M Moore on the Fox News Program O'Reilly Factor

[ibstolidude]

Passed to me from elsewhere - he will be on the program tuesday at 2000 ET/US.

In the left corner we have the Pot
and in the right the Kettle... atleast it will be entertaining.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96207,00.html

[achilles]

Passed to me from elsewhere - he will be on the program tuesday at 2000 ET/US.

In the left corner we have the Pot
and in the right the Kettle... atleast it will be entertaining.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96207,00.html

You really hate the guts of this guy...is he really this extremely rich, anti-republican, pro-democrat propagandistic monster some people are talking about?

[HooyahCQB]

I just saw it lol. He kept asking O'Reilly if he'd sacrifice his child in Fallujah. O'Reilly said he'd sacrifice himself.

I think that (because of our VOLUNTEER) armed forces, the child chose to sacrifice THEIRSELF.

Moore gave no evidence to support any of his claims.

[GrantT]

Just watched it, I suppose it was ok, Moore's "sacrifying your child" rhetoric was pretty pathetic.

[Colt45]

^^^ Exactly What I said, M Moore is a ****ing retarded fat ****ing jackass bitch ass ho with his pants down around his ankles in cell 911 along with his bitchy ass movies (enuff cussin =D?)

[GrantT]

http://drudgereport.com/dnc4.htm

There's the transcript for anybody who missed it.

[Merik]

He never gave Oreilly a straight answer to any of his questions. He kept diverting to another subject or ask a question himself.

[Geezah]

MM kept on going on about how the people of Iraq would have eventually risen and taken Saddam out of power, given the fact that MM has a selective memory I wasn't suprised he forgot about the ****e uprising that Chemical Ali help put down in the early 90s.

God that fat bastard does my head in with his half truths :bash:

[SeanAshi]

I can't believe Moore actually went on his show, it will be rebroadcasted on Fox News again at 11 pm.

[American Patriot]

O'REILLY MUST BE STOPPED. Sorry for the caps.

[EvanL]

The showdown of the two biggest jackasses of both the left and right wings of the united states.
:bash: :bash:

[ibstolidude]

Passed to me from elsewhere - he will be on the program tuesday at 2000 ET/US.

In the left corner we have the Pot
and in the right the Kettle... atleast it will be entertaining.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96207,00.html

You really hate the guts of this guy...is he really this extremely rich, anti-republican, pro-democrat propagandistic monster some people are talking about?
Here we go again. Yes I must really hate him. Perhaps you missed this:
In the left corner we have the Pot
and in the right the Kettle...

I must have missed the hate part.

[ShotOver]

Just watched it, good interview. O'reilly had that prick good and propper.

[achilles]

The showdown of the two biggest jackasses of both the left and right wings of the united states.
:bash: :bash:

Thats sounds objective although i dont know if they are the BIGGEST jackasses around.

O'reilly's claim of the whole WMD thing 'being a mistake and not a lie' is ridiculous.

Same goes to Moore's question about sending their children to war. I think none of them would be willing to send either themselves or their children. The whole discussion though was entertaining...i didnt expect anything more...

[achilles]

Passed to me from elsewhere - he will be on the program tuesday at 2000 ET/US.

In the left corner we have the Pot
and in the right the Kettle... atleast it will be entertaining.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96207,00.html

You really hate the guts of this guy...is he really this extremely rich, anti-republican, pro-democrat propagandistic monster some people are talking about?
Here we go again. Yes I must really hate him. Perhaps you missed this:
In the left corner we have the Pot
and in the right the Kettle...

I must have missed the hate part.

Take it easy...i misunderstood your 'pot and kettle' comment...

[ibstolidude]

Passed to me from elsewhere - he will be on the program tuesday at 2000 ET/US.

In the left corner we have the Pot
and in the right the Kettle... atleast it will be entertaining.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96207,00.html

You really hate the guts of this guy...is he really this extremely rich, anti-republican, pro-democrat propagandistic monster some people are talking about?
Here we go again. Yes I must really hate him. Perhaps you missed this:
In the left corner we have the Pot
and in the right the Kettle...

I must have missed the hate part.

Take it easy...i misunderstood your 'pot and cattle' comment...
it is Pot and Kettle, as in traditionally cast iron (hence black) cooking tools - the expression is "the Pot calling the Kettle black"
Moore & OReilly are very much akin to each other - they both seem to formulate an opinion, then search for the facts that could support the opinion - as opposed to those less polarized who look at the facts FIRST then form an opinion.

Overall, I disagreed with both of those people - the basis of Bush being a liar for the "mistake" of CIA intelligence makes the overwhelming members of congress, Clinton, Albright, Kerry, Gore, Dems, Reps and Indies and any other number of others WORLD leaders liars on the same issue - I give all of them better credit than that. I do not doubt that Bush wanted to invade and believed that the WMD issue was a reliable and realistic justification for the invasion; and one that he believed would be able to be shown correct by findings in Iraq - he was wrong. Despite peoples dislike of the man and his lack of eloquence (har har) he is no political moron - he would not have used the WMD as reason to invade if he did not believe that they would be found. (& if one assumes he did lie - why not plant them to be prooven correct?)

However I do think that Bush should publically own up to the failures of his office, no different than JFK did post Cuba BoP or as Janet Reno (ugghh) did post Waco (as everyone else in the Executive hid). He is still ultimately responsible, mistaken intelligence or coffee stain on the report changing the wording to GOT NO WMDs to GOT MO' WMDs.

[American Patriot]

The showdown of the two biggest jackasses of both the left and center of the united states.
:bash: :bash:

[achilles]

I totally agree that Bush is the one to take full responsibility. If business dont go well we blame the boss not the accountant...as for Bush being a liar...it depends on how we define 'liar'. If a lie is a statement which eventually prooves to not be true then he is a liar...if a lie is a claim, stated intentionally then he just made a mistake. The fact that he started a war based on a lie/mistake, or in any case on information which was not sufficiently verified, raises questions regarding his political abilities...

About 'planting' WMD in Iraq...how could he plant non-American made WMD on Iraqi soil and get away with it?

[Sayeret]

I found it funny that MM was offended when O 'Reily said he was the biggest supporter of Saddam Hussein in the media.

[Secret Squirrel]

I totally agree that Bush is the one to take full responsibility. If business dont go well we blame the boss not the accountant...as for Bush being a liar...it depends on how we define 'liar'. If a lie is a statement which eventually prooves to not be true then he is a liar...if a lie is a claim, stated intentionally then he just made a mistake. The fact that he started a war based on a lie/mistake, or in any case on information which was not sufficiently verified, raises questions regarding his political abilities...

About 'planting' WMD in Iraq...how could he plant non-American made WMD on Iraqi soil and get away with it?

Bush never will admit that the war wasnt necessary.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/SSSquirrel/lizards.gif

[Sayeret]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/SSSquirrel/lizards.gif

A bunch of things wrong with that cartoon.

-Iraq had WMD in the past and there are over 10,000 dead Kurds as proof.

