Michael Moore on the Late Show
Did anyone catch Michael Moore on Letterman, Friday night? I have heard quite a bit of discussion in the electronic media about the impending release of Fahrenheit 9/11, and it was interesting to hear from the man in person. It sounds like the documentary is going to really heat up the debate on Bush vs Iraq and bin Laden (as if it wasn't hot enough already).:rolleyes:
Moore made quite a point when he said that the Saudi Royal family and the bin Ladens had donated $1.4 billion to the Republicans, and that the day after 9/11 Bush personally authorised transport for 24 members of the bin Laden family to be flown out of the US. (I'm not implying here that the bin Laden family supports Osama. I don't know one way or the other, whether some members do, or none do. It is the special treatment they received that raises the question.)
Dave's audience seemed to be split pretty evenly in their support of, or opposition to Moore. It sounds like Fahrenheit 9/11 is a very damning indictment of the Bush administration. I just wonder whether it will have sufficient impact to unseat Bush in November. Fahrenheit 9/11 is certainly going to polarise the voters even more than they currently are.
What do you guys think?
Originally posted by bluesdave
I just wonder whether it will have sufficient impact to unseat Bush in November.
Bush is already far into the process of unseating himself in November. Moore's movie is a symptom, not a cause.
The flight which flew bin Ladin family members out happened
after the ban on commercial flights was lifted. It was an offer made to many Saudis, not to bin Laden's family specifically.
The decision to permit it was made by Richard Clarke.I did see the interview. To disclose my bias, I'm fairly conservative but have no reservations about trashing Bush when its called for (a lot lately). Having said that, however, Moore both picked up and lost some credibility with me.
His pro-military position (which surprised me) was refreshing and shored him up a bit. But, Moore basically admitted that he has little regard for accuracy in his public positions. Letterman asked him about his Oscar speech about basing the war on a lie and Moore admited without reservation that he had no idea whether or not it was true and took some delight in that (thought it was funny). The short clip they played from the documentary at first blush is very damning - Bush talks tough and presidential about the war on terror then (presumably as soon as the camera is "off") says "Now, watch this drive." This snippet is designed to portray W's position as insincere while nothing could be further from the truth. As wrong as he might be, he is very sincere about what he is doing.
But, what Moore did was juxtapose the two sentences snipping out what came between - the second time I watched it the cutaway was more obvious.
He did the same thing in the Columbine documentary to make it look like Heston was cheering the tragedy.
Moore is a smart guy and he knows how to make a movie. And its difficult to criticise Moore without having it look like I'm supporting W (which I'm not). And that is sort of the problem - Moore could care less about accuracy and believes that the end justifies the means. However, that really undermines his credibility with me.
Letterman asked Moore three separate times if the points he made in the film were refutable. Moore appeared to welcome all conservative challengers yet he will not appear on any conservative show to "defend" himself. I would respect him a lot moore (pun intended) if he would meet with and discuss his film with a Sean Hannity or even a Tim Russert. But he won't.
But, I'm not sorry he made the film and I plan on watching it. And there is much I will learn from it but for me, I take everything he says with a grain of salt. If there is another side to the story, you will never hear it from Moore. I treat conservative talking heads the same way.
Also, in a stunning display of impartiality, the review of Farenheit 9/11 on Fox News website has effusive praise for the film.
Fox News review
And, as an aside, Ray Bradbury is really pissed off about the name ripoff and wants Moore to change the name.
Bradbury not pleased.
Moore said he got the inspiration for the movie from an article that mentioned the bin Laden family's alleged privilege. He indicated that he got the title from the subject line of an email sent to him by a fan shortly after the 9/11 tragedy.
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Ray Bradbury is demanding an apology from filmmaker Michael Moore for lifting the title from his classic science-fiction novel "Fahrenheit 451" without permission and wants the new documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" to be renamed.
But, what Moore did was juxtapose the two sentences snipping out what came between - the second time I watched it the cutaway was more obvious.
Really? I thought there was no editing--that's not the first time I've seen that clip, they showed it on the Daily Show a couple years ago when it first happened. Granted, the Daily Show edits stuff too, I'm just saying it never looked edited to me.
Originally posted by Clodfobble
...I thought there was no editing--that's not the first time I've seen that clip, they showed it on the Daily Show a couple years ago when it first happened. Granted, the Daily Show edits stuff too, I'm just saying it never looked edited to me.
I missed it the first time also. But there is definitly a cutaway betweeen the sentences. It would not come as a shock if Moore borrowed the entire thing from the Daily Show and just dropped it in. Seems like quite a number of elements in and of the film are not Moore's (the title, the story about the bin Laden family flying privilege (which UT seems to be debunking), and now, the marketing clip of the film).
Well, it looks like Michael Moore might have manipulated the facts a little to suit his own position, but does that mean that he is totally off in his arguments? It certainly did not look good for Bush to be holidaying while his country (and the rest of the western world), was in turmoil. If Clarke really did authorise the flights of the bin Ladens and others, without consulting higher up the ladder, then I suppose that we can't blame Bush for that one, but it still leaves questions about the relationship between the bin Ladens and the Bush administration.
Originally posted by bluesdave
Well, it looks like Michael Moore might have manipulated the facts a little to suit his own position, but does that mean that he is totally off in his arguments?
