Just saw a trailer about Michael Moore's new "documentary". From what i have seen ie. "Bowling for Columbine" that Michael Moore has a lot of propaganda in his movies. Looks like it is aiming at a "anti" Bush route. Just wondering if anyone has seen it and what it is geared toward....

TE-Sorry this doesn't have anything to do with CCT. Just wanted to get some CCT's/PJ's Opinions

I am not a CCT/PJ but I did see the movie and though it has a propagandistic feel to it, the facts are not as manipulated as the media leads on. Half of it is laced with factual info. and the rest with Moore's opinions. I think everyone should see this movie and judge it on your own. We certainly have corrupt leaders in this country who are looking out for themselves and their interests first and everyone should be acutely aware of this... Especially when the military is used as an instrument of this imperialism.... just my 2 cents...

Would like some some evidence of the corrupt leaders (who, etc.)...and this "imperialism"?

I know this is a rather incendiary topic being that most military members (which I am) are of the republican persuasion. Regarding corrupt leaders... start right at the top beginning with Bush & Cheney. Unocal, Enron, The Saudi's...just to name a few. These don't perturb me quite as much as the premature invasion of Iraq. Please don't read me wrong either, because I am by no means a pacifist or a radical liberal. Whilst the invasion may very well have been warranted at some point, which is debatable, it certainly was not as of March 2003. Moreover, this administration's rationale for doing so was duplicitous at best. Initially it was WMD's, then it was to remove a ruthless dictator. Operating under that sort of logic, there are scores of "ruthless dictators" that should be removed i.e. Robert Mugabe who is arguably worse than Sadam. Are we going to remove him next and free the oppressed of that nation? I think not and the reasons for that are self explanatory and they need not even be explained. By invading and occupying a country, than proceed to destroy it's infrastructure and auction it off to the highest bidder in the states (Halliburton).. the military has been used as an instrument of imperialism. Of course, I in NO WAY hold the military culpable for this, they are simply noble men & women following orders. Sorry for the lengthy rebuttal TE. This is only my opinion and I am simply an opinionated 22 yr. old. I encourage anyone to offer a rebuttal to my statements....

I trust very little of what is reported in the media these days...good or bad, pro republican or democrat...etc...

Although we are not the policeman of the world, invading Iraq saved thousands of Iraqi lives...the infrastructure was already destroyed and we're rebuilding it...as for Halliburton, of course they're there, along with DynCorp, Stevedoring Services of America, Abt Associates, SkyLink Air, IRG, RTI, and a host of others. The bidding process is somewhat questionable i'll agree...but to blame Bush for all of this is buffoonery.

I still don't see any concrete evidence as to your assertions...as far as Mugabe...going in and getting rid of him is better than sitting back and watching upwards of at least 500,000 Africans slaughter their fellow Africans because it wasn't in our "national interest" to intervene (Clinton/Rwanda 1994ish).

Just a few statements and observations; some will agree and others will not.

I believe that the greatest threat to the US is a WMD (bio or chem most easily used) in the hands of a Terrorist willing to use it. The best WMD would be a biological agent "weaponized" by well funded and well trained professional scientists. Such agents (even un-weaponized agents) could cause great casualties if released in a crowded venue, say an enclosed sports stadium, an arena concert,a subway system, etc. The fear generated by such an act would do great harm to the economy (people tend to radicly change spending habits after big catastrophies or what they see as world changing events).

My litmus test for Iraq is this:
Were there Terrorists in Iraq? YES! I know there were from being over there.

Were there WMDs? YES! Again, the US Military found a lot of mobile labs and sites with "agents" still being Identified. If you don't believe it, you need to go visit some of the sites over there and try to explain what they were really for; I can't and niether can a lot of weapons experts from the UN. I sat on a plane next to a UN weapons expert on the way home from that part of the world once and it's pretty scary to learn what the Iraqis were up to. We know from defectors and from the UN's own reports over the years that Sadaam spent millions of dollars recruiting and equiping scientists and labs to develop WMDs. Many Soviet Scientists laid off after the fall of the USSR admit to being contacted by individuals claiming to represent the Iraqi government (and other nations as well as several Terrorist groups).

Was Sadaam willing to use WMDs? YES! He used poison gas on the Iranians in the 80s and the Kurds in the 90s so he has a track record of using chemical agents (WMDs).

Was he developing means of dispersing bio and chemical agents? Yes! The US military captured many drone aircraft modified with aerosol sprayers. We know he had gas artillery rounds from the 80s for his Soviet made artillery of 122mm or greater calibre.

Now, would Sadaam give WMDs to Terrorists in his country who would then find a way to bring them to the US (say in a shipping container) and release them on helpless American civillians?

I don't know and neither do you nor did the President. He made a judgement call. I think he made a good call NOT to wait until a WMD went off in the US to obtain incotrovertable evidence.

I will not argue that American companies and friends of the Administration are profiting now. They are, no doubt about it. I will argue that it is unlikely that the US Congress, the vaunted US Press Corps and every member of President Bushes'Adminstration sat silently while the country was lead to war just so a few could get rich. If Congress is that week, the news media so easily duped and the President so powerful, then the country is in far worse shape than any of us ever believed. And if the sole voice of reason is an admitedly left wing film maker named Michael Moore, we really are in trouble.

