Answers Please, Mr Bush - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Halx · 10-07-2003, 01:27 PM

I am NOT a fan of Michael Moore. I don't know if his stuff is bullshit or not, but I do NOT like him. Now, given that, my boss sent me this link...

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1006-11.htm

Quote:

Answers Please, Mr Bush</div>
by Michael Moore</div>

In this extract from his new book "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0446532231/commondreams-20" target="_new">Dude, Where's My Country</a>" he asks his old enemy seven awkward questions
I have seven questions for you, Mr Bush. I ask them on behalf of the 3,000 who died that September day, and I ask them on behalf of the American people. We seek no revenge against you. We want only to know what happened, and what can be done to bring the murderers to justice, so we can prevent any future attacks on our citizens.
1. Is it true that the Bin Ladens have had business relations with you and your family off and on for the past 25 years?


Most Americans might be surprised to learn that you and your father have known the Bin Ladens for a long time. What, exactly, is the extent of this relationship, Mr Bush? Are you close personal friends, or simply on-again, off-again business associates? Salem bin Laden - Osama's brother - first started coming to Texas in 1973 and later bought some land, built himself a house, and created Bin Laden Aviation at the San Antonio airfield.

The Bin Ladens are one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia. Their huge construction firm virtually built the country, from the roads and power plants to the skyscrapers and government buildings. They built some of the airstrips America used in your dad's Gulf war. Billionaires many times over, they soon began investing in other ventures around the world, including the US. They have extensive business dealings with Citigroup, General Electric, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and the Fremont Group.

According to the New Yorker, the bin Laden family also owns a part of Microsoft and the airline and defense giant Boeing. They have donated $2m to your alma mater, Harvard University, and tens of thousands to the Middle East Policy Council, a think-tank headed by a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Charles Freeman. In addition to the property they own in Texas, they also have real estate in Florida and Massachusetts. In short, they have their hands deep in our pants.

Unfortunately, as you know, Mr Bush, Salem bin Laden died in a plane crash in Texas in 1988. Salem's brothers - there are around 50 of them, including Osama - continued to run the family companies and investments.

After leaving office, your father became a highly paid consultant for a company known as the Carlyle Group - one of the nation's largest defense contractors. One of the investors in the Carlyle Group - to the tune of at least $2m - was none other than the Bin Laden family. Until 1994, you headed a company called CaterAir, which was owned by the Carlyle Group.

After September 11, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal both ran stories pointing out this connection. Your first response, Mr Bush, was to ignore it. Then your army of pundits went into spin control. They said, we can't paint these Bin Ladens with the same brush we use for Osama. They have disowned Osama! They have nothing to do with him! These are the good Bin Ladens.

And then the video footage came out. It showed a number of these "good" Bin Ladens - including Osama's mother, a sister and two brothers - with Osama at his son's wedding just six and a half months before September 11. It was no secret to the CIA that Osama bin Laden had access to his family fortune (his share is estimated to be at least $30m), and the Bin Ladens, as well as other Saudis, kept Osama and his group, al-Qaida, well funded.

You've gotten a free ride from the media, though they know everything I have just written to be the truth. They seem unwilling or afraid to ask you a simple question, Mr Bush: WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?

In case you don't understand just how bizarre the media's silence is regarding the Bush-Bin Laden connections, let me draw an analogy to how the press or Congress might have handled something like this if the same shoe had been on the Clinton foot. If, after the terrorist attack on the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, it had been revealed that President Bill Clinton and his family had financial dealings with Timothy McVeigh's family, what do you think your Republican party and the media would have done with that one?

Do you think at least a couple of questions might have been asked, such as, "What is that all about?" Be honest, you know the answer. They would have asked more than a couple of questions. They would have skinned Clinton alive and thrown what was left of his carcass in Guantanamo Bay.

2. What is the 'special relationship' between the Bushes and the Saudi royal family?


Mr Bush, the Bin Ladens are not the only Saudis with whom you and your family have a close personal relationship. The entire royal family seems to be indebted to you - or is it the other way round?

The number one supplier of oil to the US is the nation of Saudi Arabia, possessor of the largest known reserves of oil in the world. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, it was really the Saudis next door who felt threatened, and it was your father, George Bush I, who came to their rescue. The Saudis have never forgotten this. Haifa, wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the US, says that your mother and father "are like my mother and father. I know if ever I needed anything I could go to them".

A major chunk of the American economy is built on Saudi money. They have a trillion dollars invested in our stock market and another trillion dollars in our banks. If they chose suddenly to remove that money, our corporations and financial institutions would be sent into a tailspin, causing an economic crisis the likes of which has never been seen. Couple that with the fact that the 1.5m barrels of oil we need daily from the Saudis could also vanish on a mere royal whim, and we begin to see how not only you, but all of us, are dependent on the House of Saud. George, is this good for our national security, our homeland security? Who is it good for? You? Pops?

After meeting with the Saudi crown prince in April 2002, you happily told us that the two of you had "established a strong personal bond" and that you "spent a lot of time alone". Were you trying to reassure us? Or just flaunt your friendship with a group of rulers who rival the Taliban in their suppression of human rights? Why the double standard?

3. Who attacked the US on September 11 - a guy on dialysis from a cave in Afghanistan, or your friend, Saudi Arabia? 

I'm sorry, Mr Bush, but something doesn't make sense.

You got us all repeating by rote that it was Osama bin Laden who was responsible for the attack on the United States on September 11. Even I was doing it. But then I started hearing strange stories about Osama's kidneys. Suddenly, I don't know who or what to trust. How could a guy sitting in a cave in Afghanistan, hooked up to dialysis, have directed and overseen the actions of 19 terrorists for two years in the US then plotted so perfectly the hijacking of four planes and then guaranteed that three of them would end up precisely on their targets? How did he organize, communicate, control and supervise this kind of massive attack? With two cans and a string?