No, not by a long shot. Making a movie to trash W is not difficult - he's low-hanging fruit as the saying goes.
But, all I'm saying is that we should probably refrain from calling Moore's films documentaries and call them what they look like and smell like: propoganda films.
That he ever called them documentaries underscores my point.
Originally posted by Undertoad
The flight which flew bin Ladin family members out happened after the ban on commercial flights was lifted.
From your link:
In the two days immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, the U.S. government allowed bin Laden family members to fly within the country during a general ban on air travel: [COLOR=red]True.[/COLOR]
During that same period the U.S. government allowed bin Laden family members to fly out of the U.S.: [COLOR=red]Undetermined.[/COLOR]
Did you put this link in your bookmarks before it was corrected?
Originally posted by Beestie
Letterman asked Moore three separate times if the points he made in the film were refutable. Moore appeared to welcome all conservative challengers yet he will not appear on any conservative show to "defend" himself. I would respect him a lot moore (pun intended) if he would meet with and discuss his film with a Sean Hannity or even a Tim Russert. But he won't.
Tim Russert..maybe. Sean Hannity..from what I've heard about him...HELL NO. You think that he wouldn't try to skewer Moore..on his OWN show? I'd bet money on it. That would be like having Moore on Rush Limpballs' show. :mad:
Originally posted by Happy Monkey
Did you put this link in your bookmarks before it was corrected?
That page was corrected on March 31st. You know UT is always fair and balanced.
Born with a silver spoon.
"Bin Laden was born in Saudi Arabia around 1957 to a father of Yemeni origins and a Syrian mother. His father, Mohammed bin Laden, founded a construction company and with royal patronage became a billionaire. The company's connections won it such important commissions as rebuilding mosques in the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.
Mohammed bin Laden took numerous wives and fathered about 50 children. Osama was the 17th son, the only born to a later wife. In a society where status within a family is highly important, bin Laden would therefore have been of relatively low rank.
Bin Laden studied management and economics at King Abdul Aziz University in Jedda, Saudi Arabia, coming under the influence of religious teachers who introduced him to the wider world of Islamic politics."
"Yet, even as he is reviled in the West, bin Laden is a hero in parts of the Islamic world, according to intelligence reports. His organization is called al-Qaeda, "the Base," and has approximately 3,000 followers, which he funds with his estimated $250 million fortune. Experts have said that bin Laden could represent a new trend in terrorism—privatization. Until his emergence, most large-scale terrorist organizations are believed to have been connected to governments. With his money and disciplined followers, however, bin Laden is believed to have the ability to launch even more devastating terrorist attacks. He has not denied that he is seeking nuclear or chemical weapons, saying that it is a religious duty to defend Islam.
Bin Laden has been disowned by most of his family, including a brother, Sheik Bakr Mohammed bin Laden, who has established scholarship funds at Harvard Law School, and the Harvard School of Design. In 1991 his Saudi citizenship was revoked."
The bin Laden family is wealthy and politically connected but can hardly be blamed for the black sheep.
;)
Snopes is good, but they're not authoritative. In this case I saw the issue discussed and the flyout happened after the end of the ban, I'm pretty certain.
As far as the golf shot, I saw it on The Daily Show too. It's pretty silly and irrelevant. It's taken out of the larger context, which is where Bush was on vacation at the time and relentlessly pursued by members of the press. Big effing deal.
A serious challenge to the administration would be that there has been a much deeper disconnect between the press and the administration, that the administration treats the press as seriously hostile and that this disconnect has hurt the administration's ability to communicate effectively with the public.
But Moore doesn't want to seriously challenge. He wants to mock, along with all the other people who want to mock, so that he can make millions of dollars. When asked about his approach he has justified it on the basis of the fact that he makes a mint at it. So I say, buyer beware.
Originally posted by Undertoad
Snopes is good, but they're not authoritative.
It was your link. ;)
The New Yorker then.
Around two dozen other American-based members of the bin Laden family, most of them here to study in colleges and prep schools, were said to be in the United States at the time of the attacks. The New York Times reported that they were quickly called together by officials from the Saudi Embassy, which feared that they might become the victims of American reprisals. With approval from the F.B.I., according to a Saudi official, the bin Ladens flew by private jet from Los Angeles to Orlando, then on to Washington, and finally to Boston. Once the F.A.A. permitted overseas flights, the jet flew to Europe. United States officials apparently needed little persuasion from the Saudi Ambassador in Washington, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, that the extended bin Laden family included no material witnesses. The Saudi Embassy says that the family coöperated with the F.B.I. The Saudi government has said that the family signed a statement officially disowning Osama in 1994, a year after the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. The Saudi government also stripped bin Laden of his citizenship, which resulted in self-exile to Sudan. When I asked a senior United States intelligence officer whether anyone had considered detaining members of the family, he replied, "That's called taking hostages. We don't do that."
"That's called taking hostages. We don't do that."
Am I the only one that finds that statement almost hilarious? Seriously. Lock up people for years without access to the legal system and then released most when you realize they're mostly harmless? Sure.
Detain a member of a family that has produced the worlds most wanted terrorist after he launches the biggest every terrorist attack on US soil? That's hostage taking.
