Michael Moore on the Late Show

[xoxoxoBruce]

That confirms that it is what I thought it would be.

[warch]

On the late show interview Letterman asked Moore something like, "Could a smarter person than me refute the claims you make?" And rather than Moore's reply of "no one's smarter than you Dave!" the answer (particularly having read the Hitchens piece), should have been..."Why, yes Dave, they certainly could".

[bluesdave]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Hitchens reviews Fahrenheit 9/11

There is an old saying: "don't shoot the messenger". As you all know I have been very much against the Iraq war, and the Bush administration's justifications for it, and had hoped that Moore's film would be yet another nail in Bush's political coffin, but after reading the Hitchens article, and hearing other criticism of Moore, I have an increasingly sinking feeling that Moore is not the hero I was hoping for. Maybe there is a case for Moore's shooting (figuratively, that is!).

[jinx]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Yeah, but just one point. I must be dumb because I never got the impression that there was a connection between 9-11 and the war, from W or anyone else. I always thought it was because they're bad guys also, so lets get them before they get us too.

Let's ask Jon Stewart ...

[tw]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
If anyone made a 9-11/ Iraq connection I must have dismissed it subconsciously, knowing it was farfetched. I heard a lot of other reasons but not that one.

edit-I should clarify that I’ve heard the accusation that W made that connection. Shit TW was saying that before the hostilities actually started. But I never heard anyone in the administration make that claim.

Cheney hints Iraq campaign's cost will grow on 14 Sept 2003
On other topics, Cheney:
Said "I don't know" whether Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks but asserted a relationship between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network that "stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s." That collaboration, he said, involved training of al-Qaeda personnel in Baghdad in chemical and biological weapons and the provision of bomb-making expertise to the terrorist network by the Iraqis. In addition, one of the bombers of the 1993 World Trade Center attack probably received financing and shelter from the Iraqi government, Cheney said.

9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida
The panel's findings were released two days after Vice President Dick Cheney asserted that Saddam had "long-established ties" with al-Qaida.

Bush: No Saddam Links To 9/11 on 18 Sep; 2003
Yet, a new poll found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved. ...

Critics have said the administration has tried to create the impression of Saddam's involvement in the attacks, without directly making such a claim, in order to boost public support for the war against Iraq.

Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds on 6 Sept 2003
Bush's opponents say he encouraged this misconception by linking al Qaeda to Hussein in almost every speech on Iraq. Indeed, administration officials began to hint about a Sept. 11-Hussein link soon after the attacks. In late 2001, Vice President Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official.

Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney was referring to a meeting that Czech officials said took place in Prague in April 2000. That allegation was the most direct connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks. But this summer's congressional report on the attacks states, "The CIA has been unable to establish that [Atta] left the United States or entered Europe in April under his true name or any known alias."

Bush, in his speeches, did not say directly that Hussein was culpable in the Sept. 11 attacks. But he frequently juxtaposed Iraq and al Qaeda in ways that hinted at a link. In a March speech about Iraq's "weapons of terror," Bush said: "If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction."

Then, in declaring the end of major combat in Iraq on May 1, Bush linked Iraq and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions."

Moments later, Bush added: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."

A number of nongovernment officials close to the Bush administration have made the link more directly. Richard N. Perle, who until recently was chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, long argued that there was Iraqi involvement, calling the evidence "overwhelming."

Some Democrats said that although Bush did not make the direct link to the 2001 attacks, his implications helped to turn the public fury over Sept. 11 into support for war against Iraq. "You couldn't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein," said Democratic tactician Donna Brazile. "Every member of the administration did the drumbeat. My mother said if you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes a gospel truth. This one became a gospel hit."

So is Iraq a war on terrorists? Terror is bin Landen and Al Qaeda. Iraq is not about terror - unless they too were guilty of the WTC attacks.

No, the George Jr administration did not say directly that Saddam attacked the WTC. The administration and its outside spokesman said everything they could to make Americans believe that connection. So yes, 70% of Americans believe (with the help of talk radio) that Saddam attacked the WTC. The administration did nothing to correct or dispute that widely promoted myth; and openly added more fuel to encourage the myth. Their obvious and intentional objective - to get Americans to believe Saddam attacked the WTC. They were successful. 70% foolishly believed Saddam conspired to attack the WTC. Foolish because George Jr will not even directly admit to that myth.

[xoxoxoBruce]

So is Iraq a war on terrorists? Terror is bin Landen and Al Qaeda. Iraq is not about terror - unless they too were guilty of the WTC attacks.

No, no, no, 9-11 is not the only terrorist act that ever happened. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, but that doesn't clear them. Saddams giving money to Pals that blown up Jews certainly qualifies as supporting terrorists. :p

[jaguar]

amusingly enough, he rarely paid up on that.

[Happy Monkey]

Moore's response to some criticism of his movie.

Come on, let's drop this act of innocence that everybody seems to be putting on. The name of the game is securing the petroleum supply for the U.S., OK? That is the prime objective here. No, the government doesn't like annoyances like 9/11. That's why an example was made out of Iraq in an attempt to give the terrorists second thoughts about another attack, but 9/11 was only of secondary concern. Keeping those pipelines flowing comes first. Once you understand this, all the puzzle bits fall into place. Which OPEC country is most on our side and which produces the most oil? Three guesses and the first two don't count. The FBI could have caught members of the Saudi royal family, redhanded, strolling into the white house with bundles of TNT in their hot little hands, and they still would be flying on that plane, whisked safely out of the country.

If any Arab nation is responsible for harboring and financing terrorists, surely it is Saudi Arabia, wealthy beyond belief, fundamentalist Moslem to its core and home of the Bin Laden family. If we are so concerned about Arab democracy, why don't we go after the House of Saud, hardly a democratically elected bunch? No, instead we go after Iraq, a convenient straw dog in more ways than one. As a nice additional bonus, Cheney and company get to award all sorts of fat cat contracts to their best corporate friends and skim a few billion tax payer dollars off the top.

The average US citizen gets to pay out the wazoo in Federal tax for this fiasco, but at least he can console himself by going down to the nearest gas station and filling up his gas guzzler car. If the thought crosses his mind for a moment that the emperor wears no clothes, all he has to do is tune in Rush Limbaugh on his car radio as he sits in a traffic jam or cruises the interstate.

[Undertoad]

Percentage of oil imports from the Persian Gulf

Originally posted by Undertoad

Percentage of oil imports from the Persian Gulf

Yeppers, right on. And wanna see what happens to US oil prices if that 20% were to be cut off? We are also worried about securing our future petroleum needs, as well. Japan and Korea and the rest get a nice free ride off of us. How nice for them.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad

Example: five streams feed the lake. We take our water from the lake. Therefore we can say that most all our water comes only from one stream? Of course not. Water comes from all streams because water comes from the lake.

Oil is equally volatile. Cut off any one source and everyone feels the pain heavily. What happens to Middle East oil affects far more than 20% of US supply on that chart. Should it be cut off, then US oil supply will be reduced by far more than 20%. US supply reduction due to a Middle East oil cutoff could easily be 40% or higher.

A more honest chart shows how quickly US domestic production has been tapped out; is declining. Once the world's number 2 supplier; the US is now dropped to eighth. With little interest in addressing the reasons for that excessive consumption and no domestic alternatives remaining. America is doing everything it can to be completely dependent on foreign sources - including publishing a totally deceptive and factually irrelevant chart.

[tw]

Why criticize Moore's movie? Criticize the distribution system that fears to show his movie. In the Philly region, the only place that will show Moore's movie is Trenton NJ and Allentown PA. This being the most requested movie on the movie information boards. Yet somehow the 'powers that be' will keep most Americans from seeing it. Where are the critics now?

[blue]

Have you seen it? I don't have any beef with him, but let's not try to pass it off as a documentary ok?

Do you think the "powers" will change much next year?

[Undertoad]

And wanna see what happens to US oil prices if that 20% were to be cut off?

I imagine it would cause massive inflation, massive unemployment, and would not solve the problem one iota as the rest of the world merrily consumes that S.A. oil at a lightly higher price than before, keeping the terrorists flush as we flounder about trying to keep our shit together as we lose world power.

Next question is why you WANT that