Michael Moore Answers Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11

Originally posted by asala
Ok lets keep this on topic. I do not want to see any more insults on this thread,

Asala

There haven't BEEN any insults on this thread....just an individual who is trying to use the moderators to silence those who show his "proof" to be nothing but rhetoric and lies....

Originally posted by J0HNSmith

Yes some of the sites I picked are Democrat sites and some of them have conclusive proof that bush is a liar. No I did not find a neutral site because there is no such site.
Lie #1--They Attacked Us: Iraq Supported Al Qaeda
ies #2 and #3--Imminent Threats: Iraq's Bio-Chem and Nuclear Weapons Programs.
Lie #4--It Will Be Easy: Iraq as a "Cakewalk."
Lie #5--The Moral Justification: Iraq as a Democratic Model.

read them in their entirety here

And than you can address the ones on this page

Oh CHEEZE AND RICE!!! Are you for real??? Lets see...THE NATION.COM...how about quoting THE most LUNATIC LEFT WING magazine there is!!! And as I've already pointed out, several times in fact, the DNC, who maintains the page at "appropriations_democrats" is trying to win the White house back, and will do ANYTHING to do so!!! Terry McC...the poster boy for truth in America? He wouldn�t know the truth if it hit him in the face with a bull fiddle!!! Good God, just look at the rhetoric!!! It's blatant!! Get outta town!!!

#1, Bush NEVER said that Iraq attacked us...that is a lie, plain and simple. Al Qaeda did, and Al Zarqawi, a known and admitted Al Qaeda operative has been in Iraq for a long time, has trained there, and REMAINS there. He continues his murderous rampages, beheading people who went there to help, like Nick Berg. That shows support for Al Qaeda. Period. Verifiable by REAL news sources.

2 & 3 - Iraq had WMD's...they used them on Iran and THEIR OWN PEOPLE!!! Verifiable by CREDIBLE news sources. Want more? Read Saddam's Bomb Maker, by the man in charge of the project! Sarin has been found in numerous artillery shells. do you know what Sarin is? Nerve gas, buddy. Know what it can do? I do, and it's not pretty. Ask the Kurds what chem weapons do to children....

4. Uh, dude...did you see how we walked in and took names? The only thing that was quicker was the FIRST action, kicking his butt out of Kuwait. What goes on now is an insurgency that will be quashed in time. Only a few are Iraqi's, most come from other radical countries. All in good time...they will get their wish to meet Allah.

Moral Justification...well, if you don't think setting people free from torture prisons, rebuilding schools so kids can get back in the classroom, cutting off the UN pilfered "Oil for Palaces Program", and releasing millions of people from the fear of torture and death the morally right thing to do, then I seriously question your morals....

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
You want to quit, go right ahead. Par for the course when you are proven wrong by REAL logic. You�re done because you�re wrong�nothing else.

I've yet to see you use any logic. All you do is deny, with no basis for your denial. You won't even look at a link that might say something you've already decided you don't believe. Your foot already has plenty holes in it. There's no need to shoot yourself anymore. In fact, why are you even here? Anyone who says anything against Bush is a left wing liar. Even if all the republicans told you Bush lied, you'd quickly decide they're all left wing liberals too. There's really no point in arguing with you. You're going to be right (in your head) no matter how wrong you are.

[edit on 22-7-2004 by Damned]

Originally posted by Damned

I've yet to see you use any logic. All you do is deny, with no basis for your denial. You won't even look at a link that might say something you've already decided you don't believe. Your foot already has plenty holes in it. There's no need to shoot yourself anymore.

In fact, why are you even here? Anyone who says anything against Bush is a left wing liar. Even if all the republicans told you Bush lied, you'd quickly decide they're all left wing liberals too.

There's really no point in arguing with you. You're going to be right (in your head) no matter how wrong you are.

[edit on 22-7-2004 by Damned]

I'm sorry...was there a point to your rambling diatribe? Perhaps you should read the thread before you go off half cocked....