The headlines blared it the first day and they blare it the same way now two years later: "Terrorists Attack United States." Terrorists. I have wondered about this word for some time, so, George, let me ask you a question: if 15 of the 19 hijackers had been North Korean, rather than Saudi, and they had killed 3,000 people, do you think the headline the next day might have read, "NORTH KOREA ATTACKS UNITED STATES"? Of course it would. Or if it had been 15 Iranians or 15 Libyans or 15 Cubans, I think the conventional wisdom would have been, "IRAN [or LIBYA or CUBA] ATTACKS AMERICA!" Yet, when it comes to September 11, have you ever seen the headline, have you ever heard a newscaster, has one of your appointees ever uttered these words: "Saudi Arabia attacked the United States"?

Of course you haven't. And so the question must - must - be asked: why not? Why, when Congress released its own investigation into September 11, did you, Mr Bush, censor out 28 pages that deal with the Saudis' role in the attack?

I would like to throw out a possibility here: what if September 11 was not a "terrorist" attack but, rather, a military attack against the United States? George, apparently you were a pilot once - how hard is it to hit a five-story building at more than 500 miles an hour? The Pentagon is only five stories high. At 500 miles an hour, had the pilots been off by just a hair, they'd have been in the river. You do not get this skilled at learning how to fly jumbo jets by being taught on a video game machine at some dipshit flight training school in Arizona. You learn to do this in the air force. Someone's air force.

The Saudi air force?

What if these weren't wacko terrorists, but military pilots who signed on to a suicide mission? What if they were doing this at the behest of either the Saudi government or certain disgruntled members of the Saudi royal family? The House of Saud, according to Robert Baer's book Sleeping With the Devil, is full of them. So, did certain factions within the Saudi royal family execute the attack on September 11? Were these pilots trained by the Saudis? Why are you so busy protecting the Saudis when you should be protecting us?

4. Why did you allow a private Saudi jet to fly around the US in the days after September 11 and pick up members of the Bin Laden family and fly them out of the country without a proper investigation by the FBI? 

Private jets, under the supervision of the Saudi government - and with your approval - were allowed to fly around the skies of America, when traveling by air was forbidden, and pick up 24 members of the Bin Laden family and take them first to a "secret assembly point in Texas". They then flew to Washington DC, and then on to Boston. Finally, on September 18, they were all flown to Paris, out of the reach of any US officials. They never went through any serious interrogation. This is mind-boggling. Might it have been possible that at least one of the 24 Bin Ladens would have possibly known something?

While thousands were stranded and could not fly, if you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in US history, you got a free trip to gay Paree!

Why, Mr Bush, was this allowed to happen?

5. Why are you protecting the Second Amendment rights of potential terrorists? 

Mr Bush, in the days after September 11, the FBI began running a check to see if any of the 186 "suspects" the feds had rounded up in the first five days after the attack had purchased any guns in the months leading up to September 11 (two of them had). When your attorney general, John Ashcroft, heard about this, he immediately shut down the search. He told the FBI that the background check files could not be used for such a search and these files were only to be used at the time of a purchase of a gun.

Mr Bush, you can't be serious! Is your administration really so gun nutty and so deep in the pocket of the National Rifle Association? I truly love how you have rounded up hundreds of people, grabbing them off the streets without notice, throwing them in prison cells, unable to contact lawyers or family, and then, for the most part, shipped them out of the country on mere immigration charges.

You can waive their Fourth Amendment protection from unlawful search and seizure, their Sixth Amendment rights to an open trial by a jury of their peers and the right to counsel, and their First Amendment rights to speak, assemble, dissent and practice their religion. You believe you have the right to just trash all these rights, but when it comes to the Second Amendment right to own an AK-47 - oh no! That right they can have - and you will defend their right to have it.

Who, Mr Bush, is really aiding the terrorists here?

6. Were you aware that, while you were governor of Texas, the Taliban traveled to Texas to meet with your oil and gas company friends? 

According to the BBC, the Taliban came to Texas while you were governor to meet with Unocal, the huge oil and energy giant, to discuss Unocal's desire to build a natural-gas pipeline running from Turkmenistan through Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and into Pakistan.

Mr Bush, what was this all about?

"Houston, we have a problem," apparently never crossed your mind, even though the Taliban were perhaps the most repressive fundamentalist regime on the planet. What role exactly did you play in the Unocal meetings with the Taliban?

According to various reports, representatives of your administration met with the Taliban or conveyed messages to them during the summer of 2001. What were those messages, Mr Bush? Were you discussing their offer to hand over Bin Laden? Were you threatening them with use of force? Were you talking to them about a pipeline?

7. What exactly was that look on your face in the Florida classroom on the morning of September 11 when your chief of staff told you, 'America is under attack'? 

On the morning of September 11, you took a jog on a golf course and then headed to Booker elementary school in Florida to read to little children. You arrived at the school after the first plane had hit the north tower in New York City. You entered the classroom around 9am and the second plane hit the south tower at 9.03am. Just a few minutes later, as you were sitting in front of the class of kids, your chief of staff, Andrew Card, entered the room and whispered in your ear. Card was apparently telling you about the second plane and about us being "under attack".

And it was at that very moment that your face went into a distant glaze, not quite a blank look, but one that seemed partially paralyzed. No emotion was shown. And then ... you just sat there. You sat there for another seven minutes or so doing nothing.

George, what were you thinking? What did that look on your face mean?

Were you thinking you should have taken reports the CIA had given you the month before more seriously? You had been told al-Qaida was planning attacks in the United States and that planes would possibly be used.

Or were you just scared shitless?

Or maybe you were just thinking, "I did not want this job in the first place! This was supposed to be Jeb's job; he was the chosen one! Why me? Why me, daddy?"

Or ... maybe, just maybe, you were sitting there in that classroom chair thinking about your Saudi friends - both the royals and the Bin Ladens. People you knew all too well that might have been up to no good. Would questions be asked? Would suspicions arise? Would the Democrats have the guts to dig into your family's past with these people (no, don't worry, never a chance of that!)? Would the truth ever come out?

And while I'm at it ...

Danger - multi-millionaires at large 
I've always thought it was interesting that the mass murder of September 11 was allegedly committed by a multi-millionaire. We always say it was committed by a "terrorist" or by an "Islamic fundamentalist" or an "Arab", but we never define Osama by his rightful title: multi-millionaire. Why have we never read a headline saying, "3,000 Killed by multi-millionaire"? It would be a correct headline, would it not?

