|
I think that this will be the last time I post anything about Michael Moore. The USA Today did a nice job at pointing out some problems with "Fahrenheit 9/11" in today's issue.
(the following are quotes from an article by Mark Memmott)
REGARDING THE ALLEGED CONNECTION BETWEEN BUSH AND THE TALIBAN:
"In 1997, a delegation of top Taliban officials in the USA at the invitation of officials from Unocal, a California-based oil and gas company...Moore notes that the pipe delegation visited Texas while Bush was governor. He doesn't say that the delegation met with Bush, but it is implied. In fact, Bush did not meet with the Taliban representatives. What Moore doesn't say is that Clinton administration officials at the State Department did sit down with Taliban officials and that their visit was made with the Clinton administration's approval."
THE DECISION TO LET SOME SAUDIS LEAVE THE USA SHORTLY AFTER 9/11 AND ALLEGED CONNECTIONS AMONG THE BUSH FAMILY, SAUDI ROYALTY AND OSAMA BIN LADEN'S FAMILY:
"Moore questions why the Bush administration allowed 142 Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, to fly out of the USA Sept. 14 through Sept. 24, 2001. He suggests that business ties between oil-rich Saudi Arabia and the Bush family might have resulted in special treatment for some Saudi citizens...But the movie does not point out that...The independent 9/11 commission has reported that 'each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to it's departure.'"
MOORE SAYS THAT BUSH SPENT 42% OF HIS FIRST SEVEN MONTHS IN OFFICE "ON VACATION."
"(That) calculation included weekends spent at the presidential retreat in Camp David, MD.,and a month-long 'working vacation' at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Moore doesn't say that the 'vacation' included weekends or that Bush worked part of most of those days. He met, for example, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair."
-----------------------------------------------------------
What this all boils down to is this... 2004 is an election year - liberals are damned angry about losing the 2000 election and they are doing their best to not let it happen again. Thankfully, those trying to make sure that a Republican does not get into office again come across as on-the-fringe lunatics. Have you heard Al Gore in the last few months? Since the Democrats have such little faith in the strength of the most liberal senator, John F. Kerry, their only candidate, they are left with no choice but hyping "F 9/11" and relying on Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and the failing "Air America" radio network to win Kerry votes.
Sarasota principal defends Bush from "Fahrenheit 9/11" portrayal
By Associated Press
June 24, 2004
SARASOTA Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11" criticizes President Bush for listening to Sarasota second-graders read a story for nearly seven minutes after learning the nation was under attack on Sept. 11, 2001.
But Gwendolyn Tose'-Rigell, the principal at Emma E. Booker Elementary School, says Bush handled himself properly.
"I don't think anyone could have handled it better," Tose'-Rigell told the Sarasota Herald-Tribune in a story published Wednesday. "What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?"
"Fahrenheit 9/11," which won the top honor at last month's Cannes Film Festival, portrays the White House as asleep at the wheel before the Sept. 11 attacks. Moore accuses Bush of fanning fears of future terrorism to win public support for the Iraq war.
Bush told the federal 9/11 Commission, which released its report last week, that he remained in the classroom because he felt it was "important to project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening." Moore says Bush failed to take charge.
Tose'-Rigell, who was at Bush's side, did not hear what White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card whispered when he squeezed past her to tell the president of the attacks, but "I knew it was something serious."
"The president bit his lip and clenched his jaw," she said. "I didn't know what happened, whether it was something with his wife or children or something with the nation. I remember praying that God would watch over our school and protect our children."
She said the video doesn't convey all that was going on in the classroom, but Bush's presence had a calming effect and "helped us get through a very difficult day."
Tose'-Rigell said she plans to publish her account of the morning of Sept. 11 from pages she wrote in her journal following the attack. The principal said she didn't vote for Bush. "But that day I would have voted for him."
------------------------------------------------------------
Moore is known for his clever editing and splicing of film footage to get the results he wants to create.
www.mooreexposed.com
From: [link=]Newsmax[/link]
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Democrats Try to Destroy Nader
Anti-choice Democrats don't want the people to have the option of voting for Ralph Nader. So they're trying to toss him from the ballot.
