Slashdot Mirror
Celsius 41.11: A Rebuttal to Michael Moore
deezl writes "Michael Moore released a controversial movie revealing 'facts' about the Bush Presidency. A new rebuttal has just been released called Celsius 41.11. I would think that time sensitive political commentaries would be available for download to ensure the widest possible distribution base. If documentary makers are so interested in getting their message out and arguments across, why not encourage free BitTorrent type distribution for their movies?"
Michael Moore DID encourage downloading of his movie via Bittorrent, and other means.
-9mm-
The video has some shocking content. The worst was a clip of a kid getting his fingers chopped off. That almost made me ralph with the hangover I have this morning.
Vonnegut was right: Of all the words of mice and men, the saddest are, "It might have been."
There are no facts here or there or anywhere. There is only Zoul.
Seriously, neither film is unbiased so those with an interest in a particular one pretty much know which way they are voting.
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
Nothing like loading /. in the browser and seeing what at first glance appears to be your own rather obscure domain name in the first story next to "Michael Moore".
/.
Note to self: have more coffee before logging on
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
Having not particularly been impressed, well with any of Moore's movies, and having seen this. I'm filled with new found respect for Moore. They manage to make the tubby hack look, well pretty subtle and tactful. I'm not sure how they pulled that off....
I like how they equate even rudimentary social programs with out of control totalitarianism.
I mean I was a *little* tired of the latest excuse for liberating Iraq, "What you though Hussein was a nice person, well why do *you* live with him?" But seriously, they're making the obvious response, as grim and undignified as it is, look ever more appropriate.
And as I read this again from a different perspective, perhaps deezl was calling out the makers of Celsius 41.11 because if you go to their site, no where does it say where or how or even if you can download their movie. Just lists how to get the DVD.
So maybe he's saying that Celsius 41.11 isn't true? Or is he saying that Michael Moore isn't true?
Just WTF is deezl saying? Or is he saying anything?
Or maybe to quote Mongo: "deezl just pawn in game of life".
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
Not only that, Citizens United is renting a theater in my hometown to show it for free. I guess that's the only way to get anyone to come if it's free. I wonder if the theater will bill them extra for having the coke syrup and bits of popcorn cleaned off the screen when they're done.
Incidentally, the same theater charged for F9/11 with numerous soldout screenings.
Unknown host pong.
Wow. Only eight comments so far. I'm actually kind of sad about that. Do you guys have any idea what this thread would look like already on Fark?
I wonder how many people (like me) are reluctant to post in Political threads because we will undoubtedly lose karma in the process. There are only so many (-1) flamebait posts I want to see next to my name, you know?
--
shut up barjockey, you cock
Micheal Moore had to walk a thin line concerning net distribution of the movie. If he had openly endorsed it, it would have been disqualified from the Academy Awards. By merely tolerating it, he was able to keep the Oscar hopes alive.
Granted, the Oscar may not seem like much, but it is important to the producers and the financial backers.
Bush really didn't sit there on 9/11 like a useless moron for 7 minutes as the nation was under attack?
That bastard Michael Moore!!!!
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
Some notes on David Bossie.
What's up with the name.... Fahrenheit 911 was, at least, a very witty title on a lot of levels. This is just stupid. The temperature the brain starts to die???? Do they know this from personal experience with our current President? Or from all our soldiers standing in a foreign desert far away from their families. Michael Moore may well be a left-leaning spin-doctor but at least he's good at it. If Bush actually wants four more years he's going to have to do a little better than this.
Two new films offer a rebuttal to the slanted views of Michael Moore. Michael Moore Hates America and FahrenHYPE 9/11 . Both are due to be released to DVD on October 5th to coincide with the DVD release of Fahrenheit 9/11. I have yet to see either of these films, but the trailers look compelling.
For an detailed rebuttal of Fahrenheit 9/11 read Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 .
More people saw the movie in the theatres than have ever seen anything from BitTorrent. And most studios won't pay to promote a movie if it is going to be given a way.
