The LIES of Michael MooreFollow

This guy is a joke.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Even Osama bin Laden's brother disputes this *******:

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0704/162327.html

Deal with it.

Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group. True

2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States. True

3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests. Don't know enough about this one pass

4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape. True

5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American. Cool a sentance that make no sence at all pass

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.) True

Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not.
They could not make U.S policy but have an influence over it.

Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. The US sent to few troops into afganistan to caputre Bin Laden <that would be why he hasn't been caught yet> and Should never have sent troops into Iraq <a country with no ties to Al Queda or 9/11>

It took me all of 1 paragraph to completely blow the biased logic away, i feel no need to continue.

Tard,




You are a ****** True.

Varus

Quick the sky is falling...

You know there are some statements just to imbecilic to respond to.

For example:



There's also no concrete evidence that Bin Laden survived the bombing of Tora Bora but propagandist like Moore put forth the idea that he hasn't been caught without any facutal info that he's still alive. How do you catch someone that's been vaporized? Also it's been proven that there are ties to Iraq and Al Quada, if not directly responsible for 911 they definitly ran terrorist training camps in Iraq. But you could care less about the truth, unless it fits into your socialist ideology.

Varus

I'm going to be bold and speak for Varus here:

I hate the elderly and retired!

If by this you mean the exact opposite, you are correct.

this is not "true", this is a matter of opinion

oh my god! the white-hot wit!

I'm not trying to be witty, I'm just saying, that if you think dispersing the Taliban and Al'Quaeda leaders and not bothering to go after them is a sound strategy, then that's a rather stupid idea.

Here's the problem....conservatives read other conservatives op-ed articles and base them as FACT.

The article linked to by the main post was NOT a "journalistic" article, it was a right-wing, pro-war writer using Slate as his means to express his narrow-minded vision of a documentary.

Folks...it was just a documentary. It was a documentary attempting to paint a negative picture of Bush. So of course he's going to use certain shots in Iraq. Big deal.

What I think is more interesting is the first half of the movie; the things that are undeniable. Bush's connection to the Saudi Royal Family through the Carlyle group, etc.

Another thing that makes me laugh is that staunch republicans are so against Saddam. They forget that the man that put him into power and gave him all his weapons that we're now searching for (and will not find), are the republican's idol: Ronald Reagan.

so because it didn't work, it was because there wern't enough troops, tell me tarv, how many years have you spent as a military tactician?



and we all know how reliable they are "we're going into iraq because there are al-quayeda bases there" "there are WMDs all over the place in iraq" " we won't gun down brits and kurds in their 100s accidentally"

8 years, how many have you?

I believe what it actually concluded was that there is no link between Iraq and the World Trade Center bombings. It is a proven fact that senior Al-Qaeda operatives receive quarter in Iraq, both from the previous government and the current insurrectionists.

Saddam harbored and aided terrorists. Period. That investigations now show that the immediate threat of WMD was not there, they do no exticate the previous regime from terrorism. That we have managed to come to the conclusions re: WMD in 18 months where the UN was unable to do the same in a decade suggests that perhaps diplomacy is not always the best path. That we have proven the regime to be an ally to global terrorism should go a long way to providing validity to the charges that led to war. When the WMD investigators proved capability for fast ramping up on production of chemical and biological weapons it gave solid backing to concerns that Saddam could provide those weapons to terrorists.

What is so hard to understand about that? The president and his rival both supported the idea of action in Iraq based on intel they had at the time. Neither created the intelligence. Why is one suddenly a bad leader when it proves to be less than accurate and the other is a natural choice to pick up the mantle and move forward?

EDIT: For the record, it is not my intention to troll here. It is also not my intention to include other issues in this particular discussion (ie domestic & economic). I genuinely want to know why you democrats politely ignore the facts at hand to focus on a single technicality.

Edited, Fri Oct 29 12:46:31 2004 by MoebiusLord