What do Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Michael Moore have in common? They have all fallen victim to Michael Isikoff’s poison pen. In the June 28 Newsweek, Isikoff dismissed Fahrenheit 9/11 as “a mélange of investigative journalism, partisan commentary and conspiracy theories.” He goes on to dispute three of what he calls “Moore’s most provocative allegations,” thereby leading the unsuspecting… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (22)Page 1 of 1 pagesMore info about the ‘Move America Forward’ phoney campaign at:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Move_America_Forward
and on Russo Marsh and Rogers (the PR firm that set it up) at:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Russo_Marsh_and_Rogers
Russo Marsh and Rogers made 2.5 million from GOP politicians in 2001/2002. And nothing from Dem politicians in the same period.
Surprised? Didn’t think you’d be.
Posted by sam s on Jun 30, 2004 at 5:57 PM Most answers are probably in the middle somewhere, but I’m so dizzy I’m about to puke from every single issue being spun in completely opposite directions all the time. I think its time to completely abolish the party system and run on one’s own merits as an individual. Not that its feasible, but I find it hard to believe that everyone thinks the same way or any issue is completely one sided.
Posted by Chris on Jul 1, 2004 at 12:59 AM My answer to the issues is quite simple, follow the money trail. Greed runs everything. It is quite reasonable to make the assertion since the Republicans have most of the money, the issues usually follow their ways, good and bad. The common person needs and wants are mostly ignored. I have to say though “Anyone but Bush”
Posted by Damian Miller on Jul 1, 2004 at 6:39 AM It seems the writer of the “Framing Michale Moore” article is as loose with the facts as Moore. The two recruits “bamboozling” were not Air Force recruits. They were Marine recruits.
It’s all in the details isn’t it.
Posted by Patrick on Jul 1, 2004 at 9:38 PM The recruiters are still military recruiters, regardless of their branch of service. I was in JROTC throughout highschool, received an overall rating of 94% on my ASVAB, and was never approached by recruiters with such disingenuous tactics! I never saw recruiters doing such things in the mid to late eighties when I was in highschool or later in my early college years. Not in malls, not at school.
Posted by Fred on Jul 2, 2004 at 4:24 PM In 1981, a friend of mine convinced me to visit an Air National Guard base to check out possibly enlisting.
I was told all sorts of amazing things, how life was so great in the Guard and how I would go to DINFOS (Defense Information School). I was also told, that if I enlisted, the following month a bunch of us new enlistees would be given the chance to fly down to Biloxi Mississippi to “tour” the Air Force Base, to get a heads up on what life in the military would be like before we went off to basic training.
I enlisted and the next month, I had the permission slip from the folks to visit the Air Force Base in Biloxi.
As soon as the plane took off, the Everclear punch began to flow, as well as the beer. Recruiters, full-time guard people and everybody, including the pilots were drinking.
As soon as we landed, we dropped our stuff off at the Guard base where we bunked and then picked up rental cars and hit the dance clubs.
The next day was spent getting drunk on the beach, followed by more dance clubs later that night. Did we ever see the Air Force base? Of course not.
Hungover, sunburn and happy, we returned and told all our high school friends how great the Air National Guard was, with the mid-March sunburn to prove it, and about 10 of them recruited.
Had I been older I wouldn’t have believed that bullshit. And, although I didn’t think life was going to be a party in the guard, I did believe my recruiters when they told me where I was going to go to school and the job I would have. Later I was tossed aside when asked if I would eventually be going to DINFOS, which never happened.
The next year they flew the new recuits down to Spring Break.
And so the military is returning to lying to their people again. Not only are they sent off to combat situations but that asshole “president” reduces their combat pay then cuts VA benefits, all in a war he lied to the world about.Piss on W. I hope that piece of shit loses in an embarassement in November.