Studio release and publicity IS the best way to get the message out.
Let me explain. Once you look past Mr. Moore's biased you'll see that the film is doing nothing more than asking the question that should have been asked by the media we already have in place. The media failed to do so, thus we have Moore's film filling in where they came up short. Does he get somethings wrong? Your goddamn right he does, but it doesn't mean we should ignore him completely.
Now the same can be said for the rebuttal. Moore's obviously put his own spin on things (as he should) after all, all he's doing is connecting dots to make a point. He most likely went overboard with some of his assumptions. Now I haven't seen the new movie yet, but lets hope it fills the holes in Moore's movie and is not just an outright attack on Moore (I hope this makes my own biased completely clear).
This shouldn't have to be said, but everyone should watch both movies and then make up their own minds.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
911 in Plain Sight has an interesting DVD (scroll down to [Movies - DVD-R] 911 In Plane Site ,excelent new docu...)
And here is a good commentary & rebuttal
Peace
--
ALL civilizations eventually collapse.
Or are you that ignorant and arrogant to assume that yours won't?
Why?
"The more corrupt the republic, the more numerous the laws" -- Tacitus, A.D. 55
They must be forced to use exceptionally accurate thermometers in hospitals in the rest of the world. Who would have guessed that they must measure down to 1/100th of a degree! It just makes it clear to me that metric is the wrong way to go.
On an unrelated note, I have to ask why they had so many photos of planes flying into buildings, women in burkas, and the attack on the USS Cole. But all of the voiceover was eerily disconnected from the images. They kept talking about Iraq, while showing images from an unrelated war a half a world away in Afghanistan.
What's the deal with that? Why would anyone want to relate Afghanistan and Iraq?
I hate Bush and his whole administration, but I cannot hold up Moore's film as anything other than highly misleading propoganda. He did way more than "put his own spin on things".
For example, he shows a clip of some politician claiming "and we've set up an 800 number so you can call us and complain," and inserts a little subtitle claiming "this isn't true." The truth is that the phone number was (and still is) a 1-888 number, which is just as toll-free as 1-800 numbers are. But because (int)888 != (int)800, Moore tells us that the "800 number" statement is false, and implies that the entire statement is a lie.
Another example: Moore makes a big stink over only one member of Congress with a child enlisted in the military in Iraq. What Moore carefully leaves out is all the Congresscritters with children deployed elsewhere, or not yet deployed, or -- this is the nice one -- serving as officers in Iraq. The latter don't count, see, because they're not enlisted. Moore deliberately relies on audience members to hear "enlisted in the military" and include all ranks and services at once.
The most balanced objective take on the file I've seen so far is the point by point list of deceits.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
I knew a lot of people too closed minded to go out and see Fahrenheit 9/11. Hopefully, this movie's hype will allow them to take a look behind the curtain and see how ignorant they are of politics, war, and the economy. Whatever the motive, I think watching some kid get his fingers chopped off has to make you stop and think about the world around you.
---
We all know that BOTH sides spin the truth and they both just want to win.
---
Which, of course, is what the side telling the lies wants you to believe.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Sorry, you wanted the plain-text version did you?
Here you go:
Good stuff ehh?
No Comment.
There's doing nothing. (What happened)
There's running around in a panic. (What is suggested here as THE alternative.)
Then again...
I got the official 9/11 report for my birthday. I haven't had time to read it, but I have cracked it a little. I've also read another minute-by-minute account of the morning of 9/11, backed up by source links.
The *real* crime of 9/11 had nothing to do with Bush, but rather with the link between the FAA and NORAD. FAA rules state that NORAD is to be notified immediately of all hijackings. There was a delay of nearly 1/2 hour between recognition of the first hijacking and NORAD acknowledgement. (This is from the other report, I need to verify this in the 9/11 report.)
Next, in that first hour or so after the hijacking there appeared to be mass confusion between ATC and NORAD. There was uncertainty about how many hijackings, who should be looking where for what, etc. (Still from the other report.)
