Has Michael Moore become a full blown Truther?

[Hyperviolet]

Try to understand that it is inconceivable that Bush crafted a lie that was certain to be exposed and cause him great damage. Whatever else he has done wrong in Iraq, he most certainly expected to find WMD. Liars tell lies to benefit themselves, and they don't think they'll get caught.

No.

They might even have expected to find something over there. However, when they stated that they knew he had them. This was a downright fabrication to solidify the case the go over to Iraq.


No, they did not know, because there weren't any. He didnt have em, because there weren't any. Their false certainty was indeed a lie. Like it or not.

Regardless, to answer your question. Getting caught out in the lie didn't do much harm... Bush got re-elected didn't he?

 

[pomeroo]

No.

They might even have expected to find something over there. However, when they stated that they knew he had them. This was a downright fabrication to solidify the case the go over to Iraq.


No, they did not know, because there weren't any. He didnt have em, because there weren't any. Their false certainty was indeed a lie. Like it or not.

Regardless, to answer your question. Getting caught out in the lie didn't do much harm... Bush got re-elected didn't he?

You're having conceptual difficulties with something that ought to be rather simple.

The Bush administration, as did the Clinton administration that preceded it, relied on intelligence that proved to be faulty. Their certainty could not have been a lie because they believed what they were saying. If they didn't, they would NOT have said it because their mistake nearly cost them an election that should have been a landslide win.

Getting caught in the lie did tremendous harm--obviously. Bush nearly lost to a candidate who rose to national prominence by slandering the men he served with in Vietnam. By most conventional standards, John Kerry should have rejected by the Democratic Party as unelectable. Were it not for the effective attacks by the Swift Boat vets, Kerry would have won.

The notion that Bush promised to find weapons that he knew he wouldn't find makes no sense. He was shocked by the failure to turn up stockpiles that he and everyone else in government believed with all their hearts existed.

 

[gumboot]

Hyperviolet, correct me if I'm wrong, but from your posts, I gather this is your position, or at least a likely explanation:

The US Government had a degree of intelligence data that indicated Iraq still had a functioning WMD programme. This data was questionable, and left open substantial room for doubt.

The US Government were convinced that the data was accurate, and that Iraq had WMD. Rather than honestly present the evidence as being questionable, they falsely stood 100% behind the evidence and presented the impression that it was solid, substantial, and without doubt.

Thus when the USA went into Iraq, the US government genuinely expected to find WMD, despite the fact that their evidence was shakey, and were no doubt quite surprised when none turned up. A majority of the US people were quite pissed off when it became clear there was no WMD, and therefore the intelligence data had been incorrect, as they had understood it to be correct and without doubt.

Would this be an accurate summary?

Pomeroo, on the other hand, (and again, correct me if I am wrong), you have a problem with those that argue that the US Government were not only aware that their intelligence data was less than compelling, but that they knew for certain that Iraq did not have WMD, and fabricated evidence to fool the world and US people. You point out that this is illogical as it is a lie guaranteed to be uncovered (unless one were to fake WMD, which the Bush administration has not done).

It would appear, from my observations, that you two are not necessarily in conflict. I propose this, because I happen to agree with both of you. Here's my most likely scenario:

1) The US government genuinely believed that Iraq had WMD.
2) The US government could only produce questionable intelligence regarding WMD.
3) The US Government chose to stand behind this questionable intelligence 100%, believing that, regardless of evidence, Iraq did have WMD. Kind of like when you know someone committed a murder, but you can't really prove it.
4) The US Government were genuinely surprised when they went into Iraq and could not find WMD.
5) The US people were genuinely pissed off when they discovered that the US government had misrepresented the credibility of their evidence.
6) Many people with an inherent anti US Government bent took the additional step of concluding that the US Government's professed genuine motivation for going into Iraq - to get rid of WMD - was false.

Pomeroo seems to take issue with those in step 6). I can understand that. I think the US's intentions in going into Iraq were genuine, though incorrect. I think the US has a history of getting involved in conflicts with good intentions, even when misguided. They certainly didn't go into Vietnam to conquer territory or get oil, for example. Nor Korea. Nor Somalia.

Now, the USA doesn't go into all situations, obviously, and how they choose which ones to go into is something far less well-intentioned (at least from an international perspective) - they will only head into good causes that they perceive as in their interests. I don't have a fault with that, really.

Let's say you value freedom and democracy, and consider it somewhat a duty to use your power and influence to spread it to the world, overthrowing brutal dictators. But you don't have the resources to attack every dictatorship - you can only pick one. If there's numerous countries around the world with brutal dictators and secret weapons programmes, and only one of them also happens to have lots of valuable resources and is strategically placed to destabilise other nations that are a thorn in your side of course you choose that one nation. That's just sensible logic.

But there's also plenty of nations with valuable resources that are strategically placed to destabilise problem nations, but that don't have brutal dictators oppressing the masses, and are democratic, and the USA doesn't seem to have the slightest inclination to invade those countries.

-Gumboot

 

[FactCheck]

How about the fundamental premise of Bowling for Columbine; that the USA is a significantly more violent society than other western nations. As evidence he cites gun crime in the USA, ignoring other types of crime. He ignores the soaring rates of violent crime in other nations with very rigorous gun control laws, such as New Zealand.

His montage of examples of "American Aggression" in the same film contain numerous falsehoods, either in terms of grossly misrepresenting the facts, or simply outright lying (for example claiming that Osama Bin Laden was trained and funded by the CIA). This isn't even taking into account the fact that many are not examples of aggression.

This is immediately after his contention that the presence of a ballistic missile factory in Columbine contributed to the killings (or at least is another symptom of the USA's violent society) despite the fact that the factory in question had not produced ballistic missile engines for decades, and in fact was actively involved in dismantling ballistic missiles.

There's debate over the accuracy of his "go to bank, get gun" claim - staff from the bank claim that the guns are not delivered up front and that Moore opened the account in advance. Moore denies this allegation.

For the record, I am glad I live in a country with stringent gun laws, and would be strongly opposed to more relaxed gun laws such as seen in the USA. I consider the liberal access to guns a major flaw in US society. Just my opinion.

-Gumboot

ETA. Another factual incorrect claim made by Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbine is that the KKK became the NRA. This despite the fact that the KKK was first established only five years before the NRA, the KKK was established by veterans of the Confederate Army while the NRA was established by Union veterans, and former president Ulysses S. Grant, whom actively and aggressively combated the KKK, pushing through the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and the Fifteenth Amendment, was the eighth president of the NRA, after the end of his Presidency.

OK, Lets see how debunkers act when presented with facts...

"How about the fundamental premise of Bowling for Columbine; that the USA is a significantly more violent society than other western nations. "

Top ten in crimes - in bold

New Zealand > Crime statistics

Assaults 30,177 [19th of 57]
Car thefts 21,992 [22nd of 55]
Drug offences 641.6 per 100,000 people [3rd of 34]
Murders 45 [55th of 62]
Murders (per capita) 0.0111524 per 1,000 people [52nd of 62]
Murders with firearms 7 [32nd of 32]
Murders with firearms (per capita) 0.00173482 per 1,000 people [31st of 32]
Rapes 861 [30th of 65]
Rapes (per capita) 0.213383 per 1,000 people [12th of 65]
Total crimes 427,230 [22nd of 60]

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/nz-new-zealand/cri-crime

United States > Crime statistics

Assaults 2,238,480 [1st of 57]
Car thefts 1,147,300 [1st of 55]
Drug offences 560.1 per 100,000 people [4th of 34]
Murders 12,658 [6th of 62]
Murders (per capita) 0.042802 per 1,000 people [24th of 62]
Murders with firearms 8,259 [4th of 32]
Murders with firearms (per capita) 0.0279271 per 1,000 people [8th of 32]
Rapes 89,110 [1st of 65]
Rapes (per capita) 0.301318 per 1,000 people [9th of 65]
Total crimes 23,677,800 [1st of 60]

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/cri-crime

Soaring??? I wish we were soaring that low...

