Dead Marine's family calls Michael Moore a liar

[CoachC.]

"Right now there's somebody out there who wants to be a Marine but has no idea how to do it," said Sergeant Raymond Plouhar in "Fahrenheit 9/11," the documentary by Michael Moore that stirred up a storm of controversy in 2004.

Moore's film was critical of President Bush and the Iraq war. Sergeant Plouhar was shown trying to aggressively sign up young men to join the Marines, even going so far as to recruit them at local malls.

But it was a sad sight at the funeral for the sergeant in his hometown of Lake Orion, Michigan. He's another American hero who lost his life in Iraq after being killed by a roadside bomb last month.

Plouhar had only thirty-eight days left in Iraq before returning home. As for "Fahrenheit 9/11," his family says he had no idea he was participating in a film that would be critical of the war and when it was released he asked his wife not to watch it.

Plouhar's wife tells INSIDE EDITION, "He had just thought it was just to let people know what the recruiters do and how you get into the Marine Corps."

Leigha Plouhar says it wasn't until weeks after filming that her husband found out that the crew following him around worked for Moore. For Plouher, it was embarrassing to be associated with the anti-war movie.

Sergeant Plouhar's parents say their son never would have participated in the movie if he had known it would be critical of the military. Plouhar's father goes even further telling INSIDE EDITION the filmmakers deliberately deceived his son. "They lied to him," says his father. "They lied to the Marines."

Michael Moore did not respond to INSIDE EDITION's repeated requests for comment on the family's accusations.

Ray Plouhar had wanted to be a Marine since he was a little boy, and was serving on his second tour of Iraq. The sergeant leaves behind two young sons, nine and five years old.

Plouhar's father wants people to know that "he did this for them. That he went there with the full belief that he was protecting our freedom and rights."

Sergeant Plouhar's family wants Ray remembered for his dedication to his country, not for his roll in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

link...... (http://www.insideedition.com/ourstories/inside_stories/story.aspx?storyid=273)

[JLB]

A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.
The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm. More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup. This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book that also revives the charge of FDR's collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least Moore's film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back in their paranoid box.
But it won't because it encourages their half-baked fantasies in so many other ways. We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003. I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now, either. I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)
That this—his pro-American moment—was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)

[uppy]

A good man a good Marine dead. While this fat piece of shit counts his money for betraying his country and dishonoring a good mans memory.

Its a sad time for our country

[JLB]

Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 3:26 PM ET
Moore: Trying to have it three waysOne of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.
Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

[coastal]

He's another American hero

Bull ****ing shit.

He's an American Idiot!!!

[coastal]

A good man a good Marine dead. While this fat piece of shit counts his money for betraying his country and dishonoring a good mans memory.

Its a sad time for our country
Cry me a ****ing river.

They bought their tickets. They knew what they were getting into.

I say... let em' crash!

[uppy]

Cry me a ****ing river.

They bought their tickets. They knew what they were getting into.

I say... let em' crash!

You are the man

[ICRockets]

A good man a good Marine dead. While this fat piece of shit counts his money for betraying his country and dishonoring a good mans memory.

Its a sad time for our country

Waaaa waaaa waaaaa. When Michael Moore does it it's betraying our country. When Ann Coulter does it it's just Ann being Ann. Whatever.

[coastal]

You are the man
Go hump a sand dune.

[Scary Good]

Fat shit---that is correct. He is a douche. But so is GW.

[JLB]

Waaaa waaaa waaaaa. When Michael Moore does it it's betraying our country. When Ann Coulter does it it's just Ann being Ann. Whatever.

Two wrongs make it right interesting point of view.

[pigpen65]

Bull ****ing shit.

He's an American Idiot!!!

The story does seem a little outta wack. If a film crew wanted to follow me around work, documenting everything i did, i would probably find out a little more about it before i signed off. And not to be lost in this story: what the guy was shown doing in the film; glorifying the military to unsuspecting kids and purposely targeting minorities, was pretty ****ing sad.

[ckg68]

What a definition for betraying our country-daring to offer a different take than the one put out.

Welcome to Bizarro World. We've been living on it for nearly 5 years.