As for the age old "No blood for oil!" rant we hear today (and heard 13 years ago): If we don't want to shed blood for oil we had better get used to a whole new standard of living because the world economy is based on petrochemicals. If anyone suggests lessening our interest in the Middle East or not defending our interest there, please provide an alternative economic model; I'd love to use it. I've been over there enough and so has the US military, we'd be happy to stay home if we weren't needed. Most of us would even be happy if we never had another war and could get rid of the military all together. I just don't see that happening. Until then, I'll take my chances with President Bush.

Just saw the movie and i was very disturbed. I did not like the fact that Micheal Moore goes on and on with speculations when in all there is no real solid proof on most of the propaganda that he portrayed in the film. I don't think that the movie should have been labeled a "documentary" because documentary look at both sides and are not soo one sided.

Probibally the most disturbing part of the movie was how (it seemed to me) Michael Moore dogged on the military. Throughout the movie he shows these violent clips of little boys'arms blown nearly off and innocent people dead in the streets. Then he cuts over to a US Army infantryman yelling "we don't need some water let the (mo-fo's) burn" making our ground forces look like a bunch of ruthless evil killers. Then Moore cuts to some Marine recruiters going to a "bad" side of town to recruit. Moore led the audience to believe that only the "poor" kids without anything going for them are the only who go into the military and that really pissed me off. And yes its probibally true that the marine/army ect. recruiters go to the kids who either aren't going to college or barely pass hs because they are easier to recruit. I was going to walk on to ASU and wrestle but instead i decided to go into the AF so the military is not just a bunch of people who can't get into college or a bunch of kids off the street. At least 5 out of the 10 people who graduated with me and went into the military were in the top 20% of the class.

While both of these statements note laudable intentions, I don't believe they are entirely realistic. As far as it being a good thing for us to remove Mugabe and save 500,000 Africans... I could not agree anymore. However, I also agree we are not the world policeman and our military is stretched far too thin as is. It is impractical for us to do that now and we don't have the luxury, nor the resources to do so anyhow. As far as Bush not being to blame, do you find it just a bit suspicious that Halliburton (which Cheney is a former CEO and still in close relations) has unequivocally benefited the most from all the post war contracts. Including I might add, selling cases of coke to the military for $45.oo...

Regarding Guard MC's comments... As far their being labs which at some point in time were used with ill intentions to create weapons...sure I don't doubt that is true. However, that would be the case with many countries and we most certainly are not going to invade and occupy them. The rationale behind the war was that Iraq posed an immediate threat which they simply did not. Sadam was insane but not stupid. He knew if attacked the US it would result in his demise. Those labs you speak of have been there for years! Why was it suddenly necessary to invade now? Despite those same UN inspectors you speak of asking us to let them finish their job. Again, by that logic we should prepare to invade every country which at some point has developed WMD's, used WMD's on it's own people, or harbored terrorists. By tackling this nearly insurmountable task, we not only stretch ourselves too thin, which we already are, we make are ourselves more vulnerable to attack here at home and abroad! Which is why Islamic Fascism (Al Queda) recruiting has skyrocketed since the war in Iraq began! This trend will continue I might add...

All Fahrenheit 9/11 did was make Bush out to be a functional illiterate which he arguably is. Many of the facts cited in their were in fact true...

It wasn't sudden, and 9/11/01 was the reason...because after that, we routed the Taliban/Al Queda out of Afghanistan...many of whom subsequently fled to Africa (were there) and Iraq (were there).

Recent contract numbers in Iraq:

Contract Awardee Date
Iraq Infrastructure Reconstruction - Phase II: Bechtel 01/06/04
Agriculture Reconstruction and Development for Iraq: (ARDI) Development Alternatives, Inc.: 10/21/03
Economic Recovery, Reform and Sustained Growth in Iraq: BearingPoint, Inc. 07/25/03
Monitoring and Evaluation: Management Systems International 06/25/03
Airport Administration: SkyLink Air and Logistics Support (USA), Inc. 05/05/03
Public Health: Abt Associates, Inc. 04/30/03
Capital Construction: Bechtel 04/17/03
Primary and Secondary Education: Creative Associates International, Inc. 04/11/03
Local Governance: Research Triangle Institute (RTI) 04/11/03
Seaport Administration: Stevedoring Services of America (SSA) 03/24/03
Theater Logistical Support: Air Force Contract Augmentation Program (AFCAP) 02/17/03
Personnel Support: International Resources Group (IRG) 02/07/03

I'm wondering where you get your info?

Bush, you, me...were only as smart as our source of information...I guess it really comes down to whether you like a President or not...unfortunately, with what the media reports today, and how they report it...one really has to dig, talk, read, etc. to get at any semblance of the truth...the media has lost all credibility with me (and I'm sure many Americans) because of how they choose to report things...and who they choose for Kerry's running mate (Gephard vice Edwards)...

9/11 was indeed the reason for invading Afghanistan. Conversely, Iraq had nothing to do with what occurred on 9/11..this is corroborated by the 9/11 commission. Iraq had some connections with terrorism, sure, but how many nations do? Scores.... we must not and cannot go to war with all of them. We must attack, deter, and prevent our most immediate threats (Bin Laden, whom we still don't have, North Korea, Iran, etc.)

T.E.... I would agree with you what we are only as smart as our information. However, if you, me, Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld have preconceived notions and/or intentions, we all will tend so slant the info. we are provided so that it fits our agenda. This is precisely what the report released by the Senate said this morning as well. It stated, "The intelligence community was victim to Group Thinking because they were pressured to find a connection between Iraq and 9/11".

