← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Valley Forge
Thread ID: 14330 | Posts: 55 | Started: 2004-06-26
2004-06-26 20:48 | User Profile
...And it's not good for Bush, but it's doesn't tell the whole truth either.
As everyone on OD knows, 9/11, the war on "terror," and the Iraq war are really about two things, in this order:
1) Jews/Israel 2) Oil/war profits
By examing the Bush family's connections to the Bin Laden family, the Carlye Group, and Haliburton, Micheal Moore does a pretty good job of bringing out and elucidating the second point. Not surprisingly though, he avoids the real issue like the plague. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are mentioned, and Rumsfeld is shown meeting with Saddam in the early 1980s, but Perle, Feith, Kristol, and the other Jews that took us down this path are not mentioned at all -- and Israel is not mentioned one time. And neither is the evidence that it was the Israeli Mossad rather than Osama Bin Ladin that pulled 911 in the first place.
So ultimately Fahrenheit 9/11 is a film that serves Jewish interests. The open question is whether Moore is serving those interests knowingly or out of ignorance.
2004-06-26 21:26 | User Profile
Based on what I've heard about the movie, yeah, Moore points the finger at Saudi Arabia rather than Israel for what motivates Bush. I don't know if this is what Moore believes or if he is just afraid to try to expose ZOG in DC.
2004-06-26 21:58 | User Profile
Of course, I should also point out that Moore is as anti-White as ever in this film. He goes out of his way to associate Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the Carlyle/ Haliburton executives with White people in general. Also, all of the US soldiers who make ignorant comments on camera are Whites. In the meantime, he portrays Blacks as the victims of poverty who have no choice but to enlist in the military. The truth is many more poor Whites are forced to go this route than Blacks, but that didn't stop Moore from suggesting the opposite.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Based on what I've heard about the movie, yeah, Moore points the finger at Saudi Arabia rather than Israel for what motivates Bush. I don't know if this is what Moore believes or if he is just afraid to try to expose ZOG in DC.[/QUOTE]
2004-06-27 00:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]...And it's not good for Bush, but it's doesn't tell the whole truth either.
As everyone on OD knows, 9/11, the war on "terror," and the Iraq war are really about two things, in this order:
1) Jews/Israel 2) Oil/war profits
By examing the Bush family's connections to the Bin Laden family, the Carlye Group, and Haliburton, Micheal Moore does a pretty good job of bringing out and elucidating the second point. Not surprisingly though, he avoids the real issue like the plague. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are mentioned, and Rumsfeld is shown meeting with Saddam in the early 1980s, but Perle, Feith, Kristol, and the other Jews that took us down this path are not mentioned at all -- and Israel is not mentioned one time. And neither is the evidence that it was the Israeli Mossad rather than Osama Bin Ladin that pulled 911 in the first place.
So ultimately Fahrenheit 9/11 is a film that serves Jewish interests. The open question is whether Moore is serving those interests knowingly or out of ignorance.[/QUOTE] Moore's a saavy guy. I think he knows they'll kill him if he gets too truthful about what's going on. It doesn't take much to figure that the Iraq war benefits Israel far more than the US. Plus, the well-known Mosul to Haifa pipeline objective. But, Moore'd likely end up in the back of one of those Israeli moving vans, waiting for disposal.
2004-06-27 00:49 | User Profile
In this case, the enemy of my enemy is definitely not my ally!
Michael Moore (enemy) is a white-guilt wallowing commie-lib. He is under the strange delusion that minority-pandering clowns like Jorge Dumbya Bush(enemy) and Newt Gangrene (enemy) are right-wing, white supremacists.
2004-06-27 02:28 | User Profile
In Roger and Me, Moore tore up a jewess who thought she could repalce auto manufacturing in Flint with an auto tourist mall. In the end Moore pointed out that the jewess after sucking up money for the Flint auto mall, which was a failure, left the uSA for her jew homeland.:caiphas:
Moore knows if he doesn't polish the jew cut knob---he's not going anywhere. A little soft poke at the juden, but, nothing serious or hard from Moore.
2004-06-27 05:21 | User Profile
I thought Michael Moore showed some promise, after seeing his first film Roger & Me, which was an entertaining corporate bash of GM, who put many working-class Whites out of work when they moved their factory from Flint, MI to Mexico. But it was all downhill from there. Like most "liberals," he took the easy road and decided that White-bashing was the way to go (eg Stupid White Men). I don't think I'll see Fahrenheit 9/11, at least not in the theater, even though it bashes Dubya and pisses off the Freepers.
2004-06-27 05:53 | User Profile
Thanks for the review VF, and it confirmed my suspicions of Moore's 'big edit' from his film. Hey, do you think it's still on the cutting room floor?! Let's get a crew together to go on one excellent mission!
Don't believe the hype. If John Kerry is elected POTUS, he'll make George W Bush look like Patrick J Buchanan.
The Bush-bashing is going to morph into White-bashing. The Zionists are ready to play serious ball with a serious man and their man is Kerry.
Bush is terrible. Kerry's just the Devil. Pray for the country.
2004-06-27 07:06 | User Profile
John Kerry is the devil? That sounds like freeper talk. Neither Bush, nor Kerry, nor Nader will get my vote. They're all anti-White anyway. Choosing between them is like choosing between different venereal diseases.
On November 2nd, I shall take comfort in my White purity, culture, and heritage, while everyone else sinks into the mud.
2004-06-27 08:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Israel is not mentioned one time. And neither is the evidence that it was the Israeli Mossad rather than Osama Bin Ladin that pulled 911 in the first place.[/QUOTE]
I don't think there's really much evidence for that. There is, however, an enormous amount of evidence indicating the Israelis had prior knowledge of 9/11 and refused to share it with us, which makes sense, since the attacks have so obviously served their interests. They may have even gone so far so to have provided Al-Qaeda some assistance (which, presumably, Al-Qaeda didn't realize was Mossad assistance), although I think bona fide Islamists under ther leadership of bin-Laden and Atta were still the prime movers in the 9/11 scenario. In any event, if the Israelis knew of the plot and kept that info from us, as I'm convinced is the case, that's sufficient grounds to break off diplomatic relations, end all aid, trade and direct airline flights, as well as effecting the summary deportation of all their citizens & nationals (including those holding so-called "dual citizenship," which is a legal non sequitur). They are an enemy nation. Its time our policies began to reflect that fact.
2004-06-27 08:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kurt]I thought Michael Moore showed some promise, after seeing his first film Roger & Me, which was an entertaining corporate bash of GM, who put many working-class Whites out of work when they moved their factory from Flint, MI to Mexico. But it was all downhill from there. Like most "liberals," he took the easy road and decided that White-bashing was the way to go (eg Stupid White Men). I don't think I'll see Fahrenheit 9/11, at least not in the theater, even though it bashes Dubya and pisses off the Freepers.[/QUOTE]
I often suspect a lot of people missed Moore's second feature film, "The Big One," which was another anti-free trade tirade along the lines of "Roger & Me," but with a more generalized focus. "Bowling for Columbine" had a lousy message (gun control), but I still thought it was interesting. I plan to see "Fahrenheit 911" tomorrow (Sunday) and in any event, will report back when I've done so.
2004-06-27 13:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kurt]John Kerry is the devil? That sounds like freeper talk. Neither Bush, nor Kerry, nor Nader will get my vote. They're all anti-White anyway. Choosing between them is like choosing between different venereal diseases.
On November 2nd, I shall take comfort in my White purity, culture, and heritage, while everyone else sinks into the mud.[/QUOTE]
Kurt, yes, I realize that my comment about Kerry sounds 'freeper'. Let me state that I despise Bush something awful. Kerry is jewish by geneology, so I'm afraid we're screwed either way. Moore's film does a nice job of blaming Bush for everything, which is ok, but he leaves out Israel, and the American Jewish lobbies, who were just as forceful, if not more, than Bush to take up the cause of Greater Israel.
