The part about “Michael Moore is a pig, truely digusting” is right on the money. BINGO

 

Qiterplop, sorry my man but, those are just minor points of a two hour film.

I saw the film and made a judgement while you are letting someone else do your thinking for you.

 

I wonder if JK likes the flick. He probably thinks it’s a documentary.

 

Camp David is the official vacation home for the President. Does it make sense to subtract the time he spent on vacation at his vacation home? The only other place he would go that would be considered a vacation would be his ranch in Texas. (Any other trips he would be making would be considered 'business' related.) Although the amount of time he spend on vacation the first year is relatively unimportant compared to everything that's happened since, it is a fact that George Bush spent more days on vacation in his first year in office than any other president in history. :o

The movie points out that after Bush was told of the second plane hitting the WTC, he continued reading "My Pet Goat" to the elementary students for an addition 5-7 minutes before getting up and leaving. No, he shouldn't have frieked out, jumped up, and ran off. But sitting there and continueing to read a child's book for 5-10 more minutes? Again, this is ultimately relatively meaningless, but I would have thought atleast it would have been time to head back to base!

Richard Clarke was a senior official in the Bush's admin. Ultimately it was the BushAdmin that OK'd the Saudi planes to pickup the Bin Ladin, and Saudi royal family members across the country. You're telling me because Richard Clarke actually signed off on it, his immediate boss never knew a thing about it and should share no responsibility for the decision? If this is the best excuse they can come up with in response to this allegation, I'd go ahead and assume it's a fact!

The spokesperson for the BushAdmin just recently said last week something to the effect that it 'has yet to be proven that any of the bin Ladin family or Saudi family members in America a the time of the attacks were a point of interest for our intelligence agencies following 9/11' They can't have it both ways! It sounds to me like if there was an 'interview' it lasted about the time it took to punch their plane tickets!

All in all, of the countless serious allegations made in this movie, whoever drafted this is debating the specifics of 3 or 4 of the most mickey-mouse, unimportant facts the movie presents. (Quite honestly, I have been looking forwards to seeing a whole lot better.) If this is the best rebuttal the BushAdmin's supporters are going to offer they are going to be left pretty exposed this Fall when the debates heat up.

 

I do agree with Raoul that the movie “could” have some influence on the undecided. However I would also suggest that those that can be so easily swayed by a movie are naïve enough to be swayed the other way with a good sound bite from a political commercial.

Unfortunately that is the case for both parties because the fact of the matter is most Americans just don’t give a damn about elections. That fact is obvious by Election Day turnouts.

So I still maintain my original point about the movie in regards to it will not sway or change many people’s votes, at least not those people who count.

It is one thing to do polls, or ask people on the street who they intend to vote for. It is completely a different story on who actually turns out on Election Day.

I could argue that the movie could seriously back fire on the democrats because it very well may fire up the republican votes who may have thought about staying at home this November. That very well “could” neutralize any possible extra turnout or changed votes due to the movie.

Just because you have a movie, commercial, debate etc that might fire up one side and having those people feeling great (in this case liberal democrats) it doesn’t mean that it will not fire up the other side, this goes for both parties…

Let’s also remember that what has been reported for a while is those stating they are going to vote for Kerry, in large part, are doing so because they HATE President Bush, not because they think Kerry would make a great President.

Those who have stated they are going to vote for President Bush are doing so because they believe he has done an excellent job and generally agree with the direction he is heading. There is a big difference in those two people. For the most part someone that is willing to vote against someone because they hate them “generally” do not turn out for Election in large numbers as those who are voting for someone they “really” want in office.

Kerry has to tread water carefully because the more friends of his like Moore out there firing up the republicans means a very possible larger republican voter turn out. It doesn’t necessarily mean Kerry will turn out more democrat voters because those getting fired up with Moore’s movie are generally the type who would have turned out to vote against President Bush to begin with, this movie just makes them hate President Bush even more.

The only poll that really counts and means anything is the one on Election Day, the rest are for fun and entertainment…

 

I agree with that. It don’t matter who approved what, the fact of the matter is President Bush is in charge and ultimately held accountable. Now if that was something President Bush did not want done, or went against his wishes then it is up to President Bush to fire the person responsible for a bad decision.

That still, in my opinion, would not let the President off the hook but it would at least prove to me he realized and admitted he had a moron in charge that made a stupid decision.

Now I do not know the circumstances about Clark and how he left the military so could someone tell me if he left on his own or if he was “kind of” fired.

The guy really did prove himself to be a real moron. He was a totally 100% Bush supporter before, agreed with absolutely everything President Bush was doing on the war and then next thing you know the moron is out running for President as a democrat and pulling a Kerry on everyone…

You know completely changing his mind about what he had just stated a year before and stating he did NOT agree with basically anything President Bush has done, then when questioned on it would pull another Kerry and say he did, well maybe, not sure, ask his assistance what he should think about it, you know what I mean…

 

I would add that this is NOT the Clinton administration and I will NOT stand for President Bush to make stupid statements like Clinton did ”I just learned about that in the paper today, hehehe”

 

Definition of propaganda:

A way of presenting a belief that seeks to generate acceptance without regard to facts or the right of others to be heard. Propaganda often presents the same argument repeatedly, in the simplest terms and ignores all rebuttal or counter-argument. It is essentially self- interested and often associated with authoritarian regimes. Propaganda is often used to convey official descriptions of reality, when it may be allied with bureaucratic control of media, censorship of opposing opinions and deliberate misinformation.

Propaganda consists of the planned use of any form of public or mass-produced communication designed to affect the minds and emotions of a given group for a specific purpose, whether military, economic, or political.



Definition of Documentary:

Customarily an interpretation of theoretical, factual, political, social or historical events or issues presented objectively.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.



So is Michael Moore’s movie really a documentary?

 

Richard Clarke is the member of the BushAdmin that came out recently (on his own) and gave testimony stating that George Bush was obsessed with the idea of attacking Iraq from the day his presidency began before 9/11. He states that directly after 9/11, he was basically instructed by Bush to find out how Iraq was linked to the attacks depsite the facts stating pretty clearly Iraq had nothing to do with it. Once Bush was told Iraq clearly had nothing to do with it, Debuya basically acted as if it did not matter and instructed Clarke to continue building their case to attack Iraq. In his book he states he basically felt morally and personally responsible for the attack because the administratoin, of which he was a member, did not do enough. Since then, the Bush admin has done the best it can to distance itself from Richard Clarke claiming he is not telling the truth.

 

Right, that is what HE states and we don’t know that to be a fact and many have countered and stated Clark is not stating the facts and on some of the occasions he states he was somewhere and heard President Bush say something he wasn’t actually there.

So my point still goes back to, because I don’t know, is how did it come to Clark leaving the military to begin with. He was 100% pro-Bush before then he is out of the military and now sounds like a little boy who didn’t get his way, so what happen to change his mind? It wasn’t any moral values that is for sure…

 

A great example of propaganda is the BushAdmin's case for going to war before we attacked Iraq!

 

Burt my good friend, I wish I could make it back up to NH before November, I would pay for your ticket to watch the movie with me so, you could tell me everything that is wrong with it.
I would have bought you popcorn too

(My calendar won't permit it though.)

 

Clarke helped shape U.S. policy on terrorism under President Reagan and the first President Bush. He was held over by President Clinton to be his terrorism czar, then held over again by the current President Bush as his top anti-terrorism advisor, so he did not ever 'leave' the military per say. To the very best of my knowledge though, he resigned and left on his own at the time he came out with his comments without any previous 'pressure' to do so. Here is a quote from a story that will explain Clarke's position (taken from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in607356.shtml)

After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

 

Guess that means he wanted to make his own decisions, or perhaps he thought he was Commander In Chief…

Now I am beginning to understand the story as to why Clark tried pulling a Kerry…

 

If you “honestly” believe that is true then you must believe the entire free world was in on this propaganda as well as liberal democrats that supported the VERY SAME reason President Bush told the American public. That would include Clinton, Hillary, Kerry, Kennedy and the rest of the gang (of course that was BEFORE Bush was President)

So how does one actually commit propaganda on the entire free world and the vast majority of Americans when they are ALL IN AGREEMENT?