Originally posted by Larrydavid on June 25, 2004 - 17:55 pm

Great movie every Human needs to see this masterpiece

Originally posted by Gator on June 25, 2004 - 18:39 pm

In Reply to: Farenheit 9/11 posted by Larrydavid on June 25, 2004 - 17:55 pm:

Nice fairy tale.

Originally posted by Larrydavid on June 25, 2004 - 18:49 pm

In Reply to: Really? I put it up there with "The Wizzard of Oz." posted by Gator on June 25, 2004 - 18:39 pm

Fairy tale? I guess its hard for some to accept

Originally posted by Roadglide on June 25, 2004 - 20:57 pm

In Reply to: Re: Really? I put it up there with "The Wizzard of Oz." posted by Larrydavid on June 25, 2004 - 18:49 pm:

Michael Moron has some issues....The New York times trashed his work. If any group of Americans would want to know the TRUH it would be the people of New York city.
I tend to put more faith in the NY Times staff than that of Mr. Moron.

Originally posted by SF_Hombre on June 25, 2004 - 21:04 pm

In Reply to: Re: Nothing but half truth's posted by Roadglide on June 25, 2004 - 20:57 pm

NY Times did not trash it. If you'd like a copy of the review, inbox me. While 911 is unquestionably NOT a documentary, it's also not difficult to make a case from the video clips of him, that King George has delusions of competency.

Originally posted by Tight_Fit on June 25, 2004 - 21:44 pm

In Reply to: Farenheit 9/11 posted by Larrydavid on June 25, 2004 - 17:55 pm:

I guess that doesn't include God Fearing Christians. How about Progressive Lesbians? Can just plain common folk go or do you have to have a title? Are the theaters giving a special discount price to get in along with free popcorn that is certified organic and non genetic spliced?
Do you suppose Michael Moore goes to a regular $12 barber or does he sneak in to a $85 salon to get that special "good ol' boy" look that he obviously cultivates? And does he fly economy or is he now using private jets? It would be a kick to see a copy of his last tax submition to see how much he is siphoning, excuse me, deducting for expenses. And how much goes to charity? Real charity, not some Hollywood elite scam so the beauty people can get together and jack each other off for the photos. Do you suppose he has a hidden gun(s) stashed away or does he actually have a permit? Is he buying Sam's generic cola at Wal Mart or chugging expensive French champaign?

Dumb questions since us non Humans already know the answers.

Hey, one more for the road. If Michael Moore were to go to Rio to get laid, would he go to Help, one of the termas, an escort service, or maybe one of street TVs? My bet is Help for the photo shot, a terma to act "normal", and a VERY privately arranged session with two 12 year old meninos.

Originally posted by Larrydavid on June 25, 2004 - 22:55 pm

In Reply to: ...every Human needs to see...? posted by Tight_Fit on June 25, 2004 - 21:44 pm

well I was gonna put every american .but I remembered this is an international website.
I dont remember him ever preaching voluntary poverty,did you? You must not know his work ,thats the number 1 argument of the sean hannitys of the world . he never stated we should live in poverty so your post makes no sense ,he is a rich man and im sure he lives like a rich man does. but he has never hidden that.

love ya

Originally posted by Larrydavid on June 25, 2004 - 23:06 pm

In Reply to: Re: Nothing but half truth's posted by Roadglide on June 25, 2004 - 20:57 pm

I actually live in NYC and I actually saw the movie and alot of it makes sense. The times actually praised the film. Newscorp's rags though.....I doubt it.unfortunatly I dont think the people who need to see it will see it. If you take your movie reviews fron scarborough country we are fucked . forget michael moore just see it hes fat ,hes ugly , and he DOES use editing for satirical purposes,and there are a few half truths but the film is powerful

Originally posted by Roadglide on June 25, 2004 - 23:23 pm

In Reply to: ...every Human needs to see...? posted by Tight_Fit on June 25, 2004 - 21:44 pm

Your comment about hidden gun's, reminded me about Barbra Boxer and her stand on gun control.
While she has a permit to carry a weapon, she does everything in her power to outlaw the common man from keeping one in his house for protection.

Originally posted by Pilotboy on June 25, 2004 - 23:51 pm

In Reply to: Re: ...every Human needs to see...? posted by Larrydavid on June 25, 2004 - 22:55 pm:

And he was not born rich, he earned it, unlike the Hannitys, Bushes, and Cheyneys!