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/f/fahrenheit-911-script-transcript.html

"His montage of examples of "American Aggression" in the same film contain numerous falsehoods, either in terms of grossly misrepresenting the facts, or simply outright lying (for example claiming that Osama Bin Laden was trained and funded by the CIA). This isn't even taking into account the fact that many are not examples of aggression."

This would be true but I didn't see this in F911. Maybe I missed it? I looked at the script online and didn't see it there either.

"This is immediately after his contention that the presence of a ballistic missile factory in Columbine contributed to the killings (or at least is another symptom of the USA's violent society) despite the fact that the factory in question had not produced ballistic missile engines for decades, and in fact was actively involved in dismantling ballistic missiles."

This is a gross misrepresentation of the movie. He was talking about the "tough guy" culture of arms we project to the world and how that may influence how A SMALL FEW may react to different situations. He was simply asking if this irony was part of the problem.

From the script:

"He told us that no one in Littleton, including the executives at Lockheed, could figure out why the boys at Columbine had resorted to violence.

Why would kids do this?

Uh, some of the root of that probably has to do with their anger about various issues and we became aware of a program that provides anger-management training. And so we made a $ contribution to the Jefferson County schools to use this training in the schools. We hope to help both teachers and students learn alternative ways to deal with anger.

So you don't think our kids say to themselves:

"Well, gee, Dad goes off to the factory every day and, you know, he built missiles." These are weapons of mass destruction. What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?

I guess I don't see that connection, that specific connection, because the missiles that you're talking about were built and designed to defend us from somebody else who would be aggressors against us. Societies and countries and governments do things that annoy one another. But we have to learn to deal with that annoyance or that anger or that frustration in appropriate ways. We don't get irritated with somebody and just 'cause we're mad at them, uh, drop a bomb or shoot at them, or fire a missile at them."

Now you may not agree with what hes saying but he isn't lying. He is throwing this part of our culture out there and suggesting this is part of the problem. I agree with him.

At bear minimum he put both sides of the argument on the table. How can you fault him for that?

"There's debate over the accuracy of his "go to bank, get gun" claim - staff from the bank claim that the guns are not delivered up front and that Moore opened the account in advance. Moore denies this allegation."

He never suggested that. It's a pure straw man. He even leaves in: the lady saying "We have to do a background check."

He didn't have to clarify that because it doesn't matter one bit to the issue. It's the idea that a Bank is using guns to get customers regardless of how long it takes to get them. Nowhere does he say or suggest it's the speed in which he gets the guns in the bank at is the issue. This is the NRA's attempt at character assassination.

 

[pomeroo]

Hyperviolet, correct me if I'm wrong, but from your posts, I gather this is your position, or at least a likely explanation:

The US Government had a degree of intelligence data that indicated Iraq still had a functioning WMD programme. This data was questionable, and left open substantial room for doubt.

The US Government were convinced that the data was accurate, and that Iraq had WMD. Rather than honestly present the evidence as being questionable, they falsely stood 100% behind the evidence and presented the impression that it was solid, substantial, and without doubt.

Thus when the USA went into Iraq, the US government genuinely expected to find WMD, despite the fact that their evidence was shakey, and were no doubt quite surprised when none turned up. A majority of the US people were quite pissed off when it became clear there was no WMD, and therefore the intelligence data had been incorrect, as they had understood it to be correct and without doubt.

Would this be an accurate summary?

Pomeroo, on the other hand, (and again, correct me if I am wrong), you have a problem with those that argue that the US Government were not only aware that their intelligence data was less than compelling, but that they knew for certain that Iraq did not have WMD, and fabricated evidence to fool the world and US people. You point out that this is illogical as it is a lie guaranteed to be uncovered (unless one were to fake WMD, which the Bush administration has not done).