Osama bin Laden has assets totaling at least $30m; he is a multi-millionaire. So why isn't that the way we see this person, as a rich fuck who kills people? Why didn't that become the reason for profiling potential terrorists? Instead of rounding up suspicious Arabs, why don't we say, "Oh my God, a multi-millionaire killed 3,000 people! Round up the multi-millionaires! Throw them all in jail! No charges! No trials! Deport the millionaires!!"

Keeping America safe 
The US Patriot Act and the enemy combatant designation are just a hint of what Bush has in store for us. Consider a brainchild of Admiral John Poindexter, an Iran-contra perp, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa): the "policy analysis market", which the government was to put up on a website.

Apparently, Poindexter reasoned that commodity futures markets worked so well for Bush's buddies at Enron that he could adapt it to predicting terrorism. Individuals would be able to invest in hypothetical futures contracts involving the likelihood of such events as "an assassination of Yasser Arafat" or "the overthrow of Jordan's King Abdullah II". Other futures would be available based on the economic health, civil stability and military involvement in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey. All oil-related countries.

The proposed market lasted about one day after it was revealed to the Senate. Senators Wyden and Dorgan protested the Pentagon's $8m request, and Wyden said, "Make-believe markets trading in possibilities that turn the stomach hardly seem like a sensible next step to take with taxpayers money in the war on terror." As a result of the uproar over this, Poindexter was asked to step down.

Giving Saddam the key to Detroit 
In Las Vegas, an armored fighting vehicle was used to crush French yogurt, French bread, bottles of French wine, Perrier, Gray Goose vodka, photos of Chirac, a guide to Paris and, best of all, photocopies of the French flag. France was the perfect country to pick on. If you're a cable news company, why spend priceless reporting time on investigating whether Iraq really does have weapons of mass destruction when you can do a story about how rotten the French are?

Fox News led the charge of pinning Chirac to Saddam Hussein, showing old footage of the two men together. It didn't matter that the meeting had taken place in the 1970s. The media didn't bother to run (over and over again) the footage from when Saddam was presented with a key to the city of Detroit, or the film from the early 1980s of Donald Rumsfeld visiting Saddam in Baghdad to discuss the progress of the Iran-Iraq war. The footage of Rumsfeld embracing Saddam apparently wasn't worth running on a continuous loop. Or even once. OK, maybe once. On Oprah.

Nad Adam · 10-07-2003, 02:04 PM

Sometimes an unanswerd question speaks louder than an answerd one. Seven unanswerd questions paint an ugly picture.

Food Eater Lad · 10-07-2003, 02:12 PM

1 Nothing wrong with doing buisness with the Bin Ladens. Or do you also condem Mussolini's relatives for Mussolini's actions?

2 The Saudi Royal Family has had a special relationship with every American president since WW2.

3 19 people attacked the US on 9 11, they were picked by Bin Laden as Saudi Arabians didnt have trouble getting into the UNIted States. Had we been better allies with Pakistan, the most of the hijackers might have been Pakistani. Bin Laden knew who to choose, and why.

4 Not true, Not in the slightest. Moore is lying again. Notice he has no back up other than his less then reputable word. And Moore knows that this one isnt true, but he is out to harm Bush so he wont get relected. Moore doesnt care if he tricks people into accepting lies as long as it works.

5 This one is just so silly. Why would NON citizens be buying legal guns in America? Who would or could legally sell them a gun? I never heard of this anywhere else but just now, but looking for illegal or recent immigrants who bought legal guns that could be tossed out do to "immigration problems" seems silly and A waste of time. And if anything, The NRA would be the first group of people to make sure that non citizens and illegal immigrants DO NOT Have access to legal guns. Again, Moore knows this, but he is casting aspersions and trying to create false messages.

6 Yes the Taliban contacted many american buisness and wanted to do buisness with lots of them. To Bush's credit, not one of them accepted their offer. But again, Moore knows this and is trying to creat a false image of alliance with the Taliban. So I guess if NAMBLA calls Michael Moore, that mean he is a child rapist?

7 Um, shock, suprise? Anger? Just like the rest of America? This question is just stupid, even for Moore.

Why call Bin Laden a multi Millionare? That is not his crime. His crime is being a terrorist. Micheal Moore is also a multi millionare. Why not call him one instead of a filmmaker?

If the patriot act is so bad, why did many democrats including those Moore endorses support and vote on it. I do have problems with the patriot act, but to blame BUsh when congress passed it is just Moore again casting blame where it doesnt belong.

This article shows why I cant stand Moore. He uses half truths, out right lies, and some irrelevant points to paint a picture. He is a despicable man. He is pathological and I believe dangerous in his mania.

At one point Saddam was our ally. We also have ( gasp) picturs of FDR and Stalin. O NO Why couldnt FDR predict the future and know that Stalin would kill 40 million people. Why is Moore not talking about the photos of his hand picked democratic canditade Gen Clark smiling with serbian war criminals WHILE WE WERE AT WAR WITH THEM? That Moore doesnt talk about, but Rumsfeild shaking hands with an ally 20 years ago Moore brings up every time he opens his yap?

samremy · 10-07-2003, 02:17 PM

I'm sorry that you don't like Mike, but as for me, I think he is right on target with these questions. To me, the man is a genuine American hero!

little limey · 10-07-2003, 02:17 PM

Yea, these are pretty big claims. Although I don't like Bush, i need more facts to support these claims before I believe them.

Kurant · 10-07-2003, 02:29 PM

Consider the source, I guess.

Sun Tzu · 10-07-2003, 02:36 PM

Not slamming anyone in particular because $$$ seems to be the most influential substance reguardless of which politician ones speaking about; I ask this question: whats worse; those that abuse their political office, or the masses that let them get away with it?