-Also WMD are very lethal like the name infers. Hundreds of thousands or even millions of people could die from them. Proof of that is several diseases in history such as the Black Plague, which although wasn't man made can be created by people now.

Two questions for you Secret Squirrel

1. Whats your opinion on Michael Moore?

2. Also do you support attacks on Coalition troops and Iraqi civilians because like what Michael Moore said they are being done by people who are like "minutemen"?

[American Patriot]

That cartoon sucks my bag.

[mobster]

Dude, Secret, give it up bro, the facts are evident. FrankenKerry stays up all night going back and forth on what side of the bed he'll wake up on the next day. I've seen jellyfish with more backbone than this moronic, horse faced, ugly-wife-having, flip flopping, botox-faced, douche bag. 'nuff said, let the flame war begin. G'night chaps.
Seriously, before you type a response, just read the text below.



"Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf." Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]

Nov 12, 1997: In response to a question about unanimity over a U.N. resolution, kerry responded: where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity, but in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq....It was disappointing a month ago not to have the French and the Russians understanding that they shouldn't give any signals of weakening on the sanctions and I think those signals would have helped bring about this crisis because they permitted Saddam Hussein to interpret that maybe the moment was right for him to make this challenge. crossfire

Feb 23, 1998: "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East." The Disgrace of John Kerry by Kevin Willmann Saturday, April 05, 2003

Oct 9, 1998: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others.

Oct 10, 1998: "We know from our largely unsuccessful attempts to enlist the cooperation of other nations, especially industrialized trading nations, in efforts to impose and enforce somewhat more ambitious standards on nations such as Iran, China, Burma and Syria, that the willingness of most other nations — including a number who are joined in the sanctions to isolate Iraq — is neither wide nor deep to join in imposing sanctions on a sovereign nation to spur it to `clean up its act' and comport its actions with accepted international norms." Senate Floor Speech Try to figure out what he just said there!

Sep 6, 2002: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." Op-Ed, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times

Oct 9, 2002: "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Senate Speech

Oct 9, 2002: "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."

Oct 9, 2002: The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest. johnkerry.com speeches (Thanks Scot!)

Oct 9, 2002: "Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution." Speech on senate floor (Thanks Aaron)

Jan 23, 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently ****e to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

Sep 14, 2003: “I don’t think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We’re not going to cut and run and not do the job.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,”) (watch)

Sep 14, 2003: “I don’t think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to – to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That’s irresponsible. What is responsible is for the administration to do this properly now.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,”) (watch)

Dec 2, 2003: Did I expect George Bush to **** it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did. Now that's what I call presidential! www.johnkerry.com

Dec 15, 2003: "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that..."

Jan 30, 2004: "I think there has been an exaggeration," Mr. Kerry said when asked whether President Bush has overstated the threat of terrorism. "They are misleading all Americans in a profound way." washtims (Thanks Michael!)

Mar 16, 2004: "I actually did vote for his $87 billion, before I voted against it." Newsmax (Listen) (Listen)

Mar 17, 2004: "For a President, the decision may be lonely, but that does not mean that America should go it alone." (Remarks At George Washington University, Washington, DC)

Apr 7, 2004: When speaking of terrorist Shiite imam Muqtada al-Sadr's newspaper, which was shut down by coalition forces last week after it urged violence against U.S. troops, Kerry complained to National Public Radio, "They shut a newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq." Then, finding another way to parallel what Ted Kennedy was saying this week: "If all we do is make war against the Iraqi people and continue an American occupation, fundamentally, without a clarity as to who and how sovereignty is being turned over, we have a very serious problem for the long run here" newsmax Well, it's clear that the Iman enjoys the support of JFK and Ted Kennedy:

[Secret Squirrel]

A bunch of things wrong with that cartoon.

-Iraq had WMD in the past and there are over 10,000 dead Kurds as proof.


Whos talking about 1988? Go read A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide and realize that no one issued threats against Saddam for using gas. No one in the world community did anything. And why? Well perhaps the fact that 23 percent of U.S. rice exports went to Iraq; a million tons of wheat. When members of Congress threatened to pass a sanctions bill against Iraq, the White House opposed the measure. Initially, Bush Sr. favored Iraq when he came into office. "Had we attempted to isolate Iraq," Secretary of State James Baker wrote later, "we would have also isolated American businesses, particularly agricultural interests, from significant commercial opportunities."


-Also WMD are very lethal like the name infers. Hundreds of thousands or even millions of people could die from them. Proof of that is several diseases in history such as the Black Plague, which although wasn't man made can be created by people now.

It's the "Black Death" aka the "Bubonic Plague", not the Black Plague. Why are you trying to compare a very infectious disease (that still surfaces from time to time) to WMDs? Hundreds of thousands or millions of people could die from drowning if they were all dumped into the ocean, whats your point?


Two questions for you Secret Squirrel

1. Whats your opinion on Michael Moore?


He's amusing, kinda like Howard Stern. I've never see any of his movies, watched a couple interviews he did but i dont pay much attention to him. But it is funny how people react to him. If no one reacted to him like they do, he wouldnt be as popular or have as much free press as he does. ;)


2. Also do you support attacks on Coalition troops and Iraqi civilians because like what Michael Moore said they are being done by people who are like "minutemen"?

Nope. I dont support it but i understand it. It's how they've done things in their world isnt it? Politics with a gun? It's going to be tuff to change that mentality unless you want to try and disarm the entire country. Hopefully the coalition can soon get to a point where they dont need 150,000+ troops to try and stablize Iraq.

[Secret Squirrel]

Dude, Secret, give it up bro, the facts are evident. FrankenKerry stays up all night going back and forth on what side of the bed he'll wake up on the next day. I've seen jellyfish with more backbone than this moronic, horse faced, ugly-wife-having, flip flopping, botox-faced, douche bag. 'nuff said, let the flame war begin. G'night chaps.
Seriously, before you type a response, just read the text below.

Apr 7, 2004: When speaking of terrorist Shiite imam Muqtada al-Sadr's newspaper, which was shut down by coalition forces last week after it urged violence against U.S. troops, Kerry complained to National Public Radio, "They shut a newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq." Then, finding another way to parallel what Ted Kennedy was saying this week: "If all we do is make war against the Iraqi people and continue an American occupation, fundamentally, without a clarity as to who and how sovereignty is being turned over, we have a very serious problem for the long run here" newsmax Well, it's clear that the Iman enjoys the support of JFK and Ted Kennedy:

Find me a politican who hasnt changed his/her view (or should i just post a list of Bush's flip flops?). But I'll just take the time, as this has been mentioned before, to showcase the ignorance in your last paragraph (p.s. quoting newmax wont get you any more credibility here than giving people your life story ;) ).

Part of the interview


Not if it’s an isolated act without the other kinds of steps necessary to change the dynamics on the ground in Iraq,"

If all we do is make war against the Iraqi people and continue an American occupation, fundamentally, without a clarity as to who and how sovereignty is being turned over, we have a very serious problem for the long run here," Kerry added. "And I think this administration is just walking dead center down into that trap."

