| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"osprey" |
| Date: |
02 Jul 2004 12:01:02 AM |
| Object: |
Helping Krisblake and her research |
Krisblake claimed she saw the movie FAHRENHEIT 9/11 because she had to
do a composition on the movie.
Any person who has been in college and done research papers knows that
most colleges require APA style format.
I am going to help Krisblake out because she needs all the help she
can get.
Krisblake, if you are going to do your report you should do it with
contrast.
In other words you need to show both sides of the story.
Michael Moore of course is lying in his film and I am going to spell
them out for you in detail so you can do a better report. Good luck.
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_06_27_dish_archive.html#108864966008144677
THE LIES OF FAHRENHEIT I
http://spectator.se/stambord/index.php?p=45
The Lies of Fahrenheit: The First in a Series
Filed under: Iraq- Michael Moynihan (Stockholm, Sweden)@ 12:31 am
For the moment, I have little in way of a response to Michael Moore's
latest bit of cinematic incoherence, Fahrenheit 9-11. It is, of
course, an enraging film, although, I would argue, not for the
conventional, "we were lied to by a cabal of oilmen" reasons.
But for the moment, allow me to address the film's final scene, a
montage of clips "demonstrating" that "Bush lied" about Iraq's
supposed connection to 9-11; that the American people—a trusting, if
simple, group—were buncoed into connecting "secular Saddam" to the
zealots of Al-Qaeda. Let's be clear about this, for it bears
repeating: the administration has repeatedly and forcefully connected
Iraq and Al-Qaeda—and, as recent evidence has shown, for good reason.
What the administration has not done—contrary to popular belief—is
publicly link Iraq to the attacks of September 11.
But, you protest, I saw Condoleezza Rice in Fahrenheit 9-11 tell a
reporter that, "indeed," there was a relationship!
ROLL FILM:
"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11."
CUT.
Pretty damning stuff, isn't it? But that was the truncated, Michael
Moore version. Now for the full, unexpurgated quote:
"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.
It's not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime
involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the
rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into
buildings in New York."
Well that's a different quote, Mike. So why the editing?
Comments (82)
Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is:
http://spectator.se/stambord/wp-trackback.php/45
Gotcha… maybe Ebert missed this one because it fit his story well too
http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-moore18.html
Comment by Allen — 7/1/2004 @ 4:54 am
What's your source for the full Rice quote?
Comment by Anonymous — 7/1/2004 @ 5:12 am
Why the editing? Silly question. Because he's a ****ing seditious
liar, knucklehead.
Comment by DrZin — 7/1/2004 @ 5:32 am
Isikoff strikes back
Here…UPDATE: More commentshere and here……
Trackback by Croooow Blog — 7/1/2004 @ 5:46 am
Here is the source for the entire Rice quote
Comment by Kevin P. — 7/1/2004 @ 5:52 am
One need only consider the source of the lying, obviously partisan,
personally repulsive, Michael Moore to see the transparent fabric of
lies and half-truths he attempts to pass off as journalism. This "man"
is an obviously liberal, America-hating, self-agandizing phoney only a
like-minded partisan could take seriously!
Comment by JOHN A. MEINE — 7/1/2004 @ 5:58 am
Perhaps the editing was done because you can't fit every twenty minute
interview that you cite when you're producing a documentary? Let's get
serious!
Comment by Clint W — 7/1/2004 @ 6:10 am
Moore Fact Checking
As predicted, people are starting to shoot down the mistakes in
Fahrenheit 9/11. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, but it's worth
repeating since what Moore did was extremely dishonest and unfair.
More importantly, he's aiding our enemies by…
Trackback by Hud's Blog-O-Rama — 7/1/2004 @ 6:19 am
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution [emphasis mine] of 2002 (Public Law
107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in
the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other
peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national
security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by
Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is
consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to
take the necessary actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 [emphasis mine].
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
How would one interpret this in such a way that it does NOT say that
military force against Iraq is warranted because it planned,
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of 9/11? You can
find this on the White House web site.
Comment by UMax — 7/1/2004 @ 6:34 am
What a lame criticism of Michael Moore - and how typical. Pick on
technicalities and miss the larger point. Having seen the film, I now
understand why Moore deliberately edits as he does. The Bush
administration is a master of the "USA Today soundbyte", structurally
represented as: followed by and . What do you think the American
public ends up remembering and gets manipulated into believing? (After
all, a good % of Americans now believe this link - and that those
elusive WMD were actually found!!) Not the qualifier statements. Maybe
Moore's editing takes Condi's statement out of context - or maybe he
just holds her accountable for EVERYTHING she says. Thank God someone
is finally holding this administration accountable.
Comment by Dane D'Alessandro — 7/1/2004 @ 6:57 am
Golly, a lefty exaggerates in order to make a point. Who woulda thunk
it?
Meanwhile the Limbaughs and Coulters of the world aren't exaggerating,
they're making ***** up! Not to mention a White House that has lived
for 3 years on "technical truths" that are actually promoting lies.
Sauce for the gander, anyone?
Comment by get over it — 7/1/2004 @ 7:28 am
Let's face it: Moore is a liar and a propagandist. He knows it, his
fans know it and they don't care. Their job is to try and influence
people through any means possible.
