Slashdot Mirror

Actually, interestingly, the Fox News version of the article is the most alarmist I've seen.

CNN's is a calming "North Korea cloud 'not nuke blast'"

AP/Reuters is a neutral "Blast, Mushroom Cloud Reported in N. Korea"

Fox's is a worrysome "North Korea Might Have Tested Nuke"

"It remains unclear whether it was a deliberately planned nuclear test or it was just an accident," the source in Seoul told Yonhap. "But it doesn't seem to be an ordinary explosion."

The democrats are currently way too controlled by people seriously running around claiming Bush is worse than Hitler.

What a joke! Who is saying this? Please show me an elected democrat, democrat running for office, or democratic party official who said anything like this. You can't take an internet message board and say that it represents the party leadership.

This is just the most recent example, which I ran across earlier today:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131946,00.html

Sticker-y Situation?

Republicans in Minnesota including Sen. Norm Coleman are calling on John Kerry to condemn an, "outrageous and offensive" bumper sticker they say was handed out by the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (search) the state's largest political party.

Copies of the sticker, which says, "Bush/Cheney: Most hated world leaders since Hitler," were mailed to the party's headquarters and briefly exhibited on a desk.

Republicans say a staffer they sent to the headquarters was given a sticker, but Democrats insist they had nothing to do with the sticker and never distributed it and accuse Republicans of a, "pathetic set-up."

(DFL is what Minnesota Democrats call themselves for some odd reason.)

You know, there are a lot of misinformed individuals around the world that say all kinds of slanderous things about America and Americans. I think all of us can usually turn the other cheek, etc. with the knowledge that these people haven't met real Americans, or just don't know all the facts. With the advent of Fox News, I have to be embarrassed for our country when these foreigners criticize the American media as being propaganda.

For so many years, we were able to point fingers at Russia with its state-run Pravda and contrast our freedom to their oppression. More recently we all got a laugh from the Iraqi information minister holding press conferences telling obvious lies, etc. But I must wonder, how does it look for our media (Fox News) to employ Oliver North to cover the war in Iraq? This guy was a military officer convicted of obstructing Congress and now he's working as a journalist? Everytime I see him on tv, I cringe knowing that to people around the world he represents America as well as that goof Iraq information minister did.

This is how our current mainstream political climate functions one of attack on character with use of a language of contradiction. Moore is engaging in that language of contradictions. All his ideas are not without merit infact I find many of them briliant, but he is engaged in a language of attacks, name-calling and taking sides. This approach diminishes his capacity for contradiction-free intellectually convincing arguments, but simultaneously allows him to be become a successful information distributor making millions of dollars reaching a large audience spawning websites that criticism/attack him etc. just like his parallels on the "right".

Christopher Hitchens pice can be compared to Al Franken book where he rips apart Ann Cultures work via an array of contradictory "facts". But I wonder how productive it is to buy into this Michael Moore bashing, I did not finish Al Frankens book because of its endless attacks of character statments rather then systemic analysis, which was entertaining but not intellectually convincing. When people ask question like why does Michael Moore hate America they are not really dealing with any ideas he might have presented, rather are engaged in endless mindless attack gibberish. In that way their criticism adopts Moores language and often fails to impress. Not that Hitchens piece was not well written, its just that it points out what should be obvious. Moore is presenting a biased one-sided perspective and from the opposite side of that perspective it is going to seem like he is sadistically lying like crazy, from a perspective with some shared values, it is going to look like he is using selective information and engaged in the language of those he is criticizing.

I don't understand why people expect to get contradiction free political commentary from someone that is admittedly bias and is perusing has a stated agenda. At least he does not say he is objective like some entities seem to be capable of claiming.

Oreilly vs Moore can help illustrates this:)

So Fox News is now the "liberal" press?

False reporting is a crime. If the school authorities had no credible evidence of a gun, and no verifiable witness report, I'd say they are on very shaky legal grounds. I had thought it would be a cold day in hell before a sheriff arrested a school principal for reporting any kind of violence at school, no matter how remote the threat, but then I learned that a Chicago principal got arrested for falsely reporting a gun at school. I couldn't imagine this happening in a small town, only a big city where cops have real crime to deal with. I'd say not only does this guy have a shot at a lawsuit against the school (retaliation, unreasonable search, false reporting, defamation of character, emotional trauma, denial of education, etc.), but he should try to get the principal criminally charged. Wasting police time on a blatantly false crime report hurts society as a whole, and could even put someone's life at stake if there were a real emergency at the same time.