Your right, Jag. We should round up every living relative of Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols and Ted Bundy. Yeah, string 'em up and don't forget the pitchforks and torches. :rolleyes:
Wouldn't you at least question them and check them out instead of giving them an express ticket out of extraditeable areas?
I'm sure all the people connected with the 3 you listed were well and truely checked out.
The other bin Ladens were probably already on America's Most Watched list, under continuous surveillance. With all the things the US government has done wrong, you and Moore choose to criticize for something they did RIGHT?
Originally posted by jaguar
Wouldn't you at least question them and check them out instead of giving them an express ticket out of extraditeable areas?
I'm sure all the people connected with the 3 you listed were well and truely checked out.
Given that we have known that Osama was not our buddy for going on ten years prior to 9/11 don't you think that maybe we
already checked them out? Since they were already in the US, they were probably ALL under at least basic surveillance.
The McVeighs and the McNichols were not known to us for what they were until AFTER the Oklahoma disaster. Big difference.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123247,00.html
Free news story that will provoke claims of spin doctoring and other hysterics from the Left.
Brian
oh, fox news! I love comedy too.
Since some people are stupid enough to think they report say, news for example maybe you should try reading the PDF of the document they claim supports those links. The document clearly states that the intel is based on the claims of defectors - the same people who the CIA based their evidence that Iraq has stacks of WMD on. They have been shown to have lied and vastly exagerated as well as be dangerously out of date t push their own agendas. Secondly, the reports there of Al-Queda members having been in bagdhad is based on intel that has since been discarded due to unreliability. Thats what happens when you try and base a bit of hysteria on a 2 year own document. But hey, you read fox news, it's not like critical thinking is encouraged.
Originally posted by jaguar
But hey, you read fox news, it's not like critical thinking is encouraged.
As opposed to Michael Moore's "documentaries."
I don't watch them either.
Michael Moore is to liberals what Ann Coulter is to conservatives.
Originally posted by sycamore
Michael Moore is to liberals what Ann Coulter is to conservatives.
Only I have no desire to do Michael Moore.
The really damning bit from the Fox News link, which wasn't really Fox News per se but Bill O'Reilly, was the Putin bit. Just in case you don't trust that bit of news coing from Fox, here it is presented by CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/
How about the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3819057.stm
The AP where it originated:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040618/ap_on_re_mi_ea/russia_iraq&e=4&ncid=Originally posted by Troubleshooter
Only I have no desire to do Michael Moore.
You might enjoy this
piece written by UT.
Originally posted by Undertoad The really damning bit ... was the Putin bit.
Bullshit. Everyone knows that CNN and the BBC are little more than W's handpuppets.
:)
You've obviously been spending too much time at the office, lately. :)
Putin didn't elaborate on any details of the terror plots or mention whether they were tied to the al-Qaida terror network.
Get a grip.
This says it all:
A commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States reported this week that while there were contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq, they did not appear to have produced "a collaborative relationship."
President Bush, however, insisted Thursday that Saddam had "numerous contacts" with al-Qaida and said Iraqi agents had met with the terror network's leader, Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), in Sudan.
They can scream is as loud as they want, it doesn't make it any more true. It never made sense, it was enver backed up by credible evidence at any point and that has not changed today.
Furthermore, the BBC article doesn't make much sense:
Russian President Vladimir Putin says that after the 9/11 attacks Moscow warned Washington that Saddam Hussein was planning attacks on the US.
Mr Putin said he had no information the Iraqi ex-leader was behind any attacks.
Putin says they warned of PLANS to attack, but did not connect actual PAST attacks to Iraq.
Where do the Mohammed Atta / Prague meetings sit in all this?
Originally posted by Undertoad Putin says they warned of PLANS to attack...
You still aren't getting it, UT. After we foiled Saddam's assassination attempt on Bush 41, he turned over a new leaf. Putin is just coming up with stuff to distract from the war in Chechnya. :)
Seriously, tho - I think its interesting that, when facing nearly unbearable pressure to justify the Iraq war, W chose not to disclose the information Putin provided to him. Had Putin not disclosed it, I doubt we ever would have known. I wonder what else he's not disclosing - perhaps from sources not as willing or able to go public as Putin did.
I'd say fuck all, if they had something we'd know about it, they're busy pandering half-lies as loudly as they can as it is. Remember this is the same administration that burnt a CIA officer and an entire operation in the wild doing WMD investigations because they didn't like what her husband said, I doubt they'd give a damn about protecting sources if there was political advantage.
fixed a few typos in edit.
What I got from Putin's statements was that Iraq (Saddam) was also planning attacks on the US and the "War on Terror(ists)" didn't end with Afghanistan. Not that there was a corroboration between Osama and Saddam.;)
Originally posted by BrianR
Free news story that will provoke claims of spin doctoring and other hysterics from the Left.
That's not a news story. That's Bill O'Reilly, who freely admits that he isn't a journalist. Sometimes.
Originally posted by Beestie
Seriously, tho - I think its interesting that, when facing nearly unbearable pressure to justify the Iraq war, W chose not to disclose the information Putin provided to him. Had Putin not disclosed it, I doubt we ever would have known. I wonder what else he's not disclosing - perhaps from sources not as willing or able to go public as Putin did.
You're assuming Putin's information existed before the Iraq war.