Jano Cabrera, a spokesman for the national party, said Democrats would start in Arizona with a challenge to the validity of thousands of signatures that landed Nader on the ballot.
Cabrera made it clear that the orchestrated attack was payback for Nader's contribution to Al Gore's defeat in 2000 and a pre-emptive strike to keep him from undermining John Kerry in November.
"We have never been moved by Nader's repeated assertions that it was Al Gore and not he who was at fault for the outcome of the 2000 election, and apparently the Arizona Democrats seems unconvinced by his explanation as well," Cabrera admitted to the Associated Press.
Stu Rothenberg, editor of Rothenberg Political Report, told the Christian Science Monitor: "I think Nader is scaring the bejeebies out of the Democrats. They have nightmares of 2000 all over again."
Nader noted that the attacks against him had "a lot of mischief potential" because "there are very partisan Democrats" in the Arizona secretary of state's office.
"If this becomes a pattern of harassment in other states, we will ask John Kerry to disown and disapprove of these anti-democratic tactics," said Nader, who still hasn't learned that "democratic" is all too often an antonym for "Democratic."
'Exciting'
Meanwhile, black Democrats in Congress had a nasty row Tuesday with Nader when he rejected their demands that he quit the race.
"Shouts could be heard from inside the meeting in the basement of the U.S. Capitol with more than a dozen Congressional Black Caucus members, including Nader's voice, in what proved to be a rancorous session. One female shouted, 'You can't win,' to which Nader shot back an inaudible response," AP reported today.
Caucus chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., fumed: "It became abundantly clear to us that this was about Ralph Nader and we were sorely disappointed."
Osama bin Laden's favorite House member, Barbara Lee of California, moaned, "I told Mr. Nader today that a vote for Ralph Nader is really a vote for George Bush."
Rep. David Scott, D-Ga., complained, "Clearly his candidacy hurts our chances for the Democratic Party."
The hapless Nader, who has colluded with Kerry and boasted that he will help defeat President Bush, shrugged off the shouting match as an "exciting exchange" between two anti-Bush forces.
"They feel passionately about their strategy, and we feel passionately about our strategy," said the alleged independent, who bragged that he would serve as a "second front" against Bush during the campaign.
Nader's running mate, Green Party activist Peter Camejo, had condescending words for the black Democrats. He said he was "surprised by their lack of understanding of the growing trend towards independent action. It's a new phenomenon they're confronting."
"Any accusation against Bush, no matter how ridiculous, is taken as gospel, and anything that disproves the accusation is just more evidence of a massive cover-up."
You can find the most profound thoughts surfing message boards.
This one is from: [link=]www.moorewatch.com[/link]
Now Who's Lying
David Limbaugh
COPYRIGHT 2004 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
One of the most reprehensible things about the past year's campaign against President Bush is that his accusers have repeatedly lied in calling him a liar - and they've marshaled nonexistent evidence to support their fraudulent claims.
One of the principle complaints against President Bush's prosecution of the War on Terror is that he distorted the facts to tie Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda's 9/11 attacks against the United States in order to strengthen his case for attacking Iraq.
Indeed an interim report by the 9/11 commission staff stated there is no credible evidence that Saddam collaborated with al Qaeda on any attacks against America. A salivating partisan media, Senator Kerry and other assorted Bush-haters seized on that headline as if it were one of the final nails in the president's electoral coffin.
But just like almost every other wished-for smoking gun against President Bush, this "finding" has ended up being an embarrassing, impotent little water pistol.
The Bush administration is guilty of no misrepresentations on this issue. If someone sets about to prove another person of lying, at the very least he should accurately quote the accused. After all, if you don't even know what the alleged liar said, how can you begin to determine whether he lied?
In all their gotcha-mania the accusers failed to meet this threshold requirement. They, including the New York Times, accused the administration of misrepresenting something it never said. You've got to have a representation before you can have a misrepresentation.