Sure the media has an obviously palpable agenda they wish to advance. They simply want Bush out and will do all they can to see that happen...

Here is what CNN.com says:

"The committee found no evidence that the intelligence community's mischaracterization or exaggeration of intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities was the result of politics or pressure," Roberts said.

Also:

But Rockefeller said the intelligence report "fails to fully explain" the pressures on the intelligence community "when the most senior officials in the Bush administration had already forcefully and repeatedly stated their conclusions publicly."

And I can't stand the media always blaming Bush when it takes the Executive AND Legislative branch of government to go to war.

Here is MSNBC's remarks...
WASHINGTON - The CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies fell victim to false “group think” when assessing Iraq’s weapons capabilities and produced overstated or incorrect conclusions that led the Bush administration to justify the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, according to a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report released Friday.

advertisement

A "series of failures ... led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence” on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the bipartisan report said.

Sen. Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican who heads the committee, told reporters that assessments that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and could make a nuclear weapon by the end of the decade were wrong

I think that pretty much dittos my previous remarks. While it takes both branches to authorize use of force, they were clearly mislead as to the actual threat posed by Sadam. I think that is why the media blames bush coupled with the fact they despise him... This also refutes some of Guard MC's previous remarks.

You said:

"The intelligence community was victim to Group Thinking because they were pressured to find a connection between Iraq and 9/11".

I see no mention of "pressured" in your last post.

As for being mislead, that may be true...but that means Bush was also mislead, and acting on (possible) false information...so how can he be [solely] blamed?

The reason they fell victim to "group thinking" is because of they pressures put forth by the Bush administration to find linkage between 9/11 and Iraq. Even before 9/11, Bush was interested in use of force in Iraq. This is clearly articulated in Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil's books. Rather it's because Sadam tried to have his father assassinated or the acquisition of oil contracts. I don't know and I think it matters not...

As far as being mislead... Bush should have done what most rational thinking presidents ought to do and exhausted all other means of discovering the actual threat Iraq's WMD program (or lack thereof) posed....

Consequently we are now spending over a billion a week in Iraq and passing the insurmountable debt on to our children

The report specifically stated it found that no evidence of pressure being applied...thats my point...your source of info may say that, but the report directly disputes that assertion.

IllingMD:

Please just say what you've wanted to say all along: "I hate Bush and there is nothing anyone can say that will change my mind". I think you'll feel better.

I'm CK and I approved this post.

Saddam's Resume:
-Blatant violation of 12 UN Resolutions
-Embezzlement
-Laundering of oil proceeds to French and German Enterprises while ten's of thousands of my own people are starving.
-Genocide
-Torture
-The rape and murdering of Kuwati women and young women by my military while their fathers were forced to watch at gun point.
-The use of WMD's on my own people
-Over 30 years of oppression and crimes against humanity with disregard for accountability to anyone for my actions.

[]Bush should have done what most rational thinking presidents ought to do and exhausted all other means of discovering the actual threat Iraq's WMD program (or lack thereof) posed [/]

IllingMD-I understand your rational for waiting before decisive action in Iraq, it's a valid point of view held by over half our country. Although, my opinion is that it was time for Saddam to pay the piper and let other rogue nations see that you will be held accountable for your crimes by the United States. The UN sat idley for years and nearly lost all credibility in it's power to inforce it's resolutions. Saddam had no regard or respect for these resolutions which was evident in his lack of cooperation with inspectors.

Why was he interfering with the weapons inspectors? For the same reason Kim Yung Ill(sp?) is doing it...because WHEN the inspectors find them and say "yes, we have found WMDs" there will be no more excuses to buy more time, no more shield of false allegations, no more beating around the bush. Of course, even at that point, the liberals would prefer to send these dictators a nice fruit basket to try to dissuade them from useing their WMD's on us.
Whether Saddam had them or almost had them is unclear. He was skilled in the art of laundering and could have used his French, Russian, or German connections to help in the evidence cover-up. He could have destroyed most of the evidence and buried the rest some where amidst the vast desserts of Iraq. After all, he was given many months of forwarning.

Yet, because we don't find a nuclear war head sitting safely atop a giant silver platter in one of his mansions we scream, "Conspiracy!! Our nations administration is corrupt!!" While mainstream media casts it's line out with a big fat conspiracy worm on the end and the whole world takes the bait...hook, line, and sinker.
We do know that N. Korea has plutonium and have started production of enriched uranium. We and other nations are exausting all options to try to seek a peacefull end to this escalation. Mr. Ill(sp?) claims that nuclear hydro- electric power is the reason for production. Interestingly so, after crimes of genocide in his prison camps housed by hundreds of thousands of civilians that attempt to exercise their human rights to free speech. Leaving hundreds of thousands of orphans of the murdered parents to wander the streets in search of food while the UN food relief efforts are channeled to feed the N. Korean military. Thousands of acres of fertil land, ideal for crop harvesting, are instead used to grow opium(heroin) to better fund Kim's military might. Not to mention Mr. Ill's censorship of all his crimes against humanity by banning cameras except twice a year when westerners are allowed inside on a guided regulated tour by the government. Still, freelance filmists have recorded some of these and other brutalities by sneaking across from S. Korea with hidden cameras facing the risk, if found, to be turture and murdered in the secret prison camps.