It would appear, from my observations, that you two are not necessarily in conflict. I propose this, because I happen to agree with both of you. Here's my most likely scenario:

1) The US government genuinely believed that Iraq had WMD.
2) The US government could only produce questionable intelligence regarding WMD.
3) The US Government chose to stand behind this questionable intelligence 100%, believing that, regardless of evidence, Iraq did have WMD. Kind of like when you know someone committed a murder, but you can't really prove it.
4) The US Government were genuinely surprised when they went into Iraq and could not find WMD.
5) The US people were genuinely pissed off when they discovered that the US government had misrepresented the credibility of their evidence.
6) Many people with an inherent anti US Government bent took the additional step of concluding that the US Government's professed genuine motivation for going into Iraq - to get rid of WMD - was false.

Pomeroo seems to take issue with those in step 6). I can understand that. I think the US's intentions in going into Iraq were genuine, though incorrect. I think the US has a history of getting involved in conflicts with good intentions, even when misguided. They certainly didn't go into Vietnam to conquer territory or get oil, for example. Nor Korea. Nor Somalia.

Now, the USA doesn't go into all situations, obviously, and how they choose which ones to go into is something far less well-intentioned (at least from an international perspective) - they will only head into good causes that they perceive as in their interests. I don't have a fault with that, really.

Let's say you value freedom and democracy, and consider it somewhat a duty to use your power and influence to spread it to the world, overthrowing brutal dictators. But you don't have the resources to attack every dictatorship - you can only pick one. If there's numerous countries around the world with brutal dictators and secret weapons programmes, and only one of them also happens to have lots of valuable resources and is strategically placed to destabilise other nations that are a thorn in your side of course you choose that one nation. That's just sensible logic.

But there's also plenty of nations with valuable resources that are strategically placed to destabilise problem nations, but that don't have brutal dictators oppressing the masses, and are democratic, and the USA doesn't seem to have the slightest inclination to invade those countries.

-Gumboot

You sum it up very neatly, Gumboot. When Khadafy got frightened at the sight of Saddam being dragged out of his hole and decided to switch sides, U.S. intelligence was astounded to learn how far his own nuclear program had progressed. We had no idea!

I have gradually grown extremely critical of the Bush team's handling of Iraq, but the left's Big Lie remains preposterous. As his approval ratings melted away, Bush wasn't twirling his mustache and cackling that the plan was working. That's just silly.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Well, well, well. Looky what we gots here. Moore indicated in Fahrenheit 9/11 that certain Saudis got out of the country in the days following the Events. Got to leave before they could be thoroughly investigated, interviewed - even Gitmoed.

Have a peek:
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Bin_Laden_may_have_arranged_family__06202007.html

All LIES, is that what you're saying, Big Ron and Gum? About Moore? Oh really?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Is Moore even more fatter than usual this year??

 

[Undesired Walrus]

What does that make me?

-Gumboot

You do this on purpose? Because it sounded good.

 

[ConspiRaider]

You're having conceptual difficulties with something that ought to be rather simple.

The Bush administration, as did the Clinton administration that preceded it, relied on intelligence that proved to be faulty. Their certainty could not have been a lie because they believed what they were saying. If they didn't, they would NOT have said it because their mistake nearly cost them an election that should have been a landslide win.

Getting caught in the lie did tremendous harm--obviously. Bush nearly lost to a candidate who rose to national prominence by slandering the men he served with in Vietnam. By most conventional standards, John Kerry should have rejected by the Democratic Party as unelectable. Were it not for the effective attacks by the Swift Boat vets, Kerry would have won.

The notion that Bush promised to find weapons that he knew he wouldn't find makes no sense. He was shocked by the failure to turn up stockpiles that he and everyone else in government believed with all their hearts existed.

You, Ron, are so full of poo that again - it would be comical reading your posts if the subject matter was not so serious.

Are you actually trying to convince people that Kerry rose to national prominence by slandering the men he served with in Vietnam? How dare you. HOW DARE YOU. You have served ZERO days in the military that you are so willing to put in deadly danger. You know nothing. Do you know what it was like in the 'Nam? Do you? I've got somebody from my family - a first cousin (stepped on a land mine and got shredded to pieces) - up there on that Black Wall. You are going to pontificate about someone who was in-country in the 'Nam and call them a slanderer? I'm a Vietnam Era vet - but I did not serve there, having joined in 1974. However, the circle of people with whom I soon after interacted - related lots of stories and experiences from being in the 'Nam. Want to know just a bit what the 'Nam was like? Watch Oliver Stone's Platoon.