Q: Why isn't Moore living in Flint, Michigan and providing "living
wage" jobs to residents there?
A: Because he's a lying weasel!
Comment by Reality Hammer — 7/1/2004 @ 8:19 am
Are you kidding, Lee? The entire premise of this war was based on a
suspected link between Al Qaeda and Iraq! Here's a little quote from
an article off the Washington Post site based on findings from the
Sept 11 Commission:
Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons
of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other
top administration officials have often asserted that there were
extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's
terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link
was "overwhelming."
And the article is titled, "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed". So
yeah, I think someone did say it, many, many times.
Comment by Poseidon — 7/1/2004 @ 8:34 am
"Pick on technicalities and miss the larger point."
In other words, let's all ignore the facts and open wide for Michael
Moore to shovel ***** down our throats.
Comment by Carlos — 7/1/2004 @ 8:35 am
It is clear that liberals and America haters (is thetre a difference?)
refuse to see the accumulating evidence of WMD, or that the Iraq war
was entirely justified as a continuation to finish the original Gulf
War, or that it was entirely justified simply because Saddam tried to
kill George H.W. Bush, or that it was justified by the Bush Doctrine
that supporters of terrorists are just as guilty as terrorists.
Even then, what if everybody is wrong and there was no reason to
attack Iraq. Then I say, GOOD. That'll show those terrorist buttheads
not to screw with America. No telling who we'll take down next!
Meanwhile, we keep coming across babies' graves in Iraq and liberals
don't care at all.
Comment by quiet yall — 7/1/2004 @ 9:11 am
You're quoting from an article in the Washington Post as if they are
reporting a direct quote from someone in the Bush administration..
they're not. You would find the same mistaken attributions from many
other news' sources starting back from the blocked UN vote end of last
year through the decision to go to war with Saddam the butcher and
even still. Does that make it true? Of course not. You have heard of a
meme right? If the media repeats it enough, it becomes unquestioned
truth.
I can deal with opposing viewpoints. Just don't pass along some tripe
as fact just because it was published in the Wash. Post.
Comment by Pmarlow — 7/1/2004 @ 9:31 am
In response to: "How would one interpret this in such a way that it
does NOT say that military force against Iraq is warranted because it
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of
9/11?"
Well, quite easily. Action is to be taken against terrorists INCLUDING
those who attacked on 9/11. Read your own quote. "Including" does not
mean "limited to". Maybe I should run a public service campaign at
school children: Grammar matters.
Bush, in his letter, was tracking the language of the Congressional
resolution.
Comment by Anonymous — 7/1/2004 @ 11:25 am
Post number 9 has nailed you guys. The president's own formal
declaration to Congress states an Iraq - 9/11 link.
And Moore's editing is fair enough – it shows how the the
administration would publicly say there is a link, but then saying it
is a very, very, very indirect one, in other words not a link at all.
Why are you outraged and Rice for her obfuscation? To say there is a
link (what everyone will remember) followed by "but but but not
really" is just a lie tactic.
Comment by bos — 7/1/2004 @ 12:08 pm
thats really weak.
If thats the best you can come up with reguarding the facts in f9/11
then its far more watertight then I initially thought.
Comment by nick — 7/1/2004 @ 12:38 pm
So….a secular dictatorship somehow contributes to a radical muslim
Saudi led plot to attack the US? That's like saying if I get angry
today, you're likely to get a headache. THERE'S NO LINK! By
simplistically tring to link all the "bad people" in a simplistic
world view worthy of a five year old this administration earns it's
reputation as being led by dullards. If you're willing to follow this
worldview then……..
Comment by Michael Martino — 7/1/2004 @ 12:53 pm
It's not all that complicated.
Bush and his clan have treated the people of America with total
disregard.
Did Michael Moore take advantage of their arrogance?
Yes, but what he did was to clearly use the same tactics (careful
editing and selective sound bites) on the administration that they
used to promote and execute their invasion of Iraq. The scarry part is
the position that to be against Bush is unamerican. In fact it is the
MOST AMERICAN thing you can do!
Comment by Bill McConnell — 7/1/2004 @ 1:14 pm
I don't think the full(er) quote makes Moore's case that much worse.
Rice says, there is indeed a tie between Iraq and 9/11 and then goes
on to say, well, there isn't one really, but intolerance is catching.
That's nice but it means Iraq had no direct involvement in 9/11. Then
why insinuate that there's a connection? That, it seems to me, is
Moore's point.
Comment by weboy — 7/1/2004 @ 1:28 pm
A guy named Michael Moynihan is Swedish?
"Americans…a trusting if simple group." How nice. And you in Europe
have it all figured out? "I'm Swedish, I'm neutral, I can insult
anybody."
It shows what you know of the citizens of the US if you think we are
still a "trusting" group. Bash Michael Moore all you want but his film
may never have been made in another country. Americans are being
screwed every day by immigrants who think it's amusing or poetic
justice to "put one over" on those "trusting but simple" Americans.
Maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happend at all had we not bee so "trusting
but simple." Perhaps WWII would have ended differently had Europe been
a little more "trusting but simple." Maybe there would be less
starving peoples in the world if Europe were more "trusting but
simple." But we Americans as a nation do what we can. We as a nation
may have a President who thinks he is King, but we are a "trusting but
simple" people, waiting for the rest of the world to pat us on the
head. Not! Nor are we as arrogant as our President would make us
appear. I will not froth like the right-wing. I will not mewl like the
left. For all our faults, we Americans are definitly not the "trusting
but simple" citizens you seem to think we are. Travel here much?
Your snide tone and superior air reveal you for what you are, just an
internet basher with a forum.
If you're going to editorialize, try to be professional. If you're
going to whine, present an original argument, huh?
Comment by Novak — 7/1/2004 @ 1:45 pm
Oh, and John in comment 6? That would be "self-aggrandizing." And try
less hyphenation.
Remember, the nice right-wing man said "grammer matters." [EDITOR'S
NOTE: Please, no lectures on punctuation, etc, especially if you
cannot spell the work GRAMMAR]
Comment by Novak — 7/1/2004 @ 1:56 pm
OK, for the liberal idiots let's walk through this.
1) There IS a Saddam-al Qaida link. The 9-11 Commission has confirmed
that it's their conclusion that such a link existed.
2) There is not, so far, any evidence linking Saddam or the Iraqi
government to the attacks of 9-11. That does not follow, however, that
there is no "Saddam-al Qaida link."
3) WMD have been found in Iraq. Though we haven't stumbled upon any
"stockpiles." And if Bush lied, that means the French lied, the
Germans lied, the entire international community lied. Talk about a
conspiracy theory!
Comment by Palooka — 7/1/2004 @ 2:20 pm
Fahrenheit 9/11
Isikoff and Hosenball from Newsweek take on Micheal Moore's latest
round of propaganda. They write: In his new movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11,"
film-maker Michael Moore makes the eye-popping claim that Saudi
Arabian interests "have given" $1.4 billion to fir…
Trackback by Perry on Politics — 7/1/2004 @ 2:22 pm
1)I, Michael Moynihan, am not Swedish. Nice observation. But one
mustn't be Swedish to live in Sweden.
2) You seem to have taken the comment "nice, if simple" out of
context. I am, in fact, an American. And I am, in fact, making fun of
your hero, Michael Moore. If you have an issue with the "simple"
thesis—and I do—then write Moore. Some choice quotes: In London: "They
are possibly the dumbest people on the planet . . . in thrall to
conniving, thieving smug [pieces of the human anatomy]…We don't know
about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is
embarrassing." In Germany: " "You can see us coming down the street.
You know, `Hey! Hi! How's it going?' We've got that big [expletive]
grin on our face all the time because our brains aren't loaded down."
Etc, etc.
3)For those who have said, "is this all you got?" Well, no. Please
read the first paragraph and take note of the headline: "The First in
a Series." Small digestible bits, kids.
Comment by Michael Moynihan — 7/1/2004 @ 2:24 pm
I CAN'T TAKE NO MOORE
I didn't watch Bowling for Columbine and I won't watch Fahrenheit
9/11. Why? This is why:Michael Isikoff & Mark Hosenball Michael
Moynihan MooreWatch…
Trackback by the voodoo lounge — 7/1/2004 @ 2:29 pm
"Why are you outraged and Rice for her obfuscation? To say there is a
link (what everyone will remember) followed by "but but but not
really" is just a lie tactic."
Ok, Moron. [Editor: please refrain from ad hominem attacks in the
comments] Then why doesn't Honest Boy Moore just make such a point? A
point which I disagree with, but certainly does not venture into
propagandized lies. Back to your point, this may be a fair argument
were it not for two facts:
1) This is the only quote Moore could find which he could edit to
support such a claim.
2) The quote when taken in its entirety directly refutes Moore's
argument. Ms. Rice EXPLICITLY states immediately following the quote
that Saddam or the Iraqi government had NOTHING to do with the attacks
of 9-11. I know you, being a liberal, tend to loathe and despise
common Americans (they don't know what's good for them or in this
case, they can't understand their native language), but how can you
honestly say someone could misconstrue Rice's comments? Really? And if
the quote is just as sinister in its entirety, then why didn't Moore
leave it in?
Can we stop with the tortured logic defending this POS "documentary?"
Comment by Palooka — 7/1/2004 @ 2:36 pm
In response to post 25:
I don't know if you're evil, or just a dithering idiot, but I'll give
you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're mentally retarded.
Here we go slowly: [Editor: please refrain from ad hominem attacks in
the comments]
The 9-11 Commission says there is NO link between Saddam and Bin
Laden. I can see how the word "NO" is a small word and easy to miss,
but it's pretty important. And, you know, if you learned to use a
search engine, you too might possibly know what goes on in the world,
instead of having to make stuff up.
Comment by krzysztof — 7/1/2004 @ 3:02 pm
Krzystof, with all due respect, you are transmitting a headline, not a
fact. The 9-11 commission does indeed show ties between Iraq and
Al-Qaeda…as did the Russians…as did the Czechs…as does Stephen Haynes
entire book, etc, etc. There doesn't appear to be a 9-11
connection…that is what the commission found.
