Farenheit 9/11

[brneyedgrl80]

I figure this would be a good conversation.

Michael Moore's new movie is coming out on June 25th. What do you guys think? (instigator)

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It's a pack of anti american, socialist lies, just like bowling for columbine!

 

[nycflasher]

Get ready for the Moore-bashing, 80......
These folks are not fans.
I'll be seeing it, as soon as it finds a distributor.
He won the Palme d'Or at Cannes for it:

"I can't begin to express my appreciation and my gratitude to the jury, the Festival, to Gilles Jacob, Thierry Frémaux, Bob and Harvey at Miramax, to all of the crew who worked on the film. [...] I have a sneaking suspicion that what you have done here and the response from everyone at the festival, you will assure that the American people will see this film. I can't thank you enough for that. You've put a huge light on this and many people want the truth and many want to put it in the closet, just walk away. There was a great Republican president who once said, if you just give the people the truth, the republicans, the Americans will be saved. [...] I dedicate this Palme d'Or to my daughter, to the children of Americans and to Iraq and to all those in the world who suffer from our actions. " -MM

Bowling for Columbine is an excellent movie, a must see.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

No I figured that there aren't many Michael Moore fans, but I figure that I would post that his movie is coming out this month and just wanted to hear what people had to say. (I love the dancing banana)

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Why do liberals respect and admire a proven liar and professional propagandist?

http://www.moorewatch.com/

 

[OCA]

Will it be as intellectually honest as his last effort?

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Why do liberals respect and admire a proven liar and professional propagandist?

http://www.moorewatch.com/

www.bushwatch.com

Editorial: The Bush-Saudi-Pakistan Nuke Connection

Now that nuclear and/or terrorism experts have begin discussing the likelyhood of a terrorist nuclear event taking place in this country within the decade, the follow-up question will be what administration will be blamed if it should happen. Another way of looking at it is to consider where we are now and what the present administration is doing to prevent future nuclear catestrophe. On this count, the BushAdmin is not looking good.

A New York Times editorial recently (03.14.04) opined: "At a time when the United States is trying desperately to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of rogue nations and terrorist groups, it is disheartening to learn of the government's pathetically weak efforts to recover bomb-grade uranium from research reactors around the world." While Bush in mid-February attempted to get ahead of the curve of such negative press by calling upon nations to help halt nuclear proliferation as news of Pakistani Kahn's black marketing of muclear secrets broke, his administration's agreement with Pakistan to pardon Kahn suggested that, once more, Bush actions speak louder than Bush words.

Right now, Bush is taking great pains to keep this subject under wraps until after the election, but world events and his own political needs have created a conflict within his administration. Last week Paul Wolfowitz, who may very well be our next Sec. of State if Bush were to win the election, told an interviewer that there is a de facto quid pro quo between the BushAdmin and Masharraf: you help us capture the Taliban (meaning: Bin Laden) and we'll not make waves about your political need to pardon your nuke "hero," Dr. A. Q. Kahn, who has been selling nuclear secrets to "rogue nations" (Iran, N. Korea, Lybia) for years.

The stories behind this story are many, but what observers, such as the New York Times' Nicholas Kristof (03.10.04), are wondering is why the BushAdmin is doing so little to stem the tide of nuclear proliferation and why it has sent mixed signals to the world's nuke players since it came into power in 2001. Numerous reports have confirmed that the BushAdmin put a blanket over various government probes of the Saudis from day one, and Greg Palast has reported that a connection between Bush halting a probe of Kahn and Saudi interests exist. Ronald Motley, a lawyer who is presently suing a number of Saudis in connection with 9/11, believes:

"The president's ties to the Saudi kingdom are personal as well as political: his father, George H.W. Bush, was until recently a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group, an investment firm that counted bin Laden family members among its investors until October 2001. James Baker, whom Bush recently sent abroad seeking help to reduce Iraq's debt, is still a senior counselor for the Carlyle Group, and Baker's Houston-based law firm, Baker Botts, is representing the Saudi defense minister in Motley's case....Back in October 2002, news articles reported ''administration officials'' saying that the government was considering asking the courts to dismiss the suit."(NYT, 03.14.04)

A forthcoming book by Craig Unger, "House of Bush, House of Saud," goes even further: "Not only does [the book] pose disturbing questions about Saudi involvement in 9-11 -- wittingly or unwittingly -- it presents a believable case that the Bush administration's relationship with the royal house of Saud precipitated this catastrophe," writes reviewer John Freeman in the 03.14.04 Orlando Sentinel. "Unger argues, $1.4 billion flowed from the House of Saud to the Bush family and their interests. So how much influence does this $1.4 billion buy? Unger makes a compelling case that it kept our eyes off the rising extremism in Saudi Arabia. And yet, the incoming Bush administration didn't steer away from Saudis." To some, such financial connections, both governmental and private, could account for Bush's unwillingness to continue government probes of the Saudis in 2001, but what about the apparant quid pro quo arrangement between the BushAdmin and Musharruf?

This week the Times of India (03.13.04) reported that "in the past fortnight by the British and French foreign ministers, next week's visit by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Musharraf's sudden visit to Riyadh at the weekend have triggered speculation that the pressure is on Musharraf to let foreign troops in." Why would Mashurraf go to Saudi Arabia to consult with Saudi officials about the Bin Laden-Kahn quid pro quo?