Originally posted by Hunterman on June 25, 2004 - 23:56 pm

In Reply to: Re: Nothing but half truth's posted by Roadglide on June 25, 2004 - 20:57 pm

Didn't the NYT staff have a few problems recently, and has been identified as being extremely left-slanted (like a few of the posters in this thread obviously are)?

Originally posted by Seismo on June 26, 2004 - 0:55 am

In Reply to: Farenheit 9/11 posted by Larrydavid on June 25, 2004 - 17:55 pm:

A month or so ago,I rode the bus from San Jose to Managua. I had the misfortune of having to watch this moron's other film,"BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE"
as the "in-flight"entertainment for the trip.
The movie inspired me to buy two new handguns as soon as I got home.

If you want to know where Moore is coming from, then you really have to see his first film Roger and Me. It's about how Flint MI went from a pretty average town to a festering slum, thanks to big business. You may not like the guy, or his message, but at least he tells it like it is (unlike Bush, Cheyney and the rest of the gang).

I, personally, am no great Michael Moore fan and don't see him as any great champion of the left.

I did not approve of his anti-war rant at the Oscars and didn’t think it was the appropriate venue for him to pursue or preach about his own political views.

I never watched Roger and Me or Bowling for Columbine and although I am intrigued by Fahrenheit 9/11, I probably won't see it in the theatres.

What I do find ironic is that basically another filmmaker is trying to do to Moore what Moore did to Roger Smith, the CEO of GM at the time. That is, going around and trying to get an interview from him. The film doesn’t claim to be all about Moore though. Watch the trailers.

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/trailer_lrg.html

The webpage itself is http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

Here are some other inconsistencies about Moore being held up as this great champion of the little guy, which I don't buy one bit.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48562,00.html

As for Cheney telling it like it is, he does. He just gets pissed off and heated up and tells you to "fuck off" on the floor of the Senate, which shows our Vice President is tremendously composed and levelheaded and tells it like it is. LOL.

really useless info from the fox guy,but did you expect anything else?

Michael Moore may look like a monger but he is a tuff guy.
I loved his book Stupid White Men.

I have yet to see this new movie but will soon

Well, I brought a friend to see 911. She is a lifelong Republican, although she is not a neo-con she is a Bush supporter. She was "made" to go as she had lost a bet to me several weeks ago.

She was ragging on me the whole time it took to drive to where the movie was playing. I just told her to keep an open mind. "You don't have to feel your obliged to agree with the tenents of the movie", I said, "or even try to defend your point of view to me. Just watch it!"

She was quite after the first 10 minutes, and was actually crying a little bit.

After the movie, she said the movie did not convice her to vote for Kerry. "But" she said, " I probably won't vote for Bush"

And this is just what the Republican right and all their attack dogs fear the most. The film won't turn Republican voters into liberal democrats, It will not change their point of view about the various issues that seperate this nation. It will not elect Kerry in and by itself. But it will ask people, especially republicans, if you wan't this man to be President.

And it is the fear of all righteous right-wingers who are hoping for another four glorius years of Bushdom, that the rank-and-file republicans who see this film will exercise their opinion by NOT voting period. And for at least one republican I know, this is result of watching the film.

OG

I'm going to see Fahrenheit today, I realize before I go it will not be a perfectly unbiased film. I'm still thankful to anyone who manages to get the truth out or at least some of it out in front of the voters.
I don't think most people know yet how dangerous this administration is. The patriot act is just the first of a long list of blatant grabs for power and freedom that these neo-cons are really all about, and
don't be fooled by phase's like "Hollywood Elite" or "Common Folks," That's just smoke. They'll
do anything they can to keep us arguing among ourselves while they turn America into there own
knockoff of Imperial Rome. If You're conservative or Liberal, unless your filthy rich and a member of the ruling elite you are just Bush's Bitch and now, not later, is the time to do something about it.
These peoples only vision of America is to pass it around to all there friends like a slut among bikers, just look at the secrecy and misuses of power. On top of it all the're incompetent. Look, don't listen
to me or anyone else. Just in case though that all the sh*t that is sticking to this president is there for a reason go see this movie and maybe pick up one or two books like Clark's or Greg Palast's. Now
is not the time to be proud, open your eyes and look around.

