Us presidential election 2004

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Congressional Children in War

Deceits 53-56

Early in this segment, Moore states that “only one†member of Congress has a child in Iraq. The action of the segment consists of Moore accosting Congressmen to try to convince them to have their children enlist in the military. At the end, Moore declares, “Not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq.â€

Moore’s statement is technically true, but duplicitous. Of course no-one would want to “sacrifice†his child in any way. But the fact is, Moore's opening ("only one") and his conclusion ("not a single member") are both incorrect. Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in Iraq in 2003. The son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter quit his job after September 11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery unit was deployed in the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden's son Beau is on active duty; although Beau Biden has no control over where he is deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and therefore does not "count" for Moore's purposes.

How about Cabinet members? Fahrenheit never raises the issue, because the answer would not fit Moore’s thesis. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s son is serving on the U.S.S. McFaul in the Persian Gulf.

The editing of the Congressional scenes borders on the fraudulent:

….Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in Fahrenheit 9/11, was censored by Michael Moore.

According to the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune, Kennedy, when asked if he would be willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore that his son was thinking about a career in the navy and that two of his nephews had already served in the armed forces. Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive.

What was Michael’s excuse for trimming the key segment? Kennedy’s remarks didn’t help his thesis: “He mentioned that he had a nephew that was going over to Afghanistan,†Moore recounted. “So then I said ‘No, no, that’s not our job here today. We want you to send your child to Iraq. Not a nephew.’â€

Kennedy lambasted Moore as a “master of the misleading†after viewing the interview in question.

Fahrenheit Fact.

George Stephanopoulos, of ABC News, asked Moore about the selective cuts in the Kennedy footage:

Stephanopoulos: You have a scene when you’re up on Capitol Hill encountering members of Congress, asking them if they would ask their sons and daughters to enlist … in the military. And one of those members of Congress who appears in the trailer, Mark Kennedy, said you left out what he told you, which is that he has two nephews serving in the military, one in Afghanistan. And he went on to say that, “Michael Moore doesn’t always give the whole truth. He’s a master of the misleading.â€

Moore: Well, at the time, when we interviewed him, he didn’t have any family members in Afghanistan. And when he saw the trailer for this movie, he issued a report to the press saying that he said that he had a kid in—

Stephanopoulos: He said he told you he had two nephews.

Moore:… No, he didn’t. And we released the transcript and we put it on our Web site. This is what I mean by our war room. Any time a guy like this comes along and says, “I told him I had two nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan,†he’s lying. And I’ve got the raw footage and the transcript to prove it. So any time these Republicans come at me like this, this is exactly what they’re going to get. And people can go to my Web site and read the transcript and read the truth. What he just said there, what you just quoted, is not true.

This Week followed up with the office of Rep. Kennedy. He did have two nephews in the military, but neither served in Iraq. Kennedy’s staff agrees that Moore’s Website is accurate but insists the movie version is misleading. In the film, Moore says, “Congressman, I’m trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq.†But, from the transcript, here’s the rest:

Moore: Is there any way you could help me with that?

Kennedy: How would I help you?

Moore: Pass it out to other members of Congress.

Kennedy: I’d be happy to — especially those who voted for the war. I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.

This Week, ABC News, June 20, 2004.

while Fahrenheit pretended that Kennedy rebuffed Moore, Kennedy agreed to help Moore.

Notice also how Moore phrased his reply to Stephanopoulos: "Any time a guy like this comes along and says, 'I told him I had two nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan,' he’s lying." But Kennedy never claimed that he had a nephew going to Iraq. The insinuation that Kennedy made such a claim is a pure fabrication by Moore.

Fahrenheit shows Moore calling out to Delaware Republican Michael Castle, who is talking on a cell phone and waves Moore off. Castle is presented one of the Congressmen who would not sacrifice his children. What the film omits is that Rep. Castle does not have any children.

