So you don't care that Bush lied and got more than 800 American soldiers killed as well as 12,000 Iraqi civilians?

And even if the conclusions he draws are stretching it, which occasionally they are, Moore hasn't actually lied in any way that would discredit the body of his argument (if at all).

I would care if that was actually true.




Moore takes truthes and puts his own spin on it.

Take for example. Moore puts video footage of Bush eating a large ham sandwich.

Moore then says "Look at the guy, millions of people starving, and he can just sit there and eat a ham sandwich like that. How can anyone vote for a guy that does things like that? "

Yes it's true Bush was eating a ham sandwich. But the way MM paints it, it's as if it was the worst thing one could do.

And the Bush-hating zealots lap it up like it's brilliant.

So Gullible.

You should know all about this though. You do it too with your "Bush Lied" and your "Blood for Oil" shenanigans.

You are only fooling those that want to believe in the first place.

The Bush haters are one of the biggest circle jerks I have seen in awhile.

This article pretty much hits it on the nail

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...6/29/do2902.xml

But this is Zim.

Yes, I am not a leftist knee-jerking Bush hater that promotes anyone that says anything bad about Bush true, or not.

SHAME ON ME!!1

Here were the key points that the Bushies made for the war in Iraq, ordered for convenience:
a) Saddam Hussein had WMD
b) Saddam Hussein was in collusion with Al Qaeda
c) Iraq was likely to or already had given Al Qaeda support in the form of WMD
d) Hussein was an imminent threat to Americans and Israelis
e) Hussein was a monster and did horrible things to his own people
f) It really didn't matter anyways because all the oil in the country was going to more than pay for the cost of reconstruction

REBUTTAL
a) Was a complete lie. Nobody had any solid intelligence dated after 1998 that said Saddam had WMD (remember 1998 was when Clinton bombed all their weapons stockpiles out of existence, thus eliminating Saddam's WMD).

b) Another lie, and one they keep repeating. The 9/11 commission as well as several other investigative bodies has said that there is absolutely no evidence that Iraq had any relationship at all with Qaeda, in fact Hussein's regime was openly hostile to religious extremism and he made it impossible for terrorists to work in his country (excluding a single training camp in the Kurdish territory to the north that Saddam had no control of). Al Qaeda members close to Bin Laden have gone on the record and said that they hated Saddam as well. There simply wasn't a relationship.

c) Saddam was a psychopath, a sociopath and a despot. People like that who have power are rabidly interested in keeping power. That much speaks for itself. If Saddam had even had weapons to supply to the terrorists that he wasn't even dealing with, he wouldn't have done so. His power was force, and giving up any amount of his ability to inflict that power would have been completely contrary to how he operated. If your power is in your gun and you give your gun to somebody else then you have no power anymore.

d) Well there weren't any WMD, and furthermore there weren't any missiles or planes capable of leaving Iraq and delivering any kind of payload to Israel, much less the U.S. Another lie.

e) Sure, but not any more than other regimes that we support throughout the world, like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Need I bring up that the majority of the hijackers on Sept. 11 were Saudis? Oops, looks like I just did.

f) Oh snap, the American taxpayer is getting slapped with a $150+ billion fine? Where's the massive oil revenue?

You made teh nose blink on and off a bit too fast.

Lower it a bit and it will be acceptable.

Heh, you sure that is what he bombed?

BTW unless you can prove Bush knew beforehand that what he said wasn't true, you have no case. You do know that right?

The left keep forgetting these facts. I guess like Moore, it doesn't matter what the truth is. It's the seriousness of the accusations that matter.

That did it. I'm voting for Bush.

I am not trying to change your mind. Just pointing out the obvious blunders in your logic.

These films are political manifestos rather than documentaries.

Believe all you want but for god sakes make up your own mind.
Don't let some blumbering college drop out or Bruckheimer PA reject tell what to think. They're in it for the for same fortune and glory as Bush and his cronies.

I think the real appeal of these films are for those who feel powerless. That's why so many have viewed F9/11 as a communal experience. It's scary but at the opposite extreme, The Passion of the Christ carried similar sway over its audience. Propaganda in the end I say.

You want to see what kind of filmmaker Michael Moore really is then rent Canadian Bacon.

Comparing F 9/11 to The Passion of the Christ may not work all that well. I don't know.

Though I didn't find The Passion of the Christ to be that extreme.

I think I just heard Bush tell you to jump off a cliff. You must do it for the cause. And also because you have been outed as Michael Moore's love slave. You must do it for your leader and for the good of the party.



Here's a cupla docu goodies coming up:

"RIDING GIANTS" a documentary that takes a look at the history of surfing and features legendary surfers including Greg Null and Laird Hamilton.

"AMERICA'S HEART AND SOUL" a documentary that profiles the lives of Americans.

Haha, what is that from?

You can't show a monkees penis!

Hey Demon...

Why not? Both are examples of one man's vision of events that are extremely relevant to many people. These visions are extreme thus I draw the comparison. The Passion of Michael Moore could very well be the subtitle of F-9/11.

Hey Michael, by the way, Bradbury called, says he wants his reputation back.

This is one of them "fixed" posts.

Wanna go out back and make out?

Then we can say that Peter Jackson's vision of LOTR is extreme as it is relevant to many Tolkien fans.