See what you and your butt-hero Rove do? Kerry went to the 'Nam, was in action. Your sissy-boy Bush stayed here and played in toy jets. That is, when he wasn't going AWOL to do some politicking for his father's interests. The diabolically evil tactic of a sick psychopath like Der Oberfuhrer Karl Rove (your hero) is to use the strength of a person to destroy that person.

If you had a clue, Ron - even a tiny one - as to how devastating and horrific the activity of war really is: You would then understand that a nation shouldn't EVER initiate a war based on the flimsiest of intelligence. You, Ron, love to champion how "smart" your Texas hero-boy Bush is. Right? Always mentioning how intelligent this man is, despite everyone else knowing how full of crap such a statement is. If your turdboy was so "smart" - Kennedy-smart in the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example - then how come he based his WMD position on something like this?

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/ABCs_Brian_Ross_unmasks_Curveball_0313.html

Tell me how you'd explain to the 14 American families who just very recently are now going to have to get through life WITHOUT their loved one - because he was violently killed in Iraq - that the war in which he died was nothing more than the result of the U.S. Government believing a "clever fake" called Curveball.

 

[Hyperviolet]

Hyperviolet, correct me if I'm wrong, but from your posts, I gather this is your position, or at least a likely explanation:

The US Government had a degree of intelligence data that indicated Iraq still had a functioning WMD programme. This data was questionable, and left open substantial room for doubt.

The US Government were convinced that the data was accurate, and that Iraq had WMD. Rather than honestly present the evidence as being questionable, they falsely stood 100% behind the evidence and presented the impression that it was solid, substantial, and without doubt.

Thus when the USA went into Iraq, the US government genuinely expected to find WMD, despite the fact that their evidence was shakey, and were no doubt quite surprised when none turned up. A majority of the US people were quite pissed off when it became clear there was no WMD, and therefore the intelligence data had been incorrect, as they had understood it to be correct and without doubt.

Would this be an accurate summary?

Pomeroo, on the other hand, (and again, correct me if I am wrong), you have a problem with those that argue that the US Government were not only aware that their intelligence data was less than compelling, but that they knew for certain that Iraq did not have WMD, and fabricated evidence to fool the world and US people. You point out that this is illogical as it is a lie guaranteed to be uncovered (unless one were to fake WMD, which the Bush administration has not done).

It would appear, from my observations, that you two are not necessarily in conflict. I propose this, because I happen to agree with both of you. Here's my most likely scenario:

1) The US government genuinely believed that Iraq had WMD.
2) The US government could only produce questionable intelligence regarding WMD.
3) The US Government chose to stand behind this questionable intelligence 100%, believing that, regardless of evidence, Iraq did have WMD. Kind of like when you know someone committed a murder, but you can't really prove it.
4) The US Government were genuinely surprised when they went into Iraq and could not find WMD.
5) The US people were genuinely pissed off when they discovered that the US government had misrepresented the credibility of their evidence.
6) Many people with an inherent anti US Government bent took the additional step of concluding that the US Government's professed genuine motivation for going into Iraq - to get rid of WMD - was false.

Pomeroo seems to take issue with those in step 6). I can understand that. I think the US's intentions in going into Iraq were genuine, though incorrect. I think the US has a history of getting involved in conflicts with good intentions, even when misguided. They certainly didn't go into Vietnam to conquer territory or get oil, for example. Nor Korea. Nor Somalia.

Now, the USA doesn't go into all situations, obviously, and how they choose which ones to go into is something far less well-intentioned (at least from an international perspective) - they will only head into good causes that they perceive as in their interests. I don't have a fault with that, really.

Let's say you value freedom and democracy, and consider it somewhat a duty to use your power and influence to spread it to the world, overthrowing brutal dictators. But you don't have the resources to attack every dictatorship - you can only pick one. If there's numerous countries around the world with brutal dictators and secret weapons programmes, and only one of them also happens to have lots of valuable resources and is strategically placed to destabilise other nations that are a thorn in your side of course you choose that one nation. That's just sensible logic.