I find it unconvincing that with all the crisis' with starvation and poverty that N. Korea is genuinely concerned with hydro-eletcric resources. As for me, I think these dictators have forfeited their right to be on my planet.

A word of advice for the liberals, fruit baskets and flowers don't work with dictators and terrorists, they only speak the language of terror. The only thing that will dissuade them is fear. When they know that our spec. ops. troops will be on the hunt, and they periodically look down at their chest for the red dot or in the sky for the passing fighter.

RAE,

Great examples and well spoken...its clear (at least to me) as CK intimated, that IllingMD simply does not like Bush...and like most liberals...fails to see the whole picture, and filters out, what he doesn't agree with...that is really the difference between a liberal and a conservative...the liberals refuse to see the other side...the conservatives see it, and debate it, presenting facts...

IllingMD...you are indeed a liberal with no vision, and a simple hatred of Bush and his administration...no amout of evidence would sway you...I could lay the "golden chalise" at your feet and if it was republican, you'd kick it away, no matter what it represented...you have no desire to actually "see" what is going on...all you have is your long held beliefs that "BUSH IS BAD"...no matter what he does for this country.

You, Kerry, and many others had better stop disrespecting my President and Commander in Chief...and you had better READ the regulations regarding your rights with respect to disparaging the President...and John Kerry had better get some other examples besides John "the thug" Mellencamp, and Whoopie "the Bush" Goldberg...disgusting pieces of bull crap that ought to leave the country in shame...

I appreciate your post RAE. You appear to be one of the few who will actually present an alternative view devoid of asinine implications about my personal and political views. Regarding CK's comments... As far as me hating Bush regardless of what he does is simply ignorant. This could not be further from the truth! I was a staunch Bush supporter when he was first elected and this drastically changed when his policies on taking this country to war become more evident.

I agree with RAE when he stated "it was time for Sadam to pay the piper". However, all I'm saying is that now was not the time. I guess one war (Afghanistan) is not enough for some of you guys... we must initiate a second before the first one is complete. This rationale I just don't understand.

As far as me being a liberal with no vision...that's laughable. I am an independent if anything. Republicans and Democrats alike annoy me because they are both full of sh*t... To suggest my hatred of bush is simple and without reason is nothing short of simple on your part. Also my comments earlier about being a bush supporter at one time also refutes your baseless accusation of my "long held beliefs that Bush is bad".

As far as disparaging the President...I reserve the right to do so and will continue until he changes his course of action or is replaced. Preferably, the latter of course...

However, this is your forum and I will withold any disparaging comments with respect to your site....

[] To suggest my hatred of bush is simple and without reason is nothing short of simple on your part.[/]

Simple solutions for simple problems. See Will Rogers and Sam Clemmons for further guidance.

I had an old NCOIC that had a saying that is applicable to this case: "It's a case of mind over matter. I don't mind, and you don't matter".

"I don't mind and you don't matter".... that's quite piffy CK... After that demonstration of bloviating and groundbreaking insight I have decided to cross over to your side. Analyzing issues and attempting to formulate a thought on my own is far too complex... Perhaps we should all just adopt simple solutions for such simple problems right? After all, global terrorism is a simple quandary that can be solved with such simple solutions....

[]

As far as disparaging the President...I reserve the right to do so and will continue until he changes his course of action or is replaced. Preferably, the latter of course...

[/]

How about you step away from this debate and brush up on the articles of the UCMJ.

All citizens of this country reserve the right to criticize the President or anyone else they deem derelict in their duty.... when did criticism become a crime Bracken?

I knew I would be in the minority with such views regarding politics but I did not think everyone would jump all over me to this extent. I respect everyone's opinions and views on this matter which is why I made the post in the first place. I respect the people that contribute to this site and I was curious about what their thoughts on these issues were. Unfortunately, now it appears its just an argument as opposed to a spirited debate. When it comes to religion and politics, it is tough to debate without it becoming personal rather quick...

Again I respect what everyone posted and hopefully we could all simply agree to disagree and realize that at the core, everyone simply wants what they feel is best for the country.

[]"I don't mind and you don't matter".... that's quite piffy CK... [/]

The term you're looking for is "pithy".

Main Entry: pithy
Pronunciation: 'pi-thE
Function: adjective
1 : consisting of or abounding in pith
2 : having substance and point : tersely cogent

Is there anything else you need help with?

[]All citizens of this country reserve the right to criticize the President or anyone else they deem derelict in their duty.... when did criticism become a crime Bracken? [/]
The minute you raised your right hand and took the oath of enlistment.

Article 88—Contempt toward officials

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Note: While only commissioned officers can be charged under this article, DOD Directive 1344.10 - POLITICAL ACTIVITIES BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES ON ACTIVE DUTY, extend these same requirements to all individuals on active duty. Enlisted members and warrant officers who violate these provisions can be charged under Article 92 of the UCMJ, Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation.

I stand corrected on both accounts....

[]I stand corrected on both accounts.... [/]

Life goes a lot smoother if you have the facts before you argue the facts.

Check out this website if you want to see the other side of the story coming out of that bomb-throwing, anti-bush, anti-US, waste of space Micheal Moore's mouth.
www.bowlingfortruth.com

Some thoughts...