Posted by Neil on Jul 2, 2004 at 5:17 PM Sorry about the bad experiences in the military For Neil. Fred, I think the recruiters were doing what recruiters do best, recruit. Put their best foot forward, sell the life. You think they should drop the candor and promise instead pain and suffering and possible death? By brother, who’s in the Air Force (he saw F-911 and loved it) is receiving a college education with military funding. The pay cuts suck, I agree, but the benefits garnered through work in the service are still there. My brother doesn’t complain although he is preparing himself for a career post-military. For down and outs coming from under priviledged families in the Flint, Michigans of the country have real possibility.
I think Moore’s segment on the recruiters, although funny, doesn’t make a strong case for sly military recruitment tatics, inequalities from class division, or whatever.Disingenuous, maybe. But only as two-dimensional as the two hand carved by Moore were allowed to be. Editing is a long but wonderful process. One might say the two marines were being, well, friendly marines.
Posted by Patrick on Jul 2, 2004 at 8:43 PM Trying to defend Moore against “unfair” attacks is the ultimate “pot calling the kettle black”.
Moore’s distortions and outright lies are legendary and Isikoff is generally regarded as a fair and respectable journalist. I’ve seen him take on the right as well as the left. As for the criticisms of Isikoff, honest disagreements and different interpretations of a complicated situation in South America hardly compare with the childish reckless manipulation by Moore. BTW, Nicaragua is a democracy today. Would it be if Reagan and the CIA hadn’t intervened, cocaine or not? Of course not.
The left normally stands up tall against sexual harassment, but I guess it’s as long as one of their own isn’t implicated. (Bob Packwood, anyone?)
As for Fornigate, it all turned out to be true. If the current President was suspected of the same, I wonder if the author would stand up and condemn it as an invasion of the president’s penile privacy, or would he possibly cheer it as “the people’s right to know?” Hmmm. (see Packwood hypocrisy example above for clues)
There were many convictions in the Whitewater case, regardless of the Clinton’s slick ability to cover their own tracks.
Moore smeared the NRA and Charleton Heston in his other “documentary”. He made a brave, honorable, decent mentally failing man look like a bloodthirsty racist. Somehow that doesn’t square with Heston’s kinship with Martin Luther King. Not to mention the real history of the NRA.
“ He picketed discriminating restaurants. He worked with Martin Luther King, and helped King break Hollywood’s color barrier (yes, there was one.). He led the actors’ component of King’s 1963 march in Washington, which set the stage for the key civil rights legislation in 1964.”
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
It’s only natural that Heston would feel a kinship with an organization that was founded in the spirit of the defense of blacks against their oppressors in the Democratic party and at the time its terrorist arm, the KKK.
How can someone with either such a lack of historical knowledge or such a contemptible disregard for someone’s reputation be trusted to contribute ANYTHING of value to the national debate?
Posted by Natalie on Jul 4, 2004 at 3:47 PM Michael Moore loves this country?? Don’t insult my intelligence. Examples of how he hates America: Moore called those thugs in Fallujah “minutemen” and predicted they would win. He has also said Americans are “the dumbest people on the planet...Our stupidity is embarassing.” Speak for yourself, Michael. He also told David Letterman he would debate any right-winger anytime, anywhere, and he hasn’t debated any of them. Mikey is a liar and a coward.
Posted by Scott on Jul 4, 2004 at 5:46 PM IT APPEARS THAT THE WRITER OF THE ARTICLE “FRAMING MICHAEL MOORE”, IS A VERY COMPETITIVE AND CRITICAL OF OTHER WRITERS. A LOT OF ACCUSATIONS AND UNCERTAIN TRUTH OF THE ISSUE ARE GOING ON. THERE IS NOT EXACTLY FACTUAL INFORMATION BUT A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS AND OPINIONS. ARE WE ALL ENTITLED TO OUR OWN OPINIONS AND VIEWS? NO ONE WILL HAVE THE EXACT SAME OPINIONS OR VIEWS ALIKE.