I'll make the same challenge to you, and since you obviously didn't read the thread, here it is. Prove the President lied by use of CREDIBLE SOURCES. And no, the DNC, whatreallyhappened.com, and Michael Moore-on are NOT credible sources. Put your money where you mouth is.....

There's no way to prove he willfully lied, unless someone narks on him, or he was dumb enough to lie about something that turns out to show direct evidence that proves he lied. If I lie about knowing something, how the hell are you going to prove I knew something I didn't? The fact is, if he didn't know, he's an idiot, because it was handed to him in writing. Yet, he chose to believe rumor over fact, and base his actions upon agreed speculation. That's as bad, or worse than lying, when you're in charge of the country.
Those who have common sense and instinct, know. There are far too many things that point toward lies. If you choose to ignore all of them, that's your prerogative. I can't help you escape denial.

Have you seen the report yet? Maybe this will at least convince you that there was no al Qaeda connection? I know you've stressed that there was in the past. You're also still convinced that attacking Iraq was the right thing to do? How much of America, the world, and even the administration itself, has to disagree with you before you change your mind?

There was no operational link between al-Qaeda and ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

news.bbc.co.uk...

The report isn't looking good for the current administration. It's full of failures.

www.9-11commission.gov...

[edit on 23-7-2004 by Damned]

Originally posted by Damned
There's no way to prove he willfully lied, unless someone narks on him, or he was dumb enough to lie about something that turns out to show direct evidence that proves he lied. If I lie about knowing something, how the hell are you going to prove I knew something I didn't? The fact is, if he didn't know, he's an idiot, because it was handed to him in writing. Yet, he chose to believe rumor over fact, and base his actions upon agreed speculation. That's as bad, or worse than lying, when you're in charge of the country.
Those who have common sense and instinct, know. There are far too many things that point toward lies. If you choose to ignore all of them, that's your prerogative. I can't help you escape denial.

Have you seen the report yet? Maybe this will at least convince you that there was no al Qaeda connection? I know you've stressed that there was in the past. You're also still convinced that attacking Iraq was the right thing to do? How much of America, the world, and even the administration itself, has to disagree with you before you change your mind?

There was no operational link between al-Qaeda and ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

[edit on 23-7-2004 by Damned]

There are MANY problems with your post, not the least of which is that you still show no PROOF to back up your ridiculous claims!!!! The BBC report says NOTHING even REMOTLY resembling what you claim, and neither does the 9/11 report!! Did you even READ either one of them? Show me ONE REFERENCE to a lie by the President!!! JUST ONE!!! The larger problem with you is that you say it's bad to speculate about lying, but then you go right ahead and DO IT YOURSELF!!! Holy cheeze, do you know what the definition of the word hypocrite is?

How much of America, the world, and even the administration itself, has to disagree with you before you change your mind?

What the hell are you talking about? As if I'm the only one on the planet who doesn't believe your trash? The �administration� (I can only guess you mean the Bush administration) is saying that the President lied? Give it a rest...you don't speak for the planet, the country, even your own TOWN, let alone for me!!! You and your ilk seem to think you know more than the President of the United States...I'm sorry...just when did you become privy to classified information from the CIA, FBI, NSA, and other foreign and domestic security and intelligence agencies? Do you presume to know what the President was or was not told? The audacity!!!

Bottom line, the President relies on the information he is given...he isn't a one man show. That's why he has the tools at his disposal to make decisions. It remains to be seen as to what information was bad, good, or irrelevant. The last card has yet to be played. As a matter of fact, we're still on the first hand.

Now, I'll repeat my challenge...show some evidence. You have only weakened your already crumbling case here. I'd be embarrassed if I were you.....

Forget it. There's no point in wasting anymore time trying to teach the blind to see, much less enlighten the mentally challenged. Have a good life. You're a lost cause.

Your entire premise is based on supposition... You are supposing that the US went to war in Iraq over Al Queda's alleged involvement in 9/11. WRONG!!! The US went to war in iraq because Saddam had ignored 18 UN resolutions! EIGHTEEN, count them... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18! With the last two threatening "Severe consequences" if they failed to comply. Everyone in the world new that "Sever consequences meant military action!