MOOOOO

Superbelt · 10-07-2003, 02:45 PM

#3. He makes many good points about the Saudi involvement. You need to take the blinders off and realize just how much anti-US sentiment there is in SA, and how much they cooperate with Bin Ladin out of fear of him turning the populace against them.
The answers, they are in the 9/11 report that Bush decided to censor from us. Those who wrote it have told us more or less that there is incriminating information against the Saudis in those censored pages. Read the 9/11 report, all 800+ pages of it. It's interesting.

#4. FEL, you're wrong

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/04/po...3f9a90&ei=5070

Quote:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 — Top White House officials personally approved the evacuation of dozens of influential Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, from the United States in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when most flights were still grounded, a former White House adviser said today.

The adviser, Richard Clarke, who ran the White House crisis team after the attacks but has since left the Bush administration, said he agreed to the extraordinary plan because the Federal Bureau of Investigation assured him that the departing Saudis were not linked to terrorism. The White House feared that the Saudis could face "retribution" for the hijackings if they remained in the United States, Mr. Clarke said.

Moore was right about that one. He was screaming about it while most of american media had discounted it. It has since been reported as true by most outlets.

Finally, we have a history of making alliances with brutal dictators, and history has taught us nothing.

We are now in a similar situation in Uzbekistan. Bush learns nothing.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=25785

maximusveritas · 10-07-2003, 03:07 PM

I'm not a huge Michael Moore fan and I think he's off-base here as well. I realize its just an extract, but I'm not too fond of all these Saudi conspiracy theories. I've yet to see any real proof.
There are plenty of more important questions for Mr.Bush to answer.

Superbelt · 10-07-2003, 04:30 PM

Well there are other important questions to answer, like Dean's 16 questions for Bush

But these are also equally valid. Bush did a tremendous job of making our national security weaker before 9/11.

Macheath · 10-07-2003, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
5 This one is just so silly. Why would NON citizens be buying legal guns in America? Who would or could legally sell them a gun? I never heard of this anywhere else but just now, but looking for illegal or recent immigrants who bought legal guns that could be tossed out do to "immigration problems" seems silly and A waste of time. And if anything, The NRA would be the first group of people to make sure that non citizens and illegal immigrants DO NOT Have access to legal guns. Again, Moore knows this, but he is casting aspersions and trying to create false messages.

At one point Saddam was our ally. We also have ( gasp) picturs of FDR and Stalin. O NO Why couldnt FDR predict the future and know that Stalin would kill 40 million people. Why is Moore not talking about the photos of his hand picked democratic canditade Gen Clark smiling with serbian war criminals WHILE WE WERE AT WAR WITH THEM? That Moore doesnt talk about, but Rumsfeild shaking hands with an ally 20 years ago Moore brings up every time he opens his yap?

Firstly I want to ask if you're 100% certain that none of the 186 suspects were citizens or would have been legally entitled to buy weapons. Secondly, I assume then that you condemn Fox News' use of the Saddam/Chirac footage.

MrSmashy · 10-07-2003, 05:18 PM

As much as I dislike Bush and his cadre of psychos (or morons...depends what you think) that surround him, I think Michael Moore is the epitomy of cretinous, arrogant, manipulative left-wing grandstanding. His work is designed to sell to those who drench themselves in their left wingedness and take on a kind of drooling idiocy with regard to it.

If his questions have any merit, its simply good luck on his part rather than a measure of his intellect.

That being said, I do want to question why these are questions he asked? There are more important questions - such as with how the current administration has co-opted the tradgedy to achieve unrelated policy objectives - than the ones he asks which are designed as personal attacks on Bush. Such tactics, and the obvious tone he uses, makes his arguements look even less legitimate than they already are.

Ustwo · 10-07-2003, 05:42 PM

Moore is so full of shit his eyes are brown.

I don't even bother reading it anymore. You can only lie to me so many times before I never trust a word you say again.

Food Eater Lad · 10-07-2003, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Macheath
Firstly I want to ask if you're 100% certain that none of the 186 suspects were citizens or would have been legally entitled to buy weapons. Secondly, I assume then that you condemn Fox News' use of the Saddam/Chirac footage.

Moore even says that they could be deported on immigration issues, that doesnt happen to citizens. ANd I didnt see the Saddam Chirac Footage, but then I dont hold fox news in high regard either.

Why anyone trusts this man, especially after he said on Austrialian tv that in American he is the victum of a "media blackout" and has only been on tv TWICE since 9 11.

O I wish that were true.

He also says that the boos he recieved during the OScars were doctored. But then how can he make the claim as he did the NEXT day, that the boos were really booing the booers? Which one is it Mike?

Moore also claimed on the Today Show that the war on Terror is a hoax " as there were no terrorists acts after 9 11" I can name many Morrocons, Australians, And Saudi Arabians that would disagree with him.

Macheath · 10-07-2003, 06:16 PM

He says that MOST of them were deported; this in itself does not justify a failure to look at background check files that would undoubtedly not only tell you who passed a check but also who FAILED one.

In addition, it would be dangerous and irresponsible to assume that US citizens are incapable of committing acts of terrorism against the US.

Kadath · 10-07-2003, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Moore is so full of shit his eyes are brown.

I don't even bother reading it anymore. You can only lie to me so many times before I never trust a word you say again.

Easy question: When does Bush hit that mark?

Ustwo · 10-07-2003, 09:11 PM

When Bush starts to blatantly lie, like Mr. Moore.

Wait...wait...I hear it....something about WMD's.

Well if Bush lied on WMD's, then so did Clinton, Gore, Daschle, etc. Its AMAZING how they changed their minds once Clinton was no longer president

MuadDib · 10-07-2003, 09:21 PM

The lie wasn't about the existence of WMD's (that was a mistake) the lie was that they had evidence in hand to prove/justify the attack.

eple · 10-07-2003, 11:33 PM

this is pathetic, republicans responding well documented critizims with lies, accusation and other signs of fear. You are making fools of yourselves. The panic in the "Moore is lying and fat and he only speaks bs"-comments are quite obvious. Maybe a more flexible political view would help you guys to avoid looking like idiots every time your favourite gets some critizism.