But now the Times has belatedly admitted that the Bush administration never claimed there was a specific connection between Saddam and 9/11 attacks, "only that there were ties, however murky, between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
Don't just brush over this as if it's a minor detail. The Times just confessed that neither Bush nor his team ever said Saddam was tied to 9/11. The Times even provided statements from various administration officials claiming there were connections between Saddam and al Qaeda, but never positing a 9/11 conspiracy. This is a major, painful admission by the Times. Suffice it to say that if administration officials had made such an assertion, the Times would have discovered it in their frantic Nexis searches.
But true to form, the Times refused to remove the Bush smear completely, ending its paragraph with this tacky little bit of innuendo: "although whether there was a deliberate campaign to create guilt by association is difficult to say." Translation: "While we grudgingly concede the Bush team made no express claims tying Saddam to 9/11, it may well have tried to imply there was such a connection by confusing the issue."
What a cheap shot! Not only do we not get an apology from the Times for its own misrepresentations on this very issue, we get a parting shot trying to negate its lame pretense of correcting the record.
But we deserve an apology from the Times for just recently attributing statements to the administration it didn't make and then accusing it of lying about those statements. A scathing, rush-to-judgment Times editorial the day after the release of the commission's interim report makes the point.
The Times editors wrote, "It's hard to imagine how the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly yesterday: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11. Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different."
So one week the Times said Bush fraudulently alleged a link between Saddam and September 11, and just a week later, they admit he made no such allegation. But the Times didn't apologize, nor did it withdraw its demand for the president's apology.
But the Times is not the only guilty party here. Senator Kerry, feeling his oats upon release of the commission's interim report, demanded that the president provide "a fundamental explanation about why he rushed to war for a purpose it now turns out is not supported by the facts."
Well, President Bush did not lie about the Saddam/Al Qaeda connection. There is so much material on this it would take a full chapter in a book to do it justice. Regardless, it was just one of many reasons offered to go to war against Iraq.
And since we're on the subject of mea culpas, the commission itself might want to consider sending one President Bush's way. After all its hindsight-based judgmentalism, it can't even get its own story straight about the Saddam/Al Qaeda connection, as witnessed by panel member John Lehman's statements on "Meet the Press."
The next time the chorus of Bush-haters begins its incessant refrain, "Bush lied, Bush lied," perhaps more people will consider the source.
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...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."
Full story: http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723
[link=]http://www.moorewatch.com[/link]
Click here for photos of the beheaded Paul Johnson: [link=]http://www.drudgereport.com/jp.htm[/link]
Buried in the 9/11 Commission's report is a paragraph that states that no link was found between Al Qaeda and Iraq in regards to September 11, 2001. The media jumped all over it by saying, "See! Bush and Cheney lied to us!" They did NOT lie, the Bush administration simply stated that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq period. I am sure that the satellite photos that clearly show a jet fuselage in places terrorists trained in Iraq was just used for training flight attendants too.
Iraq Group: We'll Behead S. Korean Hostage
Sunday, June 20, 2004
BAGHDAD, Iraq The Arab satellite TV network Al-Jazeera aired a videotape Sunday purportedly from Al Qaeda-linked militants showing a South Korean hostage begging for his life and pleading with his government to withdraw troops from Iraq.
The kidnappers, who identified themselves as belonging to a group led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, gave South Korea 24 hours to meet its demand or "we will send you the head of this Korean."
"Korean soldiers, please get out of here," the man screamed in English, flailing his arms. "I don't want to die. I don't want to die. I know that your life is important, but my life is important."
South Korean media identified the hostage as Kim Sun-il, 33, an employee of South Korea's Gana General Trading, Co., a supplier for the U.S. military. TV news station YTN said he was captured in the Fallujah area.
The video came two days after news of the beheading of American hostage Paul Johnson by Al Qaeda-linked militants in Saudi Arabia, and an announcement Friday by South Korea (search) that it will send 3,000 soldiers to northern Iraq beginning in early August. Once the deployment is complete, South Korea will be the largest coalition partner in Iraq after the United States and Britain.
More: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123198,00.html
I really don't want to hear any more cry baby Saudis decrying the beheading of Paul Johnson either. Saudi schools teach children to hate Americans as well as people of other religions. Saudi Arabia BREEDS the kind of killers who think they are honoring their make-believe god by using metal blades to cut people's heads off.