"Well, let me ... change the term 'legitimate.' It belongs to a voice — because he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment.

So it creates its own set of needs in order to deal with the possible future spread of terrorism. But at the same time, if its unaccompanied by a broader set of moves to try and broaden our own base in Iraq, i just think it asks for great difficulties." <-- you would disagree?

"As i have said since day one, is what you need is to min. the perception and reality of an American occupation. You need to min. the targetting of American soldiers and that is done by max. the sharing of responsibility and risk on the ground, which also is the way you min. the cost to the American people....(and it continues, actually making Bush look pretty bad)"

I guess newsmax juxtaposed certain paragraphs mistakenly? Surely they'd never try to slant a story. And tell me where Kerry shows support for Sadr? Kerry, in light of the Bush admin's handling of Iraq, if you listen to the interview, is basically saying that this one move of trying to shut down Sadr isnt going to fix all the problems in Iraq. And that if this is the only thing thats done at the time, then it's just going to cause more problems. As for Sadr being a legimate voice...Sadr is an Iraqi right? He was unhappy with the occupation right? Or are only those Iraqis who are pro-occupation, legitmate voices in Iraq? For God's sake, Sadr, like it or not, is a cleric; he had a broad support base and he showed it. And no I'm not showing support for Sadr or his actions, i'm simply recongizing the circumstances. Honestly, what did people think was going to happen in Iraq once the Baathists were banned? Woah, could it be possible that a religious element would fill the gap? Was the violence in Iraq based upon one newspaper and one cleric? or was it a scape goat move? These are the things Kerry is questioning. The Sadr example is just a small example used to elucidate a larger, as Kerry sees it, policy failure (ie. post war planning) by the Bush administration (ie. how did the situation progress to the point where closing a newspaper led to an uprising).

[Sayeret]

Whos talking about 1988? Go read A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide and realize that no one issued threats against Saddam for using gas. No one in the world community did anything. And why? Well perhaps the fact that 23 percent of U.S. rice exports went to Iraq; a million tons of wheat.

So nobody should do anything now either?


It's the "Black Death" aka the "Bubonic Plague", not the Black Plague.

My mistake I meant the "Black Death"


Hundreds of thousands or millions of people could die from drowning if they were all dumped into the ocean, whats your point?

Are you denying the fact that biological and chemical weapons can kills hundreds of thousands of people, much more easily than almost any weapon? I remember reading a report that if a cessna flew over Washington DC on a night and there was a calm wind and released antharax then about 3 million people would be killed as a result.

[Secret Squirrel]

So nobody should do anything now either?

You mean do nothing about the WMDs that werent/arent there before the invasion? I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here.


My mistake I meant the "Black Death"

No problem, I've made worse mistakes on history papers (I had that point nailed into my head during my first year of my B.A in History).


Are you denying the fact that biological and chemical weapons can kills hundreds of thousands of people, much more easily than almost any weapon?

Yep. A nuke is much worse. But if I dont have nuke i cant do much can I? ;)


I remember reading a report that if a cessna flew over Washington DC on a night and there was a calm wind and released antharax then about 3 million people would be killed as a result.

Kindly present a link to this "report".

[Geezah]

O'reilly's claim of the whole WMD thing 'being a mistake and not a lie' is ridiculous.


Well given the fact the CIA, MI6 and Russian Intelligence came out and said there were WMDs in Iraq and we know from past history he used them how is that ridulous?

[Roger Rabbit]

M: the same way we did in our country, the way we had our revolution. People rose up—

O: Alright alright.

M:--that’s how you, let me ask you this question.

O: One more.

M: How do you deliver democracy to a country? You don’t do it down the barrel of a gun. That’s not how you deliver it.

Hmmmm, first he mentions the American revolution and then he says you shouldn't use guns to bring about democracy. :lol:

[Colt45]

Just slap that bitch and say, "BIOTCH!!!"

[achilles]

O'reilly's claim of the whole WMD thing 'being a mistake and not a lie' is ridiculous.


Well given the fact the CIA, MI6 and Russian Intelligence came out and said there were WMDs in Iraq and we know from past history he used them how is that ridulous?

That cannot justify Bush's decision and it doesnt change the fact that both Bush and Blair are ultimately responsible for telling their people things that were not true. CIA, MI6 and Russian Intelligance said so...but where are the WMD? sure he used them in the past...where are they now?

[Harlequin]

Well given the fact the CIA, MI6 and Russian Intelligence came out and said there were WMDs in Iraq and we know from past history he used them how is that ridulous?
I agree with squirrel. Although most western countrys including russia did _believe_ that iraq had still B- or C- weapons, it appears more like it was an _assumption_ based on iraq's past use against the kurds rather than _knowing_ where and what they would possibly still have.

Believing is not knowing.

I also agree with the example of the CEO. A manager earns his salary also because he carrys the risk of his decisions. If his decisions are blatantly wrong and prove so afterwards, he gets fired and/or has to stand firm for that.

Why Goerge W. Bush is suddenly portraied as a victim, acting based on faulty intel is a little "twisted" for it is the one who _makes_ the decision who has to bear the responsibility - and because of that risk, he should better be sure that information is rock solid. Acting on behalf of sloppy intel IMO is just as criminal as delivering slobby intel which leads to war.

I think that (because of our VOLUNTEER) armed forces, the child chose to sacrifice THEIRSELF.
Although they did enlist on their own will, i have my very doubts that they did enlist to die - sure they'd be happier alive.

[HooyahCQB]

I think that (because of our VOLUNTEER) armed forces, the child chose to sacrifice THEIRSELF.
Although they did enlist on their own will, i have my very doubts that they did enlist to die - sure they'd be happier alive.


Ya think? lol.

Who DOES enlist to die? Being a volunteer they know and are presented the risks and THEY choose to accept them.

People walk across streets everyday. Some might get hit by cars.

I'm sure they didn't walk across the street to die...



Cheers.



PS, Squirrel, where are you studying/were studying?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Moore made a fool of himself.

The first thing that I enjoyed about the interview was how Moore insisted up front that there be no editing. Since Moore has made a career of using creative editing to produce distorted "documentaries" he knows only too well how powerful they are. He'd have none of that used against him.

Then I really dug how he defines what a liar is. According to Moore, any person who believes in something that ultimately proves not to be true is a liar. By that definition, nearly all (and perhaps all) humans are liars. Since most of us are religious, and those religions are mutually exclusive, we can't all be right about which God is real - if any.

And so even though many of us fervently believe in our hearts in the existence of "our" God - what we are to Moore is a liar.

Scientists who's theories are eventually proven wrong by experimentation are not simply incorrect, they are liars. This makes Einstein, and Hawking both liars.

Students who come up with the wrong answers on tests are not simply wrong, they are liars.

Moore knows damn well that the President does not go out and gather intel himself, analyze it, cross check it, and verify it's validity. He has hundreds of other people to do it. And in this case, the same masses of people from other nations gave him the same answers. Bush can be called "wrong" if sufficient quantities of WMD are not found to back up the WMD intel. He cannot be called a liar in any case.