2004-06-27 16:37 | User Profile
That fat swine Moore probably is a jew; I, at least, would be willing to bet he is. And, as far as ââ¬Åwhether Moore is serving those interests knowingly or out of ignoranceââ¬Â, of course he is knowingly serving those interests!! Why do you think the jewish media gives him so much free publicity? If he was truly interested in truth, he would find it ââ¬â he doesnââ¬â¢tââ¬Â¦he shows what he wants people to believe, and only what he wants them to believe.
He has degraded white males, and he is anti-gun ownership. He twists the truth all the time, and he never touches the jewish problem in this countryââ¬Â¦instead, he blames everything on white males.
Why would any white male pay to enrich their enemy? It is insanity. No Christian WN or any WN at all should pay a cent to see that pigââ¬â¢s movie.
[url]http://www.mooreexposed.com/[/url]
[url]http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/[/url]
[url]http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html[/url]
[url]http://www.mooreexposed.com/swm.html[/url]
ââ¬ÅMoore's 2000 book, "Stupid White Men," is one more chapter in the Gospel According to Michael. Its very title reveals the core of Moore's appeal in this narcissistic age.ââ¬Â
From S.F. : ââ¬ÅIt's sad that some see Michael Moore as some kind of crusader when in reality his "working-class smart ass" routine is as tired as his flannel shirts. Moore typically frames any debate as a "smart vs. dumb contest" rather than an exchange of ideas and as a result immensely pleases his target audience: elitist urban liberals. This type of "debate" is not uncommon to liberals. The New York Times and the Washington Post do much the same although they do a much better job of insulating the rhetoric with polished invective.
Moore's films are a guilty pleasure for the swine who enjoy them. Even a simpleton sees that Moore specializes in taking cheap shots but rarely creates anything of substance. Unlike the talented Errol Morris, Moore has his mind made up before he shoots a frame of film. "Now", he thinks, "If I can only make up other people's minds for them."
"Bowling for Columbine" is no different. It's another worthless mockumentary in which Moore gets to make fun of guns, gun-owners, and the military while exploiting the deaths of so many young children at Columbine High School. Why is it exploitive? Because he is using a terrible tragedy perpetrated by sick, disturbed children to try and portray legal gun ownership as insane. Sorry, little buddy, but the Constitution of this great country is quite clear. Hey, China has gun-control! Why not move there Mike? While you are there try and make an unflattering documentary about their industry or human rights practices? Now THAT would be a short lived project. All the while, Mr. Moore sleep safely under the very veil of freedom you criticize. Because right now there is an armed force of patriotic men and women protecting your fat movie-making rear.ââ¬Â
ââ¬ÅMoore is fueled by loathing and true hate. He would have loved to have lived during the strife and chaos of the Russian Revolution -- not strictly for idealogical reasons, but more for the upheavel and destruction.
He hates the West and everything it stands for. Unfortunately for us, the fury he brings to the West will create poverty, oppression, and despotism. Bad for those who cherish Western man, good for those who worship destruction and decay.ââ¬Â
ââ¬Åi happened to read a little of Micheal Moores last piece of work. i said a little because after about a quarter of the way through i could pretty much figure what the rant was all about. This guy has an obvious anti-white, anti-conservative agenda, it didnt even stay on top of the best seller charts that long, but the usual suspects in the liberal Jewsmedia kept pushing it as if it was something worth reading. Now Ann Coulter's book, Slander, was a book of much more substance, throughly footnoted and a great source to turn to if you want to find out how the biased and vicious the Left can be when confronted with opposition. This book is a much better read, but was virtually ignored by the Jews media. as far as I know, it has yet to get a review in the Jew York times... DEATH TO THE LEFT! L88r JLââ¬Â
Why would any white male pay to support this fat useless pig?
2004-06-27 18:08 | User Profile
You mean other than Israel's history of pulling false flags, the dancing Isrealis, etc.?
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]I don't think there's really much evidence for that. [/QUOTE]
2004-06-27 18:12 | User Profile
A racially enlightened person made the argument to me that other day that White racialists should vote Bush.
His argument was that with either Bush or Kerry in office, 100% of the Jewish agenda will be enacted on the foreign policy front no matter what. However, Bush won't give the Jews 100% of what they want on the domestic front whereas Kerry (Kohn) will.
At least that's his argument.
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Don't believe the hype. If John Kerry is elected POTUS, he'll make George W Bush look like Patrick J Buchanan. [/QUOTE]
2004-06-27 19:26 | User Profile
VF, I'd discard the idea that a Republican or a 'conservative' is still the lesser of two evils. The only reason Kerry will be worse than Bush is because of the direction the entire political program has been going for decades. For example, a Republican president who succeeds Kerry will be worse than Kerry because we'll be that much further down the path to oblivion. Back and forth, back and forth, each will be worse than his preceding "opposite".
I agree with Gabrielle about Moore. He's the traditional leftist disseminator of false info that throws us off the Jews and onto "solving the problem" by blaming it on the current goyim stooge. Like glossy political mags, movies that don't intentionally mislead aren't allowed to be made.
KO, "Al-Qaiada" is Emmanuel Goldstein, otherwise known as Amerisraelite Intelligence (or more dramatically, "the Mossad").
2004-06-27 20:45 | User Profile
Saw the movie today. Of course, as pointed out earlier on this thread, the Jewish angle is left out, but that's pretty much expected for Hollywood. At least they had a shot of an old lady tripping over Wolfowitz's last name (which could underscore his alienness on a subconscious level), and some repulsive scenes of Wolfowitz combing his hair.
I thought the movie was great, overall, and useful. It shatters the image Bush cultivates as a "man of the people" by exposing his own quotes he made to a wealthy audience at one of his speeches. Bush said, "well, here are the haves and the have-mores...some people call you the elite, I call you my base." This country will make a great leap forward if the rank-and-file Republicans come to realize their leadership like Bush isn't on their side, but solely on the side of the plutocrats. It will be icing on the cake once they realize the plutocrats are sell-outs to the Jews...that realization comes later.
2004-06-27 21:41 | User Profile
QUESTIONS FOR MICHAEL MOORE!
MoveOn Org is hosting a National Online Town Meeting with Michael Moore to raise voter consciousness for the next election. This online meeting is NOT open to everyone with a computer. You must make arrangements to attend one of the pre-planned gatherings. The list of locations, about 2000 nation wide, can be found at [url]http://action.moveonpac.org/f911/[/url] I encourage people to participate because "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a powerful antiwar statement and needs to be supported for that reason. This coming election, we need to vote out the warhawks, both Republican and Democrat.
I you are able to attend, I would like to ask you to join me in praising Michael Moore's talents as a film maker, and then respectfully and politely asking Michael Moore a few questions.
Question 1: If the Saudis were behind 9-11, why didn't they leave the United States BEFORE the attack? It is an established fact that companies like Odigo received an advance warning of the 9-11 attacks before the hijacked planes had even left the ground, as reported in Ha'Aretz and the Washington Post. If the Saudis were behind 9-11 and were kind enough to warn Odigo, then why did they themselves wait until AFTER the attacks before they left, when the requirement for special permission from Bush would only call attention to their departure?
Question 2: Is Michael Moore aware that the video tape of Osama "confessing" to 9-11 has been proven a fake?
Question 3: Is Michael Moore aware that just ten days after 9-11, the FBI stated (and CNN reported) that the 9-11 perpetrators were using skillfully made fake IDs with identities stolen from Arab men?
Question 4: Is Michael Moore aware that FBI Director Robert Mueller has admitted in public that there is actually no evidence that proves the named 9-11 hijackers were actually on the aircraft?
Question 5: Calling attention to the Anthrax letters case, in which letters which appeared to to be written by Arab Muslims contained Anthrax spores identified as coming from a US Government laboratory. Is Michael Moore aware that neither of the two suspects in the case, Dr. Stephen Hatfill or Dr.Philip Zack, are Arabs, and doesn't this case prove that Arabs are being framed for terror attacks in the United States?