Illing...I have to give you credit for moxy, if not pure logical rationale. SrA Bracken is spot-on about what the UCMJ says about us, publicly or on duty, denegrating our CiC, but this is an unofficial forum and you do have the right to your opinion. But you lose a lot of credibility when you stoop to what amounts to hyperbole and playground insults as key components of your argument. The President is a functional illiterate? I'd have to check, of course, but I'm almost certain Yale doesn't just hand out diplomas (not even to Bushes) -- I wonder if I put you in front of hundreds of audiences, hundreds of times and then determined from every performance whether you were indeed "intelligent" how you might fare. Perhaps you'd care to share your credentials so we might determine how you "stack up" in such a intellectual heirarchy. If you don't care for the administration's policies, so be it...make that case; but to simply insult the President as though he'd just shot a spitwad at you doesn't an argument make (perhaps he'll meet you out by the swingset after school).

Corroberation by the 9/11 commission also does not the "truth" arbitrarily make. It certainly is convienient for liberals, but it's no more the "truth" than when the same august body once formed the House UnAmerican Activities Council and submitted the "truth". In both cases, there is some truth, and there is a lot of conjecture (and -- gasp -- no doubt many agendas).

As for Islamic Fascism, though you didn't out and say it, you leave the impression that the US, and, of course, by proxy, the President has "created" this army of fanatics. I'm not sure if you've actually been over to the region, but having spent nearly 3 out of the last 5 years over there, including having just returned from my second Iraqi tour, I'd almost bet you might have (at least) a slightly different opinion if you actually saw "life" up close in this region. It's easy to find followers from pools of uneducated, poor people. I'd venture to say that the education level of the vast majority of the region hovers around 5th grade, and I'm being generous. That same vast majority is dirt damn poor, and that's got nothing to do with the US. Add a little religious fantacism (a favorite of this pool of folks....why do you think the KKK always has followers?), and viola'! I sure would like to see just a touch more actual proof that the US is responsible for these jackasses' fantatical behavior.

TE hit it straight on...either you like the President, or you don't; in either you ARE entitled, but some factual, logical arguments would go a long way. Still, you serve, so you are entitled -- more so than many in this selfish society -- to your freedom of opinion and speech.

BULL

Kudos to HaShor,
If I remember my ethics briefing correctly, off-duty political opinions are only restricted if you use your position to imply credence to your statements. That's hardly the case in an anonymous web forum. I agree completely that puerile comments have no place, but let's not silence IllingMD's right to dissent. We have an obligation to evaluate opposing viewpoints - it's dangerous to simply label someone as ultra-liberal or wacko if they deign to question our current policy.

That said,
Returning to the original topic. I felt that Moore did an irresponsible job with the film not only for what he said but notably for what he did not say. Ranting through a serious of tenuous economic ties between the Bushes and the House of Saud had no true intellectual value. What he only marginally hinted at, the oppressive nature of the Saudi regime, was where he really should have focused. I feel that we are repeating the sins of the past and setting ourselves up for disaster with our unflinching support for the House of Saud. Just as we supported the Shah in Iran for expeditious reasons such as "stability," and it came back to bite us, so too are we lining ourselves for disaster with the Saudis. They are an outdated, oppressive, tyrannical regime, with strong ties to terrorism and huge oil reserves. The country immediately to the north of them that fit this description we invaded - yet we court the favor of the Saudis like they're the geopolitical equivalent of the homecoming queen.

Guard MC was dead on when he pointed out that like it or not current American lifestyles demand that we must militarily ensure access to oil. So yes that limits our ability to take on the Saudis, but it doesn't change the fact that we are sleeping with the devil and soon the chit will come in.

As far as invading Iraq -
The WMD evidence was compelling and intelligence is not an absolute science. What was alarmingly ignored though by the Bush administration was the fact that there are not and were not significant ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Saddam and Bin-Laden had diametrically opposed dogmas. Saddam purposefully secularized Iraq so as to court foreign investment. Saddam's penultimate vision was to reinstate a pan-Arab (NOT Muslim) sphere of influence similar to that of the Ottoman Empire. Bin-Laden's stated goal was/is to reinstate the Caliphate, a strictly Islamic religious empire similar to that which existed when the Moors dominated the Middle East and North Africa.

Bin-Laden despised Saddam and sought his overthrow, they were not complicit.

That being said, Iraq was a country in need of regime change, the timing - prior to finishing business in Afghanistan - and the means - alienating the broader international community - I feel were inappropriate.

In the opinion of someone who lost loved ones during 9/11...I thought the film was entertaining. I enjoy the feeling of being more level-headed and, in fact, more intelligent than certain individuals, and I love having that pointed out for me by other peoples thoughts, ideas, and opinions.
Michael Moore is a creative man. He is a Hollywood director and as everyone knows, most people affiliated in any way with Hollywood usually have very strong opinions; whether they back them up or not with true belief, is another story.
There is no doubt that he knew he was putting together fallacies with truth. It's Hollywood. Believing everything he says in the docudrama is like coming out of seeing Face-Off and trying to get the surgery performed the next day. It's entertainment...dumb and incorrect as it may be, I enjoyed the flick (wish I would have paid the 3.50 to rent it, but overall, entertaining.) Let people think what they want and say what they want. You, as an individual, wont change a damn thing by having your point of view, even though millions of others share the same.
I for one am not Republican, Democrat, or Liberal. I vote Republican because I am in the AF and I enjoy pay raises. How can anyone agree with all of what G.W. says, or all that Kerry says? You cant. I dont think even they agree with everything theyre saying.
Does anyone watch the show 24? In my perfect world, Palmer would be our President. To me it's all about the way they come across...and physical appearance is a lot of that. Even if I was Democrat I wouldnt vote for Kerry because his head is waaaayyy to big to be representing me towards other nations. I want a BIG mean sounding dude, who when he says,"Arms down tomorrow or we're coming in," people listen because theyre scared to death of him. Sounds like something from Deep Thoughts.