But the oafish cartoon that is Michael Moore has never cared about the truth, because he can't make any money off the truth.

[Geezah]

MOORE QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE HEART AND SOUL OF SENATOR KERRY'S CAMPAIGN
Issue Five

Moore Compared Iraqi Terrorists To American Revolutionary War Heroes. "As for the current situation in Iraq, Moore has written: '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.'"

MOORE QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE HEART AND SOUL OF SENATOR KERRY'S CAMPAIGN
Issue Four

Michael Moore Said U.S. Should Not Have Removed Taliban After 9/11. "Likewise, to bomb Afghanistan - I mean, I've never understood this, Tim. I mean, the - the simple math to me is that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Now I have to ask, if 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Cuba, would we bomb Bolivia? Well, you could say, 'Well, yes, Mike, if Bolivia was providing harbor, you know, for the terrorists from Cuba.' Yeah. OK, right. But if 15 of the 19 were from Cuba, I think most people would probably say, 'Hmm, maybe Cuba had something to do with this.' Well, I don't understand why we haven't gone after Saudi Arabia. I'm not saying we should bomb Saudi Arabia, but - but - well, I - I mean, I guess I do understand, you know, 25 percent of our gasoline comes from oil that comes from Saudi Arabia. So we can't go after that which provides so much of the energy that runs this country."

MOORE QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE HEART AND SOUL OF SENATOR KERRY'S CAMPAIGN
Issue Three

Michael Moore Said Americans "Are Possibly The Dumbest People On The Planet." "Take [Michael Moore's] description of his fellow countrymen and their blind pursuit of the American Dream: 'They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet… in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug p#%$ks.' 'We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing. National Geographic produced a survey which showed that 60 per cent of 18-25 year olds don't know where Great Britain is on a map. And 92 per cent of us don't own a passport.'"

MOORE QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE HEART AND SOUL OF SENATOR KERRY'S CAMPAIGN
Issue Two

Michael Moore: “There Is No Terrorist Threat In This Country. This Is A Lie. This Is The Biggest Lie We’ve Been Told.” “While speaking about removing Bush from office [in October 2003], Moore said, ‘There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we’ve been told.’”

MOORE QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE HEART AND SOUL OF SENATOR KERRY'S CAMPAIGN
Issue One

Michael Moore Argued In September 2002 That Bin Laden Was Innocent Until Proven Guilty. MSNBC's JOE SCARBOROUGH: "You brought a tape of yourself debating Michael Moore in September 2002 at the Telluride Film Festival. And here's what he said about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Let's take a listen." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MICHAEL MOORE: "It seems as if he and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured, and brought to justice." VANITY FAIR'S CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: "Do you mind if I break in and say…" MOORE: "Yes." HITCHENS: "Ask you, what is the 'if' doing in that last sentence?" MOORE: "What is the who?" HITCHENS: "What is the 'if' doing in that last sentence of yours?" MOORE: "Well, all people are innocent until proven guilty in this country." HITCHENS: "So you have no…" … MOORE: "Even the worst piece of scum." HITCHENS: "I feel I have to press you on that. You regard it as an open question, the responsibility of Osama bin Laden?" MOORE: "Until anyone is convicted of any crime, no matter how horrific the crime, they are innocent until proven guilty. And as Americans…" HITCHENS: "No, that's all I asked you." MOORE: "Never leave that position." HITCHENS: "I'm sorry. So bin Laden's claims of responsibility strike you as the ravings of a clowns, say?"

Link (http://www.demsextrememakeover.com/)

Owned ;)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Michael Moore Argued In September 2002 That Bin Laden Was Innocent Until Proven Guilty. MSNBC's JOE SCARBOROUGH: "You brought a tape of yourself debating Michael Moore in September 2002 at the Telluride Film Festival. And here's what he said about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Let's take a listen." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MICHAEL MOORE: "It seems as if he and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured, and brought to justice." VANITY FAIR'S CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: "Do you mind if I break in and say…" MOORE: "Yes." HITCHENS: "Ask you, what is the 'if' doing in that last sentence?" MOORE: "What is the who?" HITCHENS: "What is the 'if' doing in that last sentence of yours?" MOORE: "Well, all people are innocent until proven guilty in this country." HITCHENS: "So you have no…" … MOORE: "Even the worst piece of scum." HITCHENS: "I feel I have to press you on that. You regard it as an open question, the responsibility of Osama bin Laden?" MOORE: "Until anyone is convicted of any crime, no matter how horrific the crime, they are innocent until proven guilty. And as Americans…" HITCHENS: "No, that's all I asked you." MOORE: "Never leave that position." HITCHENS: "I'm sorry. So bin Laden's claims of responsibility strike you as the ravings of a clowns, say?"

This is very telling of Moore's mindset. He is of the laughable view that the truth of an event changes when a jury reaches a verdict. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not an accurate legal description of the reality of an event (in this case 9/11). The fact that OBL did or did not commit 9/11 will not change depending upon the verdict of a trial.

This kind of naïve worldview makes Moore uniquely unqualified to offer informed criticism of national leaders. Presidents and Prime Ministers work in the here and now, and in the realm of reality. Moore's mind is wandering off, processing some farcical notion of an egalitarian utopia.

Can you imagine if leaders worked this way? We'd have to wait 10 years to get a verdict about who was responsible for Pearl Harbor. By then, the entire Pacific (and most of Korea and China) would be speaking Japanese.

If somebody stole Moore's wallet (or sandwich) on the street, I bet that he would chase after them immediately. He would not wait for a jury to decide the guilt or innocence of the thief.

[Sayeret]

Secret Squirrel

this is about WMD


Terrorists do not need sophisticated weapons to kill many people. The Hutus in Rwanda mainly used machetes to kill 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in less than three months in 1994. The Indian thugs strangled 1 million people during their 1,200 year history of sacrifices to Kali, the Hindu goddess of terror and destruction. It was only in the First World War that what we today call weapons of mass destruction were introduced in the form of chemical weapons. The Second World War witnessed the use of both biological and nuclear weapons. A fourth category - still untested - is radiological weapons.


One of the truisms about terrorism is that it is a "weapon of the weak". Another is that "Terrorists want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead", indicating that the risk of terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction is low. However, since the consequences of using such weapons are far-reaching - tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people can be killed in one single incident - there is a need to monitor any shifts in this direction. Until now, terrorist acts by non-state actors have usually killed fewer than one hundred people in a single event, with a few exceptions.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_weapons_mass_destruction.html


Chemical weapons demonstrated their lethality in the First World War when chlorine and mustard gas produced 1 million casualties, 90,000 of them fatal.


When police raided Aum properties two days later they found enough chemicals to kill 4.2 million people.