He said between 9-11 and the start of the war.:)
"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said.
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
What I got from Putin's statements was that Iraq (Saddam) was also planning attacks on the US and the "War on Terror(ists)" didn't end with Afghanistan. Not that there was a corroboration between Osama and Saddam.;)
As much as I am against the war in Iraq, and disbelieve 99% of what the Bush administration, the Blair administration, and my own Aussie administration say in justification of Iraq, most of the "informed" comment I heard over the weekend from very experienced journalists, cast strong doubt over the validity of Putin's claims. Don't forget that he has not presented any evidence to back up his claim, yet, and is not likely to.
I would like to debate Bush's credibility just as much as anyone else, but I think we have to be fair. There is enough damning evidence against him anyway, without having to rely on Putin.
And don't forget that it is unlikely that Saddam would have been in a position to take any action against the US. We now know that pretty much all of his rhetoric was just bluster. He really did not have the resources to do anything of any consequence against the US, and as much as Saddam hates the US, it is extremely unlikely that he would resort to terrorism.
He really did not have the resources to do anything of any consequence against the US
He had enough money on him in his hidey hole, to do a lot of damage. It's a matter of whether he had the balls.:)
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
He had enough money on him in his hidey hole, to do a lot of damage. It's a matter of whether he had the balls.:)
Before the war it would have been against his "sense of honour" (don't say it, I know, I know...), to take action that was anything other than direct - eg. a military strike against the US. After the war he might have become so desperate that he would have accepted assistance from anyone (eg. terrorists), but it looks like he did not follow through on that avenue (if he ever thought of it in the first place).
Saddam believed in direct action, and saw himself as a heroic fighter, mounted on his stallion, swinging a sword above his head. I think I remember seeing a painting in one of his palaces that showed exactly that image.
Saddam's style would have been to take his army across the oceans, in his vast navy, and invade the infidels, and sack DC.
And pay a reward to suicide bombers.:p
Oh,...and where was he when they invaded Kuwait?
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
And pay a reward to suicide bombers.:p
Oh,...and where was he when they invaded Kuwait?
I must admit that I forgot that it was alleged that he had paid people to kill the "invaders", but this was after the fact. We are talking about what he was proposing to do *before* the war, not after.
Kuwait was a conventional military campaign. Sure, Saddam did not lead his troops into battle, but he saw himself as a great general, fighting a justified battle (remember, he believed that he had tacit approval of the US to invade Kuwait - right or wrong, that is what he believed).
Look, I don't want to come across as a Saddam lover. The guy is a scum bag of the first order, and he should be shot daily for the rest of eternity for his crimes against his people.:rattat:
I must admit that I forgot that it was alleged that he had paid people to kill the "invaders", but this was after the fact. We are talking about what he was proposing to do *before* the war, not after.
I was thinking of paying Pals to blow up Jews.
Yes, he was a major scumbag.
Yes, any connection between him and Osama is tenuous at best and not the reason for the war, no matter what Bush claims.
Also, this is just one small point in the movie, which this thread is about.:beer:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Also, this is just one small point in the movie, which this thread is about.:beer:
I know - I started this thread, remember? :rolleyes:
According what Moore told Letterman, the doco is about the justification for the war, and how the US handled the war and its aftermath. That's what we are discussing, isn't it? :confused:
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.:)
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.:)
You are kidding, right?
I mean...really Bruce, you are a kidder from way back. You're not serious are you? :eek:
Originally posted by bluesdave Saddam (remember, [Saddam] believed that he had tacit approval of the US to invade Kuwait - right or wrong, that is what he believed).
No, that is not what he believed. He informed US officials that he was bluffing and had no intention of invading. Then, he invaded. His intentions were to catch the world with its guard down and it worked. At no time did the United States sanction an invasion that was clearly contrary to its interests.
As a heart attack. I knew Osama's history and his Afghan, Sudan and Saudi connections. 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.
Originally posted by bluesdave
According what Moore told Letterman, the doco is about the justification for the war, and how the US handled the war and its aftermath. That's what we are discussing, isn't it? :confused:
No, that's not what Moore said to Letterman (I was glued to the TV throughout the interview). As I pointed out earlier in this thread, Moore got the idea for the propoganda film (its not a documentary) from an article in the New Yorker that he read immediately after 9/11.
What pissed Moore off was the allegation (presented as a fact in the article - not unlike Moore's movies) that the bin Laden family were given a free pass to fly when all other planes were grounded. Moore had to drive from LA to New York (his flight was cancelled) so he had a chip on his shoulder about it.
While the Iraq war figures prominently in the film, it was not the justification for the film (notice also the film title).
IMHO, Bush was looking for a reason to invade Iraq and 9/11 gave him perfect cover (or so he thought). I agree, however, that the Saddam-Al Queada link was not the primary justification.
But, its Moore's fictional, Oliver Stone-like work that we are discussing and not the war itself.
Originally posted by Beestie
At no time did the United States sanction an invasion that was clearly contrary to its interests.
I did not say that they did, just that Saddam believed it. He thought that if he invaded, the world would sit back and say OK. I know that the US would never agree to that.