Michael Moore rightly condemns the US Government for the USAPATRIOT act's draconian assault opon our rights. However, one of those rights as that nobody shall be declared guilty of a crime without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As Michael Moore professes a deep respect for American values, he should not glibly declare that someone is guilty of a crime without being able to make his case beyond that reasonable doubt.
There is a reasonable doubt.
And if Michael Moore is a reasonable man who respects American principles, he must acknowledge that.
2004-06-27 22:11 | User Profile
Jews were responsible for the 911 attacks.
Of that I have no doubt.
And you can bet Jews wrote the USAPATRIOT Act too.
2004-06-28 02:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]You mean other than Israel's history of pulling false flags, the dancing Isrealis, etc.?[/QUOTE]
The dancing Israelis of "Urban Moving Systems," the fact the Mossad agaents were living literally next door to Al-Qaeda operatives in Jupiter, Florida and other places and the whole "Israel art student" scandal; this is all evidence of Israeli knowledge of 9/11, not Israeli participation. We can only speculate about whether actual acknowledge extended to the realm of participation, in the lack of any evidence for it.
2004-06-28 02:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]KO, "Al-Qaiada" is Emmanuel Goldstein, otherwise known as Amerisraelite Intelligence (or more dramatically, "the Mossad").[/QUOTE]
Possibly, but I don't think that's been definitively proven yet. What's the evidence I've missed?
2004-06-28 02:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]And you can bet Jews wrote the USAPATRIOT Act too.[/QUOTE]
I think they pretty much write all the major laws, other than perhaps some of the appropriations bills; I don't think that part's in dispute.
2004-06-28 16:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Possibly, but I don't think that's been definitively proven yet. What's the evidence I've missed?[/QUOTE]
If you require 'definitive proof' then you might as well resign yourself to the idea that nobody was responsible. I'm still waiting for substantiation of the charges that Arabs are behind it. The failure of US interceptors on 9/11, the missing black boxes, the absence of airport security films, the removal of WTC remains before an investigation was performed, not to mention the fact that the whole "Al-Qaeda" business benefits only Israel and the goals of organized Jewry. Many, many other details, some still coming out. The whole thing is right out of 1984. The US government, like the Jews, have a long history of foreign policy by provocation and of arranging attacks on their own people in order to get them juiced up for war.
There are many indications and that's about all there'll ever be in the way of "proof", but I find very few indications that substantiate Amerisraelite claims. That they had to rely on "they hate us for our freedom and democracy" is itself an indication of how little evidence there is against Arabs.
As Joe Sobran put it,
"The remarkable fact is that men are so loyal to the states that rule them. They actually idealize and take pride in their rulers. It may be obvious to outsiders that those rulers are tyrants, but their subjects seldom see it that way. They are often ready, and proud, to fight and die for the men who theoretically protect them! It's like sacrificing your life to save your bodyguard."
2004-06-28 20:36 | User Profile
Moore's movie is drawing big crowds and not just in normally urban, Democrat areas. This scares me because what it says is we've now given ourselves over completely to the Hollywood spinmeisters for news and information and that we readily accept fantasy as fact if we can connect just some of the dots. It's bad enough when we see a Spielberg spin piece like The Contender, but this passes itself off as a documentary and many people who are against this war are buying it. In one movie theater Bush was booed throughout and at the end, people stood up and applauded. When this happens, you know the content has touched a nerve.
The progressives/leftists/commies are fine with it for the reasons mentioned here. Since most progressives are Jews, they're comfortable attacking Bush and this war provided Israel isn't brought into the picture. It's a very selective protest one that's similar in its disingenuity to protesting entry into WWII by Jews and their leftist movement until Hitler broke his non-aggression pact with Stalin and attacked the USSR.
I saw Moore on O'Reilly and he handles questions with glib, jocular adroitness. He always manages to partially answer a question, but never does it completely. It's the part he leaves out that can usually sink his entire premise, but he knows how to avoid all the traps.
Simply put, this is an unmitigated campaign ad for Kerry's election. I haven't seen it and am not planning to. Bush is wrong to remain so silent on this attack because it has the potential of eating into his base, and it will.
2004-06-29 14:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]Moore's movie is drawing big crowds and not just in normally urban, Democrat areas. This scares me because what it says is we've now given ourselves over completely to the Hollywood spinmeisters for news and information and that we readily accept fantasy as fact if we can connect just some of the dots. It's bad enough when we see a Spielberg spin piece like The Contender, but this passes itself off as a documentary and many people who are against this war are buying it. In one movie theater Bush was booed throughout and at the end, people stood up and applauded. When this happens, you know the content has touched a nerve.
So don't refer to it as a "documentary." Problem solved.
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]Simply put, this is an unmitigated campaign ad for Kerry's election. I haven't seen it and am not planning to. Bush is wrong to remain so silent on this attack because it has the potential of eating into his base, and it will.[/QUOTE]
You haven't see it, yet know all about it? Okay. I was too busy with the menial, low wage, no benefits job I got about two months ago (after nearly two years of being unable to find work of any kind - don't get me wrong - I'm glad I finally have a job, but I just wanted to reiterate how vibrant the economy isn't) to see it on Sunday, but I'll be catching the 4:25 showing this afternoon. In any event, I hope the damn thing DOES eat into Bush's base. I hate the prospect of a President Kerry, but Bush is AT LEAST the worst President since Lyndon Johnson. It would be a (yet another, in a seemingly endless cycle) national disgrace to see that traitor re-elected.
2004-06-29 18:49 | User Profile
KO:
Whether I call it a "documentary" or a fraudulent piece of shit, is of no consequence. It's being packaged and sold as "the truth". End of your little piece of nonsense.
You seem to think because I criticized Moore, I agree with Bush. I don't. For the first time in my life I won't vote in a presidential election. So just because I criticized Moore and didn't see the "film" but chose to trounce its authenticity based on reviews good and bad, you make a bunch of assumptions. You don't know me well enough to assume a goddamn thing, so don't put words in my mouth. I don't have one bit of a problem making myself understood.
This movie eviscerates Bush. Bush and Kerry are political enemies. This therefore helps Kerry. Is that too nuanced for ya?
You want to spend the money to see this Goebbels send-up, that's your friggin business. I think Moore's a lefist phony who understands how to make a buck off of other peoples' misery while pretending to be a muckraker. Funny thing, he only rakes the muck on Conservatives and Republicans. That alone tells me he's operating from a cancerous, unhealthy bias. This whole anti-Bush campaign has been cleverly orchestrated by the lefties from back when Bush beat Gore. When you have too many coincidences converge and overlap at the same time and place, it's called a "plan". If Bush can't counter it, he can't. But Kerry will take us deep into Hell. He's a Clinton-clone.
2004-06-29 18:50 | User Profile
To those who think that nothing could be worse than Bush, I say:
Don't [I]ever[/I] think that it can't get worse. It can. And it will.
Loathsome as Jorge Boosh is, Rabbi Kerry will make us all look back on the Bush regime with nostalgia. Remember all those people four years ago who said that nobody could be worse than Klinton?
And, contrary to what Tom Metzger says, worse is [I]not[/I] better. Worse is just worse.
2004-06-30 08:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]Whether I call it a "documentary" or a fraudulent piece of shit, is of no consequence. It's being packaged and sold as "the truth". End of your little piece of nonsense.
You seem to think because I criticized Moore, I agree with Bush. I don't.[/QUOTE]
I just got back from the movie about an hour ago and with regard to my "nonsense," I defy you to tell me one falsehood that is in the movie. Or did you even see it yet? As I recall, you haven't seen it, and thus know nothing substantive about it, so the only "nonsense" here is your ignorant, baseless opinion.
And if you don't support Bush, why did you express concern that this movie would eat into his base?
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]So just because I criticized Moore and didn't see the "film" but chose to trounce its authenticity based on reviews good and bad, you make a bunch of assumptions. You don't know me well enough to assume a goddamn thing, so don't put words in my mouth. I don't have one bit of a problem making myself understood.[/QUOTE]
What assumptions? What words did I "place in your mouth?" Perhaps you have more of a problem making yourself understood than you realize. In any event, I never claimed you were a Bush supporter (although in this message, I did point out how your statement expressing concern about the President losing electoral support amongst his base sounds an awful lot like something only one of his supporters would say). If you can't handle being challenged when you post things, don't post things. In short, grow up.