The swift vets are also behind the anti-Kerry best seller, "Unfit for Command," which has already forced Team Kerry to retract his decades-old claim that he was sent on an illegal covert mission to Cambodia on Christmas 1968.

Kerry's own handpicked historian, Douglas Brinkley, told the Washington Post over the weekend that Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia claim is "obviously wrong," backing up a key claim by the swift vets who say it never happened.

Kerry at times has claimed that he only threw away his military ribbons and not his medals at anti-war protests, but the swift vets use video uncovered by ABC News that shows him saying he did in fact toss his own medals.

Here is another Kerry claim that is withering:

A primary claim against Mr. Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans is that Mr. Kerry's first Purple Heart -- awarded for action on Dec. 2, 1968 -- did not involve the enemy and that Mr. Kerry's wounds that day were unintentionally self-inflicted.

They charge that in the confusion involving unarmed, fleeing Viet Cong, Mr. Kerry fired a grenade, which detonated nearby and splattered his arm with hot metal.
Mr. Kerry has claimed that he faced his "first intense combat" that day, returned fire, and received his "first combat related injury."
A journal entry Mr. Kerry wrote Dec. 11, however, raises questions about what really happened nine days earlier.
"A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky," wrote Mr. Kerry, according the book "Tour of Duty" by friendly biographer Douglas Brinkley.
If enemy fire was not involved in that or any other incident, according to the Military Order of the Purple Heart, no medal should be awarded.

And more:

None of Kerry's three Purple Hearts was for serious injuries. They were minor scratches, resulting in no lost duty time.

Each of these decorations is controversial, with considerable evidence (and in two cases, incontrovertible and conclusive evidence) that the injuries were caused by his own hand and not the result of hostile fire.

You should also be clear that not all of the veterans who have spoken out and revealed information contrary to John Kerry's claims are members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

And then there is John Kerry's testimony before Congress in 1971, which was a masterpiece of political theater in the service of lies.

It is also interesting to note that while you will hear endlessly repeated that the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth are funded by rich Republicans which means this:

But public records show that two of its three main backers are longtime GOP contributors: Bob Perry, a Texas home builder who gave $100,000, and Harlan Crow, a Dallas real estate executive, who gave $25,000.... The third major backer is John O'Neill, who put up $25,000 and is co-author of the group's book.

.. what you won't hear is that the seed money was followed up by a lot of people making small individual contributions:

But the swift-boat veterans have vowed to continue their ad campaign and have raised more than $2 million in contributions, a

"that the time when you don't trust the government might be a few days too late to do anything."

I imagine that I will get flamed for this, but I think the statement above is very true, esp. concerning England. Personal ownership of fire arms is a much easier and, in my opinion, much more effective way of preventing crime. Violent crime in Britian as risen greatly since the fire arm ban. Bobbies are now being issued guns. If you want crime to go away, get guns in the hands of the citizens.

Just to show I am not talking out of my ass.

Apparently Violent Gun Crime has gone up 20% in the last year

" Later in the week the home secretary is to host a summit on tackling gun crime, which figures due out on Thursday are expected to show has risen sharply......It is expected the figures will show a 20% increase in firearm offences in England and Wales."

Another article from the BBC about it

Another Article

Heu Fox News gets in on the action too, you decide!

In all fairness, I have tried to include several sources and not just gun nut sites in the US. Flame away

The alternatives to the mainstream media already exist, and people that want alternatives readily find them. Barriers to entry simply are not an issue with the media. Sure it may irritating to be bombarded by the Scott Peterson trial and all but thats why I read magazines like The Economist. If I was a right wing wackjob, I would get a subscription to National Review or watch Fox News listen to Rush on the air, and if I was a far left loon, I would be reading IndyMedia.

The local newsstand generally has all of these publications from all ends of the political spectrum. Hell, the Maoist international newspaper (which regularly denounces modern China as a far right regime that betrayed Mao's legacy) floats around where I live. While I do find sensationalism in the media irriating, I believe that this demonstrates that barriers to entry are simply not an issue. It might be different if you want to make a living, but frankly broadband will not help that.