Al Queda's involvement in 9/11 was never in question as an argument for war. However, the world over was curious as to whether or not Saddam was involved as evidenced demonstrated his support for literally dozens of terrorist organizations all over the world. We also knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past and might do so again. We also knew that Saddam Hussein had a desire to strike at the US for the Gulf War.

Now, stop attempting to rewrite history and post for us a definitive link where Bush stated that Iraq AND Al Queda were responsible for 9/11.

Originally posted by Damned
Forget it. There's no point in wasting anymore time trying to teach the blind to see, much less enlighten the mentally challenged. Have a good life. You're a lost cause.

You were obviously looking in the mirror when you posted this...must I remind you about the "personal insult" rule as some others here tend to do so often?

Sucks to loose such a simple argument, doesn't it? Next time don�t come to a battle of wits to totally unarmed.....

Did he now? It seems to me that he probably did actually dispose of any weapons he may have had. Otherwise, don't you think we might have found something by now? I don't have time to give you a history lesson, but the reason Saddam was no longer cooperating was because the US practically shut down their world trade. I can't really say I blame him. The US wouldn't deal, so he ended all cooperation. Go do some research. Your story is so one-sided, it's not even funny. Of course, you're another one of those who will only believe what justifies mass murder in your head. I don't have to justify it. I don't support it.
Why is it always the same damn arguments?

1. Saddam wasn't cooperative
2. Saddam gassed his own people
3. Saddam had empty chemical warheads with minor traces of old toxins

Is that it? Is that your entire argument? Why don't people like you ever ask about the other half of the story? You just don't care? It's almost as if I was to tell you that my car was rear ended, but I failed to mention that I was going 40MPH in reverse on the freeway.

1. Why? Was there a reason?
2. Why? And what were the circumstances?
3. This one is just a poor attempt to justify the WMD thing. Where did he get these in the first place?

Why don't you go look for the other half of the story before you accuse me of rewriting history? There are many details missing from your butchered version.


www.washingtonpost.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...
www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
www.whitehouse.gov...
abcnews.go.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.usatoday.com...
www.abc.net.au...
www.spectrumz.com...

I can find these all day long, but I don't have that much time. He constantly mentioned Iraq, Saddam, and Al Qaeda in the same breath, and also claimed a connection. So, you'd rather believe Bush is just stupid, rather than lying?

PRESIDENT BUSH: "Yeah. Look � what � what we based our evidence on was a very sound National Intelligence Estimate. ..."



[edit on 26-7-2004 by Damned]

Originally posted by Damned
Did he now? It seems to me that he probably did actually dispose of any weapons he may have had. Otherwise, don't you think we might have found something by now? I don't have time to give you a history lesson, but the reason Saddam was no longer cooperating was because the US practically shut down their world trade. I can't really say I blame him. The US wouldn't deal, so he ended all cooperation. Go do some research. Your story is so one-sided, it's not even funny. Of course, you're another one of those who will only believe what justifies mass murder in your head. I don't have to justify it. I don't support it.
Why is it always the same damn arguments?

1. Saddam wasn't cooperative
2. Saddam gassed his own people
3. Saddam had empty chemical warheads with minor traces of old toxins

Is that it? Is that your entire argument? Why don't people like you ever ask about the other half of the story? You just don't care? It's almost as if I was to tell you that my car was rear ended, but I failed to mention that I was going 40MPH in reverse on the freeway.

[edit on 26-7-2004 by Damned]

Dood, you are such a broken record it's pathetic. Do you actually read your posts before you hit that send button, or do you just fly off the handle and let fly with your "party line drivel" straight off the post?