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]But Kerry will take us deep into Hell. He's a Clinton-clone.[/QUOTE]
I hate to be the one to break the painfully obvious news to you, but as much of a disgusting, amoral, dishonest worm Klinton was, he didn't do nearly as much harm to this country in 8 years as Dumbya has in the last 3 1/2....
2004-06-30 08:25 | User Profile
I just saw the 9:30 showing and I think its definitely worth seeing. It has a few aspects I didn't care for (some multicultural crap at the beginning, as well as the fact that this one very sympathetic mother of a dead soldier turns out to be married to a Mulatto and having birthed his entire Quadroon brood), but otherwise it was entertaining, somewhat informative (depending on your level of knowledge; I could tell people in the theater didn't previously know, and were very surprised to learn, that Bush had arranged for over 20 members of the bin-Laden family to fly to Saudi Arabia, without being questioned by the FBI, at a time when the FAA had barred all other civilian flights) and very emotionally moving at times. The phootage of both Iraqi civilian and U.S. servicemen carnage, complete with blood, visible bones and pants soaked through with involuntarily discharged human waste, will help give some of the sick degenerates who get their kicks watching foreigners getting killed on television some idea of what war is really like (or so it is to be hoped).
Obviously, its extremely unfortunate that the Zionist angle wasn't explored, but this film will never-the-less help push curious people into evidentiary tributaries that inevitably lead in that direction. We're very fortunate this movie has been made, even if its mainly stuff that people here on OD already know about.
2004-06-30 11:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE]It will be icing on the cake once they realize the plutocrats are sell-outs to the Jews...[/QUOTE] One suspects this is where the concept of "selling your soul to the devil" came from. This has pobably been an avenue to temporal wealth throughout the ages.
2004-06-30 11:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE]If you require 'definitive proof' then you might as well resign yourself to the idea that nobody was responsible. I'm still waiting for substantiation of the charges that Arabs are behind it. [/QUOTE] I've read two works on the subject: Pastore's book and Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor". Pastore's work focuses on the Zionist angle, while Griffin completely ignores it and focuses on the Saudis, the Pakistanis, and the Bush administration's complicity and foreknowledge. (Griffin's work makes it clear that certain members of the government knew and issued orders to allow the attacks to proceed.) Taking the two together, I'm convinced that the Mossad and Al-Qadea were both involved in the planning and execution, but that Al-Qaeda (including genuinely anti-Amerian and anti-Israeli Muslims) is manipulated by interests sympathetic to the Bush/American regime.
Read these books.
2004-06-30 18:06 | User Profile
One big problem I have with this "Al-Qaeda" business (I'm still not sure how to spell it!) is that in spite of the traditional pattern of the media and so forth portraying the Jews' enemies, in this case Arabs and Muslims, as crazed terrorists, over a long span of time, such a diabolical organization going by the name of "Al-Qaeda" was unknown to Americans until September 2001. On that basis alone, I can't take it seriously, and I have plenty of better reasons to suspect the whole thing is engineered by you-know-who. IMO it is indeed Pearl Harbor redux, only these crazed Arabs/Muslims don't have the resources Japan had in 1941, and so the infamous attack had to be carried out by those whose agenda benefitted by it, just as it had to be provoked by those who benefitted from it in 1941.
I don't know how people who're already aware of how politics is actually conducted can think of this alleged organization as anything but a very very transparent creation of the traditional suspects, both Gentile and Jew.
Anyway, I have good reasons to sympathize with 21st century Arab/Muslim nations, for what is being done to them as well as for what it is doing to us, and if I was the D.A. western leaders and their Jew advisors would be the most easily indictable suspects. How anybody can think that governments who, by deliberate policy, seek the racial destruction of their own people can in any way be deemed their protectors instead of the obvious predators utterly void of any reservations over inflicting damage onto and fear into their people, is beyond me.
2004-06-30 19:38 | User Profile
This film is a race-baiting pack of lies. Pure crap. There is almost nothing Moore said that I trust is the case, and a number of points he made I knew to be outright lies--typical leftist BS.
2004-07-01 04:01 | User Profile
I saw the film today at an afternoon matinee. Usually, matinees are sparsely attended, but this one was packed. It was definitely an anti-Bush crowd. People cheered at the movie's end (the last time I heard cheering at the movies was at the end of [I]An Officer and a Gentleman[/I]). However, I don't really see [I]Fahrenheit[/I] changing many minds. Moore's film is leftist propaganda for a leftist audience. At best, it energizes the liberal base. As the Republicans are doing for their base by running Bush ads on Fox News.
The most amusing part of [I]Fahrenheit[/I] wasn't in the film itself. Instead, it was the gasps of disbelief some audience members gave when John Conyers admitted that members of Congress don't read the legislation they vote on. I guess that's news to some people.
Of course, Moore left out any mention of the neocons and their Zionist agenda. It's much safer to go after Halliburton and the Carlyle Group.
2004-07-01 06:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]One big problem I have with this "Al-Qaeda" business (I'm still not sure how to spell it!) is that in spite of the traditional pattern of the media and so forth portraying the Jews' enemies, in this case Arabs and Muslims, as crazed terrorists, over a long span of time, such a diabolical organization going by the name of "Al-Qaeda" was unknown to Americans until September 2001.[/QUOTE]
It wasn't unknown to me; I'd heard of Al-Qaeda back in 1998, when they bombed out embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and I had known of Osama bin-Laden's role in the Afghan war since at least 1993, if not sooner. People who chose to be informed knew these names long before 9/11 (I told all my friends and relatives on 9/11/01 that "there's this guy named Osama bin-Laden and he was the one who did this." Whether I was right, or whether the evidence has just been presented to make it seem that way, remains to be seen....
[QUOTE=Ruffin]How anybody can think that governments who, by deliberate policy, seek the racial destruction of their own people can in any way be deemed their protectors instead of the obvious predators utterly void of any reservations over inflicting damage onto and fear into their people, is beyond me.[/QUOTE]
That's definitely a point scored for the 'Jews-did-it' school of thought. Nicely stated.
2004-07-01 14:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]It wasn't unknown to me; I'd heard of Al-Qaeda back in 1998, when they bombed out embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and I had known of Osama bin-Laden's role in the Afghan war since at least 1993, if not sooner. People who chose to be informed knew these names long before 9/11 (I told all my friends and relatives on 9/11/01 that "there's this guy named Osama bin-Laden and he was the one who did this." Whether I was right, or whether the evidence has just been presented to make it seem that way, remains to be seen....[/QUOTE]
Granted, the name had been used before 2001, but not for very long before 2001. The point is that the name of such an alleged organization, to be the big global menace it's claimed to be, would've been as familiar to Americans for decades as the alleged "nazi menace" was in the lead up to that war. This was bad planning on the part of the Jewish governmental media.
2004-07-01 18:34 | User Profile
mwdallas:
Here's another good book that names OBL and AlQ long before they became household names, The Man Who Warned America...The Life and Death of John O'Neill by Murray Weiss. Good reading.
2004-07-01 18:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]mwdallas:
Here's another good book that names OBL and AlQ long before they became household names, The Man Who Warned America...The Life and Death of John O'Neill by Murray Weiss. Good reading.[/QUOTE]
Well, not quite.
O'Neill's story is fascinating and could bear some scrutiny, given that he was one of the FBI's lead investigators on OBL before taking a job as head of security at the World Trade Center- where he died on 9/11. Given that this book was written well after his death, and well after OBL was widely "known" as the perpetrator of the attacks, it would seem that the statement that the book names OBL and Al Queda long before they became household names is quite a stretch.
Somewhere out there are stories I remember about the real reason O'Neill left the FBI for early retirement. They describe how just before his sudden "retirement", his briefcase containing vital files on OBL was stolen during meetings in Tampa (near MacDill AFB, home of the U.S. Central Command) and then mysteriously returned. The implications were that O'Neill was being jobbed by someone- and probably by someone within the government or with close government connections.