In 1754, traders in western Pennsylvania deliberately created a smallpox epidemic among local Indians by giving them blankets exposed to the smallpox virus. The Indian population was decimated by the disease, to which they had no resistance. In fact, in the sixteenth century Europeans' unwitting spread of measles and smallpox to American Indians reduced the Indian population of Mexico from 30 million to fewer than 3 million in 50 years.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_weapons_mass_destruction_page002.html


Weight-for-weight, biological weapons are hundreds to thousands of times more potent than the most lethal chemical weapon, meaning that even small amounts (e.g., a few kilograms) could be used with devastating effect, whereas hundreds or thousands of tons of chemical agents could be required for militarily significant operations.


The very large number of potential casualties could place huge burdens on medical facilities and overwhelm military resources. The relatively poor warning devices available against biological attack and the potential delayed effects of some agents make mis-identification of the agent or agents used more likely, leading to the failure of defence measures. One US Army study suggested that a Scud attack with an anthrax BW warhead would see the effectiveness of military units downwind fall by 90% if the attack were not correctly detected. With prior detection, the study estimated a fall in effectiveness of only 20%. The same report noted that:

A Scud missile warhead filled with botulinum could contaminate an area of 3,700 square kilometres (based on ideal weather conditions and an effective dispersal mechanism), or 16 times greater than the same warhead filled with [the nerve agent] Sarin. By the time symptoms occur, treatment has little chance of success. Rapid field detection methods for biological warfare agents do not exist.

http://www.cdiss.org/bw.htm


Biological warfare is a cause for concern because a successful attack could conceivably result in thousands, possibly even millions, of deaths and could cause severe disruptions to societies and economies.


Biological warfare is believed to have been practiced in the Middle Ages, often by flinging victims of the Black Death over castle walls using catapults. Its use has also been documented in the French and Indian War when British troops distributed blankets infected by smallpox to Native Americans.


Anthrax: (Bacillus anthracis) a blood-poisoning disease of cattle and sheep caused by a bacillus which affects people through inhalation and can be lethal (anthrax pulmonary). It is about 10 times more toxic than pluto-nium. It is not contagious and the victim must be directly exposed to it. Anthrax has an incubation period of 1-6 days. Symptoms are fever, malaise, fatigue, coughing and mild chest discomfort, followed by severe respiratory distress. The initial symptoms are often followed by a short period of improvement (from several hours to 2-3 days). In cases with severe symp-toms, shock and death can occur within 24-36 hours. Mortality rate is said to be 80 percent. The germ spores can survive for more than four decades in the soil. It is generally treatable with antibio-tics and a vaccine exists. Wit-hout antibiotics, death from haemorrhage, respiratory failure or toxic shock follows within a few days. Anthrax can be augmented by fermentation. A dozen countries are believed to have the capability of using anthrax in weapons. A 1993 study for the US Congress' Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) found that a Scud missile loaded with anthrax could kill 10,000 people in an urban area. (Electronic Telegraph, 31 August 1997). According to Kanatjan Alibekov (Ken Alibek), a Soviet defector, the Soviet Union in 1988 ordered the arming of giant SS-18 intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at New York, Los Angeles, Seattle and Chicago with anthrax and other deadly germs.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_weapons_mass_destruction_page005.html


Biological weapons based on known killers such as botulism (toxin), Ebola & Marburg viruses, anthrax, Q fever, epidemic typhus, & tularemia, are emerging as humanitarian threats to large civilian populations. In recent history, Japanese bioweapons killed 3,000 Chinese WWII, & Russians used bioweapons on Afghanistan in the 1980s. The primary mass casualty threat of bioweapons is from aersolized distribution, with human entry being
respiratory (breathing). Bioweapons are lighter, have more extensive
killing range, persist longer, & are harder to detect, than chemical
weapons, & effect far less non-human damage (i.e. to infrastructure)
than nuclear weapons. The Biological Weapons Convention (signed in 1972 & entered into force in 1975) defined no enforcement measures; Russia & Iraq, among others, have violated it. Today bioweapons are possessed by Libya, North Korea, south Korea, Iraq, Taiwan, Syria, Israel, Iran, China, Egypt, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, Bulgaria, India, South Africa, & Russia. Although Russia apparently dismantled its bioweapons industry, no one today knows where the thousands of Soviet scientists have gone to, to ply their expertise.

http://www.peace.ca/masscasualties.htm


If a rogue regime were to mount such an unconventional asymmetric attack, they might choose biological weapons because their extreme destructive potential is concentrated in a relatively small and unremarkable package with virtually no detectable sensor signature. Because of the agent's incubation period, the perpetrators might be gone before anyone knew that an attack had been made. Finally, biological agents, unlike ballistic missiles, lend themselves to clandestine dissemination.


Even conventional terrorism tends to escalate levels of violence to keep garnering attention. The threat of biological weapons imparts high levels of fear that may make them desirable to perpetrators who wish to terrorize, even more than to kill. Threats have to become increasingly credible after the initial shock of specious threats has diminished. Even a minor biological attack, made to demonstrate credibility, could have a disproportionate impact. Thus, a certain subset of terrorists may be motivated to commit mass casualty terrorism, including biological terrorism.


Delivered under optimal conditions, the pound for pound killing capacity of biological agents exceeds that of nuclear weapons. It is estimated that in a major urban area the detonation of a one megaton hydrogen bomb would result in between 570,000 and 1,900,000 deaths. One hundred kilograms of anthrax spores delivered optimally would result in between one and three million deaths. Under less optimal conditions (sunny, windy, bright light, etc…) the same amount might kill between 130,000 and 1,400,000 people. Chemical weapons, while horrific, are comparatively less powerful. The same amount of sarin nerve gas, delivered on under optimal conditions, would be unlikely to kill in excess of 8,000 people.

From the United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1993, Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Assessing the Risks. OTA-ISC-559, August, p. 53-54

http://www.sunshine-project.org/publications/bk/bk10en.html

[chauncy republicans]

I also agree with the example of the CEO. A manager earns his salary also because he carrys the risk of his decisions. If his decisions are blatantly wrong and prove so afterwards, he gets fired and/or has to stand firm for that.

Why Goerge W. Bush is suddenly portraied as a victim, acting based on faulty intel is a little "twisted" for it is the one who _makes_ the decision who has to bear the responsibility - and because of that risk, he should better be sure that information is rock solid. Acting on behalf of sloppy intel IMO is just as criminal as delivering slobby intel which leads to war.
woot

[Vance]

Moore made a fool of himself.

The first thing that I enjoyed about the interview was how Moore insisted up front that there be no editing. Since Moore has made a career of using creative editing to produce distorted "documentaries" he knows only too well how powerful they are. He'd have none of that used against him.

Then I really dug how he defines what a liar is. According to Moore, any person who believes in something that ultimately proves not to be true is a liar. By that definition, nearly all (and perhaps all) humans are liars. Since most of us are religious, and those religions are mutually exclusive, we can't all be right about which God is real - if any.

And so even though many of us fervently believe in our hearts in the existence of "our" God - what we are to Moore is a liar.

Scientists who's theories are eventually proven wrong by experimentation are not simply incorrect, they are liars. This makes Einstein, and Hawking both liars.

Students who come up with the wrong answers on tests are not simply wrong, they are liars.