If that link was the primary justification, who said it and when or was it just alluded to?:confused:
Originally posted by Beestie
But, its Moore's fictional, Oliver Stone-like work that we are discussing and not the war itself. [/B]
You are correct. I got a little carried away. Sorry. :(
Don't be sorry, it's your thread and you can lead it anywhere you want,:D
The primary justification as I recall was WMD and the letter that some dude at the CIA wrote up at Kinko's supposedly confirming Saddam's purchase of Nigerian yellowcake - a theory about as sound as those Nigerian spam mails I get. :rolleyes: The letter was signed by a Nigerian diplomat. Problem is, that diplomat retired some three years prior to the date of the letter (god help us).
Bush laid the groundwork for the attack in his State of the Union address and I'd be hard pressed to find the Saddam-Osama link in its text. It was pretty well known that Osama didn't care much for Saddam since he's not much of a Muslim and ran a secular government. Now, the idea that Atta met up with an Iraqi intel agent gained some traction in the talk show curcuit but I don't think that had much to do with it.
Basically, justification be damned, I think W's mind was made up probably before he took office and he was just looking for an excuse and he was dumb enough to believe those clowns who advise him.
Plus they were part of the axis of evil.;)
edit- Hey I wonder if that's the same Nigerian that left all the money I'm gonna get.:)
Originally posted by bluesdave
You are correct. I got a little carried away. Sorry.
I wasn't correcting you. Sorry if it came off that way. :blush:
That lecturer title UT gave me is going straight to my head :)
So right now Bush's best arguments for the war came from an ex-Iraqi whose offices authorities recently raided and an ex-KGB officer/politician who is reintroducing Russia to authoritarian rule (and who probably helped Bush draft the Patriot Act).
OK, the last bit is just a wild guess, but what do you think Bush and Putin talk about? I wouldn't be surprised if Bush isn't exchanging lessons in running a democracy for ones in stifling dissent and intimidating opponents.
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
He said between 9-11 and the start of the war.:)
He says
now that he said it then. At the time, there was no hint he had said it.
That confirms that it is what I thought it would be.:(
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".
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!).
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 ...
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.
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
amusingly enough, he rarely paid up on that.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
Well all of the oil industry expects demand to permanantly outstrip supply in 2012 at the very latest so it's going to happen sooner or later.
In 1975 they predicted that ALL oil reserves would be gone in 30 years.
One more year to go :worried:
Since then I have learned via idea theory that apocalyptic ideas are spread harder and faster than any other. There is more cause to spread the idea "danger is at hand" than there is the idea "everything is OK". People will spread "danger is at hand" without knowing whether there is a danger, just in case there actually is danger. So I take apocalyptic messages less seriously unless there is pretty good proof. The sky, as yet, has not actually fell. It's still up there.
When I was on K5, there was a user who swore up and down that a dirty little secret of the oil industry is that certain Gulf of Mexico fields appear to be refilling.
Since then I have kept my ears perked up for more info about that, and at one point someone was advancing the theory that oil is not produced how we think it is, and that at some point ALL the fields may refill.
So perhaps we should bask in the warm glow of cheap energy and use it to outgrow hunger and scarcity. I don't know.
I heard Frank Rich make an interesting connection about Moores film. He mentioned how, despite all available evidence, Moores supporters still think there is something to the bi Laden family flyout story just like Bushes supporters, despite all evidence, believe there was a working relationship between bin Laden and Hussein. My conclusion, don't listen to anybody it's an election year.
Well maybe you could listen to Fred Reed, "The United States of course is not a democracy but a wonderfully crafted pretense. We have separated the results of elections from the formulation of policy. It is a neat trick: Voting distracts the rabble without disturbing the government."
Well I get my ideas from HQ staff inside a major oil company. i feel fairly safe in taking what they say seriously. It's not about them running out, it's about demand outstripping supply, the maths is faily elemental, look at proven reserves, look at unproven reserves, look at projected demand.
Originally posted by jaguar
it's about demand outstripping supply,
= China
when you say "demand outstripping supply" what does that mean exactly
Meanwhile
here is the guy who says oil is produced differently than the 200-year-old theory about it.
When wearing tinfoil hats I prefer the optimistic ones.
That means demand by manufacturing, transport etc is a higher number of millions of bpd (barrels per day) than the number being produced by the oil producing nations.
It doesn't seem to have really got out yet but plenty of nations have started going all out to secure remaining supplies in ways that enlightened self interest would not dictate if there was not a high chance of future supply problems that could dictate economic prosperity.
Look for example at the 3-way cage fight over russia/china/japan pipelines, china and japan have always been a tad unfriendly (something about raping and pillaging, I think) but the way that little stink was carried out suggested a certain level of desperation.
Watch what's going on in Russia, political as the Yukos trial may be many people are starting to think that the government is going to use the outstanding tax debt to snap yukos into pieces and sell it off to more pliable companies or even nationalize it, why? They want the political weight that will come with direct control of Russia's increasingly important oil supply.
Originally posted by Undertoad
when you say "demand outstripping supply" what does that mean exactly
It exactly means that there will not be enough oil
at any price to satisfy the demand. A scenario not likely to materialize for the simple reason that as the price rises to higher and higher levels, alternatives become more attractive (cheaper).
There's no point to weaning ourselves off of oil till a competetive alternative surfaces. The evil, satanic American capitalistic profit motive will surely develop an alternative when the time is right to do so. Then the middle east can go back to being a backward, irrelevant pisshole in the sand.