I've read that Weiss's book does not examine many of the avenues that should be explored given the circumstances surrounding the last few months of O'Neill's life. Guess which possible suspects escape any critical scrutiny by this author named Murray Weiss...?
2004-07-01 19:02 | User Profile
Kevin_O'Keeffe]I just got back from the movie about an hour ago and with regard to my "nonsense," I defy you to tell me one falsehood that is in the movie. Or did you even see it yet? As I recall, you haven't seen it, and thus know nothing substantive about it, so the only "nonsense" here is your ignorant, baseless opinion.
**How's this for an opener. Bush didn't give the binLadin family safe escort outta Dodge, that was Richard Clarke. Clarke was downright enthusiastic about claiming all the credit for himself when he confirmed he didn't check with anyone up the food chain because it was his job to make those decisions. .And just in case you're not convinced, Richard Cohen, an uber-lib Dem who writes for the Washington Post calls this movie an embarrassing pack of lies and was disgusted with Moore who he blames for making Kerry look bad because no matter how he tries, Kerry can't run fast or far enough away from the fat slob Moore. Then there's the whole smarmy bit showing happy Iraqis before the US invaded. All smiling faces, happy, well-fed children under the rule of Saddam,...and then the Americans came, and then the carnage started. That's just for openers. Feel free to disagree. Maybe everybody is wrong but you, but I kinda doubt it. **
And if you don't support Bush, why did you express concern that this movie would eat into his base?
**I feel betrayed by Bush, his policies on immigration and open borders and his entourage, especially the Jews. But I absolutely fear and loathe Kerry and everything he stands for. The man is a fraud, a coward and a dilletante. He will finish off whatever is left of us. And he will do it with his brand of leftist saboteurs. Why should I ramp up enthusiasm for this slimeball? They're both awful and I won't vote. That's how I register a protest. **
What assumptions? What words did I "place in your mouth?" Perhaps you have more of a problem making yourself understood than you realize. In any event, I never claimed you were a Bush supporter (although in this message, I did point out how your statement expressing concern about the President losing electoral support amongst his base sounds an awful lot like something only one of his supporters would say). If you can't handle being challenged when you post things, don't post things. In short, grow up.
Seems to me, by your own admission, you assumed incorrectly, and it's you who've been challenged. You started the name-calling. I ended it by putting your foot in your mouth. Stop bitchin and moanin. But nice try. Just no cigar.
I hate to be the one to break the painfully obvious news to you, but as much of a disgusting, amoral, dishonest worm Klinton was, he didn't do nearly as much harm to this country in 8 years as Dumbya has in the last 3 1/2...
Now I understand. You're a Clintinoid!!!! And you expect me to take your opinions seriously? Talk about delusional. Case closed.
2004-07-01 19:06 | User Profile
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/08/19/fbi.investigation/[/url]
FBI probing top counter-terrorism agent August 19, 2001 Posted: 9:22 PM EDT (0122 GMT)
By Kelli Arena CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The FBI is investigating a senior counter-terrorism official after his briefcase containing classified documents was stolen from him at a convention, government sources said Sunday. Authorities later recovered the briefcase and documents.
Sources said the FBI does not dispute the account of the agent, who is retiring next week, and it is unlikely the probe will result in disciplinary action. According to FBI rules, officials must keep classified documents with them at all times and secure them before going to sleep.
John O'Neill, the FBI New York office's special agent in charge of national security, was attending a retirement seminar in Tampa, Florida, last year when the theft occurred, government sources told CNN.
The most sensitive document in the briefcase was the annual field office report for national security operations. It describes counter-espionage and counter-terrorism programs, including manpower and budget details.
The briefcase also contained a document about an FBI source, but government sources said it would not "in any way" have compromised the source's identity.
The FBI's office of professional responsibility opened an internal investigation about a week ago of John O'Neill, sources told CNN.
The Justice Department previously looked into the incident for possible criminal implications but closed its investigation without taking action after concluding no information was compromised.
O'Neill had a "pretty heavy workload" while at the Tampa seminar, government sources said, and was authorized to carry the classified documents with him.
Government sources said that according to O'Neill's account -- which the FBI does not dispute -- O'Neill was planning to take the documents to the FBI field office for safekeeping.
Then, he was paged to make a call during the convention and left the briefcase in a room with other FBI agents and in order to make the call.
While he was away, the seminar broke for lunch and when O'Neill returned, the briefcase was gone. O'Neill said he alerted the FBI the moment he realized the briefcase was gone.
Authorities believe thieves who had been involved in a string of robberies at area hotels at the time stole the briefcase, government sources said.
The Justice Department checked every page in the briefcase for fingerprints to see if they had been touched, finding no indication they had, officials said. All papers were determined to have been in the briefcase after it was returned.
The FBI inquiry is expected to take about 30 days. One source said if O'Neill was not retiring that "he would have received some sort of disciplinary action because he was indeed negligent."
2004-07-01 19:42 | User Profile
weisbrot:
I've read many accounts of John O'Neill's stint at the FBI, some not flattering, but never anything like what you brought up. The briefcase incident was never connected with anything untoward. O'Neill by all accounts was being sidelined by people in the FBI who didn't like the way he played ball, especially Freeh and his club members. They were looking for any reason to stop his rising career. He was considered a rogue agent who was hard to handle, sort of like Patton. I could see why he would be a thorn in the side of management, but according to Weiss and all accounts I've read, he uncovered this terrorist nest in Yemen. I don't think attribution is difficult in this case. Based on your presumption we'd have to dismiss all historical biographies because they were written well after the fact when the unfathomable became obvious.
I'm curious. Are there some books you'd recommend, or articles that can broaden this scope a bit?
2004-07-01 19:50 | User Profile
Moore claimed that the Sauidi's gave 1.4 billion to Bush's family, 'their businesses,' and their friends. False. The Saudi's gave money to companies that the Bush's were involved with, however tangentially. The were not 'their businesses.'
Moore claimed that the Saudi's owned around 7% 'of America' (based on an non-refuted estimate given by an 'expert' of 860 billion in Saudi assets in the US). False. Current valuations of 'America' are not available, but given that this our ****ing GDP was 10 trillion, we can guess that it is a little more than that--say, 500 trillion, at the least. So maybe .2% Saudi would be slightly more accurate.
Moore implied that Saudi sale of their US assests would greatly damage the US economy. False--it's a drop in the bucket, and US investors would love a good fire sale.
Moore claimed that Florida voters were eliminated purely on the basis of race. False. Voters were eliminated based on use of faulty voting machines and non-racial standards for eliminating voting records.
Moore claimed that Senators would not go to the 'aid' of their 'African-American constituents.' False. The Senators served Americans of all races by upholding the law and perserving democratic continuity (now if they could just do the same thing with illegal aliens).
Moore is a lying, anti-2nd Amendment, anti-white, pro-leftist-Jewish-Establishment homosexual. (Not only that--he's one who is an ultra-confabulator, who has given up on standards of truth shared by even most other lying, anti-2nd Amendment, anti-white, pro-leftist-Jewish-Establishment homosexuals.... Go figure.)
2004-07-02 08:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]Kevin_O'Keeffe]I just got back from the movie about an hour ago and with regard to my "nonsense," I defy you to tell me one falsehood that is in the movie. Or did you even see it yet? As I recall, you haven't seen it, and thus know nothing substantive about it, so the only "nonsense" here is your ignorant, baseless opinion.