Moore knows damn well that the President does not go out and gather intel himself, analyze it, cross check it, and verify it's validity. He has hundreds of other people to do it. And in this case, the same masses of people from other nations gave him the same answers. Bush can be called "wrong" if sufficient quantities of WMD are not found to back up the WMD intel. He cannot be called a liar in any case.

But the oafish cartoon that is Michael Moore has never cared about the truth, because he can't make any money off the truth.
woot

[Secret Squirrel]

Sayeret whats your point? Correct me if i'm wrong but i thought we were talking about Iraq. ;) So, why are you mentioning gas attacks from WWI and WWII or smallpox...etc? And what does your post have anything to do with no one finding "recent" (ie. to support claims that Saddam was stockpiling) WMDs in Iraq during or after the invasion? Even Bush has changed his rhetoric from "Iraq had WMDs" to "Iraq had the capability to produce WMDs" (i dont think he'll go any further than that because he'd have to admit he was wrong; something his pride wont let him do). Yes WMDs are "bad" but isnt that a moot point for the discussion? ;)

[Geezah]

Sayeret whats your point? Correct me if i'm wrong but i thought we were talking about Iraq.

I thought this thread was about Michael Moore :cantbeli:

[mike0000]

Sayeret whats your point? Correct me if i'm wrong but i thought we were talking about Iraq. ;) So, why are you mentioning gas attacks from WWI and WWII or smallpox...etc? And what does your post have anything to do with no one finding "recent" (ie. to support claims that Saddam was stockpiling) WMDs in Iraq during or after the invasion? Even Bush has changed his rhetoric from "Iraq had WMDs" to "Iraq had the capability to produce WMDs" (i dont think he'll go any further than that because he'd have to admit he was wrong; something his pride wont let him do). Yes WMDs are "bad" but isnt that a moot point for the discussion? ;)

I suspect his point was to compare the relative impact and effectiveness of BW as compared to CW and their use in terrorists hands.

A BW attack, successful or otherwise, can have profound effects in a society. Just imagine if someone spread a BW agent in a subway system somewhere in the US. Even if no one died, the psychological impact could be devastating.

Iraq demonstrated a willingness to use CW agents, both abroad and at home. It also demonstrated a willingness to use terror as a weapon, again both at home and abroad. I suspect, had we not acted in time that would have allowed Iraq to use it's demonstrated capabilites to strike at international targets using unconventional means.

[A Soldier]

And this man calls himself a patriotic person, he needs to check himself in the mirror if its not already broken
http://www.foxnews.com/images/128811/0_21_moore_michael.jpg

[Secret Squirrel]

Iraq demonstrated a willingness to use CW agents, both abroad and at home. It also demonstrated a willingness to use terror as a weapon, again both at home and abroad. I suspect, had we not acted in time that would have allowed Iraq to use it's demonstrated capabilites to strike at international targets using unconventional means.

Iraq used chemical weapons during a war with Iran in which Iraq was neither threatened to stop using such weapons and Iraq also received support from Reagan. I'm not really certain what this has to do with the present? Or the fact that the supposed stockpiles arent there.

[2RHPZ]

Moore took Aussie clips for hit film

July 27, 2004


AUSTRALIAN artist and filmmaker George Gittoes has objected to American Michael Moore's use of some of his work a controversial movie.

Mr Gittoes said today Mr Moore had incorporated about 17 selections from his own documentary film Soundtrack to War into Fahrenheit 9/11.

They depicted American soldiers and their music in Iraq.

"I was concerned of course for my soldiers because their interviews were taken out of context," Mr Gittoes said on Channel 9.

"There are about 17 scenes from my documentary in his film. I wouldn't go so far as to say he lifted (them).

Article (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10260075^1702,00.html)

Also see topic Music in war: soldiers in Iraq rap out their experiences (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18562&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=gittoes)

[ibstolidude]

I also agree with the example of the CEO. A manager earns his salary also because he carrys the risk of his decisions. If his decisions are blatantly wrong and prove so afterwards, he gets fired and/or has to stand firm for that.

Why Goerge W. Bush is suddenly portraied as a victim, acting based on faulty intel is a little "twisted" for it is the one who _makes_ the decision who has to bear the responsibility - and because of that risk, he should better be sure that information is rock solid. Acting on behalf of sloppy intel IMO is just as criminal as delivering slobby intel which leads to war.
woot

Under your analogy - what kind of busniess would replace the CEO with other's of the "board" that supported and voted in favor of the CEO's actions?

[SpazzMunky]

And this man calls himself a patriotic person, he needs to check himself in the mirror if its not already broken
http://www.foxnews.com/images/128811/0_21_moore_michael.jpg
He's one sexy beast.

[chauncy republicans]

I also agree with the example of the CEO. A manager earns his salary also because he carrys the risk of his decisions. If his decisions are blatantly wrong and prove so afterwards, he gets fired and/or has to stand firm for that.

Why Goerge W. Bush is suddenly portraied as a victim, acting based on faulty intel is a little "twisted" for it is the one who _makes_ the decision who has to bear the responsibility - and because of that risk, he should better be sure that information is rock solid. Acting on behalf of sloppy intel IMO is just as criminal as delivering slobby intel which leads to war.
woot

Under your analogy - what kind of busniess would replace the CEO with other's of the "board" that supported and voted in favor of the CEO's actions?
Probably none, well not succesfull ones at least, how the hell Kerry ever got the DNC nomination is beyond me.

[Sayeret]

So, why are you mentioning gas attacks from WWI and WWII or smallpox...etc?



Are you denying the fact that biological and chemical weapons can kills hundreds of thousands of people, much more easily than almost any weapon?

Yep. A nuke is much worse. But if I dont have nuke i cant do much can I? ;)



I remember reading a report that if a cessna flew over Washington DC on a night and there was a calm wind and released antharax then about 3 million people would be killed as a result.

Kindly present a link to this "report".


It's the "Black Death" aka the "Bubonic Plague", not the Black Plague. Why are you trying to compare a very infectious disease (that still surfaces from time to time) to WMDs? Hundreds of thousands or millions of people could die from drowning if they were all dumped into the ocean, whats your point?

My point in posting all that stuff is to show you that biological and chemical weapons are very lethal. Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons but it still had chemical and biological even if the weapons were produced in the 1980s.

[Secret Squirrel]

My point in posting all that stuff is to show you that biological and chemical weapons are very lethal. Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons but it still had chemical and biological even if the weapons were produced in the 1980s.

Ok, are you an idiot? Seriously, it's to the point where i have to bluntly ask that question. Who the hell is going to argue that biological and chemical weapons arent lethal? Again, it's a moot point. Iraq really had stockpiles of chemical weapons? Where? A couple of rusted shells represents this supposed stockpile? Even Bush no longer claims Iraq had WMDs.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

My point in posting all that stuff is to show you that biological and chemical weapons are very lethal. Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons but it still had chemical and biological even if the weapons were produced in the 1980s.