Having said all that, assuming that I'm wrong and barriers to entry are an issue, why do you think that we will become more liberal? It seems that for every 60% tax ceiling universal healthcare type, you have a gun nut or a religious wacko.

How about that cite. Whoops:
Star Cite

Maybe Bush isn't allowing Dem's in because of things like This are happening today, or the guys beating the cop half to death yesterday, or people lying in wait at these conventions who pretend to be a part of it, then jump out like they did at the 9/11 hearings. over and over again these liberal nutcases lose their minds and wonder why they aren't allowed in.. And here you are to act like you're the victims.. yeah buddy, sure.

I just spent mod points to make this post cause everyone was chiming in agreeing with you and groupthink annoys me to all hell.

Stop acting like all Repub's are out to turn us into a police state and napalm the country, you're just as frickin stupid as the other side who calls you all socialists.

It's like the soldier who's ordered to commit war crimes. What do you do? It's in no way you're fault - but you're in a lose - lose situation.

Yes, it sucks, but ultimately you AND your superiors are responsible. It is better to be punished for doing the right thing than to do the wrong thing and be rewarded. Cowardice and fear are no excuse for committing injustices or allowing them to be committed.

Oh, and regarding your sig: al Qaeda endorsed Bush.

Your other statement that led me to believe you do not watch O'Reilly's show is the one about Ann Coulter being a regular guest.

I never said she was a regular on O'Reilly. She is a regular guest on Fox as this link shows.

Ann Coulter on Fox

If you follow the rules, no matter what those rules tell you to do, then the responsibility for what happens falls on those who wrote the rules and made the list. The agent is not responsible.

I can think of a counter-example or two.

Ah, but what is he lying about? I think you've been listening to the propaganda too long if you think Kerry is the 'ultimate traitor'; he has differeing views to be sure, but that hardly makes him a traitor. Can you point out why you think he's a traitor?

IMNSHO you guys need to tone down the rhetoric down there. You end up with right-wing liars and left-wing liars, and for some reason you think you have to swear allegiance to one of them...

Which is, of course, why you should go with Instant Runoff Voting. Have more than two REAL candidates! Never waste another vote! Wanna vote for Buchanan but would rather get Bush then Kerry? You can EXPRESS THAT!

Disclosure: I don't like Kerry, but I think Bush is a well-meaning but incompetent president, controlled by a group of vile sons of bitches. So feel free to call me a pinko commie Liberal and all that if you like, but there's no need to post it.

Anyway, I'm sure I've sown enough seeds of sedition here...

Yea ... it's hard work typing www.bbc.co.ukinstead of www.foxnews.com. Oh wait, no it's not. www.bbc.co.uk has 2 fewer letters in it.

Or news.google.com, it has just as many letters as fox news.

I think you are confusing censorship with propaganda. Propganda is when the governemnt colors the truth and the media reports it because they don't know of anything else. Censorship is shutting down newspapers that refuse to print the propaganda or print stories in contradiction to it. I seem to recall many news articles reporting on the not-so-silver lining of the war, as they continue to do so.

As every God fearing, christian, patriotic, white, American (God bless her), middle aged male knows it's FOXaroundtheworld@foxnews.com at the Fair And Balanced (tm) news reporting agency of Fox News

Boing Boing has another Disney story today. A Fox News interview went on the attack over the new Disney PC. In a strange conspiratorial twist, he linked Gay Days at the theme parks with the new Disney children's computer. I never would have put those two together myself.

Futures markets are attractive mostly because the perception of the group is so often accurate. This reminds me of something I heard on NPR a few weeks back. Here's the link

They were interviewing the author of this book about how the average of guesses made by a crowd of normal people compared favorably to those made by lone geniuses.

I imagine that there was similar reasoning behind the Pentagon's recent terrorism futures market. Of course what they didn't predict was that most people would find it disgusting and they would have to shut it down as a result.

SharkJumper

Case in point: Brandon Mayfield of Oregon, implicated in the Madrid, Spain train bombings because his fingerprint somehow supposedly matched one found on related bomb-making materials. For that, he got a couple of weeks in jail before the misidentification was admitted by the FBI and he was released.