Posted by By Flora Parker on July 5, 2004 on Jul 5, 2004 at 10:46 AM Natalie, your statment on Nicaragua shows how utterly naiive and just plain stupid you are. To think that committing this crime where innocent civilians and even nuns were masacared and now they have Democracy so it’s okay?!
Your statements hold absolutely no weight. Reagan lied to congress not once but twice and this can be proven. But, oh, he didn’t screw some intern, so let’s not impeach him. Instead he violated countless laws concerning presidential power.Scott, I challenge you to find ONE false statment in Moore’s new movie. It’s well documented and if you don’t believe it, you’re as naiive and stupid as Natalie.
Why else is this “president” getting so upset? The truth hurts. If all of this was a big lie, Moore would be subject to libel, slander and defamation of character and, so far, no one has filed any such lawsuit.
If you actually stand behind a moron who believes God told him to attack Iraq, is brain damaged from his years of coke use and won’t even let stem cell research advance because of his warped interpretation of the bible, then you just prove all of us correct.
Yeah, “Fornigate” was true, but whoop-dee-fucking doo! No one is dying over it and that piece of shit in the white house doesn’t give one rat’s ass about the people in this nation who make under $100,000. And if you back THAT it tells me a lot about how many things from the right you will believe WITH NO FACTS.
Fox News isn’t an unbiased source, and neither is that hypocrite Limbaugh.
But believe what you want. More soldiers continue to die because of that son-of-a-bitch in Washington. I know I won’t vote for him in November, along with so many, many more who say they won’t.
Posted by Ammonia D on Jul 5, 2004 at 3:55 PM There’s a new pot in the kitchen, and he’s calling the other kettles who don’t agree with his limited world-view stupid and naive. He seems to think that democracy just ain’t worth fighting for; far better to let the communists and dictators have their way than risk any deaths. All those needlessly killed at Normandy fighting for that over-rated thing called freedom. He doesn’t seem to understand that atrocities were already happening in Germany, Japan, Russia, Nicaragua and Iraq independent of the U.S. and helping to defeat these evil regimes means less death and much more freedom and security in the long run.
For whatever abuses of power the Reagan administration may have been guilty of, I echo the pot when he says “whoop-dee-fucking doo.” The motivation at least was not selfish. It had a far nobler goal than hiding from the nation the fact that there was a sexual predator in the Whitehouse. Whatever arms were to be traded for hostages were hardly comparable to the advanced missile technology Clinton gave to China. And again, the motivation was not selfish. It wasn’t for campaign contributions, it was to gain freedom for fellow Americans, wrong-headed in retrospect as it may have been.
As for false statements in Moore’s movie, we’re reminded of the famous saying: “I didn’t’ have sexual relations with that woman”. Perhaps technically true from a medical textbook point of view, but to the average American, ridiculous. Was Clinton TRYING to say to us “yes I got a hummer from her and did her with a cigar, but I didn’t screw her”, or was he TRYING to make us think nothing at all happened? Was Moore TRYING to tell us that Saudi flights left after airspace was open and Richard Clarke and the FBI approved them, or was he TRYING to tell us that they left when airspace was closed and Bush approved them? I’ve got a personal story that supports the former. A friend came back from seeing the movie and told me: “remember when after 9/11 nobody could fly? Bush just let all bin Laden’s family fly out of the country.” All I could do was bite my lip and nod in feigned understanding, not wishing to destroy a friendship over a stupid movie.
Spinsanity doesn’t exactly find F911 brimming with facts:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html
The pot talks of Bush using cocaine, apparently using the logic that precisely because there’s no evidence of it, it must by true. Actual credible testimony by Clinton’s 12 year mistress giving accounts of how his head would itch when he’d snorted too much blow or video tape of his brother Roger comparing the presidential nose to a vacuum are ignored. Using the same logic, actual evidence of guilt is no doubt regarded as proof of innocence. In the land of fahrenhate, it all makes perfect sense.