Comment by Michael Moynihan — 7/1/2004 @ 3:07 pm
If you believe Bush acted on the theory of pre-emption then the Rice
quote makes sense in full. If you believe, as does Moore, that Bush
went to Iraq because of oil/avenge daddy/Halliburton/religious
crusade/he wanted to/yada yada then it makes perfect sense to edit the
quote. Where does pre-emption begin? When the gun is at your head?
When the gun is cocked? When the gun is pulled out? When the hand goes
to the gun? Or just the fact that the bad guy has the gun? If favor
the last one.
Comment by guy — 7/1/2004 @ 3:14 pm
From the CLINTON Justice Department, 1998:
"Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al
Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular
projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would
work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
And a few recent connections here (Telegraph) and here (NY Times).
Comment by Michael Moynihan — 7/1/2004 @ 3:16 pm
To say that Iraq and Al Qaeda had "ties" is misleading at best. They
talked, sure, but never had a working relationship. There was no
collaborative effort in anything relating to attacks on the US, and to
even insinuate that Iraq is in any way even partially responsible for
anything Al Qaeda has done to attack American interests is wrong.
Comment by krzysztof — 7/1/2004 @ 3:21 pm
krzysztof, this is like saying that the Americans were just chatting
with Pinochet about Allende. In most lefty circles, such an argument
wouldn't pass the smell test. Here are a few connections, via Richard
Miniter:
* Abdul Rahman Yasin, a member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the
1993 World Trade Center bomb, fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently
discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that
show that Iraq gave Yasin both a home and a salary.
* Bin Laden met eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security
Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and
with Saddam's external intelligence service, according to intelligence
made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, at the United Nations
Security Council on Feb. 6, 2003.
* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in
Khartoum, according to Powell.
* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid
'90s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all
terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator.
* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah
Suleiman, was arrested by Pakistani authorities. Suleiman was
shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda's
No. 2.
* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf
Galan — who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly
involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks —
that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in
Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre."
* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu
Mohammed," told the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's
fighters in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in
Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the
training facility southeast of Baghdad, where militants trained to
hijack planes with knives — on a full-size Boeing 707.
* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday,
defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that
there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.
* The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who
claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard during his 1992 visit
with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin
Laden at the time.
* Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden
associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations
there," Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their
Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men,
materiel and money for al Qaeda's global network.
* Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in
Afghanistan. Wounded, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May
2002. When he recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern
Iraq. Zarqawi's Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of
Lawrence Foley, a U.S. Agency for International Development official.
The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from
Zarqawi's cell in Iraq.
* Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center
show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan
terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According
to a London's Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit
"youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international
holy warrior network" in Baghdad.
* CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee:
"Iraq has in the past provided training in document-forgery and
bomb-making to al Qaeda. It also provided training in poisons and
gasses to two al Qaeda associates; one of these [al Qaeda] associates
characterized the relationship as successful. . . . This information
is based on a solid foundation of intelligence. It comes to us from
credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple
sources."
Comment by Michael Moynihan — 7/1/2004 @ 3:27 pm
#30, if you're going to call someone mentally retarded, you really
ought to avoid linking to articles which completley disprove your
point.
Here's what Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 commission, said in that
article:
Well, that's what our staff has found. Now, it doesn't mean there
weren't al Qaeda connections with Iraq over the years. They're
somewhat shadowy, but I think they were there. But with 9/11, no, our
staff has found no evidence of that.
So, even the 9/11 commission found that there were links between Iraq
and al Qaeda.
Comment by Steverino — 7/1/2004 @ 3:30 pm
I am still baffled by this *****. First of all, it is established
that there were links (call them ties, connections) between the Saddam
government and al-Qaida. Following some manual liberals must all
possess, several posters here have attempted to redefine a simple
word, link. Link now means proof of a "colloborative relationship?"
If you're comfortable with Saddam, the Arab world's greatest mass
murderer, having "talks" with al-Qaida, then fine. Just don't expect
the rest of us to have the same absurdly high standard for action.
Now, what do you suppose those "talks" involved? Want to give Saddam
the benefit of the doubt? Take that case to the American people and
we'll se who wins in November.
Comment by Palooka — 7/1/2004 @ 3:42 pm
Re: Miniter, I really can't pass judgement on whether or not those are
true, but (from here):
Richard Miniter, author of "Losing bin Laden," has interviewed some of
the commission's staff. He has concluded, as he wrote in the New York
Post last Thursday: "Yesterday, the commission announced there was ‘no
credible evidence' linking Iraq and al Qaeda. In reality there is a
wealth of evidence that the august panel has ignored."
These claims do contradict the 9/11 commission report. If these are so
monumental, why did he have to write an article in the New York Post
of all places, which is scarcely better than a tabloid?
Palooka (post 37) – I have a "link" with you through this thread, but
no one would accuse me of being a crazed right-wing lunatic. That's
the problem describing "links" – they don't necessarily mean anything.
Sometimes they do, but vague "links" are hardly enough evidence to
decide to begin slaughtering the Iraqi people in the name of
liberating them.
Comment by krzysztof — 7/1/2004 @ 3:57 pm
Mike: Where you at? Good to see you're still fighting the good fight.