See also this link from which you can read this scary part:

"According to court documents, FBI agents began their surveillance of Mayfield two weeks after the attacks in the Spanish capital. Under a provision of the U.S. Patriot Act, they entered his home without his knowledge -- but aroused the family's suspicion by bolting the wrong lock on their way out and leaving a footprint on the rug that didn't match any family members."

Yup, the Patriot Act. And if you read the rest of the article, it only gets worse (e.g., the FBI denies that he among 15 possible matches was targetted because he happened to be Muslim).

Cases like this make me loath to turn over my fingerprint to any organization to put into some huge database where false positives are a known possibility. Law officials should have no right to that kind of information until and unless they have some reason to specifically classify someone as a suspect. Without that, fingerprints should only be a voluntary way to expidite identification (like the iris prints that are offered at some airports). Fingerprinting every entry is stupid. I leave fingerprints everywhere I go in a day. If some object later turns out to be involved in some incidental way with a crime (e.g., maybe I leaned against a car in a street that later was involved in a robbery, or maybe I used the same public phone as a criminal), am I going to get some late-night visit from the police because my name turned up in a big database? What's next? Turn over a DNA sample so they can identify every bit of skin or hair I or someone else might have sloughed off during the day?

The Bush government's fixation on Saddam is purely political, nastier dictators exist, as do greater threats to the US (N. Korea, for example).

So you don't consider Saddam planning attacks in the US a threat?

Additionally we know he had a relationship with our #1 enemy and directly funding terrorist attacks against our ally, Israel.

You can argue at what point it is judicious to go to war, but I fail to see how you can justify the action as "purely political".

Ahh... no. The broadcast technology used isn't the only bottleneck. Ya see, Joe's Local News (very like Slashdot) can give it's own spin on what other people have reported, but doesn't have the resources to do original in-depth investigations or global on-site work. How can Joe KNOW what's happening in Baghdad? Of course, he can see what Adbul's Local News is putting up, but this requires a similarly capable Abdul (unlikely in a 2nd/3rd World war zone), and that Abdul be putting out something on speaking terms with reliable information.

Of course, as DV cameras become more common, you have more potential (unpaid) freelancers near anything that comes out. Add in VASTLY more bandwidth to the home than currently common (say, FTTDoor), combine with current antiquated Usenet technology and the creation of the alt.binaries.multimedia.news-footage.* group/subheirarchy... you might get some interesting possibilities for Joe's news. But we're nowhere near the DVCam or Bandwidth capacity needed for this yet. And, gee, some of the current providers of Bigass Bandwidth have business ties to current Media Giants. Hrem.

10 years bare minimum, if ever.

There is no need to mix sceptic thinking-for-ourselves with truly wacko statements. Believing in a staged assassination of JFK, a less-than-complete explanation for Oklahoma or 9-11 is a whole lot different than believing in tooth fairies and the moon hoax. If all these issues seems all *identically* nerdy and unthinkable to you, please keep reading FoxNews and don't commit further thought crimes writing about it.

Actually, it is even more devious that what you say. What made the "Dean Scream" seem crazy is the fact that news networks played the audio that came straight from the soundboard. This is significant. Now, who do you think was the first to play that direct-from-soundboard audio?
A lot of the clips and audio from the scream, you hear exactly NO audience and NO other noise other than Dean. If you watch the ACTUAL video (which is very hard to find and wasnt played nearly at all) the 'Dean Scream' seems completely harmless and normal.

A good analogy is this: Its like when you are in your car, turn up the music real loud and sing along. Then hit pause but keep singing. Yeah.....

Maybe it woulda helped bush get a better score than 1206 on ye ol SATs.

See kids, you only need 1200 or so to get into Yale!
And you can be white too!
And have lots of money!
And... then bask in your own stupidity later!

Who said de educatin wasnt good in america?

And of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but tell me, what exactly gives the USA the right to force theirs on other countries? because that is exactly what the current foreign policy comes down to. You'd agree with other countries doing the same to the USA? (provided they'd have the power to do so)

I would have preferred that Bush would have emphasized getting rid of Saddam more than WMD, but I can see why he did it. If he had concentrated on the "Getting rid of Saddam" part he would have been in a much better situation now. But, it is unlikely that he would have garnered enough support without WMDs. And the US has found chemical weapons. Not many, but more than none

Penn. State University Made roughly the same deal a few months ago with Napster... Even tried a pilot launch of it last semester ... actually was probably a test for wide-scale launch with othre colleges/universities, like this one...

