No question Michael Moore is biased and sees everything through a leftist prism, but there are some factual things that paint the Bush administration and Bush himself in a horrible light.
The video of a smirky Bush himself, taken sometime in 1992, bragging to the reporter that his father is President and he "talks to him on a daily basis" will make you sick. Dumbya used that access to get Saudi money (and Bin Laden family money) to bail out another failed business he had headed (every business Bush started failed. The only thing that saved his ass in the oil business is large quantities of Saudi money, that he acquired mainly because of his connections with daddy.).
Bush may have changed since that day, or he may not have changed. Who can say? But it reflects on the character of the man that he used access to daddy to line his own pocket. Character rarely changes once you're a grownup.
According to a former FBI agent who is interviewed in the movie, the Bush Administration desire to make a connection between Iraq and Saddam Hussein and the attack on 9/11 started days after the event. Even when it was clear that 15 out of 19 of the attackers were Saudi nationals and none were Iraqi's the edict had come down from on high-provide information which tied Saddam to the attacks in some way, shape or form. The Bushites wanted to get rid of Saddam and 9/11 provided a convenient pretext to do that.
An amazing fact presented in the film was that, days after the attack when it was evident that Bin Laden was probably involved a great many members of the Bin Laden family (think the number was 124) who were in America for many reasons were spirited out of the country on special visas! This at a time when the regular US airlines were grounded and NOBODY was flying.
This is not to say these members of the Bin Laden family were involved in the attack, but they were not even sub poened to answer questions or provide information before being whisked out of the country. Why were they allowed to leave like that? The Saudi Royal family-longtime friends of the Bush family-requested it.
So, the Saudis, who's nation provided most of the funding for the Bin Laden terrorists, were given a bye and we attacked Iraq, devestating that nation, who had nothing to do with the attack (3600 Americans having paid the ultimate price since then). It makes you sick to watch the duplicity of this Administration.
Yet you'll get people blasting a post suggesting as much. They'll argue that Saddam had to go. Bush thus gets a pass for, at least being wrong and at worst flat out lying, about his reason for attacking Iraq.
It's one thing for the American people to back a war based on good information. It's quite another to be told 1. they attacked America 2. they had WMDs 3. Saddam had to be ousted 4. am I missing any?
Quote:They'll argue that Saddam had to go. Bush thus gets a pass for, at least being wrong and at worst flat out lying, about his reason for attacking Iraq.
Saddam was an evil dicator. The questions the American people needed to be asked was:
1. Are you willing to spend Hundreds of Billions of your dollars just to remove Saddam from power?
2. Are you willing to see thousands of your children coming home in body bags to do it?
Obviously the Bushites didn't think the American people would answer affirmatively to both those questions, so they came up with lies about WMD and vague insinuations that Iraq was somehow, someway behind the 9/11 attacks. It's apparent many accepted the lies at face value, as I recall many in this forum wholeheartedly supporting the charge into Iraq and lambasting those of us who urged restraint.
Here we are 5 years later, the body bags keep on coming home-in increasing numbers. The cost goes up daily and Bin Laden is still thumbing his nose at us.
I guess we attacked the wrong folks.
History will judge Bush just as history judged Reagan. The media hated Reagan, and panned him as a dunderhead, and maverick cowboy, and the like.
As for Michael Moore's stuff it's entertaining, but often flawed by overzealous editing.
If you had this conversation..........."I was playing golf with the boys from the office, and I just sucked all day."
Moore would edit out 80% of the conversation, leaving..................
"I sucked boys"
He'd then go on Larry King, Oberman, Oprah, etc. and of course none of them would even question the accuracy of the content. Finally, somebody like O'Reilly would uncover it, and of course the kook fringe would have a cow, calling O'Reilly into question..............and the mainstream media would go on ignoring the obvious.
It's one thing to hate Bush. It's a whole nother thing to site a nut job like Michael Moore as a credible source.
I think O'lielly does enough to make us question him without the help of Moore.
Moore is biased, no question. He sees no ills on the Democrat side of things but endless ills on the Republican side. In my book, both major parties are hopelessly corrupt. Neither one more than the other.
But his criticisms of Bush are justified. And I base my comments on the factual elements of Moore's documentary, not where he editorialized.
Dip there are many voters out there just like me, who consider ourselves dyed-in-the-wool Conservatives. I've voted Republican all my life, never voted for a Democrat. But many of us Conservatives feel utterly betrayed by this empty suit we have in the White House, who took this nation into a war that didn't need to be fought and-in doing so-trashed the mandate that was handed to him on a silver platter.
We waited decades to get the Presidency and both Houses of Congress. We had an opportunity to do some tremendous things. Bush phucked it up and I despise him beyond my ability to vocalize it.