Finally, within the space of a few minutes, the first jet hit the WTC, and the other 3 jets were hijacked. (From the 9/11 report) We were a half-hour into the confusion, with another half-hour to go, by which time the whole thing was pretty well over, except for the shouting.
I don't know if anything could have been done to stop the first jet, after the hijacking. Ignoring the intelligence leading up to 9/11 is a different issue. But about the time one jet has crashed into a building and 3 more are known hijacked, we should have been into Full Response, instead of confusion.
What would I want Bush to have done? Put someone in Charge. He was probably too far out of the loop, in Florida. But he should have put someone in Charge to tie together ATC, NORAD, and whoever else was appropriate.
But then again, the famed 7-minute pause was *after* the 2nd jet crashed into the WTC. So even had he calmly stood up, excused himself, and taken/delegated control, it was too late. There's some question about whether or not he heard about the first jet hitting the WTC prior to entering the school. There's some question about those in the White House delaying feeding him info for 10 minutes or so. The findings: "A Failure of Imagination." Whatever happened to Truman's, "The Buck Stops Here?"
The machine called "The US Government" had multiple failures that day. In fact, the only correct, effective response was by passengers. Grounding all air traffic was correct, and might have been effective had there been more jets-as-missiles planned, and did serve to restart air traffic with better security.
Back to Moore... It's so fun to tear down 1-800 vs 1-888, and Enlisted vs Officers, etc that we just lose track of the other points where the facts were less tilted and more clear. The less disputed facts raise perhaps the more important questions, yet recieve little focus.
But then that's been the way of this whole election cycle.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
So *Salon* is your resource for unbiased analysis? Listen to this lead they write:
Partisan hack David Bossie raised political sliming to an art form against Bill Clinton. Now he's out to smear John Kerry and Michael Moore. Why does anyone in the media still take him seriously?
Partisan hack? Raised political sliming to an art form? Now out to smear [a presidential candidate]?
Sounds like a description of Michael Moore. Funny that Salon didn't mention that part, being Journalists with such high professional standards and all.
Why does anyone in the media still take him seriously?
I wonder the same about Salon. Oh, wait, they ARE the media.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Unknown host pong.
Fact about Fahrenheit 9/11: It has been extraordinarily successful, grossing a fifth of a billion dollars on a $6 million investment.
--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good. Are you getting some of the $?
sorry, was asleep when i wrote it, mod this down too once parent is modded down
Easy...to relate Afghanistan and Iraq is to tie Iraq to the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and thusly justify the Iraq war. We know that there were no ties between those two groups, but if you repeat false information often and from a tall pulpit, the sheep will believe you. I've heard many people that believe that Iraq was responsible or associated for the 9/11 attacks. Don't get me wrong, I believe Saddam got what he deserved and that it was a long time coming. But I also believe we were conned into this unnecessary war where we continue to waste resources that could be much better used elsewhere. my .02 and I'll vote accordingly,
Noah
Worst. Sig. Ever.
I wonder how many times this will need to be posted before it gets through to some people:
From Page 66 of the 9/11 Commission Report:
"There is also evidence that around this time (1994) Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Tali-ban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Tali-ban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
You see the Dem's only want you to see that last line all by itself. Because if you read the whole thing in context you can clearly see that when we bombed Osama out of Afghanistan he would have up and moved his training and operations right into Iraq. Bush took care of that and in the process showed the rest of the middle eastern countries what would happen if they thought to support Osama.
The "Moonlight Sonata" background music seemed strange to me, since I played the first movement in a recital when I was in junior high. I was sort of confused - were they trying to find really cheap public domain background music so that nobody could accuse them of infringing?
Because if you read the whole thing in context you can clearly see that when we bombed Osama out of Afghanistan he would have up and moved his training and operations right into Iraq.
Well we started in Afghanistan in October 2001. We started in Iraq in March 2003. That gives OBL 17 months to move from Afghanistan to Iraq. Why didn't he?
Better yet: Where is he now?