I wouldn't call this creative:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnmccaslin/jm20040713.shtml

Mr. Moore's chair in hell is now being monogrammed.

Wow TE!!! I wouldnt call that creative either. But it doesnt surprise me; these guys will go to any length to get their story. Their like the Paparazzi. Parasites. We need to send Big Mike "Chubbs" Moore along with Geraldo Rivera and a few others on a little "solo-mission" into the middle east...say Pakistan. That would make for some good documentary footage.

Everything you want to know about the lies in this movie is here:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Uh oh...I see that Dave Kopelis a member of ACLU...just when I was enjoying the thorough documentation of the report <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Joking aside, that's a great doc...I'll reward myself by reading the whole thing once I'm finished with my Phase 1 packet.

IllingMD, Here are a few of your statements - and my responses:

As far their being labs which at some point in time were used with ill intentions to create weapons...sure I don't doubt that is true. However, that would be the case with many countries and we most certainly are not going to invade and occupy them.

A problem with your position is this: There is a direct and important correlation between the leaders of nations and their abilities to develop and produce WMD. In other words, Israel, Great Britain, the United States, even China and many other nations possess WMD, but their governments and leadership are not predisposed to using these weapons either against their own countrymen or against other nations.

In the case of Iraq, Saddam – a dictator, tyrant and literal madman - possessed the ability to make use of WMD, had shown his willingness to use these weapons and was a threat to do so in the future. It is silly to suggest that the United States attacked Iraq simply because we believed that Saddam possessed WMD. The decision to launch against Iraq was a combination of intelligence (however faulty) that he possessed WMD, the realization that Saddam was willing to use them and his stubborn refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors full access to all Iraqi sites and his defiance of 17 United Nations resolutions.

The rationale behind the war was that Iraq posed an immediate threat which they simply did not.

Hindsight is always 20/20. The intelligence that both Great Britain and the United States relied upon proved to be less than accurate. If the combined efforts of CIA, NSA, UK Security Service, Russian SVR and others all say the same thing – how is President Bush or anyone else for that matter to know more than these agencies? Acting upon the best available intelligence does not make George Bush a liar any more than bloodletting in the 18th century made a physician a murderer. Both were acting upon the most reliable information available to them.

Sadam was insane but not stupid. He knew if attacked the US it would result in his demise.

Saddam stonewalled the United States and the UN. Warning was given to Iraq to comply with United Nations Resolutions or face military intervention by the United States. If he truly had nothing to hide, why did he not simply allow inspectors to continue and thereby save himself and his country?

Why was it suddenly necessary to invade now?

Saddam had thumbed his nose, interfered with, blocked and defied UN efforts for years. There was nothing “sudden” about the actions of the United States.

we make are ourselves more vulnerable to attack here at home and abroad! Which is why Islamic Fascism (Al Queda) recruiting has skyrocketed since the war in Iraq began! This trend will continue I might add...

Sorry, we are arguably less vulnerable to attack here at home and abroad since 9/11 and the toppling of Saddam’s regime’. If you could see (which you cannot for security reasons) the number of attempted terror acts that have been thwarted in the U.S. in the last few years, you would be astonished. The foiling of these attempts is due to increased security measures and awareness on the part of the government and of common citizens.

Al-Quaida and other militant Islamic organizations have declared war against the West. This declaration of war has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq, since it happened before we entered Iraq, and before 11 September, 2001. Extreme Muslim militants believe that any one who disagrees with their “faith” must be killed and conquered. That fact will not go away if America closes its’ eyes to the rest of the world and “minds its’ own business”

All Fahrenheit 9/11 did was make Bush out to be a functional illiterate which he arguably is. Many of the facts cited in their were in fact true...

Those who glibly swallow the multitudinous lies concocted for Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 are more likely the functional illiterates. Your supposition the President Bush is one of those “illiterates” is not only subjective and poorly arrived at, but it is also blatantly wrong – not a subjective opinion by the way, but an objective comprehension of Mr. Bush’s life history.

A very well reasoned post anflash70!

Much of it was well reasoned but I have to take offense to this:
"All Fahrenheit 9/11 did was make Bush out to be a functional illiterate which he arguably is. Many of the facts cited in their were in fact true..."

Ah yes, the functional illiterate who is the only President to ever have an MBA degree and from Harvard to boot, after getting his undergraduate work in at Yale. Where, just in case you were wondering, he received better grades than John Kerry, who's been cast in the role of intellectual in this election cycle.

Oh, by the way anflash, if you're going to call someone an illiterate you may want to correct your grammar in the paragraph in which you make that claim. The proper use of the word would be "there", not "their".

Marty - it actually wasn't anflash who messed up "there" and "their". He was quoting IllingMD at that point.

I think it's rather unfair to paint Bush as unintelligent based on a handful of clips that are obviously biased against him. I'd venture to say that anyone on this board would come off as a "functional illiterate" if a camera was present to record every verbal stumble of our lives.