A possible answer is that the hasty visit had something to do with a nuclear deal reportedly struck by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia last October:

"Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have concluded a secret agreement on "nuclear cooperation" that will provide the Saudis with nuclear-weapons technology in exchange for cheap oil, according to a ranking Pakistani insider....Saudi officials also are still chafing over a closed meeting, later well publicized, of the U.S. Defense Policy Board in 2002, where an expert explained, with a 16-slide Powerpoint presentation, why and how the United States should seize and occupy oil fields in the country's Eastern Province....GlobalSecurity.org, a well-connected defense Internet site, found in a recent survey that Saudi Arabia has the infrastructure to exploit such nuclear exports very quickly." (Wash. Times, 10.22.03)

Given this scenario, Masharraf's visit to Saudi Arabia was likely meant to convince the Saudis to put pressure upon Bush to back off his pressure on Masharraf to allow military access into Norther Pakistan to hunt down and capture Bin Laden prior to the November election. Will this force Bush to cut the Saudis and the Pakistanis more nuclear slack? One way or the other, the danger of nuclear proliferation appears to be taking a back seat to Bush's political expediency at the expense of our national security. As Kristof writes in the above-mentioned "A Nuclear 9/11":

"A 10-kiloton nuclear bomb (a pipsqueak in weapons terms) is smuggled into Manhattan and explodes at Grand Central. Some 500,000 people are killed, and the U.S. suffers $1 trillion in direct economic damage. That scenario, cited in a report last year from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, could be a glimpse of our future. We urgently need to control nuclear materials to forestall that threat, but in this war on proliferation, we're now slipping backward. President Bush (after ignoring the issue before 9/11) now forcefully says the right things, but still doesn't do enough." --Jerry Politex, www.bushwatch.com, 03.15.04

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
I figure that I would post that his movie is coming out this month

Is there a release date set?

 

[DKSuddeth]

I refused to see bowling for columbine because NOBODY wanted to investigate the real reasons this incident happened and nobody wanted to acknowledge that they could do anything about the future ones that will happen. I'll refuse to see farenheit for the same reasons.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by nycflasher
www.bushwatch.com

This site is a bunch of wild partisan distortion.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
This site is a bunch of wild partisan distortion.

tomato, tomatoe. it's all the same mud slinging from both sides.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I refused to see bowling for columbine because NOBODY wanted to investigate the real reasons this incident happened and nobody wanted to acknowledge that they could do anything about the future ones that will happen. I'll refuse to see farenheit for the same reasons.

Huh?
Contrarily, I think alot of people are trying to get to the bottom of violent school incidents like this as awell as prevent them from happening in the future.

What do you mean by "real reasons?"

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
tomato, tomatoe. it's all the same mud slinging from both sides.

My point exactly in posting that link...

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Huh?
Contrarily, I think alot of people are trying to get to the bottom of violent school incidents like this as awell as prevent them from happening in the future.

What do you mean by "real reasons?"

the 'real reasons'. when the real reasons were brought up it was treated with the same 'its your fault' attitude that happens in most other arguments. The backlash of angry remarks shut down ANY attempt to focus on the real issue, hence the continuation of school and youth violence. Nobody wants to do anything about it but blame the end perpetrator.

It's a dead issue until people wake up.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
tomato, tomatoe. it's all the same mud slinging from both sides.

No, there is truth and falsehood in the world. I know it's easy to just retreat to a position of "both sides are equally to blame" and that's a politically correct and easy answer, but I want more for you in life than a succession of meaningless conversations that end upon the rocky shores of backpedalling to a safe position.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Huh?
Contrarily, I think alot of people are trying to get to the bottom of violent school incidents like this as awell as prevent them from happening in the future.

What do you mean by "real reasons?"

He didn't care about columbine, he just wanted to use the incident for his little antigun propaganda film. Quit lying flasher, there's nothing noble in this oafish, lying loser. Your support for him only reflects poorly on you.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
the 'real reasons'. when the real reasons were brought up it was treated with the same 'its your fault' attitude that happens in most other arguments. The backlash of angry remarks shut down ANY attempt to focus on the real issue, hence the continuation of school and youth violence. Nobody wants to do anything about it but blame the end perpetrator.

It's a dead issue until people wake up.

Pretty vague, DK.
I mean, I know what 'real reasons' mean. I think they aren't neccesarily obvious though.

Perhaps some combination of all of these:

1. pissed off kids who were bullied
2. bad parents ( maybe, I feel for them though)
3. guns bought by a friend who was 18+
4. easy access to guns
5. school could have done more to foster safer school enviroment
6. 2 stupid fucking kids

Moore takes a look at guns in America on the whole, and identifies some pretty rediculous facts.

 

[DKSuddeth]

when ann coulter can start making editorials the same way that drudge reports news, then I'll consider the possibility that one side wants anything decent for the other. until then its all spin and political hyperbole designed to put one on a morally higher ground when they have none to stand on anyway.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Pretty vague, DK.
I mean, I know what 'real reasons' mean. I think they aren't neccesarily obvious though.

Perhaps some combination of all of these:

1. pissed off kids who were bullied
2. bad parents ( maybe, I feel for them though)
3. guns bought by a friend who was 18+
4. easy access to guns
5. school could have done more to foster safer school enviroment
6. 2 stupid fucking kids

Moore takes a look at guns in America on the whole, and identifies some pretty rediculous facts.

part of my point made right here. It should NEVER have been about the guns.

we wouldn't need all these 'safe school' bullshit programs and zero tolerance crap if parents would teach their kids that might does NOT make right, bullying smaller and weaker individuals does NOT make you a better person, and that popularity does NOT mean having to put people lower than yourself.

Columbine could have been prevented had young kids been taught that its shameful to put your fellow students down in any way, shape, or form.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
when ann coulter can start making editorials the same way that drudge reports news, then I'll consider the possibility that one side wants anything decent for the other. until then its all spin and political hyperbole designed to put one on a morally higher ground when they have none to stand on anyway.

Of course there's spin. But there are also still underlying truths. And there are degrees. And then there's good natured joking, which is what ann does.

Do you honestly believe bush is as big a liar as michael moore? OR is that just what's fashionable to say?