How's this for an opener. Bush didn't give the binLadin family safe escort outta Dodge, that was Richard Clarke. Clarke was downright enthusiastic about claiming all the credit for himself when he confirmed he didn't check with anyone up the food chain because it was his job to make those decisions.[/QUOTE]
There's no way Clarke could do that without going through the FAA, which had banned all civilian flights. Clarke may have been able to countermand the FAA's orders, but he'd still have to let them know he was doing so. The FAA had received its orders from Transportation Secretary (and formerly my congressman, oddly enough) Norman Y. Mineta. The idea that Clarke could have done this without Mineta being routinely informed of it by the FAA is patently ridiculous. The idea that Mineta didn't mention it to Cheney (or maybe even Bush) is equally ludicrous. The idea that the Bush/Cheney co-presidency didn't have any knowledge of these flights, when the Bush family is personally acquainted with the bin-Laden family, and Bush Sr. was involved in the effort to fund Osama's Afghan network during the Soviet war, is also quite amusing and naive.
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue] And just in case you're not convinced, Richard Cohen, an uber-lib Dem who writes for the Washington Post calls this movie an embarrassing pack of lies and was disgusted with Moore who he blames for making Kerry look bad because no matter how he tries, Kerry can't run fast or far enough away from the fat slob Moore.[/QUOTE]
The only thing Richard Cohen's remarks will ever convince me of is that he is a no-good, lying, Jewish bastard. Other than that, he frankly bores me.
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]Then there's the whole smarmy bit showing happy Iraqis before the US invaded. All smiling faces, happy, well-fed children under the rule of Saddam,...and then the Americans came, and then the carnage started. That's just for openers. Feel free to disagree. Maybe everybody is wrong but you, but I kinda doubt it.[/QUOTE]
I didn't realize everyone was disagreeing with me; I thought it was just you. In any event, its a well-known fact that while Saddam was a brutal dictator who tolerated no political dissent, Iraq was still one of the most advanced, civilized and overall best places to live in the Middle East, if not the entire Third World. Moore's phootage didn't show Iraq to be a paradise, as you are simplistically implying, but rather showed it to be what it was, i.e. a somewhat above-average country, by the standards of Third World dictatorships (which is what most countries are).
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]And if you don't support Bush, why did you express concern that this movie would eat into his base?
I feel betrayed by Bush, his policies on immigration and open borders and his entourage, especially the Jews. But I absolutely fear and loathe Kerry and everything he stands for. The man is a fraud, a coward and a dilletante. He will finish off whatever is left of us. And he will do it with his brand of leftist saboteurs. Why should I ramp up enthusiasm for this slimeball? They're both awful and I won't vote. That's how I register a protest. [/QUOTE]
So, basically you're a Bush supporter who doesn't feel quite enthusiastic enough to actually vote for him (yet will still be hoping Bush defeats Kerry on election night). That's just lame. At least register a quasi-effective protest and vote for Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party. He'll be on the ballot in nearly every state. By the way, did it ever occur to you that there will be other items on the ballot, other than the Presidential election? Isn't refusing to vote AT ALL just a way of limiting your own influence, and thus shooting yourself in the foot? Wouldn't it make more sense to just skip that line (and maybe the lines for the U.S. House and the Senate, if applicable in your state this year)? Don't you still want to see (hopefully conservative) Republicans elected to your state legislature or whatnot?
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]What assumptions? What words did I "place in your mouth?" Perhaps you have more of a problem making yourself understood than you realize. In any event, I never claimed you were a Bush supporter (although in this message, I did point out how your statement expressing concern about the President losing electoral support amongst his base sounds an awful lot like something only one of his supporters would say). If you can't handle being challenged when you post things, don't post things. In short, grow up.
Seems to me, by your own admission, you assumed incorrectly, and it's you who've been challenged. You started the name-calling. I ended it by putting your foot in your mouth. Stop bitchin and moanin. But nice try. Just no cigar.[/QUOTE]
I can't imagine the point you think you've won here; go back and read my first message to you in this thread. It wasn't even REMOTELY hostile, and I certainly didn't call you any names. You responded as if I'd insulted your mother or some such, and I decided to return a little of your unprovoked fire subsequent to your totally unwarranted and frankly paranoid drivel about how I was "putting words in your mouth" and "making a lot of assumptions" about who you were. The idea that this is an argument you're winning is quite pathetic.
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]I hate to be the one to break the painfully obvious news to you, but as much of a disgusting, amoral, dishonest worm Klinton was, he didn't do nearly as much harm to this country in 8 years as Dumbya has in the last 3 1/2...
Now I understand. You're a Clintinoid!!!! And you expect me to take your opinions seriously? Talk about delusional. Case closed.[/QUOTE]
I wish I thought you were joking here, but I actually think you're serious. I haven't actually been calling you names, but now would be a good time to call you a "dumbass." Generally, when one calls someone "a disgusting, amoral, dishonest worm," he isn't a supporter of that person. Klinton was the worst President since Nixon, but Dumbya is a LOT worse than either. You seem to enjoy believing Klinton (hint: Klinton supporters don't spell his name with a 'K' in order to imply he has Bolshevist tendencies) was worse than Dumbya because Klinton was a "liberal." In my book, setting the stage for a nuclear Third World War is worse than being a "liberal."
2004-07-02 14:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue] I don't think attribution is difficult in this case. Based on your presumption we'd have to dismiss all historical biographies because they were written well after the fact when the unfathomable became obvious. [/QUOTE]
I wasn't making a presumption. I was responding to the assertion that Weiss's book [QUOTE]name{d} OBL and AlQ long before they became household names...[/QUOTE]
Given that Weiss's book about O'Neill was written after O'Neill's death on 9/11, and given that Al Queda and OBL were certainly "household names" after 9/11, it seems to follow that Weiss's book did not change their status from "unfathomable" to obvious.
I would never dismiss a historical biography simply because it was written
after the fact. I've actually never witnessed any attempt at such a feat.
However, I would question- and I do so in this case- the motives of an
author who, after many facts have become obvious, continues to ignore
topics that should bear quite a bit of scrutiny as a result of those facts
coming to light. Especially when those facts may cast an unflattering light
on an interest or group that is connected in some way to that author.
2004-07-03 14:54 | User Profile
wiesbrot:
Given that Weiss covers this incident just as the CNN article reports, I don't see the problem. Where is the conspiracy and on what basis do you make this claim? I asked for some corroboration of your allegations, but this CNN recounting is exactly what Weiss described in his book, so it would seem that it was nothing but a routine investigation that supported O'Neill's story. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
2004-07-03 16:46 | User Profile
KO:
When you claim that Clinton was a better president than Bush it means one of two things to me. Either you're a Clintinoid or you're just uninformed. Clinton delivered this mess to Bush by never retaliating for any terrorisist attacks against Americans. It delivered a strong message. Americans are weak. They'll run. They won't stick around for a long fight. It was an open invitation to test our mettle and its continuing. He refused to take OBL off the hands of the Sudanese despite their entreaties to him and Berger because he didn't want this fight on his watch. Bush I see as a willing dupe.
Aside from Clinton's dereliction of duty, he actively conspired with a foreign govt. to funnel illegal money to his war chest, and that country was China and make no mistake about it, China is our enemy. In return he gave them the most sensitive research information on leading edge technology in the development of satellite weaponry and tracking. I guess in your neighborhood, that's no big thing. Where I come from, it's treason. I won't even go into the Riady money that made him rich.
He reduced this country to a laughing stock because of his insatiable sexual addictions and put this country at risk when it was determined the White House was being bugged by a foreign country, probably Israel.
He's a rapist.
He killed our Marines in Somalia by putting a hack like Les Aspin in charge of the military and creating a virulent anti-military atmosphere in his admin. that bordered on sabotage.
He and his wife were responsible for the Waco massacre.
He backed his buddy Bernie Schwartz of LORAL to circumvent the Commerce Dept.'s edict prohibiting the selling of missile technology that might be used against us, to a foreign country. The kickbacks were large.
He probably was tangentially involved in the murder of at least 3 people, Foster, MacDonald and Ron Brown. He was propped up by thugs out of Arkansas which is how a no-account governor of a no-account state could ever beat a sitting president.
You can believe whatever makes you sleep nights. Bill Clinton is a coke-sniffing degenerate who will forever be remembered as an impeached president who damaged the office he served and this country in ways we're just discovering.