On a serious question -
I'm curious why so many people have such strong negative views of Kerry. He served voluntarily and was highly decorated for heroism. Granted, I can see why some people would be opposed to him based on the fact that he protested the Vietnam War upon his return. But that said, a good officer is called to evaluate a situation he encounters and alter his actions based on what he learns. Kerry did that and arrived at the conclusion that Vietnam was not the proper place for America to be, a conclusion that a majority of the country, including the elected leadership, soon arrived at as well.
On the subject of homeland security and GWOT, Kerry's positions seem to be indistinguishable from Bush's. IMHO, the dramatic policy differences between the two candidates seem to be in the realm of economic and environmental policy. Still it seems like most of the criticism I've encountered regarding Kerry from within the military and intel communities is a perception that he is unfit to be CiC of a nation at war. I don't see that to be the case. Thoughts?

My apologies to anflash!

Kerry didn't just come back from Vietnam and disagree with the policy, he slandered everyone who was there. He admitted that he and everyone else he saw there committed atrocities but never backed up that claim with any facts and he never submitted himself to a war crimes tribunal.

If his service was so heroic why not release his service records. You may find some answers here:
http://www.swiftvets.com/

He tries to find a way to be on both sides of every issue and he can't answer a straight question to save his life.
All of that and his wife is a straight up nutjob.

Marty - apology accepted. No harm, no foul.

And thanks for posting the website for swiftvets.com - an excellent and self-explanatory tool.

Again... I would like to reiterate by saying I have enormous respect for everyone's opinion on this site.

Regarding Marty's post that included the swiftvets site... They too are a partisan group and have an agenda like everyone else on BOTH sides of the fence. I think it's preposterous to argue rather Kerry's war record is legit or not. Truth be told... he still volunteered to go to war for his country when he clearly could have avoided it just as Mr. Bush did by ducking active service and opting for the National Guard, which at the time was a ticket out of war. Concerning his actions when he returned, they are indeed questionable, I will concede that much. However, he felt vehemently that our presence there was unjust and spoke out against it. I laud that but I do not laud the fact that he publicly spoke of atrocities committed. True or not, that was certainly ill-advised.

In response to Flash's remarks.... I did not say a war in Iraq was not warranted. My central point was that our invasion was a bit premature. Iraq posed no more of an immediate threat to us in March 2003 than they did the year before and so on. I feel we should of completed our work in Afghanistan and addressed Iraq immediately thereafter...
I think our armed forces are stretched way too thin right now which is why guy's are being called back up after having completed their service honorably and moving on with their lives.

I can't believe people still support this guy (Kerry)! How can some not see the major integrity and character flaws. Not agreeing with the war is one thing, but you don't come back and viscously accuse your brothers of war crimes without one shred of evidence. And you certainly don't do it wearing the NVA uniform and underneath the communist NVA flag. You don't put yourself in for medals. You don't take a video camera with you to combat and reennact "heroic" escapades. Half of the so called "attrocities" he witnessed and suppossedly participated in are events an infantry unit would see, not a swift boat crew. I'm curious as to where the same "truth seekers" are that just a few years ago wanted to crucify Bob Kerry for his actions as a Seal in Vietnam.

Shouldn't it say something that among his endorsers are the CPUSA (communist party of the USA), the Godless Americans ( athiests), and the Democratic Socialists, not to mention Hezbulah ( sorry if that is spelled wrong). Do we really want to be counted with these people? I almost got sick watching his speech the other night. He flat out lies about everything. Look at his voting record over the past 20 years. Everything he supposedly supports he has voted against time and time again. He said how much the flag means, yet he has voted against every peice of legislation put forth to prevent flag desecration. He says he belives life begins at conception, but he is pro choice. So essentially he is endorsing murder if he believes it is a person. He is just trying to ride the fence on everything.

My father was with 5th special forces group in Vietnam. He wasn't just in country, he lived, fought, slept, and ate with the South Vietnamese. He witnessed the torture, murder and barbarism committed by the Communist NVA that Kerry held so highly. He can try to politicize it all he wants, but that war was essentially an answer to a cry for help. And our mean answered that call couragously. Yet their effort was completely undermined by people like Kerry. Frankly, its really disturbed and aggrivating to see a traitor like that try to ride to political stardom on the coattails of great men like my father. He spent 4 months and came home. My father volunteered for Vietnam, not once but for two seperate tours. The only reason we're free is because of great men like my father, TE, Marty, and countless other operators and warriors on this site and elsewhere around the world, who are willing to stand in the gap for us. We had better start appreciating and honoring that or it will soon be gone.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13

Illing (You have to explain that name to me! Are you a sick doctor?), I'm glad that you respect everyone's opinion and I'm glad that you are on here for some good debating back and forth!

So...to this point:
"I think it's preposterous to argue rather Kerry's war record is legit or not. Truth be told... he still volunteered to go to war for his country when he clearly could have avoided it just as Mr. Bush did by ducking active service and opting for the National Guard, which at the time was a ticket out of war."

---I don't think it's preposterous at all for a few reasons.

First: It's been open season on Bush's service record for the last 5 years. Would you say to a current Guard/Reserve member that they are ducking service? Probably not. It may have been a way out I don't really know, if that was the reason he did it then that's a negative but I have no idea what his motives were at that time. Kerry, it seems, went to Vietnam for one reason; to further his political career. Notice the home movies (greatly enhanced) that were shown at the DNC convention. Some guys he served with said he went home early because he shot enough film of himself.