For the record, I'm socially liberal, economically agnostic, am strongly against pre-emptive warfare and wars without congressional approval including the current one, and dislike George Bush intensely.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was the first Moore movie I have seen. It was good in the sense that it was asking all the questions that should have been asked and pointing out all the inconsistencies of the Bush administration and the synchophants that support it. In other words, everything the media should have been doing instead of repeating talking points straight from the Drudge Report and indulging in shallow displays of patriotism.
However, I wasn't impressed with Moore's style or technique in F911. It just wasn't very good. The pacing was bad, the first half of the movie dragged, the music was waaay off, etc. His stunts and little editing quirks seemed juvenile. I had already seen "Supersize Me" earlier this year, and I couldn't help but think how much better MADE that movie was than F911. Anyway, I have no reason to think Moore's other films are any different. They probably follow the same pattern - excellent subject matter, deep research, and a mediocre-to-poor execution.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
That gives OBL 17 months to move from Afghanistan to Iraq. Why didn't he?
I'm sorry, where is Zawahiri believed to be again???
Better yet: Where is he now?
I'm guessing by that response that you know Osama's location but are saving the knowledge till after the election to keep it from effecting the outcome?
"Maybe "Bush started a war for profit not liberty," but what was the end goal? Has Iraq been liberated?" "No."
... some are worse off ... some are better off.
This depends upon how you define "liberated". If you define it as "no long under Saddam's rule", then they are liberated. If you define it as "self rule" then they are still under US control as we can veto anything their "government" does (and we have with the release of the female prisoners).
"Are the Iraqi people better off now than with Saddam?" "Possibly yes, probably not."
Again, it comes down to definitions. Some are dead
It is all about the specifics of each case. Enough specifics and you have a general consensus.
"We see them protesting instead of having their fingers chopped off for touching an American newspaper, so that appears to be some kind of advancement." I see protesters being mown down by American helicopter gunships instead of Iraqi helicopter gunships, though I would hardly qualify as advancement.
If protestors die, does it REALLY matter if it was Saddam who killed them or if it was us?
Personally, I'd place those protestors who were killed in the NOT "better off now than with Saddam" category.
But when the discussion drops to the level of arguing whether a dead civilian is better off or worse off than an oppressed civilian, the ONLY thing that can be said is that both sides are wrong.
I don't choose to just be less wrong than Saddam.
You are either woefully uninformed, or completely insane. Either way, a rebuttal is pretty much pointless.
My rebuttal is pointless??? You completely ignore the facts I post which clearly state, and allow me to quote it for you:
"...Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative."
Which clearly implies that if circumstances were not favorable, like say getting high explosives dropped on you everytime you stuck your head out of the cave he was hiding in, he would move his operations to Iraq.
But I am in awe of your ability to disprove me, please do the world a favor and go spend your welfare check at walmart, I think they were going to have a price rollback on a clue...
Ok! rather 'catchy'...
*then* who's telling the lie?
I'd bet my last $0.03 both sides would swear on their mothers graves they are, and point the finger at each other.
BTW, so if none of the 'parties' can be thrused, then whom would you go to?
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
*opps*
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
"You see the Dem's only want you to see that last line all by itself. Because if you read the whole thing in context you can clearly see that when we bombed Osama out of Afghanistan he would have up and moved his training and operations right into Iraq."
Iran is closer to Afghanistan than Iraq is.
Iran already has an Islamic fundamentalist government while Iraq was secular.
Why would Osama move to Iraq instead of to Iran?
You also need to look at the usage of the word "reportedly" in that section your quoted. No evidence, just people saying that such and such happened.
Just like our invasion was based upon people saying that such and such "WMD's" were there. In fact, let's break this down a bit.
"In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative."
"In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence."
"Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Tali-ban."
"According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq."
"The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States."
"But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."
"Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
Again, when you WANT to hear something, you'll take someone's WORD that it is true. Which is what got us stuck in Iraq.
Rather than relying upon what other people SAY happened, can we just stick to verifiable facts?
