Why is it any more reasonable than Mossad or CIA or any of the other 'fringe loon' theories ?
Actually a belief in the Saudi connection is by definition an admission that Bush is lying and an accessory for the following reasons:
1) Evacuation of Bin Laden's family and other Saudi nationals immediately after 911. This must have had top-level authorisation as air space was clamped down and they were private chartered jets.
Quote:
100% False. You have proven to me that you are full of lies and have no ability to question the utter bullshit that's fed to you. I can't believe people still repeat this utter crap LIE! (talk about "misinformed"
More of the Bush Administration's web of lies and deceit (read wacko conspiracy theories) re. 9-11.
The T.I.A. confirms that Saudis were most probably flown out of the country on Sept 13, 2001. The White House has denied it all along, but it's on the record.
It looks like pretty much everything. I haven't seen the movie yet, but according to the reviews (which have all been of the "rave" category so far it seems), he has concentrated on a tiny, miniscule portion of the disaster. And he had little choice in the matter: a movie covering all the major aspects of (just the day of) 9-11 would last several days to do it justice.
I cannot see even Michael Moore making a movie that dissects the official version of the events of that day, and putting them into harsh perspective, even using exclusively the regular, standard, corporate, household media sources, ignoring the wilder stuff from numerous independent media sources. Just doing that opens such a Pandora's box of anomalies, weirdnesses, inconsistencies and impossibilities that it would look like a classic case of "truth being stanger than fiction". And Moore is too much of a pragmatist to dare venture into an area where he would undoubtedly be accused of belonging to the "tinfoil hat" brigade.
big media push -> low numbers, <15m open -> media screaming about the success of this "truth seeker"
We all know what moore is, we all know that while no one watches the movie, the accadimy will give him the obligetory documentory award (not that there is any competition) and they will make damn sure that it is in the prime time slot so it makes the broadcast and vwala, another moore moment and the country gets yet another taste of what liberalisum is.
Move America forward claims to be a non partisan grassroots organizationhttp://www.moveamericaforward.com/?Page=AboutUsbut they are lying. Surprise, surprise, knock me over with a feather.....
The investigative Internet Web site WhatReallyHappened.com recently exposed Move America Forward website to be registered by the GOP?s public relations firm of Russo Marsh & Rogers. Moreover, the About page at this site reveals the director and staff of Move America Forward are all diehard Republicans, anti-tax activists, and former legislative staffers.
Who are Russo Marsh & Rogers? They are a GOP consulting firm. Originally, in 2002, Ron Rogers teamed up with the Reagan era Lyn Nofziger and Ed Rollins for working on the gubernatorial campaign of Bill Simon.
Typically, Bush Republicans are not just cruel ?compassionate conservatives? but they are also lazy and stupid. Clearly, it never occurred to them that their plot to suppress Moore?s movie could be uncovered by anyone who knows how to use WHOIS.
After WhatReallyHappened.com ran a WHOIS on MoveAmericaForward.com it discovered that the site was registered in the name of Russo Marsh & Rogers. WHOIS is a database, maintained by registries and registrars, which records domain name registrations on the Internet. Soon after this information was posted on the Web, the registrant name was modified to omit Russo Marsh & Rogers.
Putting it simply and accurately, Move America Forward is just another Republican dirty trick designed to smear Moore and intimidate move theater owners not to run his film
Is there no limit as to the arrogance, dishonesty and fraud perpetrated by this administration and its cohorts?Have they told the truth about anything, 9-11 included?
It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.
Nice to see that some people's minds aren't completely closed. I'm sure that some of the Fox "commentators" will "balance" out this "fair" review by attacking Moore and/or the movie.
Move America forward claims to be a non partisan grassroots organizationhttp://www.moveamericaforward.com/?Page=AboutUsbut they are lying. Surprise, surprise, knock me over with a feather.....
Is there no limit as to the arrogance, dishonesty and fraud perpetrated by this administration and its cohorts?Have they told the truth about anything, 9-11 included?
Sammi you are so funny. First you don't like the fact that these folks call themselves Republican and so it..... must be endorsed and actually actively perpetrated by the Bush administration. Hilarious.
Second, in your usual conspiritorial manner, you attempt to make it sound like someone is out to get us via hiding something. But as you yourself noted, they don't hide anything. You can find it via the WHOIS. You can find it plainly on their own pages. The call themselves conservative on their own pages. They just don't claim to be affiliated with the Republican party. That would make them just like...oh... MoveOn.org, NAACP, NOW, NRA, etc. All these groups have political leanings, but it doesn't mean they are exclusively associated with one political party.