As for not voting. I don't see the point. We the People have been given the shaft too often. Californians voted for Prop. 187 only to be told by one solitary judge that it was unconstitutional. Our voices aren't being heard regardless of who we vote for or against. We've got weak Repubs being coerced by radical leftist Dems, who are being supported by ACLU-type activist jurists. Only one thing will clean out this mess and it won't be voting in this presidential election. That I can tell you.
2004-07-03 17:01 | User Profile
Greetings folks,
I just wanted to let you all know of a recent addition to FolkandFaith.com, Keith Preston reviews Fahrenheit 9-11 in, "A Beyond Left And Right Movie Review". You can see it and other recent additions at [url="http://www.folkandfaith.com"]www.folkandfaith.com[/url] or just the reviews at [url="http://www.folkandfaith.com/reviews/reviews.shtml"]www.folkandfaith.com/reviews/reviews.shtml[/url]
Please feel free to drop by the brand new discussion board as well and help to get it off the ground if you would. The more the merrier!! [url="http://www.folkandfaith.com/invisionboard"]www.folkandfaith.com/invisionboard[/url]
Yours For National Freedom and Social Justice. For Folk And Faith! Beyond Left And Right!
[url="http://www.folkandfaith.com"]www.folkandfaith.com[/url]
2004-07-04 03:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]When you claim that Clinton was a better president than Bush it means one of two things to me. Either you're a Clintinoid or you're just uninformed. Clinton delivered this mess to Bush by never retaliating for any terrorisist attacks against Americans. It delivered a strong message. Americans are weak. They'll run. They won't stick around for a long fight. It was an open invitation to test our mettle and its continuing. He refused to take OBL off the hands of the Sudanese despite their entreaties to him and Berger because he didn't want this fight on his watch. Bush I see as a willing dupe.[/QUOTE]
There's no doubt that Klinton's non-response to Al-Qaeda helped cause 9/11 (assuming we accept the official narrative of who & what Al-Qaeda is), but 9/11 is a much smaller issue for me than our nation's subsequent response to it, which appears to be setting the stage for a Third World War that will bring down human civilization. If that happens, Bush will turn out to be the most disastrous human being in the history of organic life, not just a worse President than Klinton....
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]Aside from Clinton's dereliction of duty, he actively conspired with a foreign govt. to funnel illegal money to his war chest, and that country was China and make no mistake about it, China is our enemy. In return he gave them the most sensitive research information on leading edge technology in the development of satellite weaponry and tracking. I guess in your neighborhood, that's no big thing. Where I come from, it's treason. I won't even go into the Riady money that made him rich.
He reduced this country to a laughing stock because of his insatiable sexual addictions and put this country at risk when it was determined the White House was being bugged by a foreign country, probably Israel.[/QUOTE]
These are all very valid criticisms, but they pale before lying us into an unnecessary and disastrous war in Iraq and risking a general conflagration in the Middle East and subsequently the globe. While in a perfect world, Klinton would have been not only convicted & removed from office by the Senate, but also executed for his treason. One could reasonably say the same of Bush, however.
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]He's a rapist.[/QUOTE]
True, but his raping a nurse when he was Attorney General of Arkansas, however despicable and also arguably a crime worthy of execution, doesn't really impact much on his Presidency which began some 15 years later.
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]He killed our Marines in Somalia by putting a hack like Les Aspin in charge of the military and creating a virulent anti-military atmosphere in his admin. that bordered on sabotage.
He and his wife were responsible for the Waco massacre.
He backed his buddy Bernie Schwartz of LORAL to circumvent the Commerce Dept.'s edict prohibiting the selling of missile technology that might be used against us, to a foreign country. The kickbacks were large.
He probably was tangentially involved in the murder of at least 3 people, Foster, MacDonald and Ron Brown. He was propped up by thugs out of Arkansas which is how a no-account governor of a no-account state could ever beat a sitting president.
You can believe whatever makes you sleep nights. Bill Clinton is a coke-sniffing degenerate who will forever be remembered as an impeached president who damaged the office he served and this country in ways we're just discovering.[/QUOTE]
Again, all highly salient criticisms of Klinton, but they won't seem that important when the major American cities and the capitals of Europe have been subjected to nuclear detonations....
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]As for not voting. I don't see the point. We the People have been given the shaft too often. Californians voted for Prop. 187 only to be told by one solitary judge that it was unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]
Which would have been fine, had it actually BEEN unConstitutional (it clearly wasn't). Would it have been better if we hadn't passed 187 and not forced the elite to show what tyrannical scum they are? 187 was still a victory, because it demonstrated the rightness and popularity of our cause, and it showed the venality of our enemies. The state of California remains the same after 187 was struck down as it was before we passed it, but now more people have seen the truth of our evil system demonstrated for them. You seem to be arguing that since we don't win as substantial victories as we'd like, we should cease trying. That's the path to genocide most Americans are unconsciously taking.
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]Only one thing will clean out this mess and it won't be voting in this presidential election. That I can tell you.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, but it probably won't all happen at once, which is why voting is still a good idea, if only as a way of defying the system (non-voting is giving the system your tacit approval, whether you intended to do so or not; that's simply what it IS). And its not just a Presidential election.
2004-07-04 15:42 | User Profile
KO:
You make valid points but the outcome of your concerns have yet to materialize. This may very well end in a nuclear armageddon, but neither of us are soothsayers. There may be paths leading away from this nightmarish ending which have yet to be explored. I never would have believed that Jordan and Yemen would be willing to send troops to help shore up security in Iraq.
But hindsight being 20/20, I can definitely assess Clinton's disastrous legacy and its implications. The erosion he set in motion may be subterranean, but like the destructive 60's, it continues to manifest itself in the most insidious ways gaining momentum with each new brainwashed generation. The psychological damage alone perpetrated by this white-trash, thug can't even be quantified. Bush's blowback may be worse, but at this point it's still conjecture.
I'm not a Californian so I don't know what the reaction has been to this court nullification. My take on the broader picture is this. Liberal judges dominate the appellate court landscape due mostly to Repub reluctance to get into a dirty fight and Dems never breaking ranks, no matter what the allegations. They sit in critical positions for life, allowing them to practice their activism without oversight, clearly a violation of the Constitution. If this continues it won't matter what you or I think, or who we elect or the propositions we support. National and state elections have been allowed to deteriorate to a point where they're merely window dressing. In many states, the same candidate is allowed to run on all Party lines, insuring that there's a vote but no election. The lines between Repubs and Dems are so blurred that it's almost impossible to tell them apart and we can forget about the emergence of a viable Third Party any time soon. Add to that the leftist media suppressing news, editorializing instead of reporting, and openly expressing their alignment with Dems, and what we have is an internal national disaster on the order of the fall of Rome. Cynicism isn't compatible with freedom, yet many people are beginning to feel as I do.
2004-07-05 11:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe] Perhaps, but it probably won't all happen at once, which is why voting is still a good idea, if only as a way of defying the system (non-voting is giving the system your tacit approval, whether you intended to do so or not; that's simply what it IS). And its not just a Presidential election.[/QUOTE] I don't really want to get into the middle of this (Bush and Clinton are both bastards, by the way) but I have been thinking about your point above. There are two sides to the voting argument, and I have been unable to make up my mind as to with which I agree. The first is the one you made above, that, no matter how rotten the system, if you do not vote, then you are giving your tacit approval to the system. I understand that argument, and it is the position I used to hold. The second viewpoint, however, is that if you know the system is rotten, and that you have no ability to truly change anything, and that the whole 'democratic process' is a charade to mollify the masses, and if you vote anyway, then you are agreeing to participate in this rotten process, which means that you approve of it enough to participate, which means that, on some level, you are giving it your approval.
Thoughts?
2004-07-06 18:11 | User Profile
[url]http://www.atimes.com[/url]
Front Page
Fahrenheit 9/11: Factual or Saudi-bashing? By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
Fahrenheit 9/11 is the "temperature" at which the presidency of George W Bush burns. While we must delegate to the near future the question of whether or not it will be "the film that unseated President Bush", the controversial documentary by anti-war activist Michael Moore is undoubtedly a potent missile fired at the White House's regime of truth, simultaneously unmasking the conformist American media as well as the capitalist logic of war making. It is a humorous, compassionate, critical and enlightened examination of a rather sad chapter in contemporary American history marked with war, terrorism and overzealous counter-terrorism trampling on citizens' rights, invoking the dark memories of McCarthyism and communist witchhunts.