You’re right, though. Rush is not an unbiased source. Howdya know?
Posted by Natalie on Jul 7, 2004 at 2:34 AM You still can’t prove one thing to be a lie in Moore’s movie, Natalie.
You’re comparing two different things: Clinton’s actions to Moore’s movie about BUSH. Typical Republican denial and side-stepping, once again.
Yeah, just bite your lip. These issues are all well-documented and if you want sources, I’ll provide them. It probably irks you that millions of people are going to see this movie, proving we won’t be silenced, as much as Ashcroft has tried.
And as long as you’re talking about selfish motivations, what is this war all about? Remember all the reasons? First, WOMD, then, “He’s a threat”, then, “Connections to Al Qaeda”, then “Iraqi freedom”. And not one of these is true. Real reasons, Haliburton, Enron and other military-industrial contractors. You can’t deny THAT. And I dare you to tell the parents of one of these dead soldiers that this war wasn’t selfish. That is was for American freedom and protection. Such a crock of shit. Yet he continues to cut VA benefits and denies there’s problems with DU.
But, like most unfeeling, uncaring, and only for the rich Republicans, you can’t look at the current issues without bringing up Clinton. THIS WAR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CLINTON, NAIIVE FOOL. For lack of proof, for lack of anything of merit Bush has done in office, all you can do is ape Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Savage and Coulter. Hateful, hateful, biased people. Moore is fighting for truth, and you and the avove mentioned commentators are still flogging Clinton.
Now let me use YOUR logic. I only do this because you can’t use facts or disprove anything I’m saying, instead, preferring to go on, yet again about Clinton. That’s weak--further proving me previous comments.
I couldn’t care less if a president has sex with a White House intern. The economy boomed, jobs were plenty and Israel and Palastine were ready to sign a historic peace accord. Bush comes in and it’s wiped out in 6 months. SIX MONTHS. All in the name of his being a “good Christian”. This, along with this sham of a war is reason enough not to vote or him. He’s also eroded the wall of separation of church and state.
Further using your logic, it’s far better to let people die in a phony war than a president to get a blow job. Using your logic, it’s better to execute the retarded in Texas, Bush’s former state. If, and using your logic, conservatives are compassionate, as they say, why do they believe in the death penalty? It’s immoral. Point me out one place in the New Testament where it justifies that.No, I won’t use your screwed-up, damaging logic, because it won’t allow a tit to be shown on TV, but will let poor people’s kids die in a war for the filfthy rich billionaires of this nation, whose kids won’t go to fight. I won’t use your neo-con, fascist logic because it destroys civil liberties, lowers the bar for minorities (oh, but Bush isn’t getting a blow job) and erodes the middle class. It moves far, far, far, more jobs overseas since Bush has let big business have a blank check of deregulation to do so. So go complain to that tech service guy in India when your Dell breaks down.
But, we’re taling about Bush, not Clinton. Bush and father are responsible for dumping 395 tons of depleted Uranium on Iraq, (source: Campaign Against Depleted Uranium) for a job gain (combined) of 0.1% Junior’s is -.5 Source: US Department of Labor.
Your sources? spinsanity.org? Ha ha ha ha And where are your sources about Clinton? But, wait, we’re talking about Bush. The horrible things he’s doing that you can’t defend and can’t disprove.
No, to be for Bush means to have the blood of the innocent in Iraq and the US soldiers on your hands. I’m against him and all his lies in the name of being a good Christian. From what I remember of my teaching, good Christians don’t lie and don’t start wars for their industrial buddies. They don’t allow torture, they don’t dismantle the Bill of Rights. Again, remember, talking about Bush, NOT CLINTON.
Posted by Ammonia D on Jul 7, 2004 at 6:08 PM Hey Ammonia, you haven’t disproven my points. Countless other people have thoroughly dismantled “F911” and “Bowling for Columbine”. As for calling me a moron, up yours. In November, we will be giving all the Bush-haters the finger.