Notice how the point at the beginning of this thread was immediately avoided by bringing up a distracting point?
Responding to the point: "Bush really didn't sit there on 9/11 like a useless moron for 7 minutes as the nation was under attack?" Yes, that was network TV footage, and George W. Bush clearly was not acting like a leader.
That was not the most important network footage in Fahrenheit 9/11, however. The most important was the video of George W. Bush holding hands with "Prince Bandar", a Saudi Arabian representative of the present Saudi government. The Bush family has such a close relationship with Bandar that they call him, "Bandar Bush". Clue: The Bush family may be fooled, but you shouldn't be. Prince Bandar is not a friend of the Bush family, or of the United States.
According to a tape from Osama bin Laden, the principle reason for the terrorism of al Qaeda is that the U.S. government is interfering with needed political change in Saudi Arabia. This is a legitimate complaint, many people say. (However, the violence is not justified, of course.) The Bush family has been heavily invested in arms manufacturers. So, 9/11 increased the opportunity for profit.
--
Before, Saddam was killing. Now, the U.S. government is killing and destabilizing, and you pay. Improvement?
I'm sorry, where is Zawahiri believed to be again???
Based on media reports, he's in Iraq. BTW, it's said that Bush nixed a plan to take out Al-Zawahiri many months ago. I don't have time to dig up links for you, but it's not hard to find.
I'm guessing by that response that you know Osama's location but are saving the knowledge till after the election to keep it from effecting the outcome?
No, I'm asking you. If you don't know, go ask Fearless Leader. If he doesn't know, you should be voting against him. 3 years and we've got nothing to show for it except a goatse-sized deficit.
So, you say the US bombed Iraq to Keep Osama from hiding there... so if mission accomplished, then where's Osama?
No matter how you want to twist it, there are some basic facts that weaken Bush's position:
1. Osama is still on the loose (Unless you actually think the US is holding him hostage *really out there*)
2. No WMD found
3. No peace for Iraqi's (yet)
4. No direct link between Iraq and Al-qaeda for the american attacks.
5. No Iraqi's involved in the attack (plenty of saudi's)
Bye!
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush? You closed down a friggin' weekly newspaper, you great giver of freedom and democracy! Then all hell broke loose. The paper only had 10,000 readers! Why are you smirking?
When an American compares combatants in some conflict to the Revolutionary Americans, I usually take that as an expression of sympathy with said combatants.
We have seen other intelligence reports at the CIA about 1999 contacts. They are consistent with the conclusions we provide in the text, and their reliability is uncertain. Although there have been suggestions of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda regarding chemical weapons and explosives training, the most detailed information alleging such ties came from an al Qaeda operative who recanted much of his original information. Intelligence report, interrogation of al Qaeda operative, Feb. 14, 2004. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any such ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM and Zubaydah, 2003 ...
Just thought the FULL context might be interesting. From all the info I've seen, there seems to have been contacts between the two groups (Iraq and al Qaeda) initiated from both sides, but NO relationship ever existed and some of the evidence supporting the idea of contacts between the two groups is suspect.
Also, from page 61 of the report:
Bin Laden was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda--save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.
It goes on to state (I'm tired of typing) that a neutral party eventually brokered a deal between Saddam and Bin Ladin which effectively called a truce to their war.
From all of this I would have a hard time believing that the two groups had any real interest in working with each other. Yes, there were contacts. But besides a mutual hatred of the US, the groups had little in common.
Taft
"Let's look at this like a game of Starcraft...when playing against 3 other people, do you attack all 3 simultaneously, or do you attack 1, stabilize it, then attack another?"
Newsflash!
Running the country is NOT the same as playing a game. In StarCraft it is only you running all the forces. In the Real World you have LOTS of people to work with.
It's possible to support the UN's efforts at finding "WMD's" in Iraq (they did have people on the ground there)
-and-
Shore up the country you just invaded (Afghanistan)
-and-
Push world-wide efforts to trace the money the terrorists are using
-and-
Balance the budget.