You simply ignore the truth of the matter. There was plenty of trade with Saddam...it's called the famous "Oil for Palaces" scandal, with France, Germany, Russia, and tons of officials of the UN taking part in screwing the Iraqi people for profit. Saddam built palaces all over the nation while his people starved and languished in his torture prisons. Yeah, that's the USA's fault...we restrained him so far that he acquired billions of dollars while he was being so well "restricted". All he had to do was allow unfettered access to all sites to verify that there were no WMD's or the capability to manufacture same. Did he do that? No. He kicked the inspectors out every time they got close to exposing him. Yeah, that's the way to show the world that you have nothing to hide. Try reading a book called "Saddam's Bomb Maker". Interesting read from the man who was at the center of the push to attain WMD's in Iraq.


But then, that doesn't support your revisionist view of the truth, so you'll ignore it and come up with some more whacked out links to sites so full of bull you could fertilize Ohio for a century...

Look. We strangled Iraq for years. Apparently you didn't know?

www.accuracy.org...

Originally posted by Damned
Look. We strangled Iraq for years. Apparently you didn't know?

www.accuracy.org...

Oh my GAWD!!!! Are you for real??? You can't POSSIBLY believe the crap you post!!! Go and look at that site and really read it this time!!! Anti government, anti IMF, anti anything it can think of except for ANARCHY!!!


Are you purposely trying to PROVE that you have no credibility what so ever??? WE didn't strangle Iraq, Saddam did it himself. HE murdered his own people, both literally and figuratively by building billion dollar palaces all over the country instead of feeding his country. Try to understand the truth for a change instead of your revisionist lies...."Saddam good...USA bad"...drivel...


Try again...this time, get someone with a modicum of common sense to give you a hand...


Man, are you ever giving me a bunch of laughs though!!!

Our sanctions went on for a long time. It's well documented and well known. Are you contesting that the US had sanctions against Iraq, and also supported UN sanctions against Iraq? The US has sanctions against everyone they don't like. What part of that is hard for you to believe? That link I provided just happens to sum it all up in one page. There are plenty of more official articles and docs about our sanctions against Iraq, but I don't guess you'll look for them. I give up. As I've already pointed out, you won't even believe well known information, unless it comes from Bush himself, and even then you won't believe it's from Bush himself. Ignorance is not a virtue, FYI.

BTW, Saddam never "kicked out" any inspectors. That's another part of your delusional history. They were withdrawn because they weren't allowed to do their job. There's a difference. Seek education.

And here's the description of the book you mentioned. Are you sure you read it?

The Iraqi scientist who designed Baghdad's nuclear bomb tells how he did it in secret with the cynical help of U.S., French, German, and British suppliers and experts, and kept it hidden from U.N. inspectors after the Gulf War. Today, he says, Saddam Hussein is only months away from making a workable bomb and has every intention of using it.

"Don't tell me about the law. The law is anything I write on a scrap of paper."
��Saddam Hussein

In 1994, after twenty years developing Iraq's atomic weapon, Dr. Khidhir Hamza made a daring escape to warn the CIA of Saddam's nuclear ambitions...only to be ridiculed and turned away! After a harrowing journey across three continents with Iraqi agents on his trail, Hamza finally came in from the cold at the U.S. embassy in Hungary. Now he tells a frightening story that U.S. officials have finally come to believe: that Saddam is still feverishly at work on the bomb and, if pushed to the wall, will use it.

www.amazon.com...

There's one major problem with this. Saddam was pushed to the wall, and he didn't use any bomb. In fact, there still is no bomb, and very little evidence, if any at all, that any program was even in place in the last 10 years. One must also look at the price of this book. It was originally $26 bucks! You don't suppose there may have been an ulterior motive, do you? The book is considered "A Combination of Fact and Fiction". Why would you even bring it up?

[edit on 27-7-2004 by Damned]

MM could make a documentary like this about every president that ever lived. Does it make it right? NO!! He knows not what he does.

Originally posted by Damned
Our sanctions went on for a long time. It's well documented and well known. Are you contesting that the US had sanctions against Iraq, and also supported UN sanctions against Iraq?

The US has sanctions against everyone they don't like. What part of that is hard for you to believe? That link I provided just happens to sum it all up in one page. There are plenty of more official articles and docs about our sanctions against Iraq, but I don't guess you'll look for them. I give up. As I've already pointed out, you won't even believe well known information, unless it comes from Bush himself, and even then you won't believe it's from Bush himself. Ignorance is not a virtue, FYI.