OG; Wow you are a bright one.... How stupid can you be "Encouraging people to not vote" that has got to be about the worst thing I have read on this board in a long time.

I guess they did not have social studies classes at the school you attended, but I was taught that voting is not only a right it is your DUTY. The best thing for your friend to do if she is not going to vote for President Bush is to vote for another canidate. I don't know about you but having to go to the supreme court after the last Presidential election was not a positive thing for OUR country.

As far as I'm concerned if you do not vote you have given up your right to bitch and complain about the results for the next 4 years.

"OG; Wow you are a bright one.... How stupid can you be "Encouraging people to not vote" that has got to be about the worst thing I have read on this board in a long time."

Ummm...maybe if you understood what he posted that would make sense.

I CHALLENGE you to identify how Orgngrndr encourages anyone not to vote.

He states "it is the fear of all righteous right-wingers who are hoping for another four glorius years of Bushdom, that the rank-and-file republicans who see this film will exercise their opinion by NOT voting period"

To translate into simpler terms, the far right fears the film will discourage their base and lower voter turnout for Bush.

Did he encourage anyone not to vote. No
Did he say "I hope Republicans do not vote". No
Did he say "If you see the movie, you should not vote". No
Did he say "If you like Bush, you should not vote". No
Are there ANY situations at all where he said "You should not vote". No

Perhaps before accusing people of stupidity, you should make sure you understand what the subject is saying.

"And it is the fear of all righteous right-wingers who are hoping for another four glorius years of Bushdom, that the rank-and-file republicans who see this film will exercise their opinion by NOT voting period. And for at least one republican I know, this is result of watching the film."

You forgot to add the last sentence.

Like I said in my post, you need to get out and vote. Anything that discourages a person from voting is wrong.

Adding that does not change the fact that Orgngrndr never said that it was his intention nor his hope that anyone not vote.

I agree with you that every eligible person should vote. In fact, one of Moore's intentions with the film is to MOTIVATE people who should have voted in the past but didn't, to vote in this election.

I disagree slightly with Orgngrndr's analysis. I think the far right fears a much higher voter turnout more. New voters cannot be safely counted on for either side, and that threatens the incumbant more than the challenger.

Wow, $21.8 million........that is an absolute shitload for a documentary, and 9/11 raked it in the first weekend.

My apologies to Roadglide if I wasn't clear. I never advocated people not to vote. People will not vote if they see a reason not to. Let me illucidate and illuminate.


It is no secret that the Republican Party has been very successful in getting out the vote. In many cities, and states across America republicans are outnumbered by democrats but still win offices. It may be because the the Republican candidate is a better candidate, or most likely, it is because the republican party has done a better job of getting their voters to the polls.

Remember "B-1" Bob Dornan?. He was a House Republican and a man who practically invented neo-conservatism who represented a congressional District in Orange county that was predominantly latino with significant portion of the population Vietnamese. The voting roles in that district were 2-1 democratic. Yet Dornan won several elections. He did this by getting his core constituancy, in this case the anti-communist vietnamese, the older, retired republicans, and white anglo-saxon christians to get out the vote. The democrats consistently would run some white guy against him and always lose.

It wasn't until several latino political groups started doing demographic research on the area and past voting records that they came up with a simple plan. They established a voter registration drive to get new voters and bring in the disenfranchised, they got the latino community involved and the politics changed. The latino groups found out that the voters were not intersted in electing "another white guy" to congress and simply didn't vote for him. When a hispanic candidate was found, she was female, educated, wealthy and Latina. She was elected and won the election and the acrimonious voter registration probe that followed. The Republican Party actually investigated over 2000 registered voters. It was during this investigation it was found out that the Republican party hired private security police to "hang around" the heavily hispanic voting polls. Not only that they went out of their way to hire a security service from another county, they also had uniforms that were amazingly and suspiciously like the same uniforms worn by the INS officers. The republican sponsored probe only brought up about 3 unverifiable voters, well below what is considered normal in most precincts.

A similair situation here in Arizona when a white anglo Democratic woman won the Gubanatorial election over a white male Republican in a heavily Republican State.

In both these cases something happened that brought out the democratic voters. In Orange County, it was a latina candidate and a voter registration drive. In Arizona it was a proposition that would limit Indian gaming in the State. The Indian nations have a heavy Democratic Party representation. In both cases the democrats turned out to vote in an elections as it directly affected them.