Not really anything new... but nice to see this kinda thing is getting attention... I stoped downloading (as many) songs when I tried Napster... but napster doesn't have all the songs, even from 'main stream' bands...

Just to protect myself though, now that I'm outta college with a job(and money), I just buy the CD's and rip em... saves me legal issues...

I think the RIAA is a bit too up-tight about fining people who don't have money.. then again, CD's arn't cheap, and I only buy them because I get discounts on CD's with my roomate working at Circuit City....

and the polls they put on thier site are not polls, they're PUSH POLLS.

I just did go to fox's front page and thier poll results are viewable from everyday since may 17th, you can read the results by Click Here for past poll results , they don't hide the ones they don't want you to see like SOME networks. Try going to fox news and read the front page yourself. But if you go to CNN you see only 3 polls unlike FOX having 36, all of the CNN ones which by the way are about kerry and edwards being great! Just try finding the Results for CNN's "quick vote" they do everyday, I couldn't. FoX's are right next to the 'vote' link

I read on fox news the other day FOX isn't allowed in Canada. Maybe you have nothing called a 'patroit act' but it sure looks like you have your own freedom of speech problems in that case doesn't it? Also a poll shows 40% of Canadian teenagers hate the United States. Why should we send you jobs? Your country keeps benifiting from being next to one of, if not the strongest nation in the world but this 'friendship' seems to only go one way. I wouldn't give canada anything until they start helping us (or anyone in the world for that matter)

Incase someone reads this before its modded down the article I got that stuff from is here

From the article: The chip can't be removed, but will be deactivated after Macedo's term as attorney general expires, he said.

Now, did Mexico implant 160 government employees with non-removable chips at the behest of the Bush Administration?

According to Fox News (emphasis orthogonal's):

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration announced Tuesday [6 July 2004] that it has resumed sharing a wide range of financial information with Mexico with the aim of trying to catch money launderers (search), drug dealers and terrorist financiers.

In April, the United States had suspended sharing such information with Mexico, dealing a blow to cross-border crime fighting, which had resulted in the arrests of several high-profile drug lords.

The U.S. government did so after sensitive information provided by the [U.S.] Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network was leaked by Mexican officials. After the suspension, the network outlined a set of steps that Mexico should take before the United States would agree to resume information-sharing.

The Treasury Department said Tuesday that Mexico has since taken steps to safeguard sensitive financial information it receives from the United States and other countries.

Regarding intelligence failures:
Off the top of your head, tell me how many intelligence successes occur annually? No, don't go looking to the media (not even FoxNews...). No, don't even ask Congress.

Can't think of many, right?

By unofficial definition a true "intelligence success" will never be public knowledge. We, as the general public, have no idea of the staggeringly high number of times intelligence has saved our lives. Ironically, we know all too well a sickening amount of detail from such clusterf$%@s that led to 9/11, the U.S.S Cole bombing, etc.

If we had any clue as to how many "intelligence successes" have saved us from destruction/distress we would probably be scared to get out of bed. We should all be thankful that people are out there working to make sure we don't have to hide under the covers quaking in fear.

You wanted some sources? OK:

• Bureau of Labor and Statistics lists plenty of information on employment/unemployment. Take a look at the historical unemployment rates and whip out a calculator. For '92 to '00 I calculate unemployment to an average of 6.1% -- Nothing wrong with that. That's a very healthy unemployment rate and I couldn't complain, but when you compare that with the current rate quoted at 5.6%, a lot of complaints about the current administration's unemployment rate lose their ability to hold water.

• I see 214,000 jobs added last month. That's bad?

• As for the economic theory, I am a firm believer in Keynesian economics as well as the ideas of John Hicks.

• Bankrate.com has some great information and graphical representations of historical rates and economic indicators. Take a look and let me know how you feel about the current indicators?

• If you want a look at how other people are thanklessly putting their lives on the line for my safety and yours, and hence why they command my utmost respect and gratitude to the extent that I refuse to acknowledge intelligence failures, read Book Of Honor by Ted Gup.

Sorry, no references to anything on the Washington Times, FoxNews, the Washington Post, PBS.org, antiwar.com, or thenation.com. Call me crazy, but I like my data unbiased.