[uppy]

Waaaa waaaa waaaaa. When Michael Moore does it it's betraying our country. When Ann Coulter does it it's just Ann being Ann. Whatever.

LMAO

Has Ann pimped a dead hero lately ?

[uppy]

What a definition for betraying our country-daring to offer a different take than the one put out.

Welcome to Bizarro World. We've been living on it for nearly 5 years.


FDR would have put tubby in jail for treason if he pulled this crap
when he was prez.

[JLB]

Go hump a sand dune.

:popcorn:

[ckg68]

LMAO

Has Ann pimped a dead hero lately ?

No. She's just stolen the guy's words and passed them off as her own.

[JLB]

No. She's just stolen the guy's words and passed them off as her own.

That was not proven.
But I hope it is as of now it has not however.

[uppy]

No. She's just stolen the guy's words and passed them off as her own.

Even if its true and Coulter did.....its not even close.

[uppy]

Go hump a sand dune.


I have never done that...whats it like ? :)

is that the 40% part ?

[coastal]

Plouhar got his just weight.

He WAS the idiot that Moore portrayed.

There was no lie.

[JLB]

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.

More from Christopher H.

[ckg68]

That was not proven.
But I hope it is as of now it has not however.

Then explain this...

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/index.blog?entry_id=1516758

[coastal]

More from Christopher H.

Who the **** is that?

[uppy]

Plouhar got his just weight.

He WAS the idiot that Moore portrayed.

There was no lie.

Does the kool-aid taste good today ?

[ckg68]

Someone who,to quote Lawrence Taylor,is "totally trashed" half the time.

[ckg68]

Does the kool-aid taste good today ?

How about you,uppy?

Add any sugar to it?

You know,to make the :bs: go down better and fly the flag while you're at it?

[JLB]

The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens

[uppy]

How about you,uppy?

Add any sugar to it?

You know,to make the :bs: go down better and fly the flag while you're at it?


I don't drink the stuff

[coastal]

Does the kool-aid taste good today ?
nothing the like the warm isolation of agave to cut to the chase.

I know you lie.

[coastal]

The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Bwahahahahhahahaha!

[sukie]

Is this thread about soft drinks now?

[ckg68]

I don't drink the stuff

I'm not talking about the real deal,uppy.

[uppy]

nothing the like the warm isolation of agave to cut to the chase.

I know you lie.

ROTFLMAO


I have no idea what you said

[sukie]

Agave is the cactus that tequila is made from. Poisonous if not processea correctly.

[uppy]

Is this thread about soft drinks now?

Its about MM spitting in the face of a dead Marine's Family and his memory.
IMHO

[JLB]

Then explain this...

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/index.blog?entry_id=1516758

I hope your right had not seen that congrats.
This is on M.M. however.

[JLB]

Recruiters in MichiganFahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:
1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.
2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.
3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.
4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.
5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.
6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)
It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

[JLB]

Bwahahahahhahahaha!

It is funny somebody actually doesn't know.
He's liberal but see's the fat arse for what he is.

[JLB]

He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction. In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures. This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that—as you might expect—Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. So, that's another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic "key to all mythologies."
A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.

[CoachC.]

This thread has gotten a little weird.

But, anyway, here's another comment I found from his dad on how Moore lied:

Plouhar's father, Raymond, said his son told him he had been misled and believed he was being filmed for a documentary that would appear on the Discovery Channel.

link.... (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0607100157jul10,1,7622825.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed)

[JLB]

This thread has gotten a little weird.

But, anyway, here's another comment I found from his dad on how Moore lied:



link.... (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0607100157jul10,1,7622825.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed)

Moore is truly a piece of crap.

[shiva2999]

Michael Moore is a brave and patriotic American unlike the lying pieces of shit that attack him.

This marine recruiter was undoubtedly personally responsible for the deaths of American kids who didn't know any better.

If there is one good thing to come out of this 6 year George Bush nightmare, it's the fact that it's exposed to the entire world the depths of depravity that so many Americans have sunk to.

[JLB]

The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm. More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup. This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book that also revives the charge of FDR's collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least Moore's film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back in their paranoid box.