In 2000 many Democrats stayed home, They were turned off over the Clinton scandal, the Al Gore disenfranchisment of most union workers by his support of unpopular republican-backed labor rules which in heavily union states which were prior to the 2000 election, democratic "locks".

Count in the "Nader factor" and the stealth campaigning by the republicans and even though the Democrats won the 2000 vote by half a million votes, lost key states to Republicans because of low, in some cases, record low turnouts of Democrats to vote for Gore.


My long winded point is this:

There are voters who will vote no matter whose running. The have a virtue which they believe it is their highest duty, to turn out on election day. A lot, but not all of these people can be considered of a conservative nature and probably will vote Republican., but a considerable amount of these people will be democrats too.

Then there are those who turn out to vote if the weather is good, the candiste is good-looking, the voting lines are not long, they can get off of work early and the polling place is convienient.

Then there are those who may be scared to vote (sad but true) only vote if they are directly affected and are generally not interested in politics.

And finally, there are those who are disenfranchised. They maybe ineligible to vote or they have not been registered.

In 2000 the Democrats in many states failed to come out and vote. They "voted with their feet" by staying away in some cases and in some states, in record numbers.

If Bush does not win this election it will because the rank-and-file or middle of the road republicans will fail to support him AND the democrats will be reinvigorated to get out the vote in big numbers in part because of F-911 but mostly because of the Bush policies.

If my Republican friend can be induced Not to vote for Bush as a result of this movie, then Michael Moore can truly affect the outcome of this election. If you noticed I didn't say my friend would not vote!!!! She indicated she may vote for other Republican candidates on the ballot, and she may not vote for Kerry, but she will NOT vote for Bush. There is a big difference in my point about not voting and not voting for Bush, which apparently you missed.

OG

OG; I agree with a lot of what you said in your last post.

I guess the biggest bitch that I have about modern politics is that we NEVER get the middle of the road guy/gal any more, just those on the extreme edge of their partys.

Given the choices that we had last time around I think Bush was the best choice.

Would 9/11 still happened? I think so. Would our responce been the same? Who know's.

You can Monday morning quarterback this for the next 100 years and still have questions about it.

While I have already made up my mind, still the most telling part of the movie was Bush, after being told after the 2nd plane hit, not knowing what to do. For a full 7 minutes he was inert, stunned, sitting in the classroom just waiting for instructions from the actual decision-maker(Cheney) to tell him what to do. Our country was under attack and Bush was clueless. My good guess is that Cheney is and has been the de-facto president all along but he was unelectable as president in 2000 because of his public demeanor, so the Republicans had to select someone with name recognition in an attempt to win the White House. This is really weird stuff as I don't think Cheney is anywhere near the top of the US chain of command as pertains to the vice president's legal power to make decisions, although I could be corrected on this point.

Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT



Moore: Trying to have it three ways

One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.

Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.


Continue Article

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.


Recruiters in Michigan

Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.

2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.

3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.

5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction. In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures. This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that—as you might expect—Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. So, that's another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic "key to all mythologies."

A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.

The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm. More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup. This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book that also revives the charge of FDR's collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least Moore's film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back in their paranoid box.

But it won't because it encourages their half-baked fantasies in so many other ways. We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003. I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now, either. I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)

That this—his pro-American moment—was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)

Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem. No problem at all. Now look again at the facts I have cited above. If these things had been allowed to happen under any other administration, you can be sure that Moore and others would now glibly be accusing the president of ignoring, or of having ignored, some fairly unmistakable "warnings."

The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism infects his treatment of another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy. From being accused of overlooking too many warnings—not exactly an original point—the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many. (Would there not have been "fear" if the harbingers of 9/11 had been taken seriously?) We are shown some American civilians who have had absurd encounters with idiotic "security" staff. (Have you ever met anyone who can't tell such a story?) Then we are immediately shown underfunded police departments that don't have the means or the manpower to do any stop-and-search: a power suddenly demanded by Moore on their behalf that we know by definition would at least lead to some ridiculous interrogations. Finally, Moore complains that there isn't enough intrusion and confiscation at airports and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters. (Cue mood music for sinister influence of Big Tobacco.) So—he wants even more pocket-rummaging by airport officials? Uh, no, not exactly. But by this stage, who's counting? Moore is having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing. Again—simply not serious.

Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq's recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly. They fear the liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film's "theory." Perhaps Moore prefers the pro-Saudi Kissinger/Scowcroft plan for the Middle East, where stability trumps every other consideration and where one dare not upset the local house of cards, or killing-field of Kurds? This would be a strange position for a purported radical. Then again, perhaps he does not take this conservative line because his real pitch is not to any audience member with a serious interest in foreign policy. It is to the provincial isolationist.

I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that. Back in Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this time. Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away. I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights. I'll merely ask this: In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft—the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he think—as he seems to suggest—that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve in their place? Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack) riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it's a waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much like taking him seriously. He'll just try anything once and see if it floats or flies or gets a cheer.


Trying to talk congressmen into sending their sons to war

Indeed, Moore's affected and ostentatious concern for black America is one of the most suspect ingredients of his pitch package. In a recent interview, he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women (and children). Never mind for now how many black passengers were on those planes—we happen to know what Moore does not care to mention: that Todd Beamer and a few of his co-passengers, shouting "Let's roll," rammed the hijackers with a trolley, fought them tooth and nail, and helped bring down a United Airlines plane, in Pennsylvania, that was speeding toward either the White House or the Capitol. There are no words for real, impromptu bravery like that, which helped save our republic from worse than actually befell. The Pennsylvania drama also reminds one of the self-evident fact that this war is not fought only "overseas" or in uniform, but is being brought to our cities. Yet Moore is a silly and shady man who does not recognize courage of any sort even when he sees it because he cannot summon it in himself. To him, easy applause, in front of credulous audiences, is everything.

Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet. Some right-wing hack groups, I gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to drop the film. How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one form of stupidity and cowardice with another? By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.

However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. And as for the scary lawyers—get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of.

Some people soothingly say that one should relax about all this. It's only a movie. No biggie. It's no worse than the tomfoolery of Oliver Stone. It's kick-ass entertainment. It might even help get out "the youth vote." Yeah, well, I have myself written and presented about a dozen low-budget made-for-TV documentaries, on subjects as various as Mother Teresa and Bill Clinton and the Cyprus crisis, and I also helped produce a slightly more polished one on Henry Kissinger that was shown in movie theaters. So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage.

Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.

Correction, June 22, 2004: This piece originally referred to terrorist attacks by Abu Nidal's group on the Munich and Rome airports. The 1985 attacks occurred at the Rome and Vienna airports. (Return to the corrected sentence.)


Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His latest book, Blood, Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship, is out in paperback.

Photograph of Michael Moore by Pascal Guyot/Agence France-Presse. Stills from Fahrenheit 9/11 © 2004 Lions Gate Films. All Rights Reserved.Photograph of Michael Moore on the Slate home page by Eric Gaillard/Reuters.

I can only say: Here's to Michael Moore, who has most certainly taken Leni Riefenstahl's place.
He trashs the USA but pockets the money. What a sweetheart. Dime to a dollar he was the fat kid in the third grade who always carried the black book bag.

Why Does everyone think this guys needs to be poor? Why is that your only argument. I hate the elite, wealthy, ruling aristocracy of the U.S.A., but I still wouldnt mind being "rich" why is this so hard to understand? Dont you guys Realize the difference between wealthy and rich? Watch the most recent Chris Rock special, in which he says "Shaquile O'neil is rich ,the white guy who signs his check and says "Here Shaq ,go buy yourself a bouncing car or something" is WEALTHY". So what is rong with Moore being rich? Maybe you wouldnt respect him unless he was homeless. So to all you rich guys ,he isnt attacking you, get over it. Go see the movie dont rely on the corporate media to do your thinking for you.

And Gator he doesnt attack the U.S.A. ,I am the U.S.A., we are all the U.S.A. ,not just bush and the ruling class

Unfortunately, Christopher Hitchens falls into the same mistake he accuses Michael Moore of, that of fact checking.

One egregious error, make his whole thesis so much neo-conservative hype.

There was never any proof, never any evidence that Iraq ever had anything to do with 911. Yet Hitchens, in a very circular way, still treads that well-worn neo-con highway, even when the administration is trying do distance itself from that assertion.

Hitchens is a conservative writer, having little or no prescient information but instead, was constantly fed false or slanted information, like many conservative columnist were, by the Bush administration to try and link it's Iraq policies and designs to the tragedy of 911.