Second: Why in the world won't he release his service records? If he indeed deserved all of those medals then release the records, I just don't get the logic behind it. The fact that he earned so many medals in so short a time (more than any other person in Vietnam in 4 months of service) is an awesome testament to his heroic nature, if he indeed earned them. As to the swiftvets site I can't see why they you automatically label them as partisan. If they're funded by Rush Limbaugh or some such, that would be understandable but what if it's just a bunch of guys who served with someone they know isn't fit to command them let alone the nation? I certainly served with guys that I would speak out against if they ran for office (and some guys would probably speak out about me if I did!).

Third: Why can't he admit that he and other peace protestors are at least partially at fault for the atocities committed after the US left Vietnam. Even the VC knew that the peaceniks helped their cause, thus helping them to kill millions of people after we left.

I'm happy to tell you more concrete reason if you'd like--I don't want to bore everyone on the site!

Whutnot---thanks for the kind words but I really don't deserved to be mentioned in that sentence. Hoo-yah to your pops! (And to TE too!)

It’s great (in my opinion) to see spirited debate about who should be Commander-in-Chief for the next four years – George Bush or John Kerry

Some observations: George Bush may or may not have intended to avoid service in Vietnam by joining the Air National Guard but many Guard members of that era did not in fact dodge the war: More than 7,000 Army Guardsmen served in the war zone – among them the Indiana Rangers, 1st of the 151st Infantry whose members received more than 500 medals for valor.

George Bush was a fighter pilot. Call his service what you will; he was a fighter pilot. Among aircraft he flew was the T-38, stepping stone into F-4s and other tactical fighter aircraft. Today’s T-38 prepares pilots for the F-15, F-16 and A-10. If G.W. wanted to avoid combat, he should have chosen a career other than fighter pilot. By the way, during my Air Force years, I don’t recall meeting any functionally illiterate USAF pilots <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Thousands of Air Guardsmen served on Active Duty in Vietnam and several were KIA.

Arguing about whether Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry was braver or more ready to die for his country is like little boys claiming “My dad can beat up your dad.”

The issues for this election, in my mind center around character; integrity, moral clarity, determination and decisiveness. Troops in the field want to know their Commander is with them, supports them, will not abandon them and will give them whatever resources are available to allow them to do their job, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq or New York City.

www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm

An excellent post anflash (I should have known since you are from the PNW!).

I just want to pontificate on this "I support the troops" nonsense that the left spouts. You don't support the troops if you ultimately want their mission to fail. You don't support the troops by calling for them to come home. You don't support the troops by telling them that their CINC is a liar who misled the country and rushed them to a war where their deaths are meaningless.

You support them with prayer, with letters, with monetary donations to the foundations who look after their families, and yes, ultimately by backing the people who sent them there in the first place. Whether you agree with them or not.

"I think it's preposterous to argue rather Kerry's war record is legit or not. Truth be told... he still volunteered to go to war for his country when he clearly could have avoided it just as Mr. Bush did by ducking active service and opting for the National Guard, which at the time was a ticket out of war."


First: It's been open season on Bush's service record for the last 5 years. Would you say to a current Guard/Reserve member that they are ducking service? Probably not.

Firstly... The National Guard, at that time, was, for the most part, a ticket out of actual combat. Nowadays, it is a much different story. Bush was indeed a fighter pilot who has 0 combat missions under his belt. The fact that he was AWOL for nearly a year while working on senate campaign in Alabama clearly highlights his disinterest in serving his country and his fellow troops where they needed his skills the most, In Vietnam. I don't believe a single troop on the ground in Vietnam was ecstatic to hear of Mr. Bush successfully completed his 2 day a month training in Texas while they were dodging bullets in Nam...

Again, Regarding his medals.... I just don't see the logic in debating the legitimacy of them. Frankly I'm indifferent to the entire story. I have a much more pragmatic take... Kerry volunteered (regardless of hit motive) to fight and Bush simply did not. Do you think if Bush requested to serve in Vietnam, he would have been denied? I think not...

I also find it interesting that people bring up this notion of Kerry having a hidden agenda in Vietnam....Sounds a bit far fetched to fathom that Kerry volunteered to steer swift boats and dodge bullets in Vietnam so that hey may bank on it during his Senate campaign to be conducted years later... I personally find that idea to be comical and absurd.

Illing, re-read my post above re: National Guard service during the Vietnam years.

Also, remember that Lt. Bush's squadron was responsible for "homeland defense" against the potential of Soviet attack on the U.S. Believe me, in those days that was seen as a very real possibility and an F-102 pilot would have had his hands full fighting off such an attack.

I would venture that John Kerry volunteered for swifts because of his infatuation with all things John Kennedy, and the swift was the nearest thing to a PT Boat in the navy inventory during VN. No big deal to me - I probably developed a desire to join the military watching my cousin, a Naval UDT doing cast and recovery in San Diego.

In reality, it makes no difference Kerry served in Vietnam and Bush did not. Mr. Clinton was in England and in Russia during those same years, and his absence from military service was never seen as a problem for the Dems, so why is Bush's ANG service at issue?

The issue isn't who fought in Vietnam and who didn't. If that were the case, we'd have a shallow reservoir of candidates for President.