Killconey · 10-08-2003, 12:33 AM

I remember reading a thread on this very website where a poster was criticized for asking heavily loaded questions. That is very bad debating etiquette because it doesn't allow for any arguments against those questions. While I normally respect Moore's work, these questions are too loaded to be taken seriously. Moore doesn't want Bush to answer those questions, he answered them himself.

Superbelt · 10-08-2003, 03:24 AM

They are rhetorical questions. He expects no answers and is making a statement with them instead.

onetime2 · 10-08-2003, 03:38 AM

Halx, what do you think of the article?

Pesonally, I think it's a load of crap. OOOH big surprise one of the largest construction firms in the Middle East had dealings with a family that had ties to the oil industry!!!! I suppose if they didn't have business dealings the question would be "Mr. Bush despite the fact that they are one of the largest construction firms in the Middle East your oil company brethren never dealt with them a single time? What is the meaning of this? A hidden agenda? A hatred of the Bin Laden clan? What?"

And to ask what was that look on his face? Get a friggin clue. Yeah it was those few minutes when he decided he was going to take over the world (cue Pinky and the Brain music).

It's ALL a big conspiracy. It's all about oil. Blah blah blah.

Oh yeah, and it was the Saudis. We couldn't get world approval to go into Iraq yet we're gonna get world approval to go into Saudi Arabia. Bullshit.

almostaugust · 10-08-2003, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
this is pathetic, republicans responding well documented critizims with lies, accusation and other signs of fear. You are making fools of yourselves. The panic in the "Moore is lying and fat and he only speaks bs"-comments are quite obvious. Maybe a more flexible political view would help you guys to avoid looking like idiots every time your favourite gets some critizism.

I agree.

Bush has had a free ride with the media. In fact, the media is far to soft on most politicians. Didnt Clinton say that the hardest questions he was ever posed were by students.

Superbelt · 10-08-2003, 04:33 AM

Moores strengths is that he is an activist and he motivates others to be the same. He is, unfortunately, several shades above Coulter. It is unfortunate that he is sloppy with the facts, the increase in respect would make him powerful indeed.

But at least he isn't a raging partisan, like some of his colleagues. He has been very critical of Clinton as well for military actions and other such issues. He sticks to his beliefs and issues very well.

Overall I think he is a benefit to society rather than a negative. He gets people involved and he has accomplished some good things, like getting the bullets out of K-Mart.

gov135 · 10-08-2003, 05:19 AM

"Danger - multi-millionaires at large

I've always thought it was interesting that the mass murder of September 11 was allegedly committed by a multi-millionaire. We always say it was committed by a "terrorist" or by an "Islamic fundamentalist" or an "Arab", but we never define Osama by his rightful title: multi-millionaire. Why have we never read a headline saying, "3,000 Killed by multi-millionaire"? It would be a correct headline, would it not?

Osama bin Laden has assets totaling at least $30m; he is a multi-millionaire. So why isn't that the way we see this person, as a rich fuck who kills people? Why didn't that become the reason for profiling potential terrorists? Instead of rounding up suspicious Arabs, why don't we say, "Oh my God, a multi-millionaire killed 3,000 people! Round up the multi-millionaires! Throw them all in jail! No charges! No trials! Deport the millionaires!!"

I found this passage interesting. We often label rich people with a screw loose as "ecentric." Sure, poor people can have a screw loose too, but they are too busy scraping a living together. It's those that are worth the kind of money that have isolated themselves from others - these are the people that have an agenda and the money to carry it out. I think the parallels Moore draws here are interesting - special interest groups are killing the representation of the common man. Bush is a millionaire - he tried to maker a buck - but failed miserably every step of the way - only to be bailed out by millionnaires. How could he not listen to their agendas? I agree with Moore - the super rich that have alot of time on their hands are dangerous when they have agendas - they can do something about it. That's not democracy at best and seeds for terror at worst.

eple · 10-08-2003, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
They are rhetorical questions. He expects no answers and is making a statement with them instead.

...well duh...

Superbelt · 10-08-2003, 07:20 AM

That was a reaction to what Killconey said.

Quote:

...criticized for asking heavily loaded questions. That is very bad debating etiquette because it doesn't allow for any arguments against those questions. While I normally respect Moore's work, these questions are too loaded to be taken seriously. Moore doesn't want Bush to answer those questions, he answered them himself.

And that's why I said they are rhetorical. They aren't in bad form because he is just making a statement and he is not asking questions that he expects to be answered.

eple · 10-08-2003, 07:34 AM

I am slowly losing the interest in this forum as a whole, when a majority of posters can't recognize rethorical questions, it just get silly. It seems most people here is quite incapable of discussing outside their narrow liberal/conservative schemes. Try getting a little more politically independent, and consider creating opinions of your own in a debate in spite of what you vote ppl.

onetime2 · 10-08-2003, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
I am slowly losing the interest in this forum as a whole, when a majority of posters can't recognize rethorical questions, it just get silly. It seems most people here is quite incapable of discussing outside their narrow liberal/conservative schemes. Try getting a little more politically independent, and consider creating opinions of your own in a debate in spite of what you vote ppl.

Damned Norwegians. Always thinking logically.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-08-2003, 09:39 AM

I personally don't see the problem with Bush ahving ties to the Bin Laden clan. If I remember correctly from a biography of OBL I read, there are more then 50 Bin Laden children and Osama was the black sheep and exiled from the family for being such a religious nut job.

Superbelt · 10-08-2003, 09:46 AM

If they disowned him, why did they still come to his sons wedding?

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-08-2003, 09:50 AM

I can't answer that for them, perhaps they got past there disproval for OBL and were just trying to be there for his son???

Superbelt · 10-08-2003, 09:53 AM

I'm willing to bet that son is part of the al Qaeda hierarchy.

I think all of his sons are.

eple · 10-08-2003, 10:44 AM

Am I the only one giggling when I see the hardcore Moore-haters now defending the Bin Laden family? My my how unpatriotic of you.

Halx · 10-08-2003, 10:54 AM

eple, how about you end your agenda against this forum. You can either lead by example or you can criticize. GUESS which one you're doing. It's not helping.

eple · 10-08-2003, 11:33 AM

Well thank you for making this my fault.