Ok, are you an idiot? Seriously, it's to the point where i have to bluntly ask that question. Who the hell is going to argue that biological and chemical weapons arent lethal? Again, it's a moot point. Iraq really had stockpiles of chemical weapons? Where? A couple of rusted shells represents this supposed stockpile? Even Bush no longer claims Iraq had WMDs.

Has or had? Two different things. Remember that there was a full 6 month warning period of "honest, here we come..." plenty of time to ditch whatever they wanted. Cripes, they buried aircraft.

World leaders do not benefit from the ability to travel to the future, ascertain what danger there really was, and make decisions with perfect information.

All sources state that Bush believed Iraq had WMD. Kerry believed Iraq had WMD. Iraq said they had WMD. The UN said Iraq had WMD. Russia said Iraq had WMD. The UK said they had WMD. So Bush made a decision which he believed was in the best interest of his nation. I agree with it. He may yet be proved correct, since Saddam was given a full 6 month warning period courtesy of the oil-for-food tainted UN Security Council.

For him to wait for the pathetic UN to act would have been criminal. For him to allow no action to be taken was not an option in a post-9/11 world.

We have the luxury of sitting in front of a PC, with nothing at stake, and pointing out the errors of those who have to make the real decisions. My guess is that most of us wouldn't last a week with the kind of pressure that these people are under.

[Secret Squirrel]

All sources state that Bush believed Iraq had WMD. Kerry believed Iraq had WMD. Iraq said they had WMD. The UN said Iraq had WMD. Russia said Iraq had WMD. The UK said they had WMD. So Bush made a decision which he believed was in the best interest of his nation. I agree with it. He may yet be proved correct, since Saddam was given a full 6 month warning period courtesy of the oil-for-food tainted UN Security Council.

If I recall correctly, Putin said he passed along intel that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders but he also said there was no evidence that Saddam's regime was involved in any terrorist attacks. I might have missed the news that Russia provided intel regarding WMDs.


For him to wait for the pathetic UN to act would have been criminal. For him to allow no action to be taken was not an option in a post-9/11 world.

Interesting you mentioned 9/11. One can look back on Bush's speeches and see a clear change in his rhetoric from before and after.

Before...


22 Feb 2001 President George W Bush declares: "The Secretary of State is going to go listen to our allies as to how best to effect a policy, the primary goal of which will be to say to Saddam Hussein: we won't tolerate you developing weapons of mass destruction, and we expect you to leave your neighbors alone."

24 Feb 2001 In Cairo, Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

7 Aug 2001 President George W Bush declares: "He's been a menace forever, and we will do -- he needs to open his country up for inspection, so we can see whether or not he's developing weapons of mass destruction."

After...


Nov 2001 Pentagon official Richard Perle: "He has weapons of mass destruction. The lesser risk is in pre-emption. We've got to stop wishing away the problem."

11 Mar 2002 British Prime Minister Tony Blair declares: "The threat that Saddam Hussein poses is an issue in its own right, because the reason why the UN Security Council passed these resolutions was precisely because we know the threat that there is from the weapons of mass destruction that he has."

26 Aug 2002 Vice President **** Cheney declares: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

7 Oct 2002 During a speech in Cincinnati, President George W Bush declares: "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."

Now was it evidence or intel that changed the rhetoric surrounding Iraq or wasnt it 9/11? This next quote is particularly interesting...


4 Nov 2002 During a speech at Southern Methodist University, President George W Bush declares: "He has weapons of mass destruction. At one time we know for certain he was close to having a nuclear weapon. Imagine Saddam Hussein with a nuclear weapon. Not only has he got chemical weapons, but I want you to remember, he's used chemical weapons."

This quote is the famous one which refers to an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report from 1998. However, the funny thing is that such a report does not exist. When Bush was confronted with this fact, he claimed he was mistaken and that it wasnt a 1998 report but a 1991 report. However, again such a report does not exist for 1991.

As the lead up to the invasion progress, there were more calls of Saddam having WMDs. And as we all know they followed the war. However, after the invasion, and after some time passed during the occupation, slowly but surely the rhetoric began to change. At least one person admitted a little tidbit of information...


28 May 2003 Paul Wolfowitz declares: "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue -- weapons of mass destruction -- because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

Bush of course kept up his resolve...


14 Jul 2003 President George W Bush declares: "I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence. And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence. And I am absolutely convinced today, like I was convinced when I gave the speeches, that Saddam Hussein developed a program of weapons of mass destruction, and that our country made the right decision."

And David Kay chimmed in with something the Admin. certainly didnt want to hear...


Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce and fill new CW munitions was reduced -- if not entirely destroyed -- during Operation Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.

But Blair kept his chin up...


"I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the intelligence was genuine... It is absurd to say in respect of any intelligence that it is infallible, but if you ask me what I believe, I believe the intelligence was correct, and I think in the end we will have an explanation."

See, if you think back to 2002, when Bush was first trying to sell the Iraq war, he failed to get the support he wanted. However, as soon as he started to shout WMDs and threats by Iraq against the U.S and Britain, heads began to turn.

[Pandy]

I wonder what MM would say if Bush went to the UN and said.

"Try to stop us."

What got me thinking is, since the United Nations tries to stop wars... why didn't they send peacekeepers to Iraq to stop the united states? Since France and Germany didn't want us there, why didn't they send peacekeepers....

Something to think about. ;)

[Sayeret]

Seriously, it's to the point where i have to bluntly ask that question. Who the hell is going to argue that biological and chemical weapons arent lethal?

Apparently you do, genius.


Yep. A nuke is much worse. But if I dont have nuke i cant do much can I? ;)


Again, it's a moot point. Iraq really had stockpiles of chemical weapons? Where?

You denying that they had chemical weapons in the 80s which they used against the Kurds and Iranians? Why do you keep denying that the Saddam's government killed thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons?


A couple of rusted shells represents this supposed stockpile?

Iraq had enough in the 1980s to use against Iran and the Kurds so I'm pretty sure they had a stockpile at one time.

Another thing, how stupid do you think Saddam Hussein is that he wouldn't keep making chemical and biological weapons even if the UN told him not to. Do you seriously believe that he would just get rid of his chemical and biological weapons because someone told him to despite the fact he didn't leave Kuwait until the US and a dozen other countries forced him to.

[Geezah]

My point in posting all that stuff is to show you that biological and chemical weapons are very lethal. Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons but it still had chemical and biological even if the weapons were produced in the 1980s.

Ok, are you an idiot? Seriously, it's to the point where i have to bluntly ask that question. Who the hell is going to argue that biological and chemical weapons arent lethal? Again, it's a moot point. Iraq really had stockpiles of chemical weapons? Where? A couple of rusted shells represents this supposed stockpile? Even Bush no longer claims Iraq had WMDs.

Have you been living in a shed for the last 13yrs, did you forget that Saddam went into Kuwait uninvited and because the UN is full of geniuses we could only kick him out then because Saddam was a threat to the Kurds in the North and the Marsh Arabs in the South the UN imposed a no fly zone because he was a threat to his own people not only a threat to his own people he was a threat to the Israelis.
I'm sure you know he was very open about funding terrorists and their activities in Palenstine?
Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past and suddenly because we can't find them yet means that he doesn't have them anymore, next your going to tell me he sold them on Ebay :P
Saddam is gone and we're helping build a new Iraq along the way we may hit some bumps but in the long run I see it as worthwhile!