Posted by Scott on Jul 9, 2004 at 10:25 AM I never called you a moron Scott, I said you were stupid and naive to believe Bush.
Stupid: Obtuse. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
Naive: Lacking worldly experience and understanding.
Websters.com definitions.Countless other people have dismantled F911 and BFC? Who? You haven’t found ONE lie or disproven anything yet. Another side-step by a Republican.
But go ahead and tell me “up yours”. I expect no less from a “compassionate conservative.
You are right about me hating Bush. I hate that lying murderer. My wish for him is to have to struggle to make the rent and find money for food and/or health insurance the rest of his life. Fuck him.
And if you support him, you’re taking the cowardly approach by supporting the killing of innocent people for his political gain and nothing to do with US freedom and safety. Things are far worse if anything.Don’t bother to believe this FROM A CREDIBLE SOURCE:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence agencies overstated the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, relied on dubious sources and ignored contrary evidence in the run-up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, a Senate committee reported on Friday.
Here’s the link: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=L5OUA0WZCKMHMCRBAE0CFFA?type e=topNews&storyID=5633733See, we who are correct, CAN prove Bush is a liar and murderer. While all Republicans can do is just call names and call anyone of the many (Bob Woodward, John Dean, Richard Clark among the heavy-hitters) names like “crazy” or “disturbed” or “suicidal”. No, without Woodward, Nixon wouldn’t have fallen. I think he has some credibity.
Save this country and save your wallet--vote Democratic.
Posted by Ammonia D on Jul 9, 2004 at 10:35 PM Here’s an idea for a new “documentary”, Ammonia D. Feel free to submit any more ideas you may have.
John Kerry. A child of privilege, nothing but the best from day one. He decides to go to Vietnam not because he particularly cares about the cause, but because he’s looking for material with which to pad his resume. I’m sure we could find lots of testimony and stills that would make him look real smug, self serving and uppity. They may not tell the whole story and there might be other things that would contradict the portrayal, but what we put in would be true, and the pictures would be authentic.After finding out that his swift boat assignment wasn’t as cushy as he thought it would be, he realized he better get the hell out of there ASAP. What better way than to trump up his injuries and get enough purple hearts to qualify for stateside duty. So what if it’s only been four months. Play testimony from his Navy doctor describing how one of his injuries was no more than a a tiny scratch. We could go on to get testimony from nearly all of his fellow swift boat captains describing what a self-serving jerk he was and how he staged the footage of himself walking out of the jungle no doubt to use in some future campaign ad or to impress his upper crust friends. Insert testimony of real soldiers with devastating injuries insisting on returning to the battlefield after they are healed.
On to his testimony before congress trying to employ the phony Kennedy accent. “I must ahsk you a question, do you really think communism is so bad? It’s just another ideology, misunderstood” Cue footage, testimony, newspaper headlines talking about the 60 million murdered in communist Russia and the million or so dead as a result of abandoning the South Vietnamese. Morph pictures of Kerry into Jane Fonda.
Later we’ll show pictures of Kerry supporting the nuclear freeze movement. Pictures with Ortega. Juxtapose footage of Reagan demanding: “Tear down this wall”. Pershing missiles deployed in Europe over the objections of Kerry and liberal elites. The eventual fall of the Berlin wall and cheering crowds in newly freed eastern European nations. A speech by the democratically elected leader of Nicaragua thanking the U.S. for helping to bring democracy to their country.
We could make him look so F-ing bad. Like a Commie-appeasing coward. And there would be a whole lot more truth in it than anything yet emanating from Michael Moore. If anybody questions the veracity of anything in the film, we simply say: “Prove that any of what’s in the film is a lie” Then when they do, just say: “you still haven’t proven anything in the film is a lie” It’s so easy when you just decide to throw all reason and fairness out the window.