But there's also plenty of nations with valuable resources that are strategically placed to destabilise problem nations, but that don't have brutal dictators oppressing the masses, and are democratic, and the USA doesn't seem to have the slightest inclination to invade those countries.

-Gumboot

Well you are on the right track, Gumboot.

Though id just clarify that my stance is that they seemed more interested in making the case for Iraq invasion by giving the US public false certainties.... as apose to finding out the whole facts.
That to me is dishonest. Dishonesty when it comes to war is not acceptable in my book.

 

[Checkmite]

Are you actually trying to convince people that Kerry rose to national prominence by slandering the men he served with in Vietnam? How dare you. HOW DARE YOU. You have served ZERO days in the military that you are so willing to put in deadly danger. You know nothing. Do you know what it was like in the 'Nam?

The "Swift Boat Vets" know what it was like in Vietnam, and they make the same accusations about Kerry.

 

[pomeroo]

Well, well, well. Looky what we gots here. Moore indicated in Fahrenheit 9/11 that certain Saudis got out of the country in the days following the Events. Got to leave before they could be thoroughly investigated, interviewed - even Gitmoed.

Have a peek:
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Bin_Laden_may_have_arranged_family__06202007.html

All LIES, is that what you're saying, Big Ron and Gum? About Moore? Oh really?

Yup, the story is as phony as a three-dollar bill. In any case, Richard Clarke, the darling of Bush-bashers everywhere, is the man responsible for okaying the Saudis' departure. Ooops!

 

[pomeroo]

You, Ron, are so full of poo that again - it would be comical reading your posts if the subject matter was not so serious.

Are you actually trying to convince people that Kerry rose to national prominence by slandering the men he served with in Vietnam? How dare you. HOW DARE YOU.

Well, I guess I dare to do it because so many people agree with me. Let me repeat: Kerry, it is indisputably accurate to say, entered the national consciousness by slandering the men who served in Vietnam. Kerry was just a rich lefty from Massachusetts until he showed up in Paris, WHILE STILL WEARING THE UNIFORM OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY, to promote the cause of North Vietnam, America's enemy--technically, an act of treason. He testified before Congress that American troops routinely committed war crimes and likened our boys to the hordes of Genghis Khan. But you already knew all of that.

You have served ZERO days in the military that you are so willing to put in deadly danger. You know nothing.

I seem to know a whole lot more about John Kerry than you do.

Do you know what it was like in the 'Nam? Do you? I've got somebody from my family - a first cousin (stepped on a land mine and got shredded to pieces) - up there on that Black Wall. You are going to pontificate about someone who was in-country in the 'Nam and call them a slanderer?

Yes, John Kerry, in my opinion, is a liar and a scoundrel. Many of the self-styled vets who who fabricated atrocity stories at the Winter Soldier conference turned out to be frauds. Kerry's baseless slanders of brave men should have earned him the contempt of every fair-minded American. How you, a vet, can say anything good about that arrogant blowhard is another one of those mysteries. I know lots of Vietnam vets and their opinion of Kerry is unprintable. Tell us what the Vietnam vets you know think of him.

I'm a Vietnam Era vet - but I did not serve there, having joined in 1974. However, the circle of people with whom I soon after interacted - related lots of stories and experiences from being in the 'Nam. Want to know just a bit what the 'Nam was like? Watch Oliver Stone's Platoon.

See what you and your butt-hero Rove do? Kerry went to the 'Nam, was in action. Your sissy-boy Bush stayed here and played in toy jets.

Foolish twaddle. Bush logged hundreds of hours at the controls of a fighter jet with a high crash rate. Kerry asked for Swift Boat duty because he didn't realize it was brown-water duty. When he found out, he made himself so obnoxious by photographing himself prancing around in an infantry uniform and demanding purple hearts for scratches that were treated with band-aids, that he got himself shipped out in three months.

That is, when he wasn't going AWOL to do some politicking for his father's interests.