As for Moore it's standard liberal argument style. Make a false claim,
when the aggrieved party denies brand them a liar, if they come back
at you with facts about what you've said or done that's negative start
screaming polotics of personal destruction. Crazy. Email me dude.
Comment by Paul Schauder — 7/1/2004 @ 4:00 pm
Palooka (post 37) – I have a "link" with you through this thread, but
no one would accuse me of being a crazed right-wing lunatic. That's
the problem describing "links" – they don't necessarily mean anything.
Sometimes they do, but vague "links" are hardly enough evidence to
decide to begin slaughtering the Iraqi people in the name of
liberating them.
===========
OK, let's just say those links meant nothing, then "links" are so
harmless, and everybody knows this, then is it so wrong for the
Administration to state that there were links?
Training means "nothing?" Does providing shelter to known terrorists
mean "nothing." You are a sad troll.
Again, what purpose would their "talks" have? Of course the "links"
are much more than just talks, but let's stick to this because you at
least concede that the Iraqi government and al-Qaida had "talks." What
could they possibly be talking about?
Comment by Palooka — 7/1/2004 @ 4:03 pm
Krzystof,
It's obvious you're grasping at straws. It's clear you don't even read
the articles you post. Why don't you just admit your uninformed and
leave?
Summation of your rant: There is no link. OK, there are links but
links don't mean anything. Where are we going next?
Now, surely things can be connected or linked without it being
significant. But, when our greatest problem state meets with the most
dangerous terrorist network in the world, whatever their intentions, I
think must people would call that significant.
Comment by Palooka — 7/1/2004 @ 4:09 pm
I don't understand what the rest of the condi quote is supposed to
prove. it's meaningless. What does Iraq have to do with the "rise of
ideologies of hatred?" I don't understand what point Rice is trying to
make, and so this extended quote doesn't seem to reveal any lie on
Moore's part. What exactly is the lie you're trying to reveal with
this quote?
Comment by john — 7/1/2004 @ 4:10 pm
What were Iraq and Al Qaeda talking about? Not attacking the US. The
9/11 Commission established that. And no one said that it's not cause
for concern when the two of them met. But meeting are definately not
cause for war, either.
Comment by krzysztof — 7/1/2004 @ 4:16 pm
What exactly is the lie you're trying to reveal with this quote?
=======
Moore's point is that the Administration stated or strongly intimated
that Saddam was involved in 9-11, correct?
Moore then quotes, to support his claim of deception, Condi saying the
fellowing "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on
9/11."
The problew is Condi ALSO said: "It's not that Saddam Hussein was
somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11." She then explains
the "connection" with the following "it is the rise of ideologies of
hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New
York."
Now, agree with her or not. But don't you DARE say Michael Moore is
justified in his deliberate deception. Now, if you don't think Saddam
attributed to the core pathologies in the Middle East that manifest
themselves in terrorism, then that's you're opinion (one which borders
on delusion). Just don't defend Michael Moore as an honest film
maker!!!!!!
Comment by Palooka — 7/1/2004 @ 4:17 pm
What were Iraq and Al Qaeda talking about? Not attacking the US. The
9/11 Commission established that. And no one said that it's not cause
for concern when the two of them met. But meeting are definately not
cause for war, either.
======
Oh, OK, your idiocy continues (but it's abating).
First, there were NO links. Then there were links that meant
"nothing." Now there were links, and they were cause for worry, but
not a sufficient reason for war. You're coming around. OK, since they
are "reason to worry," then why isn't permissable that the
Administration cite those legitimate concerns in their rationale for
war?
Comment by Palooka — 7/1/2004 @ 4:21 pm
Agree or disgree with Condi's sentiment–that Iraq and Islamofascists
are pees-in-a-pod, Moore's representation of Rice's statement is just
plain manipulation. Why is this difficult to see?
Comment by Michael Moynihan — 7/1/2004 @ 4:22 pm
"What does Iraq have to do with the "rise of ideologies of hatred?"
uh … you're kidding, right?
Do you know what the Ba'ath party was/is (still in power in Syria?)
Have you ever read a speech given by Saddam Hussein?
Pick up "The Republic of Fear" by Kanan Makiya, or, even better, "The
Demonic Comedy" by Paul William Roberts - the latter of these authors
being a Bush (41) basher nonpareil - and then you might "understand
what point Rice is trying to make."
Comment by Claudius — 7/1/2004 @ 4:24 pm
krzysztof – You're claim about "no link" is ridiculous. Try reading
past the headline of the very article you quoted. Even better, read
the actual commission report.
Comment by rrgg — 7/1/2004 @ 4:43 pm
OK, since they are "reason to worry," then why isn't permissable that
the Administration cite those legitimate concerns in their rationale
for war?
It's like this: there were discussions. No one denies that there were
low-level discussions. That's cause for worry. Two groups that don't
like us are talking – not good. Turns out, they aren't going to work
together against us after all. There are no connections between them
vis-a-vis attacks against us. Once it was investigated, it turned out
the links they had meant nothing. There was no reason to go to war
with Iraq. Then the Administration used these "links" and such to
insinuate things that were not true, to be used as a pretense for war.
That's pretty obviously a bad thing.