That's all for now.

Are you kidding? That's saving the environment. In the words of "the greatest man who ever lived," "trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.

I can't say I've looked at that (or rather that "this") but I do know that if we lower the voting age enough, my 3 year son would be right there to vote for Buzz Lightyear. He'd take us to infinity and beyond!

I mean, yeah, children are our future and all, but come on.

Doesn't the government have better things to do?

Uh, no.

Actually, between large numbers parents who vote (and organize themselves into pressure groups), and the large numbers of twentysomethings who don't vote, and teenagers who *can't* vote, who do you think makes a more effective pressure group? Who do you think the guv'mint will try to pander to?

Off topic: I've been reading this and been wondering about how much of this "won't someone think of the children" crap would still exist if legal age for voting was 14 or 15.

Hatch says such firms 'think that they can legally profit by inducing children to steal. Some think they can legally lure children into breaking the law with false promises of "free music."'

...and they'll still go after the kid...

...he said that such a rocket could launch a spy satellite that could be the one that starts a war, so he still thinks it's justified to call satellite-launching rockets "weapons of mass destruction".

It's not really surprising. When people in your country, and amongst your ruling administration think an artillery shell constitutes a weapon of mass destruction then I think Michael Moore can call a huge **cking missile one too.

If all these Michael Moore detractors spent as much time fact checking the people he is attacking... Oh wait, I forgot. Bush jnr doesn't lie, he is just "dis-associated from reality".

We propped Saddam up for a very long time...

No we didn't. A long time ago the U.S. provided some information to Saddam when he was at war with Iran. This was during the period when Iran was holding a few Americans hostage. So one instance of us helping Iraq in a rather minor role is considered propping him up?

After the first Gulf War, we certainly did NOT prop him up. We tried everything we could to get rid of him, but interference from Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, and others via the UN prevented us from doing anything. During that time, Saddam did a little bit of "house cleaning" and murdered entire villages.

the sanctions we imposed on Iraq were quite atrocious

I suggest you read up on the scandle going on this very moment. It turns out many high ranking UN officials were reaping millions in profits through bribery and skimming from the Oil-For-Food program. They are currently scrambling like cockroaches to cover it up, and that evil fucktard Kofi Annan is up to his neck in the corruption.

I read The Economist. The articles are well-written and insightful and, since it's published in London, you get a non-US perspective which is hard to find these days. Also, it doesn't try to be exclusively conservative or liberal (not that there's anything wrong with that -- I read Salon too).

They do tend to see free-market capitalism as the cure for everything. I don't really have a problem with this (in fact, market-based solutions often work in places you might not expect them to), but it's something to keep in mind when you read the magazine.

In the right circumstances, I fully support preemptive war, just as I endorse police officers not waiting until they're shot at to shoot back (as a former SWAT officer, I've personal experience with this one).

I don't like the way you conflated preemptory bombing of another nation with police action on the street. Presumably the officer is in a situation where there is elevated tension and has to make split second decisions. I can't think of a single situation where we need to bomb another nation that hasn't made any offensive moves toward us where we need split second decision making. No, in the case of one nation making war on another, the utmost care and thought should go into this decision.

In the case of Iraq, what threat was being preempted?

Intelligence is often nothing more than a best guess.

No, actually, in the intelligence gathering community of the U.S. government things are a good deal more scientific than that. The problem is that the intelligence community was giving answers that the recipients didn't like. The administration had already chosen their objectives and were looking for anything to support this predetermined outcome. Intelligence doesn't work like that.

Avoid torturing? Good advice, and probably followed by the vast, overwhelming majority. But defining torture

No, actually, torture is very well defined by treaties of which the U.S. is a signatory, is illegal, and the MP corps is very well trained on what they are not allowed to do.

The US Justice Department, at the behest of the administration, was seeking legal justification to suspend those treaties. Donald Rumsfeld is of the opinion that authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

Rumsfeld approved of 14 torture methods in various memos. Too bad that our 'leaders' are letting the peons in this situation take all the heat. What ever happened with the buck stopping at the commander in chief?

Now I don't know about you, but when the highest levels of our government are approving of torture and using the Nuremberg trials as precedent, it disgusts me. This shouldn't even be something that needs to be on the table. It certainly isn't something that I expect from the "leader of the free world".