Are Congressional children less likely to serve in Iraq than children from other families? Let’s use Moore’s methodology, and ignore members of extended families (such as nephews) and also ignore service anywhere expect Iraq (even though U.S. forces are currently fighting terrorists in many countries). And like Moore, let us also ignore the fact that some families (like Rep. Castle’s) have no children, or no children of military age.

We then see that of 535 Congressional families, there are two with a child who served in Iraq. How does this compare with American families in general? In the summer of 2003, U.S. troop levels in Iraq were raised to 145,000. If we factor in troop rotation, we could estimate that about 300,000 people have served in Iraq at some point. According to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000 households in the United States in 2000. (See Table 1 of the Census Report.) So the ratio of ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service personnel is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1.

In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service personnel is 535:2. This reduces to a ratio of 268:1.

Stated another way, a Congressional household is about 23 percent more likely than an ordinary household to be closely related to an Iraqi serviceman or servicewoman.

Of course my statistical methodology is very simple. A more sophisticated analysis would look only at Congressional and U.S. households from which at least one child is legally eligible to enlist in the military. Moore, obviously, never attempted such a comparison; instead, he deceived viewers into believing that Congressional families were extremely different from other families in enlistment rates.

Moore ignores the fact that there are 101 veterans currently serving in the House of Representatives and 36 in the Senate. Regardless of whether they have children who could join the military, all of the veterans in Congress have personally put themselves at risk to protect their country.

(Deceits: 1. number of Congressional children in Iraq, 2. Mark Kennedy, 3. Michael Castle, 4. False impression that Congressional families are especially unlikely to serve in Iraq.)

Factual error....

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Intresting,so you formed your opinon from Fox News and Bush hardcore peanut gallery rants on the internet.

The guy who wrote Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a hardcore bush-fan. He voted for Nader and in the article he wrote a example of an Bush lie.

Regardless. The point stands. You should form your own opinion before criticising it.

btw. Nader voter = Republican with a sadistic sense of humor

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Regardless. The point stands. You should form your own opinion before criticising it.

Tell Moore to stop putting fake movies on the internet...

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]The guy who wrote Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a hardcore bush-fan. He voted for Nader and in the article he wrote a example of an Bush lie.

Ah but that is what you don`t understand.

He has seen Farenheit,analyzed it and wrote his views about it.

Why do you take them for granted?How can you possibly follow his version blindly and start a crusade against a documentary you haven`t seen?

Here is my take,leave your prefarbricated ideas behind,go see the documentary without thinking about dishing Moore,balance it rightly and find out for yourself if the deceits were actually in the documentary and what was the impact on the bigger picture it wanted to illustrate.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Moore’s statement is technically true, but duplicitous. Of course no-one would want to “sacrifice†his child in any way. But the fact is, Moore's opening ("only one") and his conclusion ("not a single member") are both incorrect. Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in Iraq in 2003. The son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter quit his job after September 11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery unit was deployed in the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden's son Beau is on active duty; although Beau Biden has no control over where he is deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and therefore does not "count" for Moore's purposes.

Factual error....

I don't see the error. He lists senators here. Moore said members of congress, not senators. And regardless, one or two does not constitute a "major factual error". You'll have to do better than that.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Ah but that is what you don`t understand.

He has seen Farenheit,analyzed it and wrote his views about it.

Why do you take them for granted?How can you possibly follow his version blindly and start a crusade against a documentary you haven`t seen?

Here is my take,leave your prejudecaments behind go see the documentary without thinking about dishing Moore,balance it rightly and find out for yourself if deceits were actually in the documentary and what was the impact on the bigger picture it wanted to illustrate.

his views...by using information from outside sources. He did what the critics (I heard) say that you should look up the stuff presented in F911 after seeing it.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]The guy who wrote Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a hardcore bush-fan. He voted for Nader and in the article he wrote a example of an Bush lie.

Ah but that is what you don`t understand.

He has seen Farenheit,analyzed it and wrote his views about it.

Why do you take them for granted?How can you possibly follow his version blindly and start a crusade against a documentary you haven`t seen?