On to flip-flopping statements played again and again back to back. “voted for the war before I voted against it” “Although I support your right to choose, I think life begins at conception.” Cue footage of mutilated fetuses, 3D ultrasound images of unborn babies smiling and responding to outside stimuli. Footage of pro-death maniacs marching and yelling for “choice”. Kerry speech: “I support your right to choose (break for footage of pile of baby parts) although I personally believe life begins at conception.” Show footage of confused people trying to make sense of what he just said. Interviews with Catholic priests shaking their heads and describing his position as heresy.
You see, Moore’s film is nothing more than a dishonest campaign commercial against President Bush. I’m sure you would feel the same if the above described documentary was produced and shown under the guise of being a “documentary”.
You on the left don’t want to hear about Clinton, I know and believe me, I understand. We on the right really don’t want to talk about him either. But when people try to smear Reagan and then skip to Bush conveniently leaving out the eight comical, criminal, self-serving years of Clinton, foul needs to be called. Actually, the writer of the article under discussion here was the first to bring him up.
I see you’ve engaged in a little Mooreism yourself. You talk about a booming economy under Clinton but fail to mention that the boom had started to turn to bust well before Bush took office. Yes, Israel and Palestine were ready to sign a peace deal, but they didn’t. And Palestinians commenced blowing up innocent Israeli women and children with renewed vengeance before Bush took office. You also didn’t mention that the murderer terrorist Arafat was one of the most frequent visitors to the Whitehouse, but that’s another documentary! Its like poking a hole in the boat, turning it over to someone else, and then blaming them for sinking it. It’s like Moore coming out against the Afghan war and then later saying that we didn’t act fast enough.
The best article debunking F911 comes from a fellow liberal:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
Posted by Natalie on Jul 11, 2004 at 11:07 AM Ammonia D, your article also includes this:
“But the report found no sign that the White House had pressured analysts to reach pre-set conclusions.”
“The committee did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities,” it said.”
How does this square with your assertion that “Bush Lied”? To be intellectually honest and I know that’s asking alot, you’re gonna have to call John Kerry and John Edwards liars as well. Not to mention Michael Moore.
“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” - John Edwards
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction… [W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator.” --Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 11, 2004 at 11:11 AM Okay, Natalie.
Analogy is the worst form of argument. This tells me a lot about who I’m dealing with here. You can’t prove your points so you make up some weird acid trip in your head and expect me to take that seriously?
And none of the Kerry claims the Republicans make are true and have been proven so.See, I ignore stories that float around the internet that say Bush has the lowest IQ of any president--there’s no credible source for that. I also ignore hokey little sites that make unsubstantiated claims, like spinsanity.org, the site I believe is your main proof for your sources. Moore offers links and proof for his claims in his movies. But not only that, all of these issures were in the NEWS, you know, television, newspaper. Like the points I make below where I provide a source.
Of course Edwards and Kerry were wrong for voting for the war, but, they were lied to.Your weak BS:
“But the report found no sign that the White House had pressured analysts to reach pre-set conclusions.”Truth: Hans Blix, U.N. inspector: No evidence found before Iraq war. Source: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/05/sprj.irq.blix.report/index.html.
And this was ignored.
Of course they didn’t attempt to coerce them, they just lied because Bush is a liar and a blatant one at that:ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS INDICATE BUSH IS LYING ABOUT HIS WAR DECISION.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A62438-2 2003Feb24¬Found=true. Washington PostAnd Cheney lies:
“We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”
—Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC’s Meet the Press, March 16, 2003“I don’t believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons.”
—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at a hearing of the Senate’s appropriations subcommittee on defense, May 14, 2003.That’s a big a crock as the economy was declining under Clinton. Of course, according to “sources” as The Daily Republican and Capitalism Magazine (eyes rolling). And I wouldn’t rely on getting it from a Democratic site either. But this is from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54318-2003Jun30?language=printer. In it, Bush accepts the fact that the economic boom ended in March 2001.But the biggest lie is that Saddam was a threat to the US. He was not. Absolutely no proof of it. Show me the alleged WOMD, the alleged chemical weapons, the alleged nukes he was developing. They’re not there. Osama is the threat, but where is he?