[hist2004]

Moore Sense Please

By: Bill O'Reilly

Thursday, Jul 29, 2004

(Boston) Well, I finally tracked down Michael Moore. I saw him walking in the street outside the Democratic Convention Center and pounced on him like the paparazzi on J-Lo. Moore had been dodging me because his movie was becoming increasingly indefensible by something called "facts." But, to his credit, Moore took up my street challenge and agreed to appear on "The Factor".
We debated for ten minutes and Moore put forth the following:

That President Bush "lied" about Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction even though the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee Investigation and Lord Butler's British Investigation all say Bush did not lie.


Moore defines a "lie" as anything that turns out not to be true. By following this logic, weather forecasters everywhere must now be categorized as pathologically dishonest.


Moore said he would not have attacked the Taliban government in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attack. Instead, he would have captured Bin laden by using "commandos." Apparently, Moore believes the Taliban would have allowed his "commandos" to root out Osama and his boys with impunity. Moore related the "commando" strategy to me with a straight face.


Moore denied that Ronald Reagan's arms build up had anything to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union and freedom for Eastern Europe.


The filmmaker then went on to say that pre-emptive war is wrong and would have been immoral even in the case of Adolf Hitler. Moore said he would have prevented Hitler from assuming power in the first place. I didn't have time ask him how he would have done that but I assume commandos would have been involved.
So, hey, Michael Moore this bud's for you. Thanks for showing up and debating. Now we know the under-pinnings of your world outlook.
What is still astounding to me is how many people continue to embrace the fantasies and deceptions of Michael Moore. Some people actually applauded him at the Democratic Convention, but the heavyweights stayed away.

In one bizarre scene, Moore was seated next to Rosalyn and Jimmy Carter. The couple stared straight ahead, looking like contestants about to eat bugs on the "Fear Factor," and the Kerry campaign has made it quite clear that Moore and other left-wing bomb throwers are not to be seen around the candidate.

In fact, the Kerry people actually censored some of the speechmakers from using inflammatory anti-Bush rhetoric. That is almost unheard of at a political convention.

But old reliable Howard Dean came through. He continues to be Michael Moore's best pal, appearing with him at a Bush bash in a Cambridge hotel. It is absolutely frightening how close Governor Dean came to being the Democratic presidential nominee.

This may surprise you, but I do not dislike Michael Moore. He is a true believer. He wants a completely different kind of country, and he'll do anything to make that happen.

The problem with Moore is that the ends justify the means. He knows his statements and movies are not based on facts, but he continues to say they are. Even in Moore's world where truth doesn't exist, there should be some kind of ethical standard, but there isn't. And the fact that Howard Dean and other powerful Americans accept that situation is more troubling than anything Michael Moore could ever say.

Regards,
Hist2004

[Geezah]

Moore said he would not have attacked the Taliban government in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attack. Instead, he would have captured Bin laden by using "commandos." Apparently, Moore believes the Taliban would have allowed his "commandos" to root out Osama and his boys with impunity. Moore related the "commando" strategy to me with a straight face.


http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/compdiff/funniest.jpg
Michael Moore's Commandos :D

[Sayeret]

Geezah

Where are those "commandos" from?

[Secret Squirrel]

Apparently you do, genius.

I said they were harmless? man you really are a moron.


You denying that they had chemical weapons in the 80s which they used against the Kurds and Iranians? Why do you keep denying that the Saddam's government killed thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons?

Oh my God, 1980s. We better track down those who put Japanese in American camps during the war and prosecute them. Where did i deny that Saddam used gas against the Kurds? I actually, if you had any ****ing clue, acknowledged it when i said people in Washington, including the president, voted against sanctions against Iraq.


Iraq had enough in the 1980s to use against Iran and the Kurds so I'm pretty sure they had a stockpile at one time.

Oh my god, Iraq had them in the 1980s, and ofcourse not a damn thing changed since then so of course they're still there. :roll:


Another thing, how stupid do you think Saddam Hussein is that he wouldn't keep making chemical and biological weapons even if the UN told him not to. Do you seriously believe that he would just get rid of his chemical and biological weapons because someone told him to despite the fact he didn't leave Kuwait until the US and a dozen other countries forced him to.

Why cant you try bringing up points from the present? like since 9/11 when the Bush administration changed their rhetoric surrounding Saddam? Just go back to your idiotic "Kerry - Vietnam" threads. ;)

[Geezah]

Geezah

Where are those "commandos" from?

Monty Python, Troops armed with the deadly joke ;)

[Geezah]

Just go back to your idiotic "Kerry - Vietnam" threads. ;)

What's idiotic is the fact that only two other Swift boat Officers endorse Kerry all the others want nothing to do with him!


This photograph of John Kerry and 19 other Coastal Division 11 Swift boat officers was taken at Ton Sun Nuht Air Base on January 22, 1969, immediately following a meeting with General Abrams and Admiral Zumwalt.

The Kerry campaign featured the photograph in an advertisement released in May titled Lifetime. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth contacted surviving members of this group to find out how many actually support John Kerry, and discovered that of 19 Swift boat skippers pictured other than Kerry, 11 consider him unfit, 4 are neutral, two have died, and 2 are working with the Kerry campaign. Four other officers were not present for the photo session; all oppose Kerry.

Only 2 of John Kerry's 23 fellow Swift boat commanders from Coastal Division 11 support his candidacy today.


http://www.swiftvets.com/images/KerryBrothers.jpg

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php)

[Dennis G]

Moore on the Fox News Program O'Reilly Factor

any downloadable video?

[mobster]

http://www.foxnews.com/ On the right, under the pic of John Edwards, click "Politics" and you'll find it.
Check this out, Jeremy Glick is this piece of ****e Pro Taliban dude who lost his father in the WTC, and O'reilly looks like he's gonna kick the crap out of him. He actually has to tell him to shut up cuz he's so pissed, finally he cuts the dudes mic, afterward, he had him esoorted off before he was "Ripped to ****ing pieces..."
http://www.lyingliar.com/videos/glick.htm

[Geezah]

Moore on the Fox News Program O'Reilly Factor

any downloadable video?

O'Reilly vs Moore (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html)

[OB Kenobi]

I just saw it lol. He kept asking O'Reilly if he'd sacrifice his child in Fallujah. O'Reilly said he'd sacrifice himself.

Let's hope someone takes him up on that.

[ibstolidude]

http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/073004/new_20040730034.shtml

Oops! Newspaper carpets Moore for headline snafu
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040730/ts_alt_afp/us_film_moore_040730235724

Nice Mike. The pot and the kettle.

[ROY H]

i would beat his fat ass. mm don't know a damn thing he is a spinless coward he should try to live a day in the us military's shoes maybea he would have a hearattack from PT and die from a huge rock that i pushed off a cliff onto his face