Here is my take,leave your prejudecaments behind go see the documentary without thinking about dishing Moore,balance it rightly and find out for yourself if deceits were actually in the documentary and what was the impact on the bigger picture it wanted to illustrate.

Since he's on a crusade against F911 and given his loyalties, I'd say that he uses proper Bush style intelligence gathering..

"Uhh..well...umm..this defector guy..um..hehe..told me that..umm..hehe..a friend of his wife's stable boy..umm..hehe..well..saw Saddam cooking Anthrax in his kitchen..hehe"

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I don't see the error. He lists senators here. Moore said members of congress, not senators. And regardless, one or two does not constitute a "major factual error". You'll have to do better than that.

Congress= Senate and House of Reps.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]I don't see the error. He lists senators here. Moore said members of congress, not senators. And regardless, one or two does not constitute a "major factual error". You'll have to do better than that.

Congress= Senate and House of Reps.

Hmm. I always thought that "congressman" refered to a member of the house of representatives and not a senator.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hmm. I always thought that "congressman" refered to a member of the house of representatives and not a senator.

nope...

Edit: look up congress

or

http://bioguide.congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch.asp

type in Gore for last name

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hmm. I always thought that "congressman" refered to a member of the house of representatives and not a senator.

nope...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=congressman

Quote[/b] ]

con·gress·man  

n.

A man who is a member of the U.S. Congress, especially of the House of Representatives.

Well, regardless, the "US Congress" refers to both the senate and the house. You learn something new every day

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Was talking about congress...D'oh

[billybob2002 0]

factual errors

Quote[/b] ]

Finally, Moore's line, "But really, who wanted to fly? No one. Except the bin Ladens,†happens to be a personal lie. Stranded in California on September 11, Michael Moore ended up driving home to New York City. On September 14, he wrote to his fans "Our daughter is fine, mostly frightened by my desire to fly home to her rather than drive." Moore acceded to the wishes of his wife and daughter, and drove back to New York. It is pretty hypocritical for Moore to slam the Saudis (who had very legitimate fears of being attacked by angry people) just because they wanted to fly home, at the same time when Moore himself wanted to fly home.

Quote[/b] ]

Bush once served on the Board of Directors of the Harken Energy Company. According to Fahrenheit:  

Moore: Yes, it helps to be the President’s son. Especially when you’re being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

TV reporter: In 1990 when M. Bush was a director of Harken Energy he received this memo from company lawyers warning directors not to sell stock if they had unfavorable information about the company. One week later he sold $848,000 worth of Harken stock. Two months later, Harken announced losses of more than $23 million dollars.

Moore:…Bush beat the rap from the SEC…

What Moore left out: Bush sold the stock long after he checked with those same “company lawyers†who had provided the cautionary memo, and they told him that the sale was all right. Almost all of the information that caused Harken’s large quarterly loss developed only after Bush had sold the stock.

Despite Moore’s pejorative that Bush “beat the rap,†no-one has ever found any evidence suggesting that he engaged in illegal insider trading. He did fail to file a particular SEC disclosure form on time. (Byron York, “The Facts About Bush and Harken. The president’s story holds up under scrutiny,†National Review Online, July 10, 2002.) For detailed factual timeline, see James Dunbar, "A Brief History of Bush, Harken and the SEC," Center for Public Integrity, Oct. 16, 2002.

Quote[/b] ]

Moore alleges that the Saudis have given 1.4 billion dollars to the Bushes and their associates.

Moore derives the $1.4 billion figure from journalist Craig Unger’s book, “House of Bush, House of Saud.†Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990’s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country’s military and National Guard. What’s the significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group, the powerhouse private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board has included the president’s father, George H.W. Bush.

...The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman, is that former president Bush didn’t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998—five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm.

Quote[/b] ]

Moore shows himself filming the movie near the Saudi embassy in Washington, D.C.:

Moore as narrator: Even though we were nowhere near the White House, for some reason the Secret Service had shown up to ask us what we were doing standing across the street from the Saudi embassy….