The House of Saud, a Sunni Muslim dictatorship was not going to join the "coalition of the willing" as it had nothing to gain and a lot to lose. Sending Saudi soldiers who are Sunni to a predominatly Shiite nation was folly. In the world of reopolitik it appears that the Iranians, and the Sauds were the real winners.
The Iranians who most likely recruited and fed information to Chalabi, the US's appointed heir apparent to the Iraqi Presidency, lead America to a war with its most feared enemy, and the House of Saud, had removed, by their old friends, the Bushs, the real threat to their kingdom and wealth; Saddan Hussein and his army of 4 million.

The "Big Lie" that Hitchens accuses Moore of perpetuating is more of the same neo-conservative yellow paging that is their response to their actions that are laid bare for all to see.

Indeed, the Bush administration has carried the art of the "Big Lie" to new extremes. Be it the Iraqi war and occupation, to cooking the books on the State Department's annual report on terrorism ocurrances, to announcing yesterday that all future invitations asking US scientists to speak or present papers in international UN conferences, must be first "vetted" or approved by a Bush political appointee, regardless of. or if, the scientist was invited in person.

Such hubris, arrogance, poor judgement and plain negligence made Michael Moore depiction of this administration in this documentary so amazingly facile that I'm surprised many people have not seen this coming.

Indeed, the majority of the press and critical reviews of this movie were made without particularly dissecting the veracity of Moore's claims. The movie's reviewers all mention that the movie does establish in it's footnotes and credentials both on the film and at Moore's website where and when and how information was gathered.

Rather the majority of the movie critics found that it was good movie-making. The fact that it contained all real-life footage, no acting or "simulated" situations did not go unoticed and made for very convincing documentary movie.

Although Hitchens, at length, tries to unsuccesfully dissect Moore's thesis, He is undone by his falling back to the now discredited neo-conservative point-of-view offering the same discredited information as others of his ilk. At least he tried to seriously debate the film, unlike the other passionate conservative writers and columnists, who tried to dicredit the film by mounting personal attacks against the director.

It seems that when bad news is finally disseminated, the rabid conservative elements have chosen to shoot the messenger.

A point that does not go unoticed among potential voters of all ends of the political spectrum who see this film and read the conservative rebuttal.

OG

(Message edited by orgngrndr on June 27, 2004)

On Escaping Democracy

Here's one more viewpoint on the ultimate worth of your vote. I haven't reached this guy's stage of cynicism or bitterness about our system but I can relate to much of what he says. More than anything I respect the fact that he has had the guts to opt out instead of just taking about it. Someone above made a great point about how we no longer (did we ever?) have any viable candidates from the center. Either they are avowed extremists, like currently Nader, or else fakes who hide their real colors until in office, like currently Bush.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm

I am will to bet most of you think there was was a second tree involved in Sonny Bono's death.
And I still think Michael Moore was the fat kid in the third grade who always carried the black book bag. BTW: you said, "Go see the movie dont rely on the corporate media to do your thinking for you." Just who the hell do you THINK made this work of art, the Little Sisters of the Poor? I'll also bet every time you left your sociology class you thought, "That professor really knows what he/she/it is talking about."


P.S

1. I am not in the USA
2. I never said he needs to be poor
3. I never said he attacks the USA

Sorry ,he doesnt trash the U.S.A.,I never took a sociology class. I dont think moores only motive is money. that seems to be your conclusion,that he only is in it for the $$$$$. you are correct about the media ,but its the part of the media that I happen to agree with,{except when it comes to Israel} the so called holywood "elite" as the moron conservatives like to call them. .

I did do some further research. Michael is the fat kid from the third grade. The reason I remember him is that damn black book bag. He would stand after school and watch us play. Trying to be inclusive conservatives, we would call out, "Mike! Come and play." His grip would tighten on the book bag; he would turn and walk away and as he did so he would say, "My name is Michael not Mike."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to be suspicious about the objectivity of a producer who vehemently ranted against his future film's protagonist at the Academy Awards. Of course, according to Michael Moore, Americans are possibly the most stupid people on earth, so he may be banking on our lack of analytical ability.

I really want to give Michael Moore the benefit of the doubt, but he has been so carved up in TV interviews here on the East Coast (as being a hypocritical subjective man on a mission) that he's lost his credibility with me.