"While I think we're capable of both walking AND chewing gum, let's not get ourselves too spread out."
The US government is bringing back people who have already LEFT the military in an attempt to fill vacant slots. We are ALREADY "spread out". That is because Bush does not understand leadership any more than you do.
"Hussein was a known problem, we'd tangled with him before."
Saddam wasn't even a threat to the countries around him. He wasn't any "problem".
"Iran and North Korea are being dealt with."
And all the problems will be fixed in the next service pack. Right. Iran knows that we cannot invade another country. North Korea knows that we're pinned down. Now is the best time for them to drive their programs. The sooner they get nukes, the sooner they're on an equal footing with us. Bush made a complete mess of that situation.
This is a common tactic of Re-money-cans. He changed the subject to distract from the truth of the main issue raised.
--
Before, Saddam was killing. Now, the U.S. Gov. is killing and destabilizing, and you pay. Improvement?
Well, I watched the preview and I can give it to you in text form.
.
1) Show several images of the Sept. 11 Tragedy.
2) Show the only images you can find of George W. Bush NOT flubbing his words.
3) Show several images of arab terrorists beating people and such.
4) Wrap it up with "Learn the truth behind the lies" or some such thing, I'm not going to watch it again just to see the stupid line so I can quote it.
Now one might ask themself what this has to do with Fahrenheit 911 or even the war in Iraq. However, as we have seen from this administration. There doesn't have to be a connection, we can just take the train in Mr. Roger's house to imagination land and pretend there is. Of course, then we would shoot all of the puppets for being terrorists. .
-> Fritz
Spooooon!!!!!
Okay, I wasn't impressed at all with F9/11. I felt that it was a selective set of facts loosely assembled in such a way as to make the Bush administration look bad. It was almost purely a propaganda piece.
Celsius whateveritis looks like an attempt to do the same thing in reverse. They've selectively assembled a bunch of facts to make President Bush look good and to make Michael Moore look bad. So basically, another propaganda piece trying to rebut the first.
My recommendation is to do your homework, find your own facts, and draw your own conclusions. Don't listen to a bunch of blowhard filmmakers about who you should vote for.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
Because if you read the whole thing in context you can clearly see that when we bombed Osama out of Afghanistan he would have up and moved his training and operations right into Iraq.
Moved to Iraq? Not likely.
bin Ladin would have been more likely to do exactly what he did anyway - move next door into tribal-controlled areas of Pakistan
Sudan and Yemen, too, probably would have been higher up on the potential post-Taliban safe haven list for Osama. Iraq would have been way down the list near Syria.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Who the hell is "G Squared Interactive?"
o m
Google's never heard of 'em; AnyWho's never heard of 'em; their phone number is either bogus or unlisted, ditto for their admin email address.
WHOIS:
www.citizensunited-interactive.org
G Squared Interactive
c/o Network Solutions
Herndon, VA 20172-447
(570) 708-8780
pz74s7h92ge@networksolutionsprivateregistration.c
I suppose if I were making inflammatory political statements (right-wing, left-wing, or other-wing), I'd use anonymizers, too. But don't ICANN rules require legitimate contact info for domain registration?
Just curious...
Karma
Don't you blindly accept the claims of some anonymous Internet posting?
Well, you won't get far with that attitude.
Geek central and you can't google the accuary of themometers. http://www.techneusa.com/tempcalibration/4400Therm ometer.html
This is just the first result, I'm sure there's better.
1. Osama is still on the loose
This is very true, but does he have anywhere near the support infastructure that he had on Sept 11th?
If we had captured Osama on Sept 10th would that have stopped the attacks?
If we had captured him on the 12th would that have destoryed Al-qaeda?
2. No WMD found
I suggest you read Iraq Survey Group Report on WMD in Iraq - congressional testimony as there has been a considerable amount of evidence that shows that Iraq did have both biological and chemical weapons capabilities.