What we are seeing are the results of the limp-wristed policies of the Clinton adminstration. We didn't retaliate when they blew a hole in the USS Cole, we didn't retaliate when they attacked our embassy and we pretty much sat on our hands when they tried to blow up the World Trade Center the first time. We portrayed ourselves as ineffectual wimps just crying to be attacked - - and guess what? - - we were! But then again, it's really George W.'s fault, right?
We all should feel lucky that we have a president that is willing to strike this Multi-Headed Serpent. George W. has balls - and he is not being distracted like his predecessor whose balls rested in the hands of Miss Lewinsky most of the time.
This is not a cut and dry war that we are fighting. Our Microwave Generation thinks that everything must be quick and easy or it's not worth our trouble. There are no instant results with the kind of war we are fighting. We all need to dig our heels in and support our troops as well as our president. If John "I voted for that as well as against that" Kerry is elected we will simply go back to being a country that sits on it's hand and sips tea around the negotiating table while more terrorists steer jets into the direction of possibly YOUR hometown.
**WARNING GRAPHIC PHOTOS** Al Qaeda Says It Beheads U.S. Hostage in Saudi...
Fri Jun 18 2004 15:00:25 ET
Click here for photos: http://www.drudgereport.com/jp.htm
U.S. Hostage Beheaded, Terror Group Says
Jun 18, 2:20 PM (ET)
By SALAH NASRAWI
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) - An al-Qaida group said Friday it killed American hostage Paul M. Johnson Jr, posting an Internet message that showed photographs of a beheaded body that appeared to be his.
The statement was posted on a Web site where the group frequently makes announcements. Also posted were three still photos showing a head that appeared to be Johnson's.
The message, in the name of Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, appeared as a 72-hour deadline set by the group on Tuesday ended.
"In answer to what we promised ... to kill the hostage Paul Marshall (Johnson) after the period is over ... the infidel got his fair treatment," the statement said.
"Let him taste something of what Muslims have long tasted from Apache helicopter fire and missiles," the statement said.
Johnson, who worked on Apache helicopter systems for Lockheed Martin, was kidnapped last weekend by militants who threatened to kill him by Friday if the kingdom did not release its al-Qaida prisoners. The Saudi government rejected the demands.
The photos posted with the statement showed a severed head, placed on the back of a body. The body was wearing an orange jumpsuit and the face was turned toward the camera.
The day Johnson was seized, Islamic militants shot dead Kenneth Scroggs, from Laconia, N.H., in his garage. Scroggs, who also worked for Lockheed Martin, was killed days after another American was slain in an escalating al-Qaida campaign against Westerners in the kingdom.
Johnson was the second American abducted and slain by his kidnappers in the Middle East in just over a month.
Nicholas Berg, a businessman, was beheaded in Iraq, and his last moments later appeared on a videotape posted on an al-Qaida-linked Web site. U.S. officials say al-Qaida-linked Muslim militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may have been Berg's killer.
In Washington, spokespersons for the CIA and the State Department said the agency was not able to immediately confirm the report of Johnson's beheading.
A senior Saudi official in Washington, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the government did not yet have any independent confirmation of Johnson's death. "There is no body, and we know of no videotape," said the official.
As Friday's deadline approached, Saudi security forces launched an all-out search, going door-to-door in some Riyadh neighborhoods, as Johnson's wife went on Al-Arabiya television Friday pleading for his release.
[link=]http://www.drudgereport.com[/link]
The same people that beheaded this American want to come to our country to do the same to us.
From MSNBC: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3404405/
Michael Moore continues to have unkind words for his fellow countrymen. On his international book tour, the author of "Dude, Where's My Country" was asked what he thought of Americans. "They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet ... in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pricks," he replied. "We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."