It has also been shown how Moore conveniently omitted certain parts of footage that would have been detrimental to his film's purpose had they been included. I don't know about you, but when ANYBODY deliberately employs such a tactic, I have no further use for them or their opinions (much like the commercial ads that hide the truth in the fine print that remains on the TV screen for less than a second; or the radio commercial with an announcer breaking the speed of sound, and the concept of intelligibility, at its conclusion while reading legally required statements; or the cigarette companies whose former cigarette packs displayed the word "hazardous" in the smallest font possible and tried to hide that warning on the most inconspicuous part of the pack).

If the truth about Bush is so evident, Moore would not have needed to resort to such deviousness. But he did, so how can I trust him?

Whether or not Moore's film is truthful is not the real issue. Whether or not you should be a Bush supporter or detractor is not the real issue. The real issue is this: will the American public allow someone who is at least as much a "spinner" as every political figure is be the pot that calls the kettle black and gets away with it.

A Doesn't want to say any Moore kind of guy,

Ootie

Ootie,

Until I read your post Larrydavid had converted me. I was on the way to the drive way to scrape my "Nuke a Gay Whale for Jesus" bumper off the pickup truck-the gun rack stays.

It does make you wonder why Moore left out facts like Saddam letting a known terrorist live openly in Iraq.

Or how about this, the Russian's gave us intel that Saddam was planning terrorist action against U.S interests. This little but important piece of information came out during the 9/11 hearings.

What was the President to do? Take action, or sit back and wait to be hit again.

Remember Moore was against our actions in Afganistan.

One final question. Why is Moore trying to scare his critics by threating legal action against them if they doubt the accuracy of his story. Is that not a form of censorship?

I am anxious to see the film but am in Braisil and will have to wait until I can find it on a newsgroup to download. I think this is a good discussion though.

I am curious why people want everyone to vote. I have never thought the public in general was very bright, so am pleased when they dont vote and my vote has that much more significance. I would encourage most people to stay home on election day.

One of the attacks the right has made on Michael Moore was his intentions in the movie. After all, they reasoned, the movie cannot be held truthful or an impartial documentary as it is biased attack on George Bush. They then go on to savage the director and a common move is to print something untrue misleading or salacious to do damage, knowing that they will face no recriminations. Michael Moore, knows how the right-wing pit-bulls operate and has vowed to fight back against obvious lying and the vicious spreading of rumor and innuendo. If it requires to hire some of his own attack dogs, so be it. The gloves are off in this one.


No one has written a rule that documentaries must be impartial. Most documentaries present only one side of the story anyway. The ideal is to illuminate the viewer with facts they might not be aware of.

The idea that the film is propaganda, and is akin to Reifenstal's "Triumph of the Will" is not only laughable, it is obscene. Refienstal film glorified a man that became one of the true monsters of modern history. It lied to the audience. It used made up scenes, It abhored the truth.

Michael Moore's film fits the definition of propaganda, it spreads information to promote a cause. But it is real information, and no one disagrees with this.

The very idea of a documentary is to show a side of things not normally documented or only documented in a very broad way. By their very nature all documentaries resolve an issue, educate the viewer, or pose a question to the audience. But the difference of a documentary vis a vis a fictional film, is that they use a combination of real world multimedia footage, interviews and historical/actual events to tell the story.

Whether it's watching the disney channel and seeing the wonderful world of ducklings, or watching Bush in Wonderland read "My Pet Goat" for over 7 minutes while being informed that the nation is being attacked, each gives the viewer important information he might not have had.

In 911 Moore takes a piece of videotape taken by a schoolteacher and by adding a clock and a few comments, make Bush look like the someone who is truly lost and out of his element when he is informed the US is being attacked.

It is a powerful piece of film.

The fact that we live in a world of information overload, where we are constantly pounded with information, some factual, some fanciful, and some outright spurious, and it makes it awfully hard to distinguish what is important and what is not, what is dubious and what is clear, what is the truth and what is a lie.

There is no question Michael Moore is biased.
It is his film.

And much like any director who makes the story of the movie his vision, Michael Moore's take on the Bush administration and the events since he took office, are his. That they are about real world issues, reinforced with actual facts, film clips and interviews make his vision a documentary and not a work of fiction as the right might want you to believe.