What I find interesting is that Moore had footage of what we are now calling torture months before any news organization, withheld that information and gets a free pass.
Apparently allowing suffering to continue for months is okay as long as you are going to enrich yourself with a documentary. Allowing torture to continue must be okay as long as you happen to be Michael Moore.
Or worse still, maybe Moore didn't consider it torture.
What I find interesting is that Moore had footage of what we are now calling torture months before any news organization, withheld that information and gets a free pass.
Have you got a link for this?
And note that the contorted phrase "now calling torture" makes it sound like A) it isn't and never has been torture, and we changed our minds about what to call it at some point, neither of which are true as far as I can see.
Also, are you aware that the photos/footage (not Moore's) were released long after the investigations into the abuse started?
What I find interesting is that Moore had footage of what we are now calling torture months before any news organization, withheld that information and gets a free pass....
If he had stuff that the pentagon didn't and he with-held it, is that not treason?
And note that the contorted phrase "now calling torture" makes it sound like A) it isn't and never has been torture, and we changed our minds about what to call it at some point, neither of which are true as far as I can see.
Also, are you aware that the photos/footage (not Moore's) were released long after the investigations into the abuse started?
The film shows American soldiers not in a prison but in the field, hooding an Iraqi, calling him Ali Baba, touching his genitals and posing for photos with him.
I use the words "now calling torture" because obviously Moore must have not considered it torture at the time. I cannot imagine anyone cold hearted enough to sit on footage of torture for any period of time for any reason. Can you think of any good reason for doing this?
So the point is Moore must of thought it as non-torture or else he is cold hearted as hell. Especially since the footage helps him earn the almighty dollar.
you attempt to make it sound like someone is out to get us via hiding something. But as you yourself noted, they don't hide anything. You can find it via the WHOIS.
They did try to hide the fact that they are a biased political organization.
They started the campaign to silence Moore under false pretenses, stating that they were a nonpartisan group of concerned citizens . . . then it came to the surface that they were in fact supported by a wealthy and powerful Republican PR group . ..
You don't call that devious?!?
I guess you would only call it bad if it were Dems doing it
But it does appear to have been a seriously BAD decision on oore's part to withhold footage of torture . . . if indeed he does have it.
I think He will have to release it now . . . I think it is his duty . . . what is he waiting for
his explaination makes a little sense, but the fact tht the seriousness of what the footage is supposed to reveal overrides the seriousness of the film and wouldn't evershadow it says that he needs to release it NOW.
Still, however, doesn't change a thing about the movie . . . which sounds like it should be seen . . .
They did try to hide the fact that they are a biased political organization.
They started the campaign to silence Moore under false pretenses, stating that they were a nonpartisan group of concerned citizens . . . then it came to the surface that they were in fact supported by a wealthy and powerful Republican PR group . ..
You don't call that devious?!?
I guess you would only call it bad if it were Dems doing it
But it does appear to have been a seriously BAD decision on Moore's part to withhold footage of torture . . . if indeed he does have it.
I think He will have to release it now . . . I think it is his duty . . . what is he waiting for
his explaination makes a little sense, but the fact tht the seriousness of what the footage is supposed to reveal overrides the seriousness of the film and wouldn't evershadow it says that he needs to release it NOW.
Still, however, doesn't change a thing about the movie . . . which sounds like it should be seen . . .
You obviously cannot understand the difference between unbiased and nonpartisan. They can be very biased but still nonpartisan. I gave examples of a number of groups that meet this criteria on both the right and left.
Michael Moore's film can be a great film. However the fact that he did not immediately speak up about something he not only witnessed and knew about, but had footage to prove says something very bad about his motivations to me. I quoted from Roger Ebert the type of footage he has IN THE FILM. The footage isn't hidden. He doesn't need to release it because he has already done so via his film. The reality however is that toture continued that he knew about because he didn't care to speak out about it until he could make a buck by you seeing it in his film.
You are wrong if you think it was 'because of the bucks' . . . clearly he wanted his movie to have a big impact and wanted to release it in such a way as to do so.
Biased vs partisan? clearly the group in question is extremely biased partisan group that felt that it needed to hide its origins.
Why would it hide?
It is like Rumsfeldt hiding the prisoner from the Red Cross, because they know that what they are doing is tasteless strong-arm politiking and borderline censorship strategy.