Officer: That’s fine. Just wanted to get some information on what was going on.

Moore on camera: Yeah yeah yeah, I didn’t realize the Secret Service guards foreign embassies.

Officer: Uh, not usually, no sir.

But in fact:

Any tourist to Washington, DC, will see plenty of Secret Service Police guarding all of the other foreign embassies which request such protection. Other than guarding the White House and some federal buildings, it’s the largest use of personnel by the Secret Service’s Uniformed Division.

Debbie Schlussel, “FAKEN-heit 9-11: Michael Moore’s Latest Fiction,†June 25, 2004.

According to the Secret Service website:

Uniformed Division officers provide protection for the White House Complex, the Vice-President's residence, the Main Treasury Building and Annex, and foreign diplomatic missions and embassies in the Washington, DC area.

So there is nothing strange about the Secret Service protecting the Saudi embassy in Washington—especially since al Qaeda attacks have taken place against Saudi Arabia.

[denoir 0]

Where are the factual errors?

That "nobody wanted to fly"? Seriously billybob...

Go and watch the movie, then we can discuss it.

[billybob2002 0]

read the edits...

[SpongeBob 0]

btw. Nader voter = Republican with a sadistic sense of humor  

Moore supported Nader back in 2000.

[denoir 0]

read the edits...

I have. And again it's that Moore insinuates various things, leaves out various things... but he isn't lying in general.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Proposed Unocal Pipeline in Afghanistan

Deceits 27-31

This segment is introduced with the question, "Or was the war in Afghanistan really about something else?" The "something else" is shown to be a Unocal pipeline.

Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while Bush was governor, over a possible pipeline deal with Unocal. But Moore doesn’t say that they never actually met with Bush or that the deal went bust in 1998 and had been supported by the Clinton administration.

Labash, Weekly Standard.

Moore asserts that the Afghan war was fought only to enable the Unocal company to build a pipeline. In fact, Unocal dropped that idea back in August 1998.

Jonathan Foreman, “Moore’s The Pity,†New York Post, June 23, 2004.

In December 1997, a delegation from Afghanistan’s ruling and ruthless Taliban visited the United States to meet with an oil and gas company that had extensive dealings in Texas. The company, Unocal, was interested in building a natural gas line through Afghanistan. Moore implies that Bush, who was then governor of Texas, met with the delegation.

   But, as Gannett News Service points out, Bush did not meet with the Taliban representatives. What’s more, Clinton administration officials did sit down with Taliban officials, and the delegation’s visit was made with the Clinton administration’s permission.

McNamee, Chicago Sun-Times.

Whatever the motive, the Unocal pipeline project was entirely a Clinton-era proposal: By 1998, as the Taliban hardened its positions, the U.S. oil company pulled out of the deal. By the time George W. Bush took office, it was a dead issue—and no longer the subject of any lobbying in Washington.

Isikoff & Hosenball, MSNBC.com.

On December 9, 2003, the new Afghanistan government did sign a protocol with Turkmenistan and Pakistan to facilitate a pipeline. Indeed, any Afghani government (Taliban or otherwise) would rationally seek the revenue that could be gained from a pipeline. But the new pipeline (which has not yet been built) has nothing to do with Unocal. Nor does the new proposed pipeline even resemble Unocal's failed proposal; the new pipeline would the bring oil and gas from the Caspian Sea basin, whereas Unocal's proposal involved deposits five hundred miles away, in eastern Turkmenistan.

Fahrenheit showed images of pipeline construction, but images have nothing to do with the Caspian Sea pipeline, for which construction has never begun. Nor do they have anything to do with the Unocal pipeline, which never existed except on paper.

According to Fahrenheit, Afghanistan's new President, Hamid Karzai, was a Unocal consultant. This is false. Sumana Chatterjee and David Goldstein, "A lowdown on the facts behind the allegations in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'," Knight-Ridder newspapers, July 2, 2004.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I have. And again it's that Moore insinuates various things, leaves out various things... but he isn't lying in general.