He makes no bones that he represents no other than what he is.

Does he edit video to highlight his thesis? Yes. Does he use real footage? Yes. Does he lead his audience with his fact to fortify his assumption? Yes.
Does he feed his audience assumptions based on untruthful information? No. Does he lie to the audience? No.

In short, Michael Moore's film evokes a very salient message to those watching it.

In a world of information, what we do and what we profess to do, what we see and what others wish us to see, What is true and what are falsehoods are mostly a matter of how you can present your information.

Michael Moore has produced a very good piece of film making and as a result make a powerful arguement against the policies and leadership of the current adminstration. It is much more than any hundred TV or radio talk show could ever hope to match. The resulting publicity to ban the film has only fueled the desire of many to watch, to think and to question.

OG

If I am not mistaken werent the russians against an invasion of Iraq? or was it only the french and germans? If they were ,it seems odd that they were against the invasion when it started no that all is said and done and there is money to be made bush lies and putin swears to it. please correct me if Im wrong ,this information probably would have been more valueable ,last spring

GCL: I might be inclined to agree with you, except if Rush Limbaugh runs for something; in that case I would ask that you stay home and leave the voting to me and other similarly minded hombres. Actually, I think the best solution would be a benevolent dictatorship (so long as I get to choose who the dictator is). I'd choose someone really good, I promise.

Larry; Unlike some I am not making up or twisting the truth. It was in the 9/11 commision's report the other week.

As far as the French and German's part of their antiwar reasons were and are economical.

OG; You say Moore does not lie, does that mean he tells the whole truth? It would be like calling someone a mother fucker. In one context it is an insulting discription of a sexual relationship with ones own mother, on the other hand it is an adept discription of what a lot of us due when we are in TJ, Rio or any other of our favorite destinations.

In the case of Moore which one is it?

Funny thing, this is not the same version that was shown in Cains. Unlike most other works of fiction he refused to allow an advance showing for the movie critics......I think he is afraid, why else would he continue to duck FOX NEWS and others. You don't think they would show him in the same light as he has done to others now would you?

I guess some of us want to believe the film and some do not ,we all know none of those dudes wanna have a debate it would discredit all of them. I love Al franken but his book wsnt that good ,it was funny but most of the lies he exposed were not detromental. I think moore is correct in this film and I am aware of his tactics . Hannity and Rush are dangerous lunatics,O'reily is a notch below them , not as dangerous just an Idiot and wrong. But I dont agree 100% with the liberal agenda.

Damm now that is a hell of an idea... Get the whole bunch of them (the talking heads) to have a debate.

The Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

Question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock .40 and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?


Liberal Answer:

Well, there is not enough information provided to answer the question. Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have an appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun and what kind of message does this send to society and my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.

The Conservative Answer:

Bang! Bang!

BUT if you are a liberal named Rosie, then you have one of your security personnel shoot him.

Thats ridiculous. we arent a nation comprised of 2 gangs

Chill out people. Lets vote to bring a monger friendly president. Lets change the constitution and bring back Bill Clinton and then we can all head to Cuba. Bush is making it hard for us to go to Cuba and other destinations and that should be the test for his second term. This is a monger board, we all have one thing in common to be on this board, we all like or love mongering. Bush policies are clearly anti-monger and he should not be getting any one of our votes. Not sure what Kerry's views are on mongering but I am sure he will have to say something on both sides, he will take a position for and against mongering so here is a 50% chance that he will be a monger friendly president. Nader on the other hand won't mind street actions but he will definetly oppose organized, corporate mongering like the one in Las Vegas, but he probably support maa paa mongering shops.

Again, we live in democracy. In democracy we only count vote or people, we do not evaluate their thinking or reasoning. So if there are more red necks then we will get a red neck president simply becuase they will get out and vote and come home and f--- their cousin wives.

Gator; I prefer the H&K USP compact .40 it's easy and safe to carry with one round in the chamber.

That was a great post.

OG. Ever wonder why Michael Moron used his peacefull pictures of Arab children playing and not those of dead Kurdish children that were gassed by Saddams regime?

Because he was unwilling to show just how evil Saddam was.

Moore is about as truthfull as Baghdad Bob!

actually he used them because thats who was killed regular people minding their buisiness.

Why would you show saddam killing people? To justify killing more innocent people? What kind of logic is that?