It exactly means that there will not be enough oil at any price to satisfy the demand. A scenario not likely to materialize for the simple reason that as the price rises to higher and higher levels, alternatives become more attractive (cheaper).
Well yes and no. Oil is one of the most inelastic markts around ( to simplify - demand does not fluctuate with price) but you will see a drop in demand in this kind of scenario as various things become insustainable or other options become viable. You're not about to have airliners grounded because there simply isn't any fuel, but you will see certain manufacturing processes or other ways things are done changing or dissipearing. Things like ethanol and biodiesel will take on a new glow as well.
Right, at the price point of $40/barrel shale oil becomes a viable alternative and there is a ton of it.
Shale oil has issues of it's own, not least of which is it's dioxin content and very high levels of greenhouse gas production. It is also a known carcinogen.
Shale oil production is not a pretty sight either and many major sites are not in good location, the Stuart project in Australia has already gathered massive oppostition and wants to mine in the world heretige site listed great barrier reef. As it stand son Mobil risks the political backlash of getting into shale in that project. Some studies suggest there are only about 80m barrels of shale that will meet that end of the economic scale. It also requires massive supplies of water which can be a problem for some sights.
Major use of the stuff in transport alone would be an environmental disaster and a short term solution.
Originally posted by jaguar
Shale oil has issues of it's own, not least of which is it's dioxin content and very high levels of greenhouse gas production. It is also a known carcinogen.
Environmentalists hate all large scale forms of energy production. Insist on an environmentally benign form of energy to replace oil (which ain't so benign itself) and you'll be shivering in the dark. But then, that's the environmentalist goal.
Go drink some DDT.
I'm not a greenpeace member, what I posted is hard fact, shale oil is far worse than the stuff we pump out of the middle east and elsewhere not to mention wastes masses of water. If we have to replace oil, shale oil is the last place we should be looking. There are many forms of energy generation in advanced development that will offer better alternatives by the point, with all the evidence we have, going from oil to a period of shale oil is franky, moronic.
Originally posted by jaguar
Shale oil has issues of it's own, not least of which is it's dioxin content and very high levels of greenhouse gas production. It is also a known carcinogen.
Major use of the stuff in transport alone would be an environmental disaster and a short term solution.
maybe we should do some small scale tests, maybe on a national level? say - what ever Jag's location is... we would want an objective cellarite to give us the inside scoop wouldn't we.
now before everyone jumps on board, i need to clarify - there is the possibility that Jag may be poisoned and die. while that may be cruel and painful, it is a chance i am willing to take for the good of our children's children.
the needs of the many...
It's about choices. There are tons of alternatives. Some are more feasable than others. Some are cheaper than others. Some are safer than others.
Jag's point is that of all the choices out there, shale oil is not a smart way to go. I have no knowledge of shale oil, so I won't weigh in on one side or the other of this argument, but Jag has made a pretty factual argument against the use of shale oil.
If you are going to attack him, attack his facts.
I personally am very interested in the chicken-guts-to-oil plants that
Changing World Technologies already has up and running. If we can turn trash into oil as they claim, that would solve everything
while lookout looks for facts, refer to my little line of text.
I knew pre-emptive abuse would come in handy.
Here is a highly informative document put out, not by Michael Moore, nor by Rush Limbaugh, but by the United States Department of Energy:
http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/keypublications/npr_strategic_significancev1.pdf
Among other things this document states that the US imports 60% of its liquid hydrocarbon needs (so much for that cute little chart being bandied about on this thread). The DOE projects that US imports may double by 2025 and that the vast majority of imports come from the OPEC nations. (big surprise!)
The DOE then goes on to discuss the impact of oil shortfalls on the US economy, citing the events which occurred in this country in the 70's due to the oil embargo put in place by the OPEC nations. The embargo drove oil prices sky high which led to high inflation, high unemployment, and high interest rates; all at the same time. The DOE states that America's vulnerability to oil price shocks has become even higher in the interim since the 70's.
Here's what I mean when I say its about oil, stupid; not 9/11. And I quote:
"The Department of Defense has a strategic requirement to maintain secure sources of liquid fuels to mobilize its aircraft, naval fleets, and land vehicles at home and around the
world. Heightened concerns over domestic security intensify the need for the military to
ensure that secure fuels are available to protect the Nation, to support U.S. forces positioned overseas, and to project force when it is deemed necessary to protect America’s strategic interests and global commitments. To support this strategic requirement, the military pre-positions fuel supplies in the United States and around the world. As these stocks are drawn down, the military purchases replacement
fuels from global markets. If replacement fuels are not available in a timely
manner, military capabilities are at least temporarily diminished. Domestic sources for
military fuels must be re-evaluated in the context of rising import dependencies and increasing vulnerability to supply interruptions. Of direct importance are:
Supplementing decreasing domestic production
Maintaining fuel performance for the legacy fleet
Keeping fuel costs as low as possible during peacetime to facilitate training."
AS far as oil fields replenishing themselves, I have my doubts, but lack the background in geology to make an intelligent reply. I do know that here in the West, water aquifers do not replenish themselves, and their is great concern as continued population growth depletes these precious water resources in the Western states. The DOE does not seem to have been let in on the secret of oil fields resupplying themselves, either. Here is their comment: "About 80 percent of the oil produced today flows from fields that were found before 1973, and the great majority of these are declining."