MuadDib · 10-08-2003, 01:00 PM

DISCLAIMER: This is not flame bait. I am not going to argue your opinions. I honestly just want to know what you think.

Now that that is done with, I want to know if the republican and Bush-leaning posters out there honestly believe he had absolutely no ulterior motives, outside of humanitarian concern, for the invasion in Iraq.

Food Eater Lad · 10-08-2003, 03:31 PM

I think that the fact that Saddam provided no proof that he got rid of the weapons that he admitted to having was reason enough. I am also extremly happy that a minimum of Iraqis were killed. Did he have ulterior motives? I dont know what was in his head, mabye he was honestly pissed that Saddam tried to kill his father. I am just happy that my president did the right thing that needed to be done.

Superbelt · 10-08-2003, 04:03 PM

FEL, how can that be reason enough?

This whole situation is surreal.

We are at war with East Asia, we have always been at war with East Asia.
We are allies with Eurasia, we have always been allies with Eurasia.

Seriously, it's like George Bush is channeling George Orwell.

The war started and it was all about imminent danger, Saddam has WMD.

No WMD found, they changed the story to Humanitarian and Saddam had WMD programs.

No WMD programs plus many reports to the contrary and now it is we went to war to free the Iraqi peoples and Saddam had ideas in his head about some day down the line thinking about maybe starting up a weapons program after we all fell asleep sound in our beds. Ooh plus Saddam IS the WMD, That is SPIN

They have completely changed the story and are saying that is the reason we went in in the first place. But it's not. The is no more than a sentence in the SOTU about humanitarian concerns, the rest is doom and gloon Saddam has WMD and is going to kill us all with his balsa wood drones.

The testimony Kay has given about his report is that there were no programs, and no plans to start up any programs, and certainly not any wmd except for a vial of botox that is in any number of american pantries, back yards, and refrigerators today.
Further Kay postulates, as I have believed for a while now, that Saddam provided no proof of his lack of arms because of fear that he would appear weak to Iran and be attacked. And who would really step up to protect them?

It is not sufficient to wage war because Saddam lied to us, choosing to conceal the proof that he no longer had WMD capabilities.

To assert something like that is just ludicrous.

MuadDib · 10-08-2003, 04:22 PM

Superbelt, I see where you are coming from and am inclined to agree with your general assessment (though maybe not to the degree you do). But, I am honestly curious and I don't want my question to turned into another "Bush lied, soldiers died" flame war. There are plenty of threads that have that going on already. I just want to know if the people that support Bush's actions that post on this truly feel he has been forth coming with his reasons. Moore asserts that the real reasons for this war are politically and economically motivated and his rhetorical questions along with Bush history make a case for his claims. I think this is a reasonable assertion, but I know of a lot of folks on this board who would argue that. But, honestly, I am getting kind of tired of arguing about that and I want to know if the supporters out there think that our president had no motives outside of concern for national security and wishes of well-being for the people of Iraq. I think that we could get their true opinions on the matter more readily if those of us whom are known to think otherwise weren't lurking, waiting for them to post just to basically call their opinions' naive and/or stupid. They are neither, just different. I have met very few people on this board who's opinions are truly ignorant and most of them come and go in a week. I hope to get the supporters' unpolarized thoughts and I would hope others would consent to my non-argument disclaimer as well so we could all hear what they think.

If we must we can discuss these thoughts later in a seperate thread, but for now lets just keep it on the general topic of whether or not the assertions made by Moore, without regard to Moore himself, have any merit.

10-07-2003, 02:04 PM	#2 (permalink)
Nad Adam Psycho Location: Sweden	Sometimes an unanswerd question speaks louder than an answerd one. Seven unanswerd questions paint an ugly picture. __________________ Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. - Psalms 137:9

10-07-2003, 02:12 PM	#3 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	1 Nothing wrong with doing buisness with the Bin Ladens. Or do you also condem Mussolini's relatives for Mussolini's actions? 2 The Saudi Royal Family has had a special relationship with every American president since WW2. 3 19 people attacked the US on 9 11, they were picked by Bin Laden as Saudi Arabians didnt have trouble getting into the UNIted States. Had we been better allies with Pakistan, the most of the hijackers might have been Pakistani. Bin Laden knew who to choose, and why. 4 Not true, Not in the slightest. Moore is lying again. Notice he has no back up other than his less then reputable word. And Moore knows that this one isnt true, but he is out to harm Bush so he wont get relected. Moore doesnt care if he tricks people into accepting lies as long as it works. 5 This one is just so silly. Why would NON citizens be buying legal guns in America? Who would or could legally sell them a gun? I never heard of this anywhere else but just now, but looking for illegal or recent immigrants who bought legal guns that could be tossed out do to "immigration problems" seems silly and A waste of time. And if anything, The NRA would be the first group of people to make sure that non citizens and illegal immigrants DO NOT Have access to legal guns. Again, Moore knows this, but he is casting aspersions and trying to create false messages. 6 Yes the Taliban contacted many american buisness and wanted to do buisness with lots of them. To Bush's credit, not one of them accepted their offer. But again, Moore knows this and is trying to creat a false image of alliance with the Taliban. So I guess if NAMBLA calls Michael Moore, that mean he is a child rapist? 7 Um, shock, suprise? Anger? Just like the rest of America? This question is just stupid, even for Moore. Why call Bin Laden a multi Millionare? That is not his crime. His crime is being a terrorist. Micheal Moore is also a multi millionare. Why not call him one instead of a filmmaker? If the patriot act is so bad, why did many democrats including those Moore endorses support and vote on it. I do have problems with the patriot act, but to blame BUsh when congress passed it is just Moore again casting blame where it doesnt belong. This article shows why I cant stand Moore. He uses half truths, out right lies, and some irrelevant points to paint a picture. He is a despicable man. He is pathological and I believe dangerous in his mania. At one point Saddam was our ally. We also have ( gasp) picturs of FDR and Stalin. O NO Why couldnt FDR predict the future and know that Stalin would kill 40 million people. Why is Moore not talking about the photos of his hand picked democratic canditade Gen Clark smiling with serbian war criminals WHILE WE WERE AT WAR WITH THEM? That Moore doesnt talk about, but Rumsfeild shaking hands with an ally 20 years ago Moore brings up every time he opens his yap? Last edited by Food Eater Lad; 10-07-2003 at 02:18 PM..