The bin ladens were the only ones wanting to fly? But, the reason he (Moore) did not fly was because of his daughter not him...

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Bush Administration Relationship with the Taliban

Deceit 32

Moore also tries to paint Bush as sympathetic to the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan until its overthrow by U.S.-led forces shortly after Sept. 11. Moore shows a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban envoy, saying the Bush administration “welcomed†the official, Sayed Hashemi, “to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban.â€

Yet Hashemi’s reception at the State Department was hardly welcoming. The administration rejected his claim that the Taliban had complied with U.S. requests to isolate Osama bin Laden and affirmed its nonrecognition of the Taliban.

“We don’t recognize any government in Afghanistan,†State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said on the day of the visit.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Saddam Hussein Never Murdered Americans

Deceits 40-41

Fahrenheit asserts that Saddam’s Iraq was a nation that “had never attacked the United States. A nation that had never threatened to attack the United States. A nation that had never murdered a single American citizen.â€

Jake Tapper (ABC News): You declare in the film that Hussein’s regime had never killed an American …

Moore: That isn’t what I said. Quote the movie directly.

Tapper: What is the quote exactly?

Moore: “Murdered.†The government of Iraq did not commit a premeditated murder on an American citizen. I’d like you to point out one.

Tapper: If the government of Iraq permitted a terrorist named Abu Nidal who is certainly responsible for killing Americans to have Iraq as a safe haven; if Saddam Hussein funded suicide bombers in Israel who did kill Americans; if the Iraqi police—now this is not a murder but it’s a plan to murder—to assassinate President Bush which at the time merited airstrikes from President Clinton once that plot was discovered; does that not belie your claim that the Iraqi government never murdered an American or never had a hand in murdering an American?

Moore: No, because nothing you just said is proof that the Iraqi government ever murdered an American citizen. And I am still waiting for you to present that proof.

You’re talking about, they provide safe haven for Abu Nidal after the committed these murders, uh, Iraq helps or supports suicide bombers in Israel. I mean the support, you remember the telethon that the Saudis were having? It’s our allies, the Saudis, that have been providing help and aid to the suicide bombers in Israel. That’s the story you should be covering. Why don’t you cover that story? Why don’t you cover it?

Note Moore’s extremely careful phrasing of the lines which appear to exonerate Saddam, and Moore’s hyper-legal response to Tapper. In fact, Saddam provided refuge to notorious terrorists who had murdered Americans. Saddam provided a safe haven for Abu Abbas (leader of the hijacking of the ship Achille Lauro and the murder of the elderly American passenger Leon Klinghoffer), for Abu Nidal, and for the 1993 World Trade Center bombmaker, Abdul Rahman Yasin. By law, Saddam therefore was an accessory to the murders. Saddam order his police to murder former American President George Bush when he visited Kuwait City in 1993; they attempted to do so, but failed. In 1991, he ordered his agents to murder the American Ambassador to the Philippines and, separately, to murder the employees of the U.S. Information Service in Manila; they tried, but failed. Yet none of these aggressions against the United States “count†for Moore, because he has carefully framed his verbs and verb tenses to exclude them.

According to Laurie Mylroie, a former Harvard professor who served as Bill Clinton's Iraq advisor during the 1992 campaign (during which Vice-Presidential candidate Gore repeatedly castigated incumbent President George H.W. Bush for inaction against Saddam), the ringleader of the World Trade Center bombings, Ramzi Yousef, was working for the Iraqi intelligence service. Laurie Mylroie, The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks: A Study of Revenge (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2d rev. ed. 2001.)

But even with Moore’s clever phrasing designed to elide Saddam’s culpability in the murders and attempted murders of Americans, Tapper still catches him with an irrefutable point: Saddam did perpetrate the premeditated murder of Americans. Every victim of every Palestinian terrorist bomber who was funded by Saddam Hussein was the victim of premeditated murder—including the American victims.