I am no fan of "the sky is falling" hysterics, myself, but I do believe in a reasoned consideration of a problem from best case to worst case scenario. It is foolish, as well as ignorent to ignore impending difficultities and sing ourselves to sleep with lullibies about how life is fair, and the family dog will never die and we'll never grow old and God will keep squirting petroleum into oil fields everywhere. The morning will come when we awake to discover the lines on our face, the dog dead and gone years ago, the bully across the street has just unfairly beat us up for about the 600th time, and when we crawl to our car to go to the emergency room, it has no gas.
And quite frankly, I could give a flying fuck whether the US remains a world "leader" or not. We are a big country with plenty of natural resources still, if only we would be good stewards of what we have been blessed with. The American people are good, hard working people and can take care of themselves. Let's become self sufficient again, have a military strong enough to protect our own borders without traipsing off to some third world hell hole, and let the rest of the world be damned.
Among other things this document states that the US imports 60% of its liquid hydrocarbon needs (so much for that cute little chart being bandied about on this thread).
Yes, and most of those imports are not from the Persian Gulf. The data for the chart also comes from the DOE by the way.
DOD says oil is strategically important even to the military
DUH
And not all OPEC members are in the Persian Gulf either.;)
Originally posted by Undertoad
Yes, and most of those imports are not from the Persian Gulf. The data for the chart also comes from the DOE by the way.
The document I referred to and quoted in my post stated:
"the vast majority of imports come from the OPEC nations."
Originally posted by Undertoad
DUH
no comment
Originally posted by Undertoad
Yes, and most of those imports are not from the Persian Gulf. The data for the chart also comes from the DOE by the way.
Even if true, that is meaningless. Oil is only slightly less fungible than cash.
http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/May03imp.pdf
Top ten US imports by country, Jan-May 2003:
Canada 16.9%
Saudi Arabia 16.2%
Mexico 13.2%
Venezuela 9.5%
Nigeria 6.9%
Iraq 5.0%
United Kingdom 3.7%
Angola 3.0%
Algeria 2.8%
Virgin Islands 2.1%
All OPEC countries
43.9%
All Persian Gulf countries
20.6%
Percent of consumed US oil from Persian Gulf (ie., percentage of both import and domestic oil): [size=3][color=red]
14.0%[/color][/size]
Originally posted by Undertoad
http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/May03imp.pdf
Top ten US imports by country, Jan-May 2003:
Canada 16.9%
Saudi Arabia 16.2%
Mexico 13.2%
Venezuela 9.5%
Nigeria 6.9%
Iraq 5.0%
United Kingdom 3.7%
Angola 3.0%
Algeria 2.8%
Virgin Islands 2.1%
All OPEC countries [b]43.9%
All Persian Gulf countries 20.6%
Percent of consumed US oil from Persian Gulf (ie., percentage of both import and domestic oil): [size=3][color=red]14.0%[/color][/size] [/B]
Percentage of consumed US oil from Persian Gulf 14%, top US imports by country... Saudi Arabia 16.2% Well, that's interesting. Maybe someone should go back and teach the guys who wrote that one up a little bit of elementary math.:p
I was trying to puzzle that out myself. Anyway, what is the meaning of these statistics?
20.6 is the percentage of all US oil imports that come from the Persian Gulf
14.0 is the percentage of all US oil, imports AND domestic, that come from the Persian Gulf
We are addressing Mari's notion that this was a war about oil.
Originally posted by Undertoad
Meanwhile here is the guy who says oil is produced differently than the 200-year-old theory about it.
People tend to stick to beliefs that support their own comfort zones, and disregard anything that is contrary to those. You tend to gravitate towards people who also share your beliefs, and steer away from those who don't. Ten years ago many people (including some scientists), did not want to believe in global warming, and there were many books published, pushing the argument that global warming is a myth. Now we know it is a fact, and whilst there is still debate on to what degree we humans have impacted on it, there is general agreement that it is real.
There is no doubt that the world is using its natural resources at an alarming rate, and anyone who thinks they will last forever is just deluding themselves.
Originally posted by Undertoad
20.6 is the percentage of all US oil imports that come from the Persian Gulf
14.0 is the percentage of all US oil, imports AND domestic, that come from the Persian Gulf
Well, somebody somewhere is telling a whopping big lie. My figure of 60% came from an official DOE report. You'd think the boys in the government would at least get their stories straight. That to me is as suspicious as anything else. Go look at the site I posted above. They say 60%. I'm not making that up.
Originally posted by Undertoad
We are addressing Mari's notion that this was a war about oil.
Silly me. How could I possibly make the connection between a military action in the Middle East and oil? We girls are just useless little bits of fluff!:rolleyes:
60% is the percentage of oil used by the US that is imported.
All the numbers fit together. Math is hard
Quick back to the Moore film - it turns out that he's pushing the theory that Afghanistan was all about an oil pipeline, the theory advanced by Ted Rall.
But I told you that was horseshit over a year agoOriginally posted by Undertoad
60% is the percentage of oil used by the US that is imported.