Comment by krzysztof — 7/1/2004 @ 4:46 pm
rrgg - Not to be Clintonesque about it, but that depends what you mean
by "link".
Comment by krzysztof — 7/1/2004 @ 4:49 pm
OK, since they are "reason to worry," then why isn't permissable that
the Administration cite those legitimate concerns in their rationale
for war?
It's like this: there were discussions. No one denies that there were
low-level discussions. That's cause for worry. Two groups that don't
like us are talking – not good. Turns out, they aren't going to work
together against us after all. There are no connections between them
vis-a-vis attacks against us. Once it was investigated, it turned out
the links they had meant nothing. There was no reason to go to war
with Iraq. Then the Administration used these "links" and such to
insinuate things that were not true, to be used as a pretense for war.
That's pretty obviously a bad thing.
=====
Nobody concluded they weren't plotting against us, they concluded
there was insufficient evidence linking them to the 9-11 attacks. And
you accuse the Administration of making ridiculous leaps of logic?
The CIA thought then (and as far as I know thinks today) that the
Iraqi government WAS involved in the 1993 WTC bombing. Iraq's links to
and support of terrorism are undeniable. That is relevant in
discussing the rationale for war, as are the links which you concede
exist, but scoff at their relevance. As I said, make your case to the
American people that Iraq's connections to al-Qaida were no problem
whatsoever, and we'll see who will win in November.
Who was Iraq's #1 enemy?
Who was al-Qaida's #1 target?
Tell me again how sure you are that their links and cooperation in no
way threatened the United States! Are you living in the Twilight Zone?
Comment by Palooka — 7/1/2004 @ 4:58 pm
Your little cartoon underscores your ealier contention that the links
meant "nothing." Now you are reasserting that idiocy? You conceded
that it was "something to worry about." Now it's no different than two
legislators meeting? Give me a break!
Why would you, because of a lack of information, conclude that Saddam
and his links with al-Qaida posed no threat to the United States?
Again, are you living in the Twilight Zone?
Comment by Palooka — 7/1/2004 @ 5:05 pm
In respnse to #17: The reason for the President's letter is to inform
Congress that the US will now use military force against Iraq because
diplomacy is no longer effective and that this military action has
been previously authorized by Congress because Iraq fits the
definition of who can be attacked.
If, as suggested, "including" does not mean "limited to" and Iraq is
not one of "those nations…", then what is the logic for adding that
verbiage?
Why even mention "September 11, 2001″ in the letter? If the
words "international terrorists or terrorist organizations" by
themselves would have been sufficient to justify military action
against Iraq, why did the President attach "September 11, 2001″
to the letter unless the purpose was to cast the stigma of 9/11 upon
Iraq (link) to make the action more palatable to Americans?
The letter does track the language of the Congressional resolution,
one particular paragraph. There are a number of paragraphs in the
resolution that could have been used to justify military action
aqainst Iraq, but the President chose the paragraph that authorizes
force against those "nations, organizations, or persons who planned,
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;".
Comment by UMax — 7/1/2004 @ 5:18 pm
If, as suggested, "including" does not mean "limited to"
========
"Including" cannot mean "limited to." Nobody should have to "suggest
it." You should be able to ascertain the meaning of words on your own,
bucko.
Comment by Palooka — 7/1/2004 @ 5:23 pm
The only reason that we "know" there are/(were?) no WMD in Iraq is
that we went there (invaded) and looked ourselves, we could have taken
Sadaam at his word. What did Moore say about WMD before the war? Did
he know, and if he did, how did he know?.How does anyone know now? We
had to invade to find out! I contend we STILL dont know.
Ironically, Moore has considerably less evidence for his linkage of
Bush with the Saudis than there exists beteen Sadaam and Al Qaida.
The whole thing is a straw-man argument.
Even if Sadaam had no collusion, and was 100% neutral between the US
and Osama and Co.(a ridiculous assumption),he was still an enemy of
the US and was flaunting his defiant status and challenging us to act.
In the Arab and radical Muslim world he maintained heroic status for
being our declared enemy, and we frankly were starting to look foolish
(epecially after we were attacked by his allies) for not taking him
out.
Strange to me is Moore's apparent assumption that you win hearts and
minds with tolerance and deft diplomacy, while he alienates his own
(real?)opponents by use of false charges and propaganda.
Instead of using facts and logic to refute Moores' ridiculous claims,
we should use Moore's tactics too. I.E. Make the claim there is no
link between Cheney and Haliburton, there is no link between the US
and the UN. Etc.
Let them go out and find facts that call into question these
assertions, and then we just use the silly argument to get our message
out; that Kerry is really a stooge of terrorists and a shill for the
Condiment Industry…Bring it on!
Comment by franco53 — 7/1/2004 @ 5:51 pm
"Including" cannot mean "limited to." Nobody should have to "suggest
it." You should be able to ascertain the meaning of words on your own,
bucko.
====================
Palooka–
Maybe I should have said, "As you point out…".
But now you are quibbling with my language or cognitive skills and not
with the point of my posting.
Comment by UMax — 7/1/2004 @ 5:51 pm
Clint writes "Perhaps the editing was done because you can't fit every
twenty minute interview that you cite when you're producing a
documentary? Let's get serious!"