This man is a pompous jackass. So, if we read his books and watch his movies we will be taken out of the realm of Stupidom and become educated, right? I just heard that a terrorist groups wants to bring his new movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11" to the Middle East. No small wonder why. Moore is well known for his "tinkering" of facts and manipulating the people that he interviews in order to get the results he craves. He admits that the purpose of "Fahrenheit 9/11" is to make sure that George W. Bush is not elected. This movie will bomb big-time. I am thankful for people like Moore though - they help solidify the reputation of the Left as whackos.
------------------------------------------------------------
We're better looking than he is!
My conversation with Laura Ingraham - October 03
I had the pleasure of meeting Nationally syndicated radio talk show host & best selling author Laura Ingraham at a book signing and briefly discussed a little Michael Moore with her. Her book, Shut Up & Sing - How elites from Hollywood, Politics and the UN are subverting America is all about this kinda stuff.
Before heading right over to the book table I let the frenzy settle just a little bit and chatted with program director Lee Habeeb about Moore and Bowling For Columbine. Lee spoke very passionately about what a fraud Moore is and how outrageous his stunts are. He was surprisingly very real and very angered at Moore's hypocrisy, his fraudulent claims and our mutual disgust for what he did to Charlton Heston. It was a refreshing and motivating conversation.
When I got to Laura and told her about BowlingForTruth, she mentioned she had a stint about Moore in the book that I would love. I of course did, and thought I'd share a little with you. Here are a few choice quotes from Laura in about Michael Moore in Shut Up & Sing:
"Bowling is a lie. An elaborate deception"..."Someday soon, Michael may get a taste of his own medicine"
"So blinded is he by anti-American self-loathing that his ideology gets in the way even of reporting simple facts"
"Stupid White Men captures the essence of what the Hollywood elite is all about. To them Moore seems positively brilliant, with insights like this: '...The rich are wallowing in the loot they've accumulated in the past 2 decades and now they want to make sure you don't come-a-looking for your piece of the pie.'...To call the book sophomoric would be an insult to sophomores in high school and college. Don't come a-lookin for a piece of the pie around Michael. He ate it all."
Keep the elites on the run! - Tell them to "Shut up & Sing" with Laura's new book.
At the beginning of the section, Ingraham recalls her only run in with Mikey in a face-off on a British television show. She was in Washington, Mike was in the London studio with the liberal host. She says that Moore seemed unwilling to consider that perhaps the recent flop the democrats had experienced at the polls at the 02 midterm election had something to do with the fact that so many on the left (like Moore) think that Americans are stupid.
At the end of the argument, in double boxes with Laura on the screen, Moore's final rebuttal was: "This is why they always win. They're better looking than us."
As void of progress the comment is, at least the latter part is true. We are better looking. But is that the reason we 'always win'? Looks like Moore beautifully illustrated Laura's point with his cute little comment: He thinks we're all stupid.
Luckily the feeling is mutual.
Buy Laura's book.
[link=]http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/moore/ingraham.htm[/link]
Rumor aside, draft's return most unlikely
Monday, May 24, 2004
By Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The Selective Service System quietly has been filling vacancies on local draft boards, as U.S. troops are pulled from Korea to help out in Iraq and members of Congress question whether the armed services are overextended.
This collection of circumstances has prompted a flurry of speculation, fueled by e-mail-forwarding and nurtured by left-wing Web sites, that the U.S. government is poised to reinstate the military draft, or that President Bush has secret plans to do so if re-elected in November.
But the Pentagon opposes a general manpower draft, and even those few members of Congress who support one think the chances of a draft being reinstituted are next-to-none. Yet the rumors fly.
"Pending legislation in the House and Senate would time the program so the draft could begin as early as spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election!" Adam Stutz recently wrote on the Vancouver Indymedia Web site.
The Armed Forces are not now having difficulty recruiting and retaining enough volunteers to maintain current strength, either in active or reserve components. But many fear that if the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan drag on, this will be harder to do.
Recruiting historically has been more difficult when the economy is growing rapidly, as it is now. And many in Congress believe it is necessary to increase the size of the Army by the equivalent of two divisions, along with their supporting elements.
For full story: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04145/321235.stm
|
Search This Site
Syndicate this blog site
Powered by BlogEasy
Free Blog Hosting
|