BTW, Saddam never "kicked out" any inspectors. That's another part of your delusional history. They were withdrawn because they weren't allowed to do their job. There's a difference. Seek education.

And here's the description of the book you mentioned. Are you sure you read it?


There's one major problem with this. Saddam was pushed to the wall, and he didn't use any bomb. The book is considered "A Combination of Fact and Fiction". Why would you even bring it up?

[edit on 27-7-2004 by Damned]

A miserable and painful death? WOW!!! I'm afraid THAT statement is FAR WORSE than simple name calling, fella!!!! You just don't learn. But since you are quitting for what, the third time now, I'll just finish you off again with actual facts instead of your propaganda. ( I notice you edited this nasty little comment out before I could quote it....nice. At least you have the capacity to learn!)

The sanctions you speak of were UNITED NATIONS sanctions, not simply US sanctions, something you ignore because it doesn't serve your purpose which is to spread lies and propaganda. Again, the UNITED NATIONS allowed the "Oil for Food" program to be implemented, www.un.org... , then allowed it to be bastardized by corrupt UN officials, to include Secretary-General Kofi Annan's son, who reaped unlawful benefits by helping Saddam steal perhaps every penny that was supposed to be earmarked for his countrymen.

abcnews.go.com...
www.washingtontimes.com...
cbn.org...
encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...

You see, the above are CREDIBLE SOURCES, nationally and internationally recognized news organizations that have at least some journalistic integrity. They aren�t out to spread misinformation like the ridiculous sources you quote. They are easier to find than the drivel you have been posting. Try it some time.

So, since by your repeated incorrect statements you seem to be incapable of understanding the concept, the US did NOT unilaterally invoke sanctions on Iraq, and the pain and suffering caused by the UNITED NATIONS sanctions were caused by Saddam's palace building spree that raped his country's banks and starved it's children. Saddam did it, not us. Get it right, because you are looking very foolish by continuing to post links that have no credibility what so ever. Where do you get your daily news, the National Enquirer?

Never kicked the inspectors out? WHAT??? Are you smoking something? Here, I'll even use on of the sources YOU have use din the past, the BBC...

news.bbc.co.uk...

Just one of how many times the inspectors were in and out??? Cheeze, quit making it so easy, will you???


The have read the book in question, and it is only bashed by those who wish to put a damper on the information in it. The people who lived it know it to be true, but again, that doesn't suit your purpose, now does it?

If you wish to continue to claim that Saddam was such a great leader and should still be in power today, you may continue on your dilusional journey...but at least try to come up with some decent main stream sources for your claims....

Of course, that will dry up your comments, now won't it???

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
Of course, that will dry up your comments, now won't it???

No, it won't. But I'm tired of arguing with you. There's no point in this. You're more brainwashed than anyone I've ever seen. Yes, I'm done with you. You don't seek the truth. Have a crappy life.

[edit on 28-7-2004 by Damned]

Originally posted by Damned

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
Of course, that will dry up your comments, now won't it???

No, it won't. But I'm tired of arguing with you. There's no point in this. You're more brainwashed than anyone I've ever seen.

Yes, I'm done with you. You don't seek the truth. Have a crappy life.

[edit on 28-7-2004 by Damned]

There's no point because you can't refute the overwhelming evidence presented from reputable sources which makes your propaganda sites
shrivel.

Have a crappy life...I guess that's better than when you wished me a "miserable and painful death", so It looks like you must really like me now, eh?

Don't flatter yourself. I'm quitting because, if I don't, I might say something I'll regret. I may even stoop to your level of immature insults, which are in almost every single one of your posts.

Good bye.

Please keep it civil, folks.

I realize that there are certain issues we feel strongly about and that we are all occasionally guilty of weak research -- but let's keep the tone of this civil, eh?

There's a lot of good discussions but if this turns into a flame war, we'll lock the topic.

Thanks.
-- Byrd