Response: How ridiculous…we aren't talking about editing out 20
minutes…we are talking about editing out one other sentence which
would have taken up only a few more seconds of time.
Comment by Another Thought — 7/1/2004 @ 6:01 pm
As Rudy Giuliani has pointed out, Pres Bush on Sept 20 2001 declared
war on all of international terrorism, not just Al Qaeda. This was a
wise move, as we face other terrorists threats. Again, as Rudy G has
pointed out, if you want to take down the mafia you had to take out
all of the crime families, not just one.
Saddam Hussein was undeniably a big part of international terrorism;
and one could not very well wage war on international terrorism
without taking care of Saddam. So case closed.
To me it doesn't matter what ties existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq
(even though there were many). What matters is that Saddam was a big
part in the terrorist equation, and we have removed him, for the
better.
Comment by Another Thought — 7/1/2004 @ 6:05 pm
To debunk this garbage about how Al Qaeda is a group of religious
fanatics while Saddam's regime was secular, and so they couldn't
possibly have collaborated…
Well sometimes a common enemy will make for strange alliances. Look at
WWII: first you had Russia, a communist nation, making an alliance
with Hitler, a fascist nation…then when Hitler broke that agreement,
you have communist Russia align with the US and Great Britain…boy,
whoever would have thought that?
History is full of such strange bedfellows…
Even in the first Persian Gulf war, you had Muslim nations align with
western nations to attack a fellow Muslim country…
Comment by Another Thought — 7/1/2004 @ 6:08 pm
Regardless of the editing that Moore used in his movie, I think one of
the main points in the movie is to show the American people that there
are some serious problems in the United States, and that many of these
problems stem from our government. Particularly to 9/11 and Iraq, the
relevant issue is not whether anybody ever stated that Iraq had
coordinated with Al Queda in the attacks, but rather the relentlessnes
shown by the current administration in forming our citizens beliefs on
Iraq. The administration drove this idea that Iraq and Al Queda were
connected into our minds time and time again. Maybe not specifically
to 9/11, but in general. The bottome line is that the administration
used 9/11 as a main justification for going to war in Iraq. This was
wrong, and I think that Michael Moore is trying to bring awareness of
many of the misleads and downfalls that WE HAVE ALL seen the
consequences of in the last two years.
Comment by david salton — 7/1/2004 @ 6:11 pm
Palooka–
Maybe I should have said, "As you point out…".
But now you are quibbling with my language or cognitive skills and not
with the point of my posting.
=========
Well, if you accept the manifest fact that "including" cannot mean
"limited to" then you, I assume, can further garner the conclusion
that the italized portion of that letter (emphasized by you) is, more
or less, immaterial. Why was it included? Who cares!
Few citizens or even journalists will ever see the president's letter
to Congress, so if your contention is that the letter was drafted with
the intent to deceive the public, then I'd have to take issue with
that. Your argument is so utterly without merit, one has to
intentionally miscontrue words and redefine language to find support.
That is sad. Here, maybe if we define "link" as " proven colloborative
relationship" then maybe we can smear the president and, ironically,
do the same thing we're falsely accusing Bush of–deceiving the
American people. Talk about irony.
Comment by Palooka — 7/1/2004 @ 6:47 pm
Moore's is an accurate editing. Rice used a common propaganda tactic.
You make an
outrageous, patently false statement, then follow it up with two
contradictory statements. One of the contradictory statements excuses
you from the outrageous statement. A listener's mind can only latch
onto the first one, since the second doesn't make any sense. Imagine
if I said:
"Rush Limbaugh is a wife beater. He obviously doesn't beat his wife,
but his attitude toward women contributes to domestic violence."
What are you going to remember? That I called Limbaugh a wife beater.
Rice is doing the same thing, and she knows what she's doing. Moore is
just cutting the crap.
Any dimwit who still believes in an Iraq-Al Qaeda "connection" has
fallen for this simple trap.
Comment by Jr. "Bob" Dobbs — 7/1/2004 @ 6:51 pm
Moore's is an accurate editing. Rice used a common propaganda tactic.
You make an
outrageous, patently false statement, then follow it up with two
contradictory statements. One of the contradictory statements excuses
you from the outrageous statement. A listener's mind can only latch
onto the first one, since the second doesn't make any sense. Imagine
if I said:
"Rush Limbaugh is a wife beater. He obviously doesn't beat his wife,
but his attitude toward women contributes to domestic violence."
What are you going to remember? That I called Limbaugh a wife beater.
Rice is doing the same thing, and she knows what she's doing. Moore is
just cutting the crap.
Any dimwit who still believes in an Iraq-Al Qaeda "connection" has
fallen for this simple trap.
====
The trolls just keep coming. Fact: THERE IS A CONNECTION. There is
not, however, a proven connection to the specific attacks of 9-11.
There is a connection between al-Qaida and Iraq.
Condi's statement is in no way inaccurate, while Moore's citation is.
Condi's statement that there is a "connection" between Saddam and what
happened on September 11th is an opinion. Agree with or not, but don't
defend Moore's *****.
You analogy was flawed. Condi did not say "Iraq carried out the
attacks of Sept 11th." She said there was a connection insofar as
Hussein has bred, encouraged, and fed the pathologies of the Middle
East. I think that's an entirely rational and clearly stated opinion.