The Democrats' often-repeated falsehood is nonsense. Bush overqualified for four years. In the last two years of his stint, men returning from Vietnam produced a glut of pilots and Bush slacked off.

The diabolically evil tactic of a sick psychopath like Der Oberfuhrer Karl Rove (your hero) is to use the strength of a person to destroy that person.

Funny, your smears of Bush's service strike me as exactly that. Kerry's extremely loud and brief tour is hardly a strength. Ask the men who served with him--the ones not paid by his campaign: they despise Kerry.

If you had a clue, Ron - even a tiny one - as to how devastating and horrific the activity of war really is: You would then understand that a nation shouldn't EVER initiate a war based on the flimsiest of intelligence.

You forgot to tell us how we should have dealt with the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Should Iran be permitted to build nukes?

You, Ron, love to champion how "smart" your Texas hero-boy Bush is. Right? Always mentioning how intelligent this man is, despite everyone else knowing how full of crap such a statement is.

You're distorting my words, as usual. I said that Bush is smarter than Gore or Kerry: their IQ tests demonstrate that. He is therefore the least mediocre of three terribly mediocre intellects.

If your turdboy was so "smart" - Kennedy-smart in the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example - then how come he based his WMD position on something like this?

Kennedy's handling of a crisis that should never have been allowed to develop was a near-apocalyptic disaster. The eight-to-one advantage the U.S. enjoyed in nuclear throw weight trumped JFK's inept diplomacy, forced the Russians to back down, and ultimately got Khrushchev sacked for recklessness. If something closer to nuclear parity had existed at the time, there is an excellent chance that none of us would be here now.


http://rawstory.com/news/2007/ABCs_Brian_Ross_unmasks_Curveball_0313.html

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/ABCs_Brian_Ross_unmasks_Curveball_0313.html

Tell me how you'd explain to the 14 American families who just very recently are now going to have to get through life WITHOUT their loved one - because he was violently killed in Iraq - that the war in which he died was nothing more than the result of the U.S. Government believing a "clever fake" called Curveball.

I'd explain to them that removing Saddam Hussein was a noble goal. The aftermath of a brilliantly successful campaign was botched by the Bush adminstration, but that does not excuse the irresponsible behavior of Democrats who would sacrifice the security of their nation for tawdry partisan gain.

 

[gumboot]

Well, well, well. Looky what we gots here. Moore indicated in Fahrenheit 9/11 that certain Saudis got out of the country in the days following the Events. Got to leave before they could be thoroughly investigated, interviewed - even Gitmoed.

Have a peek:
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Bin_Laden_may_have_arranged_family__06202007.html

All LIES, is that what you're saying, Big Ron and Gum? About Moore? Oh really?

I don't believe I ever said that every single statement in every single Michael Moore film is false. Please stop the strawmen. And the name is "Gumboot", not "Gum", not "Gummy" not "Gums" or whatever else you think you can demean me by changing it to.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

Well you are on the right track, Gumboot.

Though id just clarify that my stance is that they seemed more interested in making the case for Iraq invasion by giving the US public false certainties.... as apose to finding out the whole facts.
That to me is dishonest. Dishonesty when it comes to war is not acceptable in my book.

I see completely where you're coming from. I'm not an American, so my reasons for opposing a unilateral US action against Iraq had more to do with the affect it had on the UN.

-Gumboot

 

[The Mysterian]

So Pomerro.

Pomeroo, so when are you going to sign up to go to Iraq? You have nothing to be afraid of! Major combat operations are over you know? We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here! Notice how terror alerts have dried up since the 2004 election? You remember the summer of 2004 don't you? The terrorist alerts! Strange how we haven't had any since then! So we're fighting them over there! I can get you in contact with a recruiter too!

 

[ConspiRaider]

I seem to know a whole lot more about John Kerry than you do.