Maybe some of these people who are so 'non-partisan' might actually rethink there own ideas, and decide that energy is spent better in different endevours IF THEY SAW the movie before writing it off out of blind allegiance!!!
You are wrong if you think it was 'because of the bucks' . . . clearly he wanted his movie to have a big impact and wanted to release it in such a way as to do so.
Biased vs partisan? clearly the group in question is extremely biased partisan group that felt that it needed to hide its origins.
Why would it hide?
It is like Rumsfeldt hiding the prisoner from the Red Cross, because they know that what they are doing is tasteless strong-arm politiking and borderline censorship strategy.
Maybe some of these people who are so 'non-partisan' might actually rethink there own ideas, and decide that energy is spent better in different endevours IF THEY SAW the movie before writing it off out of blind allegiance!!!
Pfflam, you can believe and delude yourself in whatever manner you choose to do so.
Just don't expect all of us to come along for the ride.
Now on the matter of Moore, Bush, torture and the Iraq war, answer me this, did you read the second, very progressive source I posted?
Moore's only rational for not mentioning it MONTHS before it came out is fear he would be seen a as publicity hound. The release of that information hurt both Bush and undermined support for the war. Both of these are stated objectives of Michael Moore. Moore is supposed to be in the business of telling the truth. Instead he claims fear of his reputation as a means of withholding the truth. Worse still he actually did act as a publicity hound with the whole Disney distribution nonsense right before Cannes. So he can tell us the truth about Disney a year after the fact, but withhold the truth about torture?
If you see this as being about anything else than more money for Michael Moore, you are blinding yourself to the possibility of the very truth he claims to support.
If Moore is withholding footage of Iraqis being humiliated and/or tortured, I just don't see how that can be justified. Perhaps it was ignorance (which I doubt). But to conceal such things while making a documentary about coverups does say something...
Comments
Originally posted by segovius
Why is it any more reasonable than Mossad or CIA or any of the other 'fringe loon' theories ?
Actually a belief in the Saudi connection is by definition an admission that Bush is lying and an accessory for the following reasons:
1) Evacuation of Bin Laden's family and other Saudi nationals immediately after 911. This must have had top-level authorisation as air space was clamped down and they were private chartered jets.
100% False. You have proven to me that you are full of lies and have no ability to question the utter bullshit that's fed to you. I can't believe people still repeat this utter crap LIE! (talk about "misinformed"
More of the Bush Administration's web of lies and deceit (read wacko conspiracy theories) re. 9-11.
http://www.saintpetersburgtimes.com/...ies_flig.shtml
The T.I.A. confirms that Saudis were most probably flown out of the country on Sept 13, 2001. The White House has denied it all along, but it's on the record.
Edited
apologies to the BB for feistiness
Originally posted by Aquatic
What did he wimp out on?
It looks like pretty much everything. I haven't seen the movie yet, but according to the reviews (which have all been of the "rave" category so far it seems), he has concentrated on a tiny, miniscule portion of the disaster. And he had little choice in the matter: a movie covering all the major aspects of (just the day of) 9-11 would last several days to do it justice.
I cannot see even Michael Moore making a movie that dissects the official version of the events of that day, and putting them into harsh perspective, even using exclusively the regular, standard, corporate, household media sources, ignoring the wilder stuff from numerous independent media sources. Just doing that opens such a Pandora's box of anomalies, weirdnesses, inconsistencies and impossibilities that it would look like a classic case of "truth being stanger than fiction". And Moore is too much of a pragmatist to dare venture into an area where he would undoubtedly be accused of belonging to the "tinfoil hat" brigade.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122680,00.html
big media push -> low numbers, <15m open -> media screaming about the success of this "truth seeker"
We all know what moore is, we all know that while no one watches the movie, the accadimy will give him the obligetory documentory award (not that there is any competition) and they will make damn sure that it is in the prime time slot so it makes the broadcast and vwala, another moore moment and the country gets yet another taste of what liberalisum is.
It says that it is a very worthy film for both parties to watch . . . so why don't you, greer, stop assuming that you allready know that it is bad.
The website http://www.moveamericaforward.com has been campaigning to boycott the movie by lobbying theater owners to pull the movie.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGED76SI31.DTL
Move America forward claims to be a non partisan grassroots organization http://www.moveamericaforward.com/?Page=AboutUs but they are lying. Surprise, surprise, knock me over with a feather.....
