How do you know without seeing it?

Unlike libs, I can think and form opinions on my own. The "rule" is my definition of a documentary as a form of documenting, truthfully, some real life event of idea. When it is the "doc" parts stands for documenting, not doctoring. Sec, even the trailers are slanted lies and cut and paster garbage.
That footage about W on the golf course....hey, boys, he was playing golf NOT holding a press conference. The questoining was inappropriate on the course, but he answered it and then went back to his game. At least he had his zipper up. This is just Moore's style-ignore turth and facts and put out things taken out of context to make it appear that he has a point. He doesn't.
You want ot spend money to go see the movie, by all menas, go ahead. But if you thinkg it is anything more than a cartoon, you are mistakem. And if you think any rational people are going to be swayed by it, you are really wrong. Anybody STUPID enough to believe anything MM has to say is already in the democratic party or some other instituion.
Hey, I plan to to see the other movie, documenting MM this summer, soely for the pleasure of seeing this bum get mocked to high heaven.
But if you want ot see a good movie, go see The Return of the King, or go watch Seabiscuit again.
Or go read Mein Kemp again. I assume you have read it, sicne you have formed opinions about Hitler. Th*nk you.

[JustRalph]

Good points about the way a documentary is made..........it is not edited to a particular ideaology.

Dictionary:

Main Entry: 1doc·u·men·ta·ry
Pronunciation: "dä-ky&-'men-t&-rE, -'men-trE
Function: adjective
1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing <documentary evidence>
2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE <a documentary film of the war>

Several reviews have pointed out innaccurate pieces in Moores films.

[PaceAdvantage]

The Boston Globe says please don't insult documentaries by saying this is a documentary:

http://www.boston.com/movies/display?display=movie&id=7054

By the way, average user review on Yahoo is a B-

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
ABC reports that Clarke has reversed himself and said he may have approved the flights...

The only RELEVANT point and that is WHO REQUESTED THE FLIGHTS?



May have? There is no doubt, unless they made up the quote by Clarke:

“I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again.”

and

“It didn’t get any higher than me,” he said. “On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn’t get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.”

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
May have? There is no doubt, unless they made up the quote by Clarke:

“I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again.”

and

“It didn’t get any higher than me,” he said. “On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn’t get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.”

amazing how Sec marginalizes the statements made by clarke. If it doesn't fit their agenda it can't be true...........

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
May have? There is no doubt, unless they made up the quote by Clarke:

“I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again.”

and

“It didn’t get any higher than me,” he said. “On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn’t get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.”

I was relying on Clarke's comments under oath to the 911 commission, not on his off the cuff comments on ABC which I did not see.

However, here is what he has said on the matter:

"In the days immediately after 9/ 11 - he doesn't remember exactly when - Clarke was approached in the Situation Room about quickly repatriating the Saudis.

"Somebody brought to us for approval the decision to let an airplane filled with Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family leave the country," Clarke says. "My role was to say that it can't happen until the F.B.I. approves it. And so the F.B.I. was asked - we had a live connection to the F.B.I. - and we asked the F.B.I. to make sure that they were satisfied that everybody getting on that plane was someone that it was O.K. to leave. And they came back and said yes, it was fine with them. So we said, 'Fine, let it happen."' Clarke, who has since left the government and now runs a consulting firm in Virginia, adds that he does not recall who initiated the request, but that it was probably either the F.B.I. or the State Department. Both agencies deny playing any role whatsoever in the episode. "It did not come out of this place," says one source at the State Department. "The likes of Prince Bandar does not need the State Department to get this done."

"I can say unequivocally that the F.B.I. had no role in facilitating these flights one way or another," says Special Agent John Iannarelli, the F.B.I.'s spokesman on counterterrorism activities."

NOW...my point is WHO ARRANGED THESE FLIGHTS. WHO DECIDED THE BIN LADEN FAMILY SHOULD BE WHISKED OUT OF THE COUNTRY WHILE EVERY PLANE WAS GROUNDED? AND WHY?

If you read the above from Clarke he pins the blame on the FBI for saying all was OK. My question to him is the BIG ONE - WHO INIATITED THE REQUEST? "I don't recall who" is a bogus answer!! Bogus!! Someone made that request, in the middle of a national emergency, to fly the family of the known culprit behind the attack, when NO planes were flying, and Clarke cannot recall who made the request. One would have to be very naive to beleive that someone didn't have to pull some major strings to get these flights into the air during this time. Major strings.

If there was nothing to hide about it why would the government then deny the flights took place:

Govt Finally Admits Saudis Flew Out of US on 9/13/01, When No Flights Were Allowed
10-Jun-04
September 11 Exposes
St. Petersburg Times reports on a big victory for Internet researchers of 9/11: "Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with most of the nation's air traffic still grounded, a small jet landed at Tampa International Airport, picked up three young Saudi men and left. The men, one of them thought to be a member of the Saudi royal family, were accompanied by a former FBI agent and a former Tampa police officer on the flight to Lexington, Ky. The Saudis then took another flight out of the country. The two ex-officers returned to TIA a few hours later on the same plane. For nearly three years, White House, aviation and law enforcement officials have insisted the flight never took place and have denied published reports and widespread Internet speculation about its purpose. But now, at the request of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, TIA officials have confirmed that the flight did take place and have supplied details." But these details are shrouded in mystery.

[Suff]

Originally posted by JustRalph
amazing how Sec marginalizes the statements made by clarke. If it doesn't fit their agenda it can't be true...........


who cares who gave permission? If clarke did,,, he should'nt of.


My politics don't divide me when i'm in pusuit of the truth.

[Secretariat]

I finally read Hitchens piece since I wanted to wait until i saw the pix....A bit of a twat isn't he?

Here's a rebuttal to his review that takes on every point. I'm glad someone else did it as I don't have to waste my time.

http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com/feature.php?feature=1150

[Lefty]

www.billoreilly.com
Click on Bill's latest column. Think this is last day of this piece about Moore as it will be replaced by another column.
I loked paragraph 5 because it contains Moore's own worfs he gave in an ABC interview on June 20.

[GameTheory]

Don't forget:

http://www.moorewatch.com/

http://www.moorelies.com/

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

[cj]

Originally posted by Lefty
www.billoreilly.com
Click on Bill's latest column. Think this is last day of this piece about Moore as it will be replaced by another column.
I loked paragraph 5 because it contains Moore's own worfs he gave in an ABC interview on June 20.

Excellent article by Mr. O'Reilly. When the LA Times and NY Times discount Moore's stuff as fiction, you know it is. Perhaps it will be nominated for "Best Comedy" at the MTV Movie Awards.

[PaceAdvantage]

But CJ, O'Reilly only saw half the movie (half more than me, of course), so nothing he says counts.

;)

[Steve 'StatMan']

Interesting! On the moorelies.com website, they offer a free download of F 9/11, if you scroll down far enough. Technically with Moore's blessing, cause they quote from an interview with him which said he didn't agree with copyright laws, and that no, he didn't mind if people downloaded the movie for free. So, this anti-moore site has posted a link for it. LOL! And at this point, I'm not downloading a copy of it.

One of the other ones has made a transcript of the movie, because, as they put it, Moore refuses to release one. That too is available. I think it is on the moorewatch website.

As for me, too much work to do right now. Will consider later. Thanks for sharing those links GT. Spent far too much time getting worked up about all this already.