10-07-2003, 02:17 PM	#4 (permalink)
samremy ‘Crotch Level’ Intellectual Location: Southwest, USA	I'm sorry that you don't like Mike, but as for me, I think he is right on target with these questions. To me, the man is a genuine American hero! __________________ "...to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government .. " -- The US Declaration of Independence

10-07-2003, 02:36 PM	#7 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	Not slamming anyone in particular because $$$ seems to be the most influential substance reguardless of which politician ones speaking about; I ask this question: whats worse; those that abuse their political office, or the masses that let them get away with it? MOOOOO __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

10-07-2003, 05:42 PM	#13 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Moore is so full of shit his eyes are brown. I don't even bother reading it anymore. You can only lie to me so many times before I never trust a word you say again. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-07-2003, 02:17 PM	#5 (permalink)
little limey Psycho Location: Room Nineteen	Yea, these are pretty big claims. Although I don't like Bush, i need more facts to support these claims before I believe them.

10-07-2003, 02:29 PM	#6 (permalink)
Kurant Junkie Location: Don't worry about it.	Consider the source, I guess.

10-07-2003, 03:07 PM	#9 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	I'm not a huge Michael Moore fan and I think he's off-base here as well. I realize its just an extract, but I'm not too fond of all these Saudi conspiracy theories. I've yet to see any real proof. There are plenty of more important questions for Mr.Bush to answer.

10-07-2003, 04:30 PM	#10 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Well there are other important questions to answer, like Dean's 16 questions for Bush But these are also equally valid. Bush did a tremendous job of making our national security weaker before 9/11.

10-07-2003, 05:18 PM	#12 (permalink)
MrSmashy Crazy Location: Soviet Canukistan	As much as I dislike Bush and his cadre of psychos (or morons...depends what you think) that surround him, I think Michael Moore is the epitomy of cretinous, arrogant, manipulative left-wing grandstanding. His work is designed to sell to those who drench themselves in their left wingedness and take on a kind of drooling idiocy with regard to it. If his questions have any merit, its simply good luck on his part rather than a measure of his intellect. That being said, I do want to question why these are questions he asked? There are more important questions - such as with how the current administration has co-opted the tradgedy to achieve unrelated policy objectives - than the ones he asks which are designed as personal attacks on Bush. Such tactics, and the obvious tone he uses, makes his arguements look even less legitimate than they already are.

10-07-2003, 06:16 PM	#15 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	He says that MOST of them were deported; this in itself does not justify a failure to look at background check files that would undoubtedly not only tell you who passed a check but also who FAILED one. In addition, it would be dangerous and irresponsible to assume that US citizens are incapable of committing acts of terrorism against the US.

10-07-2003, 09:11 PM	#17 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	When Bush starts to blatantly lie, like Mr. Moore. Wait...wait...I hear it....something about WMD's. Well if Bush lied on WMD's, then so did Clinton, Gore, Daschle, etc. Its AMAZING how they changed their minds once Clinton was no longer president __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-07-2003, 09:21 PM	#18 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	The lie wasn't about the existence of WMD's (that was a mistake) the lie was that they had evidence in hand to prove/justify the attack. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

10-07-2003, 11:33 PM	#19 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	this is pathetic, republicans responding well documented critizims with lies, accusation and other signs of fear. You are making fools of yourselves. The panic in the "Moore is lying and fat and he only speaks bs"-comments are quite obvious. Maybe a more flexible political view would help you guys to avoid looking like idiots every time your favourite gets some critizism.

10-08-2003, 12:33 AM	#20 (permalink)
Killconey Crazy Location: Various places in the Midwest, all depending on when I'm posting.	I remember reading a thread on this very website where a poster was criticized for asking heavily loaded questions. That is very bad debating etiquette because it doesn't allow for any arguments against those questions. While I normally respect Moore's work, these questions are too loaded to be taken seriously. Moore doesn't want Bush to answer those questions, he answered them himself. __________________ Look out for numbers two and up and they'll look out for you.

10-08-2003, 03:24 AM	#21 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	They are rhetorical questions. He expects no answers and is making a statement with them instead.

10-08-2003, 03:38 AM	#22 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Halx, what do you think of the article? Pesonally, I think it's a load of crap. OOOH big surprise one of the largest construction firms in the Middle East had dealings with a family that had ties to the oil industry!!!! I suppose if they didn't have business dealings the question would be "Mr. Bush despite the fact that they are one of the largest construction firms in the Middle East your oil company brethren never dealt with them a single time? What is the meaning of this? A hidden agenda? A hatred of the Bin Laden clan? What?" And to ask what was that look on his face? Get a friggin clue. Yeah it was those few minutes when he decided he was going to take over the world (cue Pinky and the Brain music). It's ALL a big conspiracy. It's all about oil. Blah blah blah. Oh yeah, and it was the Saudis. We couldn't get world approval to go into Iraq yet we're gonna get world approval to go into Saudi Arabia. Bullshit. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

10-08-2003, 04:33 AM	#24 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Moores strengths is that he is an activist and he motivates others to be the same. He is, unfortunately, several shades above Coulter. It is unfortunate that he is sloppy with the facts, the increase in respect would make him powerful indeed. But at least he isn't a raging partisan, like some of his colleagues. He has been very critical of Clinton as well for military actions and other such issues. He sticks to his beliefs and issues very well. Overall I think he is a benefit to society rather than a negative. He gets people involved and he has accomplished some good things, like getting the bullets out of K-Mart.