Instead, Bush chose to deceive the nation and the world. He ignored the UN inspectors reports that said no such weapons or capabilities existed. And if you’re bringing up the whole defense of Israel bullshit, he never mentioned that. I wouldn
The bipatisan report recently concluded no connection to Saddam or the nation of Iraq or it’s citizens exists or existed between al-Qaeda. Yet he isists there is. LIAR! And people are dying still.Oh, I could go on with the Bush lies, but there’s a word count.
And about your earlier remarks about Normandy. These really made me angry, because you questioned my patriotism. After 9/11 I read, read, read and it’s then that I realized just how badly Bush was handling things, if not knowing 9/11 was going to happen.How dare you. I love my country but hate my appointed “president”. And that’s allowed. Just like you hate Clinton and love not proving your point.
Only I hate Bush for the lives he’s lost because of his war, not for something that had NO EFFECT on the economy or loss of life. And I’ve already lost two brothers.
And for anyone to go through it for the fabricated reasons his administration has made up is almost unforgiveable. Not a shred of noblity in this. It’s sickening.
I’m voting against him.
Posted by Ammonia D on Jul 11, 2004 at 6:51 PM And, Natalie, until you CAN prove a point (so far you can’t), I’ll refrain from trying to explain the difference between truth and fiction to lunatics like yourself who compare “marching babies and crack-smoking libarians watching light drippping in the abortion clinics that compare June Clever to Abraham Lincoln” in the self-righteous and broken mind that is yours.
Hey, I didn’t write that shit you tried to pass off as a point, so don’t blame me. I have protests to organize against a fascist thug “president”. Peace, and I would fear everyone as YOUR president suggests.
Posted by Ammonia D on Jul 11, 2004 at 7:10 PM Moores trail record of lies. staging, and “creative” editing, has now made everything he comes out with suspect. No credibility.
Posted by Eric Myers on Jul 11, 2004 at 9:34 PM Read your article about Blix again, A.D. Right there near the top it also says this:
But he also said that the former Iraqi regime was unable to account for chemical or biological weapons it claimed to have destroyed and that weapons inspectors were unable to clear up discrepancies before leaving Baghdad in advance of the invasion.
“This does not necessarily mean that such items could not exist. They might. There remain a long list of items unaccounted for,” Blix said. “But it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it was unaccounted for.”
In other words, Blix hadn’t found WMD’s, but he certainly couldn’t guarantee anything given Iraq’s history of non-cooperation. So what are you trying to say? We should have called off the whole thing based on this fence straddling analysis? The WHOLE WORLD thought Saddam had WMD and we should ignore them all because of a mealy mouthed Swede that turned out later to be just another partisan leftist? “global warming is a greater threat than terrorism” (I’m Swedish so I can say these “hateful” things about brother Blix) :-)
I agree that Bush may have been less than truthful when he said that he hadn’t made a decision to go to war. But I don’t see that as a indictable offense any more than you think Clinton should have been criticized for lying to a grand jury to deny someone he sexually harrassed her day in court. I see it as trying to give the weenie wimps in the U.N. a little slack in hopes they would save their own sorry reputation. Of course the possibility remains that he hadn’t made the decision as he said, and his deputies were under instructions to play bad cop. (Makes at least as much sense as kite flying in Iraq.) :-)
You quote Cheney on Meet the Press, but examining the transcript makes it clear he misspoke, meaning to say program not weapons. No official on either side ever said they thought Iraq had nuclear weapons, as far as I know. Either you’re aware of this and are just being deceptive, or you’re simply uninformed. Is this something you got from F911? Rummy was correct, and Cheney simply misspoke, and it’s common knowledge. There’s no deep dark deception going on here, as much as some wish there was.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm
NBER says the recession started March 2001. They are also considering moving the date back to late 2000:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38826-2004Jan22?language=printer
But this is so not the point. It’s fine for you and me and Clinton to be happy about what economic growth occurred during his presidency, but the economy’s not a personal water-craft, it’s an ocean liner. The course began changing early in 2000, and naturally, the official start date of the recession was some months later. You don’t just wake up to a recession. Trying to say that the economy was doing great and only suddenly went bad after six months because Bush took over is intellectually silly.