Moore's timely antidote, decried by the right wing media and the garden variety pundits such as Christopher Hitchens, a one time Marxist-turned White House apologist, delves into the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries connections of the Bush dynasty and in no uncertain terms accuses the sitting president and his father, former president George H W Bush, of prioritizing their own interests and the interests of their Saudi partners over national interests. Like so many voices in America - presidential hopeful John Kerry, journalist-cum-author Bob Woodward, and others, Moore attacks Saudi Arabia, a country many Americans love to hate these days given the fact that some 15 of the 19 perpetrators of the September 11 tragedy were Saudis, never mind that the Saudi government itself is targeted by the same al-Qaeda terrorists. Regardless, the post-September 11 Saudi syndrome that has sunk in the substratum of American political psychic is so powerful as to unconsciously serve as a scapegoat, letting others off the hook.
Indeed, one is struck by the peculiar absence of any reference by Moore to the so-called neo-conservatives of Bush's inner circle, almost entirely Jewish, who plotted the invasion of Iraq long before September 11. Moore's bravery stops at the door of Israel, and he does not bother even asking if Israel and its army of influence peddlers in the US capital and its halls of power and decision-making was a key factor triggering the present administration into war with Iraq. At the risk of sounding "anti-Israel", however, the question needs to be asked and seriously scrutinized, notwithstanding the commission of inquiry in Israel now investigating precisely the question of why the Israeli government and its security apparatuses exaggerated the weapons of mass destruction threat of Saddam Hussein.
Sadly, no one in the 9-11 Commission has bothered to raise such a question, perhaps out of fear of instant excommunication by colleagues and the media, just as was the case with Representative James P Moran, who dared to suggest at one point that the American Jewish community was pressing the White House to go to war in Iraq. Another question is, of course, if Moore could realistically afford to antagonize the Jewish population, not to mention the pro-Israel Hollywood executives who berated Mel Gibson openly in the New York Times for his "sin" of depicting a crucified Christ condemned by his Jewish community.
But just as Gibson's Passion of Christ was a sincere attempt to come to terms with the true message of the Messiah, Moore the "president slayer" should have ventured on this tricky ground irrespective of the potential backlash. After all, Fahrenheit 9/11 invokes close comparison with the 1966 classic, Fahrenheit 451, an Orwellian near future science fiction depicting a docile population duped by wall televisions. "We've got to be alike," says one of the villains of the movie to Montag, the book burner turned their admirer rebelling against the status quo. Based on a book by Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451's darkly dystopia can be hardly dismissed in the light of America's largely docile population following what Noam Chomsky has termed as a sophisticated "manufacturing consent".
However, there is no consent "from below" about the Iraq war either, and the "war for oil" discourse of the anti-war movement requires substantial qualification in light of several other intervening variables ranging from the cause sui generis of the American military industrial complex, the long-term requirements of uniploar hegemony, and the dictates of Israel's interests - superseding the foreign policy interests of the US according to a recently-published book by an anonymous Central Intelligence Agency official who has become disillusioned with the Bush's pro-Israel policy sacrificing America's relations with the Arab and Muslim world. In addition to this book, Imperial Hubris, another book written by general Anthony Zinni, called Battle Ready, bravely raises the issue of Israel's interests playing a paramount role on the part of various Jewish policy-makers within the Bush administration; in late May, 2004, Zinni, the former head of Central Command, relayed the same concerns about the Jewish neo-conservatives in an interview on CBS's 60 Minutes program.
To pause on the role of America's "warmongering Jews" for a moment, we must take account of the pro-war "liberal" Jews such as the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, whose book Plan of Attack deftly rationalizes Bush's war plan, and Thomas Friedman, a New York Times columnist, who similarly backed the invasion. Yet another name worth mentioning is Kenneth Polllack, whose book Threatening Storm: The Case for the invasion of Iraq, presented only a fleeting reference to the legality of such an invasion from the point of view of international law. Pollack, a former scholar at the pro-Israel think-tank in Washington DC, the Institute for Near East Studies, is now wearing a critical hat in the light of the post-war developments disproving his prediction of an easy and relatively cost-free war, using Bush as a scapegoat, whom he criticizes for misleading him and others into thinking Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, how convenient.
Moore's obliviousness to the question of Israel notwithstanding, another flaw of Fahrenheit 911 has to do with Moore playing loose and fast with facts throughout the documentary. Case in point, the narrator, Moore, states at one point that the regime of Saddam had "never killed a single American". This is factually incorrect, since in 1987 some 37 US sailors were killed by an Iraqi missile fired from one of Saddam's jet fighters, ostensibly to draw the US superpower into the Iran-Iraq war.
None of the above criticisms should detract us, however, from the cortical vacuum that is filled by Fahrenheit 9/11, the vacuum of critical reflection based on in-depth connecting facts bespeaking of American power run amok.
Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and "Iran's Foreign Policy Since 9/11", Brown's Journal of World Affairs, co-authored with former deputy foreign minister Abbas Maleki, No 2, 2003. He is also the founder and director of a NGO, Global Interfaith Peace.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact [email]content@atimes.com[/email] for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
2004-07-06 20:01 | User Profile
Besides the fact... as Mr. Moore (is that how you spell his name?), revealed to the masses... making this piece of free speech precious, and worth it... besides the fact that it would all be relatively the same anyway, everyWhichway from Tuesday... in any other 3 dimensional parallel universe... except let's look at the Players in this one... he revealed to the masses...not that they care or are paying attention (perhaps they 'know' something)... the "Var" is between the Saudi few & the Jewish few... not most Saudis, or most Jews...and being fought in America.
On another level of course...it Is being fought too between the Arabic masses and by comparison the much fewer jewish masses-?- REALLY? I'm not sure. Well, between those who want oil & the dollar to remain wed...most of the American public, because it's too soon for all the INFRASTRUCTURE around that reality to change...and the Arabic fundamentalists... don't like that Jews have gone along for the ride on the oil gravy train... of political reality, in trying and succeeding in regaining a homeland... theirs or not.
You have to go "between the lines" for that. Since Jews control the press, and even idiot Moore wouldn't have gotten on Screen...if he weren't just revealing in an election year...Bush loves the Saudis. In that dychotomy Bush = Saudis, Kerry = Jews. BUT that's not the REALITY either. The reality is just what it is...as always, and believe it or not... ELSEWHERE. Where?
Who knows? You, tell me.
2004-07-06 20:08 | User Profile
Hey Spiderman, I'm not trying to be rude, but do you think you could lay off the Joycean stream-of-consciousness thing? It makes your posts difficult to follow.
2004-07-06 20:27 | User Profile
Quantrill...
Serious'dude... you're my superior here. I always look for those and am grateful in finding them. Then I can sleep. Ok, I'll do it. I want to be Hemingway'ish... not Joyce. I'm lazy. Probably I'll still be Joyce'ish. Joyce used to say in a bind in a cafe: "Hem, deal with them!" (Drunks, what writers aren't?)
Hem used to say...perhaps tongue-in-cheek... Joyce was the great man.
Wow, to become Hemingway-?- Tall order. I'm NO DOUBT not that good or brilliant... sorry. I'll try. Usually the best I can do is stay employed for a few months.
2004-07-12 00:59 | User Profile
I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 and found it amusing. And of course I agree with what had been said here by the sages on OD. Look, if all I'll get out there in popular culture is, "this war is all for oil..", well, I'll settle for this for now. I characterize this whole Iraq war as: 1) the world's most expensive bounty-hunting operation ($300,000,000,000 and 1000+ dead/5000+ wounded and counting) or 2) more aid to Israel, in the form of a half-trillion dollars and lots of American goyim blood.