Has Michael Moore become a full blown Truther?

So in conclusion, no Michael Moore is not a "full blown truther".

-Gumboot
 
Texas said:
Impressive list. Now tell me where were those folks when the Democrats were saying the following in the years leading up to the invasion?

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Click to expand...

How about this: "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
 
gumboot said:
So in conclusion, no Michael Moore is not a "full blown truther".

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Just a half-blown one.

Now Clinton was full blown, but not as a truther. You know, you'd think that a guy who was smart enough to dodge the draft, and still have Vets love him, would have been smart enough to have kept his fly zipped while in the Oval Office. I might man, USE A HOTEL!!
 
The Mysterian said:
How about this: "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
Click to expand...
Cockeyed optimism I guess. I will agree that the invasion was doomed from the start simply because it is unrealistic to hope that this country could possibly stick together long enough to see the operation through. It has been so since the end of WW2 and the US has lost every war since.
 
Texas said:
Cockeyed optimism I guess. I will agree that the invasion was doomed from the start simply because it is unrealistic to hope that this country could possibly stick together long enough to see the operation through. It has been so since the end of WW2 and the US has lost every war since.
Click to expand...

I'd call it lying.
 
The Mysterian said:
I'd call it lying.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting viewpoint. What did he gain by telling that "lie"? To have lied he would have had to have known that an insurgency would form in the first place. So if he knew this and given electoral politics at the time why would he have told a lie that was bound to be reported 24/7 for the next 4 years?
 
pomeroo said:
No, YOU are wrong. Kerry's "wounds" were scratches.
Click to expand...

When you follow my link, you will find the Snopes page that details just how Kerry got his wounds, and what mortal danger he was in when he got each of those wounds, and why your attempt to minimize Kerry's heroic service is misguided, partisan, and wrong.
 
In a rare attempt at critical thinking of mine, the problem I see with this specific debate over Kerry's wounds/scratches is as follows:

pomeroo said:
No, YOU are wrong. Kerry's "wounds" were scratches.
Click to expand...

The article does not contend that Kerry's wounds were serious, though it does state that they were more than scratches (and I would agree, penetrating shrapnel wounds do not agree with the dictionary definition of scratch, which is what I assume the miltary would use). It explains quite clearly that in 2 of 3 cases, he resumed duty immediately after treatment, except in one case that did not even require a hospital stay after treatment.

However, this is not the point you were trying to make.

The point is that some people contend that Kerry's wounds/scratches were not meritous of receiving the Purple Heart. If you or anyone disagrees, then one must explain under what conditions one believes wounded soldiers (and remember that Kerry in fact was a wounded soldier, despite the seriousness or lack thereof) should be awarded the Purple Heart; for example, requiring 'X' number of days off duty. Stating an opinion that his wounds were only "scratches" is not a refutation, nor a good arguement at all.
 
Tbone said:
In a rare attempt at critical thinking of mine, the problem I see with this specific debate over Kerry's wounds/scratches is as follows:



The article does not contend that Kerry's wounds were serious, though it does state that they were more than scratches (and I would agree, penetrating shrapnel wounds do not agree with the dictionary definition of scratch, which is what I assume the miltary would use). It explains quite clearly that in 2 of 3 cases, he resumed duty immediately after treatment, except in one case that did not even require a hospital stay after treatment.

However, this is not the point you were trying to make.

The point is that some people contend that Kerry's wounds/scratches were not meritous of receiving the Purple Heart. If you or anyone disagrees, then one must explain under what conditions one believes wounded soldiers (and remember that Kerry in fact was a wounded soldier, despite the seriousness or lack thereof) should be awarded the Purple Heart; for example, requiring 'X' number of days off duty. Stating an opinion that his wounds were only "scratches" is not a refutation, nor a good arguement at all.
Click to expand...
You make a good point and one I couldn't quite figure out why the swiftVets made such an issue of. The SwiftVets and many VietNam Vets had a legitimate gripe with Kerry over his actions after he left the military, one that left a bad taste in their mouths and his actions were fully documented. There was no need to focus on the legitimacy of his combat medals at all. It was not good strategy. The same can be said for the CBS attempt to swiftboat Bush with forged documents. If you have shaky sources someone is going to rub your face in them.
 
Personally I find the entire Purple Heart thing really silly. Soldiers are meant to try avoid getting wounded. If anything you should give medals to soldiers who don't get wounded under enemy fire.

As Colby Buzzell said; the only medal ceremonies where the soldiers don't get jealous are the ones for Purple Hearts.

-Gumboot
 
In bolobuffin's snopes link it clarifies that:
Admiral Zumwalt states that more often than not people who were wounded/got purple hearts did not need to take time off. If Kerry's medals shouldn't count based on that, neither should over half of the ones delivered.
He was then wounded by shrapnel, RPG shrapnel, and a mine in the water.
Furthermore, regulations stipulated that anyone wounded thrice would then be transfered away unless they requested to stay, and that's what happened to Kerry.
 
Don't know if someone has already said this as I haven't read the whole thread:

I've skimmed, not read, cause he's unreadable,three of Michael Moore's books and he clearly states he doesn't believe in any CTs, including the 9/11 ones. He jokes that the only ones he believes in are those involving dentists.

MM's shtick is funny in a film because he's an activist with the soul of a stand up comic but on page, it's an effect like reading a 200-page rant on a blog entry or a transcript of a 10 hour stand up show.
 
pomeroo said:
Why should I guess about Kerry's medals? The book by the Swiftees discusses them in detail. Kerry's purple hearts are bad jokes. He and the Swift Boat vets disagree about his other ribbons, but Kerry apparently forgot his promise to release ALL of his relevant military records to settle the disputes.

I find it strange that someone who describes himself as a vet is defending a scoundrel who gained celebrity by lying about men who fought bravely and honorably in an unpopular and misguided war.
Click to expand...

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2004/story?id=166434

The swift boaters are no different than the toofers. Motivated by politics and hate for speaking out against the war. :P
 
gumboot said:
Er... have you read any of my posts?

I support his desire to have guns controlled. I think any society where people think they need a weapon to protect them from other people within that society has some serious issues.

As I've said in nearly every single post in this thread, I do not have issue with Moore's opinions. In fact I agree with most of them. I have issue with him supporting his opinion with "facts" that are not true.

Although I also think Moore missed a key element of the high school massacre formula, that being the way in which First Person Shooter computer games (or Murder Simulators, as Lt. Col. Grossman calls them) condition people to kill. I don't think this is so much an explanation for the killings, but for why such large numbers of people are killed.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if you agree with gun regulations. I aplaude you for that. But you are using the same tactics of only seeing one side of things you say he does.

This country had a love for guns long before the first computer was invented. Just because the name of the movie was bowling for columbine doesn't mean that's the only thing the movie was about. It was about Americans dogmatic love for guns. Surely, you must admit that. So if it was more than just columbine then it wasn't the computer games that led to the shooting. If they didn't have those guns in the first place it wouldn't matter what video game they played.

I also don't buy the computer game triggering the event. They sell the same video games in canada but they don't have nearly the death rate. Why? Because thought many have guns in canada they are regulated. People tend to use guns legally when they are registered to the owner. Every handgun is registered in canada.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom