If you've seen Fahrenheit 9/11, ask & discuss it here.

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
I am not the one saying it: Did you even glance at the news article provided?

But you did say it:

He lied. Does it matter what his agenda was?

Am I misunderstanding the above statement? Aren't you saying there that Cheney lied?

in case you missed it again THE SEPT 11 COMMISSION, WHICH REPORTED NO COLLABORATIVE LINKS BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL QAEDA

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5601245


what part of "no collaborative links" remains unclear to you?

I understand what the 9/11 Commission said. We haven't even gotten to that argument yet. I was trying to determine what you were saying that Cheney lied about.

 

[kbeverina]

ThreeCircles are you ignoring my question?

Originally posted by kbeverina
Oh, maybe you missed the post I directed to you, just like faithinkarma did. I'll repeat it:

Maybe you can explain in your own words why you are troubled by the Bushes, bin Ladens and the Carlyle Group. No links, just you telling me why this is an important point for the movie.

Because you just posted a link, I'm not clear on what your point is. Could you please explain why you are troubled by the Bush/bin Laden/Carlyle Group connection?

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by wvrevy
At one time, something like 50% of the country thought Iraq had something to do with 9/11, largely due to the fact that the administration continuously mentioned the two in the same sentence for months leading up to the invasion.....

I honestly do not remember this to be the case. I'll do some searching--why don't you do the same. You keep saying this is true, I'd like to know if it really is.

Also, I have several posts directed to you, perhaps they got buried and you didn't see them.

 

[faithinkarma]

one last time...I did not feel there was a need for me to personally say it since it has been all over the news. But since you have some need to have me say AGAIN, yes, I believe he lied........Cheney has continuously insisted that there was collaboration. When the commission said there was none, Cheney said he had access to more information than they did, and thus was in a position to disagree with the commission. The commission then gained access to all this supposedly enlightening information, and reiterrated its exact same conslusion.

Did he lie or was he just confused. Personally I think he lied...but hey, I am sure others are just waiting to explain it all away.

And with that I leave this part of the debate having grown weary of having to restate my position over and over again as a poster tries to pin me in to saying something in a way that suits their own way of thinking. So the next time you ask " are you ignoring my question?", consider the answer to be yes.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
one last time...I did not feel there was a need for me to personally say it since it has been all over the news. But since you have some need to have me say AGAIN, yes, I believe he lied........

I have no need for you to say it again. You said it, then denied you said it.

And with that I leave this part of the debate having grown weary of having to restate my position over and over again as a poster tries to pin me in to saying something in a way that suits their own way of thinking. So the next time you ask " are you ignoring my question?", consider the answer to be yes.

You're trying to spin it as me badgering you to get you to say what I want you to say. Untrue.

You said he lied. I asked you what you think he lied about. You then said you never said he lied. I showed you where you said that. And now, instead of just saying, "Oh, yeah, I did say that." you're trying to make it look like I'm trying to pin you into saying something that suits me.

That's just evasion. I asked a simple question--what do you think he lied about? It wasn't clear to me from your post. How is this asking you to restate your position over and over to try to get you to say say something that suits my way of thinking?

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
Cheney has continuously insisted that there was collaboration. When the commission said there was none, Cheney said he had access to more information than they did, and thus was in a position to disagree with the commission. The commission then gained access to all this supposedly enlightening information, and reiterrated its exact same conslusion.

Did he lie or was he just confused. Personally I think he lied...but hey, I am sure others are just waiting to explain it all away.

President Clinton said there was a collaborative relationship. Do you think he lied also?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by kbeverina
I honestly do not remember this to be the case. I'll do some searching--why don't you do the same. You keep saying this is true, I'd like to know if it really is.

Also, I have several posts directed to you, perhaps they got buried and you didn't see them.

Well, i think I've mentioned this a grand total of..em...once, but I'll take your word for it. Here are a couple links:

September Washington Post Poll
Another story about the same poll, this from GOPUSA


And here is an AP story from last year on the same topic:

Most Americans Believe Saddam Linked to9 /11
Associated Press

WASHINGTON, 2July 2003 — Seven in 10 people in a poll say the Bush administration implied that Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein were involved in the Sept. 11 attacks against the United States.

And a majority,52 percent, say they believe the United States has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam was working closely with the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization.

The number that believes this country has found weapons of mass destruction is 23 percent, down from 34 percent in May, according to a poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.

Assertions by the Bush administration about Al-Qaeda’s ties to the Iraqi government have not been proven, and weapons of mass destruction have not been found.

As to questions you have directed to me, I haven't seen any that I didn't answer.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by kbeverina
President Clinton said there was a collaborative relationship. Do you think he lied also?

Can't answer for fik, but personally, I think Clinton was just wrong. But then, even if he was lying about it, it doesn't much matter because he didn't use that as an excuse to launch a massive invasion of Iraq costing thousands of lives.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Ok, so give me another reason. Give me ANY plausible reason why, in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, the American people were under the mistaken impression that Iraq was involved in 9/11. For someone decrying Michael Moore as being misleading, isn't it hypocritical not to accuse the white house of the same thing when they are so obviously misleading the public ?

Another reason could be that maybe those 50% weren't paying attention when the President was speaking.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
So "Slate" isn't right-wing because of the company that funds it? Sorry, that doesn't hold water. [I'm not arguing that Slate is or isn't right-winged, I never read it, just that you're argument is flawed.] Why not? News Corp. owns both FOX and the New York Post. Funding or ownership doesn't mean political direction is going to be taken from that funding source or parent company.

Did you miss the part where I said I know well a lot of people the work there? So, Fox isn't right-wing now? Good to know.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Is that supposed to be an insult ? That I saw a movie before making up my mind about it ? Ouch...gee...that really hurts

I'd think someone that supports an administration that claims that WMD's still exist (despite all evidence to the contrary) should probably be careful about throwing that "gullible" word around

But that's ok...Just keep buying everything that Dubya and Dick tell you....Don't bother thinking about it...Might hurt something

Not to get completely OT, but I never claimed WMD still exist IN IRAQ. Show me where. I say they haven't been found, doesn't mean they necessarily haven't been found in Iraq. Of course the recent find of nuclear materials is benign, right?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Is that supposed to be an insult ?

Don't flatter yourself.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Oh, of course you're entitled to your opinion that it's not a documentary. But, it seems that most in the film industy have disagreed with you.

Oh, but wait! Who could possibly know more about the industy and be more familiar with it? Yeah, that's a hard one!

The film industry says some R rated movies should be "PG", so what's your point? The film industry is infallable? Are you now disputing the dictionary defintion of the word. You didn't say "by film industry standards it is a documentary" you said "by definition it is a documentary" I showed you were that can be proven to be inaccurate. Seeing that that you are unable to dispute the dictionary definition, you redefine the terms. Sorry,doesn't work that way.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Not to get completely OT, but I never claimed WMD still exist IN IRAQ. Show me where. I say they haven't been found, doesn't mean they necessarily haven't been found in Iraq. Of course the recent find of nuclear materials is benign, right?

1 - I said you supported an administration that makes that claim, and you do.

2 - The "find" wasn't anything of the sort. It was nuclear materials that had been under UN seal since the 1st Gulf war. They were stolen by Iraqi civilians AFTER our invasion last year. But don't let the truth deter you from a good scare tactic

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Don't flatter yourself.

You know, it's sad that you've apparently decided to sink to Eeyore1954's level....Until now, you've at least remained civil...

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Joeblack
The French? How about The American Film Institute or the Academy? You don't care either? Who defines it?....You?

And come on...don't compare F911 with *******. The first one is made up of images that are DOCUMENTED in other sources (newspapers, newsreels, interviews, etc) as well as words of real senators, mothers, sons acting as themselves. ******* is more of a stunt show, comparable maybe to a sports event or a circus performance. I do believe you can tell the difference beyond wanting to win the argument.

The dictionary defines it for me, than you.

You said: "The second one is composed of documented footage of the real people. Hence: Documentary."

So, by YOUR defition, *******:The Movie is a documentary.

 

[Galahad]

Give me ANY plausible reason why, in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, the American people were under the mistaken impression that Iraq was involved in 9/11

One reason is that the talking heads and rent-a-generals were all over the tube prattling on about it. The typical story was:

"The Whitehouse once again denies that there is a link between Saddam and 9/11. Now for more analysis on why they would deny this...here's Bob Woodword and a general we found on the corner".

 

[Galahad]

Funding or ownership doesn't mean political direction is going to be taken from that funding source or parent company.

Also a good point. The local paper is owned by Gannett but keeps a generally conservative editorial board. I would assume you would feel the same way about, say, The Washington Times.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Galahad
One reason is that the talking heads and rent-a-generals were all over the tube prattling on about it. The typical story was:

"The Whitehouse once again denies that there is a link between Saddam and 9/11. Now for more analysis on why they would deny this...here's Bob Woodword and a general we found on the corner".

That's crap...It was the White House doing the linking between the two. Hell, here is the text of a letter Bush sent to CONGRESS saying the two were linked:

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

It's on his own website, for crying out loud.

Letter to Congress

This is NOT that friggin' difficult.

 

[Galahad]

That's crap...

I thought you were just admonishing someone about being uncivil.....