All the numbers fit together. Math is hard
Not especially. Here is the direct quote from the DOE:
"The growing dependence of the United States
on foreign sources for its liquid fuels has significant
strategic and economic implications.
The United States has been a net importer of
oil for more than 50 years, and today, imports
nearly 60 percent of its liquid hydrocarbon
needs (Figure 1). The U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) projects that U.S. imports may
double, to 19.8 MMBbl/D by 2025. By then
imports will exceed 70 percent of demand, the
vast majority coming from Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). As
imports rise, America’s vulnerability to price
shocks, disruptions, and shortages will also
increase....
Is increasing dependence on
OPEC oil in the best long-term interests of the
United States?
Adding urgency
to these questions is the indication
that world oil production may peak
sooner than generally believed, accelerating
the onset of inevitable competition among
consumers (and nations) for ever-scarcer oil
resources.
A major part of the world’s future oil supply
must come from OPEC sources, principally
Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been able to
maintain a production capacity of about 10
million barrels per day. The Saudi productive
capacity is projected by EIA to nearly double,
increasing to 19.5 million barrels per day by
2020 (Ref. 9, page 235). It is not now apparent,
however, that adequate investments are
being made in the Saudi fields to double oil
production by 2020."
Originally posted by tw
In the Philly region, the only place that will show Moore's movie is Trenton NJ and Allentown PA.
Not true...two of the Ritz theaters are showing it (Voorhees and 2nd & Walnut).
Let's see if Moore can take as good as he gives. If I were a betting man, I'd say probably not.
Moore is about to get force fed a dose of his own medicine.Originally posted by sycamore
Not true...two of the Ritz theaters are showing it (Voorhees and 2nd & Walnut).
Last weekend when I checked Philly.com for the movie on Friday, it only came back with two theatres. Now it comes back with a whole slew of theatres. Is this movie database so imcomplete as to only be valid for a day or two in advance? Any rate, suddenly Farenheit 9/11 is everywhere.
When I went to see Moore's original "Roger and Me", it too was only available in few theatres. I had to go to Society Hill to find it. Glad to see I can actually find a film without driving across a few counties this time.
Originally posted by Beestie
Let's see if Moore can take as good as he gives. If I were a betting man, I'd say probably not.
Moore is about to get force fed a dose of his own medicine.
So whatzit say? (I don't feel like entering in all that info to subscribe to some Twin Cities rag. I got enough problems as it is). By the way, Moore's flick is prominently advertized as a coming attraction on good old conservative Colorado Springs' downtown cinema house.
Originally posted by Beestie
Let's see if Moore can take as good as he gives. If I were a betting man, I'd say probably not.
He'll probably claim smear tactics, right-wing conspiracy, etc.
If Disney would have just put this film out, the hype would probably only be half of what it is.
Originally posted by marichiko
So whatzit say? (I don't feel like entering in all that info to subscribe to some Twin Cities rag. I got enough problems as it is).
Put in fake info, lazy.
Originally posted by sycamore
Put in fake info, lazy.
too much trouble. I hate typing!;)
Originally posted by tw
When I went to see Moore's original "Roger and Me", it too was only available in few theatres. I had to go to Society Hill to find it. Glad to see I can actually find a film without driving across a few counties this time.
Moore is a big draw now. I'm not sure most of our European friends understand how overexposed he is. Any question of censorship on this is hooey.
Originally posted by Griff
Moore is a big draw now. I'm not sure most of our European friends understand how overexposed he is. Any question of censorship on this is hooey.
Yeah, just because the Mickey Mouse bunch doesn't like him, doesn't mean he's being censored. I wouldn't say he had been over exposed, though, not until this latest controversy. Disney nixing his film was probably some of the best publicity he ever got.
The U.S. Department of Energy projects that U.S. imports may double, to 19.8 MMBbl/D by 2025.
And may not. We're talking about now.:p
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
And may not. We're talking about now.:p
Ever hear the story of the ant and the grasshopper?
Yes, and they had nothing to do with the war in Iraq either.:p
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Yes, and they had nothing to do with the war in Iraq either.:p
I have unnamed sourses that say they do. So there.
Quick, get inside before the sky falls.:eek3:
I just saw Fahrenheit 9-11. It was pretty damn good. As for the Bin Laden flyout controversy - the film was slightly unclear. It mentioned that the Bin Ladens were permitted to fly while everyone else was grounded, and it mentioned that they all flew out on or after September 13 after minimal interviewing. It did not mention that the grounding ended on September 13, so all of the flying they did while everyone else was grounded was within US borders. I don't think that that dilutes the point much, but your milage may vary. Anyway, it's not as big a part of the movie that the hype led me to believe.
Moore's rhetorical questions while watching Bush read "My Pet Goat" are a bit annoying, but I got over it.
Moore followed a couple of Marine recruiters around a mall for a while. That was pretty creepy (and reminded me of Sharpe's Regiment, if anyone's read it), but I'm sure that it's not anything new. It just takes on a new light when there's a meaningless war going on at the time.
Overall, I already knew most of the information in the movie, being a bit of a news junkie, but it was presented well, and I'm certain that most of the information will be new to most people who see it.
Originally posted by Undertoad
Hitchens reviews Fahrenheit 9/11
Chris Parry reviews Hitchens.