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/m...rticle&sid=774
The investigative Internet Web site WhatReallyHappened.com recently exposed Move America Forward website to be registered by the GOP?s public relations firm of Russo Marsh & Rogers. Moreover, the About page at this site reveals the director and staff of Move America Forward are all diehard Republicans, anti-tax activists, and former legislative staffers.
Who are Russo Marsh & Rogers? They are a GOP consulting firm. Originally, in 2002, Ron Rogers teamed up with the Reagan era Lyn Nofziger and Ed Rollins for working on the gubernatorial campaign of Bill Simon.
Typically, Bush Republicans are not just cruel ?compassionate conservatives? but they are also lazy and stupid. Clearly, it never occurred to them that their plot to suppress Moore?s movie could be uncovered by anyone who knows how to use WHOIS.
After WhatReallyHappened.com ran a WHOIS on MoveAmericaForward.com it discovered that the site was registered in the name of Russo Marsh & Rogers. WHOIS is a database, maintained by registries and registrars, which records domain name registrations on the Internet. Soon after this information was posted on the Web, the registrant name was modified to omit Russo Marsh & Rogers.
Putting it simply and accurately, Move America Forward is just another Republican dirty trick designed to smear Moore and intimidate move theater owners not to run his film
Is there no limit as to the arrogance, dishonesty and fraud perpetrated by this administration and its cohorts?Have they told the truth about anything, 9-11 included?
They changed their web-site registration name.
It IS really disgusting!
Censorship with all the trappings of 'patriotic decency' . . . but really strong-armed censhorship worthy of the MAFIA!!!
Originally posted by Existence
A bit suprising considering the source, but nevertheless...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122680,00.html
It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.
Nice to see that some people's minds aren't completely closed. I'm sure that some of the Fox "commentators" will "balance" out this "fair" review by attacking Moore and/or the movie.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Theres a bit of a scandal going on, re. an effort to suppress Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 911:
The website http://www.moveamericaforward.com has been campaigning to boycott the movie by lobbying theater owners to pull the movie.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGED76SI31.DTL
Move America forward claims to be a non partisan grassroots organization http://www.moveamericaforward.com/?Page=AboutUs but they are lying. Surprise, surprise, knock me over with a feather.....
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/m...rticle&sid=774
Is there no limit as to the arrogance, dishonesty and fraud perpetrated by this administration and its cohorts?Have they told the truth about anything, 9-11 included?
Sammi you are so funny. First you don't like the fact that these folks call themselves Republican and so it..... must be endorsed and actually actively perpetrated by the Bush administration. Hilarious.
Second, in your usual conspiritorial manner, you attempt to make it sound like someone is out to get us via hiding something. But as you yourself noted, they don't hide anything. You can find it via the WHOIS. You can find it plainly on their own pages. The call themselves conservative on their own pages. They just don't claim to be affiliated with the Republican party. That would make them just like...oh... MoveOn.org, NAACP, NOW, NRA, etc. All these groups have political leanings, but it doesn't mean they are exclusively associated with one political party.
Nick
Apparently allowing suffering to continue for months is okay as long as you are going to enrich yourself with a documentary. Allowing torture to continue must be okay as long as you happen to be Michael Moore.
Or worse still, maybe Moore didn't consider it torture.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
What I find interesting is that Moore had footage of what we are now calling torture months before any news organization, withheld that information and gets a free pass.
Have you got a link for this?
And note that the contorted phrase "now calling torture" makes it sound like A) it isn't and never has been torture, and
Also, are you aware that the photos/footage (not Moore's) were released long after the investigations into the abuse started?
Originally posted by trumptman
What I find interesting is that Moore had footage of what we are now calling torture months before any news organization, withheld that information and gets a free pass....
If he had stuff that the pentagon didn't and he with-held it, is that not treason?
Originally posted by a_greer
If he had stuff that the pentagon didn't and he with-held it, is that not treason?
No, that's not treason.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Have you got a link for this?
And note that the contorted phrase "now calling torture" makes it sound like A) it isn't and never has been torture, and
Also, are you aware that the photos/footage (not Moore's) were released long after the investigations into the abuse started?
I have a couple of links.
Moore review
The film shows American soldiers not in a prison but in the field, hooding an Iraqi, calling him Ali Baba, touching his genitals and posing for photos with him.
Also...
Moore explanation
I use the words "now calling torture" because obviously Moore must have not considered it torture at the time. I cannot imagine anyone cold hearted enough to sit on footage of torture for any period of time for any reason. Can you think of any good reason for doing this?