“Presidents don’t have so much to do, in my opinion, with when recessions start,” Zarnowitz said. “Clearly the boom happened under Clinton, and the boom generates the bust. And no administration has the power to change that.”
Nasdaq lost half it’s value starting in March 2000.
Real GDP growth had slowed to 1% in the fourth quarter of 2000.
Domestic Investment plunged from +22% in the 2nd quarter of 2000 to -4.1% in the 4th.
Initial jobless claims began to rise at the end of 2000
Industrial production/manufacturing and trade sales both peaked in June of 2000Joseph Stiglitz, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton, admits that “the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier.”
Yes, as I said, the economy started going south during Clinton’s last year. The official starting date of the recession being either in late 2000 or early 2001 confirms it. Just remember..... ocean liner.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 15, 2004 at 9:50 AM continued.......
“Saddam was not a threat”, you say. Read this. It explains why we had to act when we did and why WMD stockpiles are so not the point.
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/rivkin_casey2004 407130904.asp
“The bipartisan committee reported no connection” Exactly wrong. The report concludes that:
Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden “explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan.”
“A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994.”
“Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan.” Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: “There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there.” Following news stories, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said he did not understand the media flap over this issue and that the commission does not disagree with the administration’s assertion that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government.
I didn’t mean to question your patriotism re: Normandy and I’m sorry for your losses. I only question your judgment. Your preference for no civilian casualties in Nicaragua and Iraq over the defeat of communism and murderous tyranny is unfathomable to me. I’m lead to believe that you would have preferred we stayed home in the early 1940’s. I hope I’m wrong on that. Do you also condemn the civilian casualties in Kosovo, or is 500 an acceptable number? What is your limit? Is it OK with you that 800,000 people were killed in Rwanda and the U.N. and Clinton did nothing? Would you have been in favor of action that might have cost a few thousand lives to save the remaining hundreds of thousands? Are you an isolationist? Is that you, Pat?
The acid trip you refer to more accurately describes Mikey’s movie. You still haven’t proven ONE THING in MY documentary to be a lie! :-) Your reaction to it is interesting, though, but predictable. How is it that my documentary is an acid trip, and F911 is some kind of honest portrayal?
Is it not true that Kerry’s purple bruise medals weren’t severe enough to warrant any time in the hospital? Is it not true that a majority of his former commanding officers don’t think he’s qualified to be president?
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040515063551324
Is it not true that he poo-pooed the threat of communism and opposed every effort to defeat it? Is it not true that he has a 100% rating from NARAL, but now claims to believe that life begins at conception? Is it not true that this would confuse many people?
As opposed to:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm(this guy voted for Nader, just like Mikey)
Spinsanity is not a sight I’ve visited often, it leans way too far to the left for me. You might actually come to like it:
http://www.spinsanity.org/book/Interestingly, some of the most effective critics of Moore are on the left.
Again, from a liberal:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19320-2004Jun30?language=printerMoore’s acid trip is crashing fast, in large part because of honest liberals that are willing to set straight their brethren on the “wishful thinking” fringe.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 15, 2004 at 9:54 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Joel Bleifuss
- Keep the Heat on Obama
- EPA on Trial
- Bush’s Selective Mourning
- Piling it High
The sewage sludge industry meets the light of day - Political Vice Squad
- Red-Boating Obama
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