Or perhaps you should check out The May 2004 Quarterly UNMOVIC Report that details confirmed Iraq missle engines that have been exposed to radioactive material. I'd love to hear your reasoning that the second most oil rich nation on the face of the earth needs radioactive material for?
3. No peace for Iraqi's
Suggesting that Bush is the reason for the lack of peace, not the extremists that that you side apparently so admires?
4. No direct link between Iraq and Al-qaeda for the american attacks.
5. No Iraqi's involved in the attack
Are we fighting Terrorism or Al-qaeda? Are you attempting to suggest that Iraq has no ties to terrorism?
here's one view of what his administration could have been doing a month earlier.
it really comes down to a question of morals ... My hearts telling me "Kill these fuckers who would kill my own innocent mother."
The important thing is for your brain to intervene and make sure you're only attacking the specific people who have done such things, and not just everyone who looks like them. THAT'S morality.
Celsius 41.11 = Fahrenheit 105.99 = The temperature at which freedom develops a slight fever.
And Florida. Both "harbored," through their inaction, Al Quaida operatives - for a very long time. Some US flight schools even taught these murderers to fly. Perhaps the US military should invade Germany and Florida?
I am constantly impressed by your ability to spew random, meaningless statements out of your butt in your never ending effort to sidetrack conversations. I salute you, sir troll.
Yea he was just one of the most important law makers
And just how is making law going to deal with the attack that's going down on your country right now?
who wants to be president.
...two years before he started running.
I mean its not Like John Kerry in on the seante foreign relations commitee is it? Why did he not spring up and start calling people?
Like I said before, how would thinking about foreign relations do anything to stop someone's attack? FR is something to work on to prevent future attacks, not provide the first line of real, physical defense for your country.
What action *within the scope of his power* did he take.
That's just it: there was no action within the scope of his power that would make any difference. And that's not using 20/20 hindsight, unlike the Bush apologists who insist it was okay for Bush to sit in a classroom for 7 minutes after the second plane crashed "because it wouldn't have made any difference in the end." Just what are you suggesting Kerry should have done? Call up the Senate and get a bill passed that would get fighter jets in the air?
Well lets see Im sure at a tim when assaniation was bloodly likely
Why was it "bloody likely"? Was Clinton afraid of an assasination attempt after the bombings of our embasies in Africa, the Oklahoma City Bombing or the first terrorist attack on the WTC? And if your enemy's weapon of joice seems to be jumbo jets, wouldn't you want to get the fuck out of the building you are currently in? Belive it or not, but that's what the Secret Service is for: extracting the president out of hostile situations on a moments notice.
In addition to this what could he have done in those moments?
There's that 20/20 hindsight again. Wether or not he could have made a difference in the end is irrelevant. Even if Bush didn't have the first clue what to do (which he obviously did not), that's what he has a Secretary of Defense for. Actually, he has a two time SOD in Rumsfield, and Cheney was SOD under Herbert Walker Bush. So its not like he didn't have anyone to call, and the fact that he did not is inexcusable. And no amount of neocon apologizing and spin doctoring will do a god damn thing to change that.
What could anyone have done (even John Kerry)? Bush was more than a thousand miles away from Washington, and more than two thousand miles away from NY.
There's this great invention called the telephone. You can even use them without wires now, they're called cellular phones.
You mistakenly believe that Saddam was not a not so nice person. A couple of times he send out Iraqi officials to his enemies to tell them it would be safe to come to visit him. A few weeks later he took the pleasure of shooting them in the head personally. The fact that you want to wrench the last bit of doubt about a non-involvement of Iraq in 9/11 out of the report is pretty obvious. As can be seen by not quoting all the obvious hostility between Hussein and Bin Laden.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
This is very true, but does he have anywhere near the support infastructure that he had on Sept 11th?
So why did AlQaeda attack more often after the "War on Terror" (TM) began?
Are we fighting Terrorism or Al-qaeda? Are you attempting to suggest that Iraq has no ties to terrorism?
Are you fighting the guys who attacked you on 9/11, or just some guys annoying Israel?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck