Mr. Bush his Saudis

[Luddly Neddite]

I'm asking why the US didn't take any action against Saudi Arabia.

Oil

 

[Kosh]

Perhaps, if he knowingly lied/exaggerated evidence surrounding the WMDs. I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

And here is what the gets the far left into trouble when they try and hide from their true nature.

The intelligence Bush was given came from the Clinton era.

Helk even Clinton bombed Iraq on a couple of occasions using that claim.

However you still not have answer my question..

 

[Kosh]

Actually, this is very well explained, documented and referenced in the documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11. Problem is, as factual as the documentary is, it was produced by Michael Moore and the right is way too terrified of him to actually watch it.



See, there are actually some despicable rw's who have the nerve to offhandedly refer to most deadly foreign attack on US soil as an "incident" that is not "newsworthy".

Fact is, plenty of "new information" is available to those Americans who actually give a fuck about their own country.

Incredibly, there are some rw's who think that telling the truth about the damn Bush oil dynasty as "beating up".

"out of office for 5 years" - So, just how long is the statute of limitations on treason?

And definitely far left propaganda.

Pro-US facts.

Something you traitors on the right know nothing about.

Seriously.

I am SO frikken sick of the blatant treason from the right being celebrated by ignorant rw assholes. Anybody who wants to know the truth about the Bush family and their oil only has to open their mind a teenie weenie bit.

Watch the documentary. I dare you.

No more lies. Just watch it.

( I know rw's won't and I know they'll lie about it.)

It is far left propaganda film. Please spare your "facts" via the far left propaganda.

 

[Kosh]

I'm asking why the US didn't take any action against Saudi Arabia.

Oil

The same reason that Obama took the US into an illegal war into Libya.

 

[Edgetho]

I'm asking why the US didn't take any action against Saudi Arabia.

Oil

Uh, stupid?

How much Oil does the Bush Family own in Saudi Arabia? Care to take a guess?

Try..... None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

It's all owned by the Saudi National Company ARAMCO.

All of it.

Now, if Bush wanted only to get rich, he could have easily found a way to either piss the Saudis off or start a War over there that would close down the World's richest Oil Fields.

At that point, whatever Oil holdings the Bush Family owned in the US would go up by over TEN TIMES.

That's the problem with you people on the left, you're too stupid to even know how stupid you are.

And you lie. Stupid and liars? Yup, that's your typical dimocrap

 

[Edgetho]

dimocraps lie. It's what they do

Fahrenheit Lie #1

National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice is depicted in the movie telling a reporter, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.”
The scene deceptively shows the Administration directly blaming Saddam and his regime for the attacks on 9/11 by taking her comments out of context. Now read the entire statement made by Ms. Rice to the reporter:

“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11. But if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that led people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.” (CBS News, November 28, 2003 Interview)

Fahrenheit Lie #2

In the film, Moore leads viewers to believe that members of bin Laden’s family were allowed to exit the country after the attacks without questioning by authorities. o The September 11th commission, on the other hand, reported that 22 of the 26 people on the flight that took most of the bin Laden family out of the country were interviewed and found to be innocent of suspicion. (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)
The commission reported that “each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.”

Fahrenheit Lie #3

Moore claims that James Bath, a friend of President Bush from his time with the Texas Air National Guard, might have funneled bin Laden money to an unsuccessful Bush oil-drilling firm called Arbusto Energy.

Bill Allison, managing editor for the Center for Public Integrity (an independent watchdog group in Washington, D.C.), on the other hand, said, “We looked into bin Laden money going to Arbusto, and we never found anything to back that up,” (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)

Fahrenheit Lie #4

The movie claims that the Bush administration “supported closing veterans hospitals.” o “The Department of Veterans Affairs did propose closing seven hospitals in areas with declining populations where the hospitals were underutilized, and whose veterans could be served by other hospitals” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” Independence Institute Accessed, 07/11/04)

But Moore’s film fails to mention that the Department also proposed building new hospitals in areas where needs were growing, and also proposed building blind rehabilitation centers and spinal cord injury centers (News Release, Department of Veterans Affairs, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 10/24/03)

Fahrenheit Lie #5

Conspiracy theories abound about the reasons for the War on Terror, but none is more outlandish than the one propagandized in Moore’s film: that the Afghan war was fought solely to enable the Unocal company to build an oil pipeline (the plan for which was abandoned by the company in 1998).

Moore “suggests that one of the first official acts of Afghan President Hamid Karzai … was to help seal a deal for … Unocal to build an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean. It alleges that Karzai had been a Unocal consultant.” (emphasis added) (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)
Unocal spokesman, Barry Lane, says unequivocally, “Karzai was never, in any capacity, an employee, consultant or a consultant of a consultant,” and Unocal never had a plan to build a Caspian Sea pipeline. (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)
Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while President Bush was governor to discuss a potential project with Unocal.

While Moore implies that then-Governor Bush met with the Taliban, no such meeting occurred. The Taliban delegation did, however, meet with the Clinton Administration on this visit. (Matt Labash, “Un-Moored From Reality; Fahrenheit 9/11 Connects Dots That Aren’t There,” Weekly Standard, July 5-July 12 Issue)

Fahrenheit Lie #6

Even readily available figures are exaggerated for effect in Fahrenheit 9/11. The claims have a basis in reality, making them believable, but are false nonetheless. ü In the film, Moore asks Craig Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud, “How much money do the Saudis have invested in America, roughly?” to which Unger responds, “Uh, I’ve heard figures as high as $860 billion.”

The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy reports that worldwide Saudi investment approximated $700 billion – a figure much lower than Unger alleges the Saudi government to have invested in the U.S. (Tanya C. Hsu, Institute For Research: Middle Eastern Policy, “The United States Must Not Neglect Saudi Arabian Investment,” Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy - IRmep, Accessed 07/11/04)

The Institute reports that 60 percent of that $700 billion – roughly $420 billion, less than half of what Unger “heard” – was actually invested in the United States by the Saudi government.

Fahrenheit Lie #7

“Moore’s film suggests that [President] Bush has close family ties to the bin Laden family – principally through [President] Bush’s father’s relationship with the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm. The president’s father, George H.W. Bush, was a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group’s Asian affiliate until recently; members of the bin Laden family – who own one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest construction firms – had invested $2 million in a Carlyle Group fund. Bush Sr. and the bin Ladens have since severed ties with the Carlyle Group, which in any case has a bipartisan roster of partners, including Bill Clinton’s former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt. The movie quotes author Dan Briody claiming that the Carlyle Group ‘gained’ from September 11 because it owned United Defense, a military contractor. Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman notes that United Defense holds a special distinction among U.S. defense contractors that is not mentioned in Moore’s movie: the firm’s $11 billion Crusader artillery rocket system developed for the U.S. Army is one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration.” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” Independence Institute Accessed, 07/11/04)

“There is another famous investor in Carlyle whom Moore does not reveal: George Soros. But the fact that the anti-Bush billionaire [Soros] has invested in Carlyle would detract from Moore’s simplistic conspiracy theory.” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” Independence Institute Accessed, 07/11/04)
Fahrenheit Lie #8

Not revealing relevant facts is dishonest enough. But to paint the Bush Administration as sympathetic and friendly to the Taliban prior to September 11, is not only dishonest, but maliciously so. ü Moore shows film of a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban delegation, claiming that the Administration “welcomed” the Taliban official, Sayed Hashemi, “to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban.”
But the Administration did not welcome the Taliban with open arms. In fact, the State Department rejected the Taliban’s claim that it had complied with U.S. requests to isolate bin Laden.

To demonstrate even further the Administration’s contempt for the Taliban and its illegitimacy, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher – on the day of the terrorist regime’s visit – said, “We don’t recognize any government in Afghanistan.”
Fahrenheit Lie #9

Moore does more than simply downplay the threat posed to the U.S. by the former Hussein regime in Iraq. He goes so far as to assert that Saddam “never threatened to attack the United States.”

If by “attack the United States” one interprets this claim to mean that Saddam never threatened to send troops to the United States, then Mr. Moore has a point. ü But Saddam Hussein clearly sought to attack the United States within his own sphere of influence, even though he didn’t have the resources to attack U.S. soil from his side of the world:

On November 15, 1997, “the main propaganda organ for the Saddam regime, the newspaper Babel (which was run by Saddam Hussein’s son Uday), ordered: ‘American and British interests, embassies, and naval ships in the Arab region should be the targets of military operations and commando attacks by Arab political forces.’” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” Independence Institute Accessed, 07/11/04)

In addition, “Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country,” (Source: New York Times, 12/1/03).

Saddam Hussein also provided safe haven to terrorists who killed Americans, like Abu Nidal; funded suicide bombers in Israel who certainly killed Americans; and ran the Iraqi police, which plotted to assassinate former President George Bush.
CRITICISM OF FAHRENHEIT 9/11

Newsweek Columnists Isikoff & Hosenball: Moore “Twists and Bends” The Facts. “But for all the reasonable points he makes, on more than a few occasions in the movie Moore twists and bends the available facts and makes glaring omissions in ways that end up clouding the serious political debate he wants to provoke.” (By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, “More Distortions From Michael Moore,” Newsweek Online, 6/30/04)

Christopher Hitchens: Fahrenheit 9/11 “Sinister Exercise In Moral Frivolity.” “To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of ‘dissenting’ bravery.” (Christopher Hitchens, “Unfairenheit 9/11; The Lies Of Michael Moore,” Slate, 6/21/04)

Former NY Mayor Ed Koch: Fahrenheit 9/11 “Propaganda” And “Screed.”
“I am a movie critic, so I went to see “Fahrenheit 9/11.” The movie is a well-done propaganda piece and screed as has been reported by most critics. It is not a documentary which seeks to present the facts truthfully. The most significant offense that movie commits is to cheapen the political debate by dehumanizing the President and presenting him as a cartoon. … Now that no WMDs have yet been found, was the invasion to end the reign of Saddam Hussein, who had killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, still supportable? Moore thinks not. I think, yes. The movie’s diatribes, sometimes amusing and sometimes manifestly unfair, will not change any views. They will simply cheapen the national debate and reinforce the opinions on both sides.” (Ed Koch, Op/Ed, “Koch: Moore’s Propaganda Film Cheapens Debate, Polarizes Nation,” World Tribune, 6/29/04)

Washington Post Columnist Richard Cohen: Fahrenheit 9/11 “Silly” And “Incomprehensible.”
“I brought a notebook with me when I went to see Michael Moore’s ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ and in the dark made notes before I gave up, defeated by the utter stupidity of the movie. … ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ is not, as proclaimed, a sure sign that Bush is on his way out but is instead a warning to the Democrats to keep the loony left at a safe distance. … Moore’s depiction of why Bush went to war is so silly and so incomprehensible that it is easily dismissed. As far as I can tell, it is a farrago of conspiracy theories. … It is so juvenile in its approach, so awful in its journalism, such an inside joke for people who already hate Bush, that I found myself feeling a bit sorry for a president who is depicted mostly as a befuddled dope. I fear how it will play to the undecided.” (Richard Cohen, “Baloney, Moore Or Less,” The Washington Post, 7/1/04)

 

[KevinWestern]

Perhaps, if he knowingly lied/exaggerated evidence surrounding the WMDs. I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

And here is what the gets the far left into trouble when they try and hide from their true nature.

The intelligence Bush was given came from the Clinton era.

Helk even Clinton bombed Iraq on a couple of occasions using that claim.

However you still not have answer my question..

This isn't a right vs. left thread. It's a "our gov't is a lying sack of shit" type thread, that extends all throughout the clinton, bush, and obama eras.

I said earlier in the thread that I "don't necessarily believe we should have gone into SA". I said that earlier, plain as day Kosh. You're a tad bit of an annoying person.

 

[Edgetho]

Perhaps, if he knowingly lied/exaggerated evidence surrounding the WMDs. I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

And here is what the gets the far left into trouble when they try and hide from their true nature.

The intelligence Bush was given came from the Clinton era.

Helk even Clinton bombed Iraq on a couple of occasions using that claim.

However you still not have answer my question..

This isn't a right vs. left thread. It's a "our gov't is a lying sack of shit" type thread, that extends all throughout the clinton, bush, and obama eras.

I said earlier in the thread that I "don't necessarily believe we should have gone into SA". I said that earlier, plain as day Kosh. You're a tad bit of an annoying person.

The quote below is what we're facing. It's hard to have a reasonable discussion with someone when we have these kinds of people on the left constantly muddying the water.

When even the WaPo SLAMS a leftist propaganda effort, it's time to wake up

Washington Post Columnist Richard Cohen: Fahrenheit 9/11 “Silly” And “Incomprehensible.”

“I brought a notebook with me when I went to see Michael Moore’s ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ and in the dark made notes before I gave up, defeated by the utter stupidity of the movie. … ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ is not, as proclaimed, a sure sign that Bush is on his way out but is instead a warning to the Democrats to keep the loony left at a safe distance. … Moore’s depiction of why Bush went to war is so silly and so incomprehensible that it is easily dismissed. As far as I can tell, it is a farrago of conspiracy theories. … It is so juvenile in its approach, so awful in its journalism, such an inside joke for people who already hate Bush, that I found myself feeling a bit sorry for a president who is depicted mostly as a befuddled dope. I fear how it will play to the undecided.” (Richard Cohen, “Baloney, Moore Or Less,” The Washington Post, 7/1/04)

 

[Kosh]

Perhaps, if he knowingly lied/exaggerated evidence surrounding the WMDs. I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

And here is what the gets the far left into trouble when they try and hide from their true nature.

The intelligence Bush was given came from the Clinton era.

Helk even Clinton bombed Iraq on a couple of occasions using that claim.

However you still not have answer my question..

This isn't a right vs. left thread. It's a "our gov't is a lying sack of shit" type thread, that extends all throughout the clinton, bush, and obama eras.

I said earlier in the thread that I "don't necessarily believe we should have gone into SA". I said that earlier, plain as day Kosh. You're a tad bit of an annoying person.

Yes it is! You made it so in your OP.

And you still have not answered my question. I will rephrase:

Are you saying that we should have ignored Afghanistan?

 

[KevinWestern]

And here is what the gets the far left into trouble when they try and hide from their true nature.

The intelligence Bush was given came from the Clinton era.

Helk even Clinton bombed Iraq on a couple of occasions using that claim.

However you still not have answer my question..

This isn't a right vs. left thread. It's a "our gov't is a lying sack of shit" type thread, that extends all throughout the clinton, bush, and obama eras.

I said earlier in the thread that I "don't necessarily believe we should have gone into SA". I said that earlier, plain as day Kosh. You're a tad bit of an annoying person.

Yes it is! You made it so in your OP.

And you still have not answered my question. I will rephrase:

Are you saying that we should have ignored Afghanistan?

Of course not. Why would we have ignored Afghanistan? Don't believe too many people are upset on the decision to take action in that country. Perhaps we can debate why we decided to send so many troops there, but that's an open discussion.

Folks are mainly upset about Iraq because it's the source of the great majority of war deaths, the great majority of war spending, and the rationale for invading was weak at best.

 

[Kosh]

This isn't a right vs. left thread. It's a "our gov't is a lying sack of shit" type thread, that extends all throughout the clinton, bush, and obama eras.

I said earlier in the thread that I "don't necessarily believe we should have gone into SA". I said that earlier, plain as day Kosh. You're a tad bit of an annoying person.

Yes it is! You made it so in your OP.

And you still have not answered my question. I will rephrase:

Are you saying that we should have ignored Afghanistan?

Of course not. Why would we have ignored Afghanistan? Don't believe too many people are upset on the decision to take action in that country. Perhaps we can debate why we decided to send so many troops there, but that's an open discussion.

Folks are mainly upset about Iraq because it's the source of the great majority of war deaths, the great majority of war spending, and the rationale for invading was weak at best.

And the far left propaganda finally comes out!

 

[KevinWestern]

And here is what the gets the far left into trouble when they try and hide from their true nature.

The intelligence Bush was given came from the Clinton era.

Helk even Clinton bombed Iraq on a couple of occasions using that claim.

However you still not have answer my question..

This isn't a right vs. left thread. It's a "our gov't is a lying sack of shit" type thread, that extends all throughout the clinton, bush, and obama eras.

I said earlier in the thread that I "don't necessarily believe we should have gone into SA". I said that earlier, plain as day Kosh. You're a tad bit of an annoying person.

The quote below is what we're facing. It's hard to have a reasonable discussion with someone when we have these kinds of people on the left constantly muddying the water.

When even the WaPo SLAMS a leftist propaganda effort, it's time to wake up

Washington Post Columnist Richard Cohen: Fahrenheit 9/11 “Silly” And “Incomprehensible.”

“I brought a notebook with me when I went to see Michael Moore’s ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ and in the dark made notes before I gave up, defeated by the utter stupidity of the movie. … ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ is not, as proclaimed, a sure sign that Bush is on his way out but is instead a warning to the Democrats to keep the loony left at a safe distance. … Moore’s depiction of why Bush went to war is so silly and so incomprehensible that it is easily dismissed. As far as I can tell, it is a farrago of conspiracy theories. … It is so juvenile in its approach, so awful in its journalism, such an inside joke for people who already hate Bush, that I found myself feeling a bit sorry for a president who is depicted mostly as a befuddled dope. I fear how it will play to the undecided.” (Richard Cohen, “Baloney, Moore Or Less,” The Washington Post, 7/1/04)

I've never seen that movie but I will say I'm not a fan of Michael Moore. His whiny commentary on gun control is enough to turn anyone's stomach.

Do you - Edge - believe the United States government acted with the American people's interests at heart following 9/11 and the decision to conduct a full invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan?

I realize there are lots of elements at play here, and that what might make sense to you or I wouldn't make sense if we knew the things our President may know. But at the core, do you believe the government acted with the people in mind?

 

[Sallow]

Why did George W. Bush (as Commander in Chief) ignore the fact that there was a large amount of evidence linking the Saudi Government (or elements within) to the 9/11 attacks (news story), and divert our attention (instead) towards a country that had nothing to do with the event?

It doesn't make much sense to me, but perhaps somone could explain it.

Thanks

This just dawning on you now?

 

[KevinWestern]

Yes it is! You made it so in your OP.

And you still have not answered my question. I will rephrase:

Are you saying that we should have ignored Afghanistan?

Of course not. Why would we have ignored Afghanistan? Don't believe too many people are upset on the decision to take action in that country. Perhaps we can debate why we decided to send so many troops there, but that's an open discussion.

Folks are mainly upset about Iraq because it's the source of the great majority of war deaths, the great majority of war spending, and the rationale for invading was weak at best.

And the far left propaganda finally comes out!

What are you specifically calling propaganda?

Was Iraq not the source of the greatest number of war deaths in the past 10 years? Was the rationale for invading that country and starting a 3 trillion dollar war strong and compelling?

Try being specific; it will save you and I time.