So the point is Moore must of thought it as non-torture or else he is cold hearted as hell. Especially since the footage helps him earn the almighty dollar.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
you attempt to make it sound like someone is out to get us via hiding something. But as you yourself noted, they don't hide anything. You can find it via the WHOIS.
They did try to hide the fact that they are a biased political organization.
They started the campaign to silence Moore under false pretenses, stating that they were a nonpartisan group of concerned citizens . . . then it came to the surface that they were in fact supported by a wealthy and powerful Republican PR group . ..
You don't call that devious?!?
I guess you would only call it bad if it were Dems doing it
But it does appear to have been a seriously BAD decision on oore's part to withhold footage of torture . . . if indeed he does have it.
I think He will have to release it now . . . I think it is his duty . . . what is he waiting for
his explaination makes a little sense, but the fact tht the seriousness of what the footage is supposed to reveal overrides the seriousness of the film and wouldn't evershadow it says that he needs to release it NOW.
Still, however, doesn't change a thing about the movie . . . which sounds like it should be seen . . .
Originally posted by pfflam
They did try to hide the fact that they are a biased political organization.
They started the campaign to silence Moore under false pretenses, stating that they were a nonpartisan group of concerned citizens . . . then it came to the surface that they were in fact supported by a wealthy and powerful Republican PR group . ..
You don't call that devious?!?
I guess you would only call it bad if it were Dems doing it
But it does appear to have been a seriously BAD decision on Moore's part to withhold footage of torture . . . if indeed he does have it.
I think He will have to release it now . . . I think it is his duty . . . what is he waiting for
his explaination makes a little sense, but the fact tht the seriousness of what the footage is supposed to reveal overrides the seriousness of the film and wouldn't evershadow it says that he needs to release it NOW.
Still, however, doesn't change a thing about the movie . . . which sounds like it should be seen . . .
You obviously cannot understand the difference between unbiased and nonpartisan. They can be very biased but still nonpartisan. I gave examples of a number of groups that meet this criteria on both the right and left.
Michael Moore's film can be a great film. However the fact that he did not immediately speak up about something he not only witnessed and knew about, but had footage to prove says something very bad about his motivations to me. I quoted from Roger Ebert the type of footage he has IN THE FILM. The footage isn't hidden. He doesn't need to release it because he has already done so via his film. The reality however is that toture continued that he knew about because he didn't care to speak out about it until he could make a buck by you seeing it in his film.
Nick
Biased vs partisan? clearly the group in question is extremely biased partisan group that felt that it needed to hide its origins.
Why would it hide?
It is like Rumsfeldt hiding the prisoner from the Red Cross, because they know that what they are doing is tasteless strong-arm politiking and borderline censorship strategy.
Maybe some of these people who are so 'non-partisan' might actually rethink there own ideas, and decide that energy is spent better in different endevours IF THEY SAW the movie before writing it off out of blind allegiance!!!
Originally posted by pfflam
You are wrong if you think it was 'because of the bucks' . . . clearly he wanted his movie to have a big impact and wanted to release it in such a way as to do so.
Biased vs partisan? clearly the group in question is extremely biased partisan group that felt that it needed to hide its origins.
Why would it hide?
It is like Rumsfeldt hiding the prisoner from the Red Cross, because they know that what they are doing is tasteless strong-arm politiking and borderline censorship strategy.
Maybe some of these people who are so 'non-partisan' might actually rethink there own ideas, and decide that energy is spent better in different endevours IF THEY SAW the movie before writing it off out of blind allegiance!!!
Pfflam, you can believe and delude yourself in whatever manner you choose to do so.
Just don't expect all of us to come along for the ride.
Now on the matter of Moore, Bush, torture and the Iraq war, answer me this, did you read the second, very progressive source I posted?
Moore's only rational for not mentioning it MONTHS before it came out is fear he would be seen a as publicity hound. The release of that information hurt both Bush and undermined support for the war. Both of these are stated objectives of Michael Moore. Moore is supposed to be in the business of telling the truth. Instead he claims fear of his reputation as a means of withholding the truth. Worse still he actually did act as a publicity hound with the whole Disney distribution nonsense right before Cannes. So he can tell us the truth about Disney a year after the fact, but withhold the truth about torture?
If you see this as being about anything else than more money for Michael Moore, you are blinding yourself to the possibility of the very truth he claims to support.
Nick