10-08-2003, 05:19 AM	#25 (permalink)
gov135 Junkie Location: Midwest	"Danger - multi-millionaires at large I've always thought it was interesting that the mass murder of September 11 was allegedly committed by a multi-millionaire. We always say it was committed by a "terrorist" or by an "Islamic fundamentalist" or an "Arab", but we never define Osama by his rightful title: multi-millionaire. Why have we never read a headline saying, "3,000 Killed by multi-millionaire"? It would be a correct headline, would it not? Osama bin Laden has assets totaling at least $30m; he is a multi-millionaire. So why isn't that the way we see this person, as a rich fuck who kills people? Why didn't that become the reason for profiling potential terrorists? Instead of rounding up suspicious Arabs, why don't we say, "Oh my God, a multi-millionaire killed 3,000 people! Round up the multi-millionaires! Throw them all in jail! No charges! No trials! Deport the millionaires!!" I found this passage interesting. We often label rich people with a screw loose as "ecentric." Sure, poor people can have a screw loose too, but they are too busy scraping a living together. It's those that are worth the kind of money that have isolated themselves from others - these are the people that have an agenda and the money to carry it out. I think the parallels Moore draws here are interesting - special interest groups are killing the representation of the common man. Bush is a millionaire - he tried to maker a buck - but failed miserably every step of the way - only to be bailed out by millionnaires. How could he not listen to their agendas? I agree with Moore - the super rich that have alot of time on their hands are dangerous when they have agendas - they can do something about it. That's not democracy at best and seeds for terror at worst.

10-08-2003, 07:34 AM	#28 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	I am slowly losing the interest in this forum as a whole, when a majority of posters can't recognize rethorical questions, it just get silly. It seems most people here is quite incapable of discussing outside their narrow liberal/conservative schemes. Try getting a little more politically independent, and consider creating opinions of your own in a debate in spite of what you vote ppl.

10-08-2003, 09:39 AM	#30 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I personally don't see the problem with Bush ahving ties to the Bin Laden clan. If I remember correctly from a biography of OBL I read, there are more then 50 Bin Laden children and Osama was the black sheep and exiled from the family for being such a religious nut job. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-08-2003, 09:46 AM	#31 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	If they disowned him, why did they still come to his sons wedding?

10-08-2003, 09:50 AM	#32 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I can't answer that for them, perhaps they got past there disproval for OBL and were just trying to be there for his son??? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-08-2003, 09:53 AM	#33 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I'm willing to bet that son is part of the al Qaeda hierarchy. I think all of his sons are.

10-08-2003, 10:44 AM	#34 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Am I the only one giggling when I see the hardcore Moore-haters now defending the Bin Laden family? My my how unpatriotic of you.

10-08-2003, 10:54 AM	#35 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	eple, how about you end your agenda against this forum. You can either lead by example or you can criticize. GUESS which one you're doing. It's not helping. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

10-08-2003, 11:33 AM	#36 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Well thank you for making this my fault.

10-08-2003, 01:00 PM	#37 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	DISCLAIMER: This is not flame bait. I am not going to argue your opinions. I honestly just want to know what you think. Now that that is done with, I want to know if the republican and Bush-leaning posters out there honestly believe he had absolutely no ulterior motives, outside of humanitarian concern, for the invasion in Iraq. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

10-08-2003, 03:31 PM	#38 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	I think that the fact that Saddam provided no proof that he got rid of the weapons that he admitted to having was reason enough. I am also extremly happy that a minimum of Iraqis were killed. Did he have ulterior motives? I dont know what was in his head, mabye he was honestly pissed that Saddam tried to kill his father. I am just happy that my president did the right thing that needed to be done.

10-08-2003, 04:03 PM	#39 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	FEL, how can that be reason enough? This whole situation is surreal. We are at war with East Asia, we have always been at war with East Asia. We are allies with Eurasia, we have always been allies with Eurasia. Seriously, it's like George Bush is channeling George Orwell. The war started and it was all about imminent danger, Saddam has WMD. No WMD found, they changed the story to Humanitarian and Saddam had WMD programs. No WMD programs plus many reports to the contrary and now it is we went to war to free the Iraqi peoples and Saddam had ideas in his head about some day down the line thinking about maybe starting up a weapons program after we all fell asleep sound in our beds. Ooh plus Saddam IS the WMD, That is SPIN They have completely changed the story and are saying that is the reason we went in in the first place. But it's not. The is no more than a sentence in the SOTU about humanitarian concerns, the rest is doom and gloon Saddam has WMD and is going to kill us all with his balsa wood drones. The testimony Kay has given about his report is that there were no programs, and no plans to start up any programs, and certainly not any wmd except for a vial of botox that is in any number of american pantries, back yards, and refrigerators today. Further Kay postulates, as I have believed for a while now, that Saddam provided no proof of his lack of arms because of fear that he would appear weak to Iran and be attacked. And who would really step up to protect them? It is not sufficient to wage war because Saddam lied to us, choosing to conceal the proof that he no longer had WMD capabilities. To assert something like that is just ludicrous.

10-08-2003, 04:22 PM	#40 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	Superbelt, I see where you are coming from and am inclined to agree with your general assessment (though maybe not to the degree you do). But, I am honestly curious and I don't want my question to turned into another "Bush lied, soldiers died" flame war. There are plenty of threads that have that going on already. I just want to know if the people that support Bush's actions that post on this truly feel he has been forth coming with his reasons. Moore asserts that the real reasons for this war are politically and economically motivated and his rhetorical questions along with Bush history make a case for his claims. I think this is a reasonable assertion, but I know of a lot of folks on this board who would argue that. But, honestly, I am getting kind of tired of arguing about that and I want to know if the supporters out there think that our president had no motives outside of concern for national security and wishes of well-being for the people of Iraq. I think that we could get their true opinions on the matter more readily if those of us whom are known to think otherwise weren't lurking, waiting for them to post just to basically call their opinions' naive and/or stupid. They are neither, just different. I have met very few people on this board who's opinions are truly ignorant and most of them come and go in a week. I hope to get the supporters' unpolarized thoughts and I would hope others would consent to my non-argument disclaimer as well so we could all hear what they think. If we must we can discuss these thoughts later in a seperate thread, but for now lets just keep it on the general topic of whether or not the assertions made by Moore, without regard to Moore himself, have any merit. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751 Last edited by MuadDib; 10-08-2003 at 04:24 PM..