His father had disdain for the conservative wing of the Republican Party and noted it on more than one occasion. The son appears to have that same disdain, compounded by incredible gullibility, poor judgement in selecting advisors and-frankly-utter stupidity.
I've heard from friends that donations to the RNC are WAY down. That's not because Democrats hate Bush, it's because of Conservatives like me walking away from the Party. There is panic among Republican ranks and justifiably so. They could be heading for utter disaster in 2008. On their heads be it.
OReilly is a phoney. He supported the invasion of Iraq as well. Only changed his mind recently. That doesn't wash in my book. You stand by your decisions and principles.
You'll also not major periodicals like the NYT and Washington Post, who didn't question the invasion back then, not coming out against our involvement over there. Convenient ethics, what?
See GR, you make my point. O'Reilly can show the full piece of tape, and then show Moore's edited version, yet the fringe left will ignore what is before them and call O'Reilly into question.......................just as you are doing.
Questioning O'Reilly's opinions is valid, but when people dismiss actual video evidence in favor of hammering the messenger, that to me is simple bias.
Quote:He supported the invasion of Iraq as well. Only changed his mind recently.
Phil, lots of people supported the Iraq invasion, and then changed their mind...................................In fact the entire Democratic Party in Congress pretty much did. Of course, they too changed their mind, just as O'Reilly did.
O'Reilly has never been against the objective, he's had problems with the plan, or lack of, as well as issues with the Iraqi people, who won't step up to the plate.
Remember when O'Reilly encouraged the boycott of "all things French" because they dared to question the validity of U.S. intelligence that showed weapons of mass destruction. Fortunetly Congress, and there "Freedom Fries" proved the French wrong by displaying the pile of weapons that did in fact exist.
We've managed to piss off loyal allies and nations that worked with us for decades in the UN in our wrongheaded zeal to invade Iraq. Our tarring Germany and France as "old Europe" in 2003 will not be soon forgotten.
It's one of the reasons Bush is hated so much in western Europe. Yeah, I know, to some in America it doesn't matter what other nations think-we just need to go charging in and ignore world opinion.
We see where that thought process has gotten us. If anything good came out of this whole sorry episode, maybe it's that we've achieved a little humility as a nation? Maybe it's time to apologize and ask forgivness from those we-unjustly-offended?
That would take character and maturity this Administration hasn't exhibited, to date.
Recent elections in France and Germany seem to indicate the general population leans more towards Bush's take on world affairs. Phil, you yourself have pointed out that France is in turmoil because they never got a handle on Muslim immigration, and now the Muslim immigrants have the French government cowering in fear of them.
I had a prof a few years back who had spent the last few years in Europe. He said Europe is divided into about 10 schools of thought politically. They are so divided that there will be some political group pissing and moaning about something. As Abe said, "you can't please all the people all the time. "
Keep in mind also, that many past presidents spoke their mind in Europe and pissed people off. Reagan and Kennedy didn't cow-tow to Eastern Europe, they made it very clear where they stood. Our own press called it "cowboy diplomacy" when Reagan said, "Tear down this wall." Today, we know he was spot on.
Recent elections in France and Germany seem to indicate the general population leans more towards Bush's take on world affairs.
That might be as big a reach as believing the Berlin wall came down some years later because of a speech Reagan gave. I guess when you have no interest in truth or accuracy you can just make statements like that. Another Gem
You're pulling an O'lielly Dip. I don't "make your point."
I didn't say I defend all (or any) of what Moore says. I said O'lielly makes questionable arguments quite often that are devoid of facts or misrepresent what is said.
You brought O'lielly into the conversation. Not me.
Quote:Recent elections in France and Germany seem to indicate the general population leans more towards Bush's take on world affairs.
You're misinterpretting the political events in Europe, Dip. True, they are swinging back towards the right, but it's more a rejection of their decades of socialist drift than it is an endorsement of the Bush foreign policy.
And, as I've pointed out, there is nothing "conservative" about Dubya's internationalist foreign policy. It's straight out of the books of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, not Taft or Reagan. Bush and his father are elitist, east coast Republicans-who have more in common with the One World Government crowd than they do fiscal conservatism. They've admitted as much.
Don't idolize the guy who single-handedly destroyed the long awaited Republican mandate, Dip. He's a loser.
O'Reilly is the biggest joke in news talk shows. He makes errors all the time and is always too stubborn to admit it. When a guest proves him wrong or makes him look like an idiot, O'Reilly always goes to the standby "well we can agree to disagree Mr ______, but i'll give you the last word"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2KU02lsfH8
Quote:O'Reilly is the biggest joke in news talk shows.
Yes, and Oberfool, Mathews, and Larry King are getting it done, right................and they have the audience to prove it. Combine their audiences, multiply by 2, and then you have O'Reilley's audience.