But it won't because it encourages their half-baked fantasies in so many other ways. We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003. I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now, either. I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)

[shiva2999]

Have you noticed how no one pays attention to Christopher Hitchens anymore since he was bitch slapped by George Galloway on the Capitol steps?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1486417,00.html

Galloway and the mother of all invective

Wednesday May 18, 2005
The Guardian

Whatever else you made of him, when it came to delivering sustained barrages of political invective, you had to salute his indefatigability.
George Galloway stormed up to Capitol Hill yesterday morning for the confrontation of his career, firing scatter-shot insults at the senators who had accused him of profiting illegally from Iraqi oil sales.

They were "neo-cons" and "Zionists" and a "pro-war lynch mob", he raged, who belonged to a "lickspittle Republican committee" that was engaged in creating "the mother of all smokescreens".

Before the hearing began, the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow even had some scorn left over to bestow generously upon the pro-war writer Christopher Hitchens. "You're a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay," Mr Galloway in formed him. "Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink," he added later, ignoring Mr Hitchens's questions and staring intently ahead. "And you're a drink-soaked ..." Eventually Mr Hitchens gave up. "You're a real thug, aren't you?" he hissed, stalking away.
It was a hint of what was to come: not so much political theatre as political bloodsports - and with the senators, at least, it was Mr Galloway who emerged with the flesh between his teeth.
...more...

[JLB]

That this—his pro-American moment—was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?)

[shiva2999]

BTW, since NOTHING in F9/11 can be disputed factually. the only thing all the right-wing whining devolves into is "It's not fair! Michael Moore's film makes George Bush look like a bad guy!"

The right in America has gone waaaaay past just being morons.

They are Satan's minions, rude, crude liars who revel in the swill they produce.

I sure hope there's a ****ing God so these ****** get what's coming to them.

[г]

Hey, jlb51...care to attribute those pieces of crap ? You're definitely not smart enough to make that **** up yourself...

[JLB]

Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge.

[JLB]

Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)

[shiva2999]

Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge.

Complete and utter bullshit.

Since when did Jesus ever ask you to stick your head up your ass and keep it there for the rest of your life?

[JLB]

Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem. No problem at all. Now look again at the facts I have cited above. If these things had been allowed to happen under any other administration, you can be sure that Moore and others would now glibly be accusing the president of ignoring, or of having ignored, some fairly unmistakable "warnings."

[shiva2999]

Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem. No problem at all. Now look again at the facts I have cited above. If these things had been allowed to happen under any other administration, you can be sure that Moore and others would now glibly be accusing the president of ignoring, or of having ignored, some fairly unmistakable "warnings."

More bullshit.

[JLB]

Then explain this...

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/index.blog?entry_id=1516758

Just a minute.

The syndicator of Ann Coulter's newspaper columns rejected allegations that she had lifted material from other sources, saying a review of the work in question turned up nothing that merited concern.

"There are only so many ways you can rewrite a fact and minimal matching text is not plagiarism," Lee Salem, editor and president of Universal Press Syndicate, said Monday in a statement. [Editor’s Note: Get Ann’s book for just $4.99 – Save $23! Go Here Now]

"Universal Press Syndicate is confident in the ability of Ms. Coulter, an attorney and frequent media target, to know when to make attribution and when not to."

The New York Post and the Web sites Raw Story and the Rude Pundit have cited numerous passages in Coulter's syndicated columns and in her current book, "Godless," that appeared to resemble text from other sources. The Post relied upon a software program, iThenticate, designed to catch plagiarism.

[JLB]

The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism infects his treatment of another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy. From being accused of overlooking too many warnings—not exactly an original point—the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many. (Would there not have been "fear" if the harbingers of 9/11 had been taken seriously?) We are shown some American civilians who have had absurd encounters with idiotic "security" staff. (Have you ever met anyone who can't tell such a story?) Then we are immediately shown underfunded police departments that don't have the means or the manpower to do any stop-and-search: a power suddenly demanded by Moore on their behalf that we know by definition would at least lead to some ridiculous interrogations. Finally, Moore complains that there isn't enough intrusion and confiscation at airports and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters. (Cue mood music for sinister influence of Big Tobacco.) So—he wants even more pocket-rummaging by airport officials? Uh, no, not exactly. But by this stage, who's counting? Moore is having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing. Again—simply not serious.

[TRIPLE P]

While this fat piece of shit counts his money for betraying his country and dishonoring a good mans memory.

Its a sad time for our country

http://www.worldpress.org/images/20050223-dick-cheney.jpg


You know you support the bad guys, right? You know that the majority of the country, and 99% of the rest of the world knows that you support the bad guys right?

[JLB]

Hey, jlb51...care to attribute those pieces of crap ? You're definitely not smart enough to make that **** up yourself...

Read a lot it's been discussed.

[rufc05]

Bull ****ing shit.

He's an American Idiot!!!

The funny thing about that song is that the morons that listen to it and sing along to it are the american idiots.

[г]

Read a lot it's been discussed.


Not in this thread, it hasn't. You're posting unattributed garbage.

[JLB]

Not in this thread, it hasn't. You're posting unattributed garbage.


Have you noticed how no one pays attention to Christopher Hitchens anymore since he was bitch slapped by George Galloway on the Capitol steps?

Shiva quote.

Post 45.

[shiva2999]

Posting other people's work without attribution is a form of plagiarism.

[JLB]

Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq's recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly. They fear the liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film's "theory." Perhaps Moore prefers the pro-Saudi Kissinger/Scowcroft plan for the Middle East, where stability trumps every other consideration and where one dare not upset the local house of cards, or killing-field of Kurds? This would be a strange position for a purported radical. Then again, perhaps he does not take this conservative line because his real pitch is not to any audience member with a serious interest in foreign policy. It is to the provincial isolationist.

[г]

Yes, that's a Shiva quote.

Care to post the urls where you got your pieces of crap ?

[г]

Posting other people's work without attribution is a form of plagiarism.

And Pete knows that...he's just (as he calls it) a homer

[JLB]

Posting other people's work without attribution is a form of plagiarism.

In it's entirety it will be posted eventually.
Everybody knows who wrote it including yourself.

[pigpen65]

That this—his pro-American moment—was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?)

Link: http://img.slate.com/id/2102723/

[shiva2999]

Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar?

1. Because the Americans didn't want them to.

2. The Saudis "forced" the Americans? Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!!

[JLB]

Link: http://img.slate.com/id/2102723/

Thanks pigpen whew thats a load off.


I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that. Back in Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this time. Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away. I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights. I'll merely ask this: In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft—the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he think—as he seems to suggest—that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve in their place? Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack) riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it's a waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much like taking him seriously. He'll just try anything once and see if it floats or flies or gets a cheer.


Last one.

[г]

Link: http://img.slate.com/id/2102723/

Cool. I'm sure he can think for himself ?

[JLB]

1. Because the Americans didn't want them to.

2. The Saudis "forced" the Americans? Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!!


Pretty funny for us to.

[JLB]

In case you didn't get achance to read the link here's an interesting section.
Authored by Christopher Hichens.


Indeed, Moore's affected and ostentatious concern for black America is one of the most suspect ingredients of his pitch package. In a recent interview, he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women (and children). Never mind for now how many black passengers were on those planes—we happen to know what Moore does not care to mention: that Todd Beamer and a few of his co-passengers, shouting "Let's roll," rammed the hijackers with a trolley, fought them tooth and nail, and helped bring down a United Airlines plane, in Pennsylvania, that was speeding toward either the White House or the Capitol. There are no words for real, impromptu bravery like that, which helped save our republic from worse than actually befell.

[ckg68]

Just a minute.

The syndicator of Ann Coulter's newspaper columns rejected allegations that she had lifted material from other sources, saying a review of the work in question turned up nothing that merited concern.

"There are only so many ways you can rewrite a fact and minimal matching text is not plagiarism," Lee Salem, editor and president of Universal Press Syndicate, said Monday in a statement. [Editor’s Note: Get Ann’s book for just $4.99 – Save $23! Go Here Now]

"Universal Press Syndicate is confident in the ability of Ms. Coulter, an attorney and frequent media target, to know when to make attribution and when not to."

The New York Post and the Web sites Raw Story and the Rude Pundit have cited numerous passages in Coulter's syndicated columns and in her current book, "Godless," that appeared to resemble text from other sources. The Post relied upon a software program, iThenticate, designed to catch plagiarism.