Remember, my whole point was that we create more hatred for ourselves when we act badly. How many little Osamas have been created by our atrocities?

If the war in Iraq was truly about liberation, then any number of other sovereign states should've had priority.

Like...? I don't recall this ever being the sole purpose in going to Iraq.

If the war in Iraq was about "weapons of mass destruction", then we would've found some by now.

(1) There is a lot of sand in Iraq, which means a lot of hiding places. If you have ever lost anything in something as small as a beach, imagine the scale involved with a "beach" that is 167,924 square miles. (2) Saddam was not above "hiding" weapons (of any sort) in cemetaries and hospitals, so the number of places that one could expect to find anything pretty-much jumped to every square inch of the region. (3) Fox News and an ABC affiliate report on the fact that the United Nations found missile engines and other parts that were suited for the purpose of making WMDs in a scrap heap in Jordan. The source of all this metal? IRAQ.

If the war in Iraq was about "ties to al-qaeda", then we should've hit the Saudis first, 15 of the 19 highjackers on 9-11 were Saudis.

That's flawed reasoning. One should not condemn a nation based on the nationality of a criminal. Acting on a nation based on the actions of its Head of State is something quite different.

If the war was waged simply to procure cheap oil, then companies such as Haliburton would be clocking obscene profits in Iraq right now...

No, we'd be doing something to shut the mouths of people against drilling in the protected lands within the US. I agree that we should protect the land, so that environmental damage is minimized as much as possible, so don't think for a second that I'm in favor of drilling. By the same token, when the entire world is quite capable of watching the corporate goings-on (especially with regard to oil), I would hope that companies (like Haliburton) have the smarts to avoid doing something so blatently stupid. We all know, however, that not everyone thinks things through before acting...

Having said all this, I think that Moore has every right to think what he wants to think, and to make films based on these if that's how he wants to spend his time, even if it means people paying him for his extremist views. HOWEVER, for a pompous self-rightous man like him to put something like "Fahrenheit 9/11" in the same realm as a documentary when it offers absolutely no counter point is foolish and irrisponsible.

At least one person who should know agrees(*). If Moore was really so anxious about telling the truth (as he wants us to believe), I would like to see his take on the military prowress of Kerry, especially as it relates to Iraq.

* Link to http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/ doesn't seem to work through the preview...

Insugents seek Saddam's chemical weapons. -- CIA has found chemical weapons in Iraq.

Story 1 about bin Laden and a possible Saddam connection, Story 2

Al-Qaeda and Iraq, Atta and Iraq, Sarin and Mustard gas in Iraq.

As well as the fact that Saddam killed a million of his own people, plus the number of UN resolutions he was in violation of.

Tests conducted by the Iraqi Survey Group (search) -- a U.S. organization searching for weapons of mass destruction -- and others concluded the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective."

But, really, in the end, not seeing "F9/11" would be like allowing your First Amendment rights to be abrogated, no matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat.

For one, he canceled an interview with Fox News at the last minute.

I am unable to find any information on this claim; nor do you give his reason for canceling the interview. There could have been many reasons, and greater people than him have canceled interviews before. (Most such interviews are not paid, so if he had something better to do, I don't blame him.)

Fox News actually gave Fahrenheit 911 a very favorable review.

Sure, he gave $25,000 to the families of every Palestinian suicide bomber.

Saddam hated Osama each other more than Bush hates either of them.

While Saddam and Osama may have hated each other, they did agree on attacking the Saudis.

Unable to debate the issues, so you throw out lame insults?

1. Saddam moved them out so we wouldn't find them. If you were a dictator and had Sarin and mustard gas, wouldn't you hide or ship them outside borders if you knew someone was coming to look?

2. Well, we're finding them anyways. WMD exist in Iraq. There used to be more. Ask the people in the mass graves if they were gassed. Or ask the ones with deformities.

Or maybe you'd like to plead for Saddams release so he can go take over an island somewhere and you can go live under him.

Congratulations, North Korea. You've finally worked out that America is a warmongering nation with an extensive corporate propaganda system operating through movies, news media and even video games.

This is not news. Many of us noticed this years ago. And picking a French-made video game as an example just makes the whole thing seem ludicrous to the US citizens who could stop the whole process if they really wanted to.

Is that so?

Story here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123343,00.html