 

[Sallow]

This isn't a right vs. left thread. It's a "our gov't is a lying sack of shit" type thread, that extends all throughout the clinton, bush, and obama eras.

I said earlier in the thread that I "don't necessarily believe we should have gone into SA". I said that earlier, plain as day Kosh. You're a tad bit of an annoying person.

The quote below is what we're facing. It's hard to have a reasonable discussion with someone when we have these kinds of people on the left constantly muddying the water.

When even the WaPo SLAMS a leftist propaganda effort, it's time to wake up

Washington Post Columnist Richard Cohen: Fahrenheit 9/11 “Silly” And “Incomprehensible.”

“I brought a notebook with me when I went to see Michael Moore’s ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ and in the dark made notes before I gave up, defeated by the utter stupidity of the movie. … ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ is not, as proclaimed, a sure sign that Bush is on his way out but is instead a warning to the Democrats to keep the loony left at a safe distance. … Moore’s depiction of why Bush went to war is so silly and so incomprehensible that it is easily dismissed. As far as I can tell, it is a farrago of conspiracy theories. … It is so juvenile in its approach, so awful in its journalism, such an inside joke for people who already hate Bush, that I found myself feeling a bit sorry for a president who is depicted mostly as a befuddled dope. I fear how it will play to the undecided.” (Richard Cohen, “Baloney, Moore Or Less,” The Washington Post, 7/1/04)

I've never seen that movie but I will say I'm not a fan of Michael Moore. His whiny commentary on gun control is enough to turn anyone's stomach.

Do you - Edge - believe the United States government acted with the American people's interests at heart following 9/11 and the decision to conduct a full invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan?

I realize there are lots of elements at play here, and that what might make sense to you or I wouldn't make sense if we knew the things our President may know. But at the core, do you believe the government acted with the people in mind?

Maybe you should have taken a gander.

Moore was floating the Saudi connection pretty quickly.

 

[Kosh]

Of course not. Why would we have ignored Afghanistan? Don't believe too many people are upset on the decision to take action in that country. Perhaps we can debate why we decided to send so many troops there, but that's an open discussion.

Folks are mainly upset about Iraq because it's the source of the great majority of war deaths, the great majority of war spending, and the rationale for invading was weak at best.

And the far left propaganda finally comes out!

What are you specifically calling propaganda?

Was Iraq not the source of the greatest number of war deaths in the past 10 years? Was the rationale for invading that country and starting a 3 trillion dollar war strong and compelling?

Try being specific; it will save you and I time.

All of it, including your OP..

There were 4 supplemental budgets (in 8 years) for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq the money that was spent beyond the normal military budget on Iraq was less than the Obama stimulus plan.

As far as Iraq goes to the far left the history of Iraq did not start until 2003.

And yes it is all far left propaganda.

Whether you agree with what happened in 2003 or not is irrelevant if you are going to post far left propaganda over facts.

How about trying this on for size:

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

And then that whole far left phony time line was just absolutely absurd.

Then we also discovered that many who were against the war in 2003 was caught with hands in the OIL for FOOD cookie jar including the president of the UN's son. And the far left just blew this off as if it were no big deal.

When you want to deal in facts let me know.

 

[Kosh]

The quote below is what we're facing. It's hard to have a reasonable discussion with someone when we have these kinds of people on the left constantly muddying the water.

When even the WaPo SLAMS a leftist propaganda effort, it's time to wake up

Washington Post Columnist Richard Cohen: Fahrenheit 9/11 “Silly” And “Incomprehensible.”

“I brought a notebook with me when I went to see Michael Moore’s ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ and in the dark made notes before I gave up, defeated by the utter stupidity of the movie. … ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ is not, as proclaimed, a sure sign that Bush is on his way out but is instead a warning to the Democrats to keep the loony left at a safe distance. … Moore’s depiction of why Bush went to war is so silly and so incomprehensible that it is easily dismissed. As far as I can tell, it is a farrago of conspiracy theories. … It is so juvenile in its approach, so awful in its journalism, such an inside joke for people who already hate Bush, that I found myself feeling a bit sorry for a president who is depicted mostly as a befuddled dope. I fear how it will play to the undecided.” (Richard Cohen, “Baloney, Moore Or Less,” The Washington Post, 7/1/04)

I've never seen that movie but I will say I'm not a fan of Michael Moore. His whiny commentary on gun control is enough to turn anyone's stomach.

Do you - Edge - believe the United States government acted with the American people's interests at heart following 9/11 and the decision to conduct a full invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan?

I realize there are lots of elements at play here, and that what might make sense to you or I wouldn't make sense if we knew the things our President may know. But at the core, do you believe the government acted with the people in mind?

Maybe you should have taken a gander.

Moore was floating the Saudi connection pretty quickly.

Another one that believes the far left propaganda film without question.

 

[Edgetho]

This isn't a right vs. left thread. It's a "our gov't is a lying sack of shit" type thread, that extends all throughout the clinton, bush, and obama eras.

I said earlier in the thread that I "don't necessarily believe we should have gone into SA". I said that earlier, plain as day Kosh. You're a tad bit of an annoying person.

The quote below is what we're facing. It's hard to have a reasonable discussion with someone when we have these kinds of people on the left constantly muddying the water.

When even the WaPo SLAMS a leftist propaganda effort, it's time to wake up

Washington Post Columnist Richard Cohen: Fahrenheit 9/11 “Silly” And “Incomprehensible.”

“I brought a notebook with me when I went to see Michael Moore’s ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ and in the dark made notes before I gave up, defeated by the utter stupidity of the movie. … ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ is not, as proclaimed, a sure sign that Bush is on his way out but is instead a warning to the Democrats to keep the loony left at a safe distance. … Moore’s depiction of why Bush went to war is so silly and so incomprehensible that it is easily dismissed. As far as I can tell, it is a farrago of conspiracy theories. … It is so juvenile in its approach, so awful in its journalism, such an inside joke for people who already hate Bush, that I found myself feeling a bit sorry for a president who is depicted mostly as a befuddled dope. I fear how it will play to the undecided.” (Richard Cohen, “Baloney, Moore Or Less,” The Washington Post, 7/1/04)

I've never seen that movie but I will say I'm not a fan of Michael Moore. His whiny commentary on gun control is enough to turn anyone's stomach.

Do you - Edge - believe the United States government acted with the American people's interests at heart following 9/11 and the decision to conduct a full invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan?

I realize there are lots of elements at play here, and that what might make sense to you or I wouldn't make sense if we knew the things our President may know. But at the core, do you believe the government acted with the people in mind?

What?!?!?!!

How can you even ask that kind of question?

You know what, fuck you. Take your pos rep back. I don't want it

 

[theHawk]

Why did George W. Bush (as Commander in Chief) ignore the fact that there was a large amount of evidence linking the Saudi Government (or elements within) to the 9/11 attacks (news story), and divert our attention (instead) towards a country that had nothing to do with the event?

It doesn't make much sense to me, but perhaps somone could explain it.

Thanks

I doubt the Saudi government would of wanted such an attack to happen. They are very rich because of the US. Why would they risk war with the US, one which they know they would lose, and the US would end up owning all of their oil.

People making such gross amounts of money aren't going to do anything to spoil that.

I suppose one might argue that their Islamic religion would dictate to them that the US is the enemy. But honestly with those rich Arabs their greed drives them far more than their religion.

 

[KevinWestern]

What?!?!?!!

How can you even ask that kind of question?

It's crazy to suggest that a government may not act in the best interests of a population? Really? That is such a crazy thing to suggest that I deserve a "Fuck You"?

Does Obama always act in the best interests of the population?

know what, fuck you.

Thank you.

Take your pos rep back. I don't want it

Ok?

Wow, so very touchy here.


,