Your minute's up.

Like Crown,Universal Press has a motive in this: financial. OF COURSE they're going to say that! I'd bet the New York Times defended Jayson Blair at first on charges of making :censor: up until the floodgates opened.

[JLB]

Your minute's up.

Like Crown,Universal Press has a motive in this: financial. OF COURSE they're going to say that! I'd bet the New York Times defended Jayson Blair at first on charges of making :censor: up until the floodgates opened.




This was just something new not the original declaration of no violation.

I PERSONALLY would love to see you get her but it just won't happen.

You really underestimate her.

My minute will always be available as will yours.

I like that touch.

[ckg68]

It's just like any criminal: it won't be the big things you're tagged on,but the little things. Does Al Capone ring a bell?

[uppy]

Michael Moore is a brave and patriotic American


Sure he is ..just like Chris Floyd.

[JLB]

It's just like any criminal: it won't be the big things you're tagged on,but the little things. Does Al Capone ring a bell?



This guy was a little before our time but here's Al.


http://www.historyplace.com/specials/calendar/docs-pix/capone.jpg

[uppy]

http://www.worldpress.org/images/20050223-dick-cheney.jpg


You know you support the bad guys, right? You know that the majority of the country, and 99% of the rest of the world knows that you support the bad guys right?


Who are the good guys ?

[JLB]

Who are the good guys ?





These are the good guys according to my source.
No I don't know who these guys are.
It's comedy guide images.(operation good guys)



http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/images/400/operationgoodguys_3.jpg

[shiva2999]

Sure he is ..just like Chris Floyd.

Yup.

And Ted Rall.

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2006/trall060703.gif

[JLB]

Yup.

And Ted Rall.

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2006/trall060703.gif

Shoot the b***ard he's wearing sandals.
Those stripes are not going the right way either.

[uppy]

Yup.

And Ted Rall.

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2006/trall060703.gif

just remember..."If you kill enough of them,thay stop fighting."

Gen Curtis LeMay


words of wisdom.

[ckg68]

Actually,he's wrong.

You create more of whoever you're opposing,and they're just as pissed off at you.

[JLB]

Actually,he's wrong.

You create more of whoever you're opposing,and they're just as pissed off at you.

That might be. Whats your thought on them killing more of us does it work the same way for us?

[ckg68]

Yes,and for the same reason.

[uppy]

Actually,he's wrong.

You create more of whoever you're opposing,and they're just as pissed off at you.

Carl,you are thinking about a PC war I'm thinking about , "total war."
If we kill enough of them,thay stop fighting."

[JLB]

Yes,and for the same reason.

Have you ever seen this work before?

[ckg68]

Carl,you are thinking about a PC war I'm thinking about , "total war."
If we kill enough of them,thay stop fighting."

Guess what? If we go total war in real life,the world DIES.

Period. The end.

This ain't a computer game.

[shiva2999]

Carl,you are thinking about a PC war I'm thinking about , "total war."
If we kill enough of them,thay stop fighting."

The Genocide strategy.

Good thinking. Jesus is impressed.

[JLB]

Guess what? If we go total war in real life,the world DIES.

Period. The end.

This ain't a computer game.

That unfortunately could happen.
If we elect all democrats can we avoid this scenario?
Hillary's ready to go.Who would be your choice to run the country in the right direction? Your in charge who do you want running it all?

[г]

LOL, go watch Dr. Strangelove and The Fog of War and call me in the morning

[JLB]

That unfortunately could happen.
If we elect all democrats can we avoid this scenario?
Hillary's ready to go.Who would be your choice to run the country in the right direction? Your in charge who do you want running it all?

Bump!!

ckg68

[uppy]

Did the allies carred out the the genocide strategy in WW2,was that wrong?

[shiva2999]

Did the allies carred out the the genocide strategy in WW2,was that wrong?

Huh?

[г]

He's running out of freepers quotes

[JLB]

Guess what? If we go total war in real life,the world DIES.

Period. The end.

This ain't a computer game.

That unfortunately could happen.
If we elect all democrats can we avoid this scenario?
Hillary's ready to go.Who would be your choice to run the country in the right direction? Your in charge who do you want running it all?