So what does Moore do? He tries to change the subject. Moore makes the good point that the U.S. media should focus more attention on Saudi financial aid to Palestinian terrorists who murder Americans in Israel. On NRO, I’ve pointed to Saudi terror funding, as have other NRO writers. But pointing out Saudi Arabia’s guilt does not excuse Moore’s blatant lie about Saddam Hussein’s innocence.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]his views...by using information from outside sources. He did what the critics (I heard) say that you should look up the stuff presented in F911 after seeing it.

Billybob we are having a failure in comunication.

Do you need others to think for yourself and then follow their take on a subject blindly?

I`ve seen movies praised by critics and thought they were a load of crap and even the other way around /remembers Starship Troopers

I can debate my conclusions at any given moment as I can slam your article by saying there was a bigger picture Moore illustrated that the author refused to abord-how can you dismis that without seeing the movie?

I reiterate:

Leave your prefarbricated ideas behind,go see the documentary without thinking about dishing Moore,balance it rightly and find out for yourself if the deceits were actually in the documentary and what was the impact on the bigger picture it wanted to illustrate.

Quote[/b] ]factual error

Booyah!1-0 for TBA  

[denoir 0]

According to Fahrenheit, Afghanistan's new President, Hamid Karzai, was a Unocal consultant. This is false. Sumana Chatterjee and David Goldstein, "A lowdown on the facts behind the allegations in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'," Knight-Ridder newspapers, July 2, 2004.

According to Le Monde, a much more respected news source than "Knight-Ridder newspapers":

Quote[/b] ]

LE MONDE | 13.12.01 | 18h07

Aussi Å• l'aise Å• discuter accroupi sur un tapis que dans un salon Å•  Washington ou Å• Londres, Hamid KarzaÄ a une large connaissance du  monde occidental. AprÄs Kaboul et l'Inde oů il a étudié le droit, il a parfait sa formation aux Etats-Unis oů il fut un moment consultant de l'entreprise pétroliÄre américaine Unocal, quand celle-ci étudiait  la construction d'un oléoduc en Afghanistan.

(...he was a time a consultant of the American oil company Unocal that was then considering building an oil pipe line throuhg Afghanistan)

You are countering Moores argument by providing the unsubstantiated claims from various for the most part right-wing sources. What makes you think they are any more reliable?

Quote[/b] ]But even with Moore’s clever phrasing designed to elide Saddam’s culpability in the murders and attempted murders of Americans, Tapper still catches him with an irrefutable point: Saddam did perpetrate the premeditated murder of Americans. Every victim of every Palestinian terrorist bomber who was funded by Saddam Hussein was the victim of premeditated murder—including the American victims.

This is also nonsense. Iraq, like Saudi Arabia, Syria, UAE et al gave money to the families of suicide bombers. As a pension after Israeli bulldozers destroyed their houses.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Billybob we are having a failure in comunication.

Do you need others to think for yourself and then follow their take on a subject blindly?

I`ve seen movies praised by critics and thought they were a load of crap and the other way around(*remembers Starship Troopers*)

I can debate my conclusions at any given moment as I can slam your article by saying there was a bigger and picture Moore illustrated that the author refused to abord-how can you dismis that without seeing the movie?

I reiterate:

Leave your prefarbricated ideas behind,go see the documentary without thinking about dishing Moore,balance it rightly and find out for yourself if the deceits were actually in the documentary and what was the impact on the bigger picture it wanted to illustrate.

I'm bias, I cannot help it..For example, I could be excuse from jury duty because my major is criminal justice. Defense lawyers can see this has a bias. The seeds of information that can "counter" stuff in F911 is already planted.

You can email dave: dave@davekopel.org

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]This is also nonsense. Iraq, like Saudi Arabia, Syria, UAE et al gave money to the families of suicide bombers. As a pension after Israeli bulldozers destroyed their houses.

Quote[/b] ]But pointing out Saudi Arabia’s guilt does not excuse Moore’s blatant lie about Saddam Hussein’s innocence.