Yes, John Kerry, in my opinion, is a liar and a scoundrel. Many of the self-styled vets who who fabricated atrocity stories at the Winter Soldier conference turned out to be frauds. Kerry's baseless slanders of brave men should have earned him the contempt of every fair-minded American. How you, a vet, can say anything good about that arrogant blowhard is another one of those mysteries. I know lots of Vietnam vets and their opinion of Kerry is unprintable. Tell us what the Vietnam vets you know think of him.

Do you really? Know a lot about Kerry? Wanna guess how many medals he got?

Give up?

Here you go:
http://www.awolbush.com/images/Kerry_Military_awards.jpg

Just in case the image did not load, here they are, Big Ron:

1. Silver Star
2. Bronze Star with Combat V
3. Purple Heart (first)
4. Purple Heart (second)
5. Purple Heart (third)
6. Combat Action Ribbon
7. Presidential Unit Citation
8. Navy Unit Commendation
9. National Defense Service Medal
10. Vietnam Service Medal
11. Republic of Vietnam, Meritorious Unit Citation, Gallantry Cross Medal with Palm
12. Republic of Vietnam, Meritorious Unit Citation, Civil Action Medal with Palm
13. Republic of Vietnam, Campaign Medal

Now, then guess how many medals sissy-boy Bush got. Give up? NONE. Technically he may have been authorized 2 minor ones. But he has no medals (according to the report I saw) credited on his military discharge.

 

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo, so when are you going to sign up to go to Iraq? You have nothing to be afraid of! Major combat operations are over you know?

I'm a bit old for military service. The chickenhawk argument is one the phoniest ploys in the left's bag of cheap tricks. Are you arguing that only people who have served in the military should make foreign policy decisions that might involve sending troops into battle? I'd bet heavily that you don't believe that one tiny bit. Why do I have a hunch that you were an enthusiastic supporter of a draft dodger in 1992 and 1996?

]

We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here!

A blind squirrel finds an acorn! Yes, you're right.

]

Notice how terror alerts have dried up since the 2004 election? You remember the summer of 2004 don't you? The terrorist alerts! Strange how we haven't had any since then! So we're fighting them over there!

Gee, for a moment I thought you were going to make a point. You fooled me. No, neither I nor anyone else has noticed any "drying up" of terror alerts. Everyone notices that such alerts are largely ignored. I'm sure there's a deep meaning hidden somewhere.

]

I can get you in contact with a recruiter too!

I sincerely doubt that you know anyone connected with the military.

 

[Slayhamlet]

The "Swift Boat Vets" know what it was like in Vietnam, and they make the same accusations about Kerry.

The Swift Boat Vets are about the same as Michael Moore in my estimation. They both bend the truth for a political agenda.

But anyway, why has this thread not been moved to the politics forum?

 

[gumboot]

Do you really? Know a lot about Kerry? Wanna guess how many medals he got?

Give up?

Here you go:
http://www.awolbush.com/images/Kerry_Military_awards.jpg

Just in case the image did not load, here they are, Big Ron:

1. Silver Star
2. Bronze Star with Combat V
3. Purple Heart (first)
4. Purple Heart (second)
5. Purple Heart (third)
6. Combat Action Ribbon
7. Presidential Unit Citation
8. Navy Unit Commendation
9. National Defense Service Medal
10. Vietnam Service Medal
11. Republic of Vietnam, Meritorious Unit Citation, Gallantry Cross Medal with Palm
12. Republic of Vietnam, Meritorious Unit Citation, Civil Action Medal with Palm
13. Republic of Vietnam, Campaign Medal

Now, then guess how many medals sissy-boy Bush got. Give up? NONE. Technically he may have been authorized 2 minor ones. But he has no medals (according to the report I saw) credited on his military discharge.

Pomeroo has expressed issue with his behaviour post his efforts in the Vietnam War, not during. Your argument is akin to Conspiracy Theorist who claim William Rodriguez must be entirely trustworthy and honest because he was a hero on 9/11. It is possible for a soldier to be both a war hero, and to dishonour the soldiers he fought with. Not that I'm saying Kerry did this, just pointing out the problem with your refutation. Certainly if Pomeroo were to claim Kerry was a coward or a poor soldier in Vietnam you could use that list of medals to refute that.

-Gumboot