Disagree, fine. Just don't spin your tortured logic here.
Comment by Palooka — 7/1/2004 @ 6:59 pm
"Rush Limbaugh is a wife beater. He obviously doesn't beat his wife,
but his attitude toward women contributes to domestic violence."
No one would make that statement about Rush Limbaugh, or anyone else,
because it makes no sense, while Condi's statement make perfect sense.
In your example the second sentence directly contradicts the first. In
the Condi Rice example the second sentence qualifies the first.
Editing out a qualifier, one essential to her point, is entirely
different, then editing out a contradicting sentence.
Comment by Devin — 7/1/2004 @ 7:01 pm
What does "buncoed" mean??? (sounds filthy)
Comment by El Gringo — 7/1/2004 @ 7:09 pm
To all of you who believe that liberals are un-American…bite me. I
served my time in the military and am damn proud of my years of
service. And I am so sick of you losers who automatically assume that
all liberals are against the taking down of Saddam. It was a good
day…no, a great day when we captured that maniac. Can we start to
think on our own, and not automatically agree with everything our
parties say?? If you hate Michael Moore, but not Rush Limbaugh, then
you are a cause of Michael Moore's existence. Fringe elements don't
exist without the opposite…
Michael Moore is an idiot and a manipulator of the truth. However, he
is no different than Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. I would pay good
money to watch them beat the crap out of each other.
Bush and his cronies are lying a good portion of the time, and they
are playing on the fears of Americans. Let's use some common sense. If
you keep talking about Iraq and 9/11 in the same minute, people will
begin to see a connection, even if you are trying to slyly say that
there is a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda but nothing with 9/11.
Keep mentioning the subjects together and it sticks in the minds of
many. Bush will continue to use people like Rumsfeld and Cheney to
throw comments out there, so he can not face any charges that his
"whole" administration is saying this. This administration is full of
genius in this regard.
I can't believe we can impeach Clinton for perjury, but not the Bush
administration for torture. Don't get me wrong…if I captured an Iraqi
who I felt had time-sensitive information that could save lives, you
better believe I am going to make him talk. However, they were using
these tactics with all prisoners, and don't think for a second that it
wasn't approved at least as high as Rumsfeld.
Bush needs to go down and a one-termer.
Sorry for any grammatical or spelling errors!
Comment by George — 7/1/2004 @ 7:19 pm
correction…I meant impeach Bush…not the whole administration.
Just wanted to preempt any…"oh look, another liberal idiot…"
Comment by George — 7/1/2004 @ 7:21 pm
Moore and his friends really do think people are stupid, which is why
they place a higher value on propaganda.
It is a trap to believe that your opponent is like you. Moore and
those that agree with him think that the Bush administration relys on
propaganda.
Likewise, it is a mistake for the Bush Administration and its'
defenders to respond to these leftists with facts and logic, expecting
them to be swayed in any way whatsoever.
Comment by franco53 — 7/1/2004 @ 7:23 pm
The Moore vs. Limbaugh/Coulter comparison is ridiculous.
Comment by franco53 — 7/1/2004 @ 7:28 pm
Re: the "Rush Limbaugh is a wife beater. He obviously doesn't beat his
wife ." comment…
To say that there is an Saddamist "tie" to 9-11 alone is alarming. To
say that there is a tie…and that it is ideological in nature might be
a dubious argument, but it is hardly shocking. Moore understands the
difference, hence the editing.
Again, "there is tie…here is what I mean by that" is NOTHING at all
like calling someone a wife-beater and then retracting it in the next
breath. Either way, if someone said such a thing about Mr. Limbaugh
and it was edited the Moore way, it would still be a
misrepresentation, right?
I hate all of this Clintonian parsing, but ‘tie' and ‘direct
involvement' are not the same thing
Comment by Michael Moynihan — 7/1/2004 @ 7:31 pm
That's still not the full quote. Rice continued:
"This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is
determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful
religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they're
all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we
will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and
democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will
begin to change the Middle East…."
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20031201.asp#3
So Rice said "it's linked" then "but not really", then finally "but it
is". Leaving people with the impression that her first sentance is
true, so Moore correctly summarized her point.
Comment by Anonymous — 7/1/2004 @ 7:40 pm
So he is underhanded in presenting his case. So he is twisting words
around to get his point accross. And yeah he is fat. Wait and I
talking about Moore or Limbaugh.
The democrats have been victims of that for 14 years now. It's time
you get a taste of your own medicine. I think it is hilarious!
Comment by Richard — 7/1/2004 @ 7:42 pm
Maybe its that Condi was speaking extemporaneously, on television.
Maybe it is because the Mooreniks refuse to acknowledge that he is a
manipulator. The supposedly full Rice quote does not, in ANY WAY,
connect 9-11 to Iraq. When she says they are "linked" she is CLEARLY
not talking about 9-11. Please reread the full quote.
Again, Condi may be wrong, but she is quoted out of context in the
film. Why?
Comment by Michael Moynihan — 7/1/2004 @ 7:45 pm
The victimology of the left never ceases to amaze. Now one can be a
victim of Limbaugh. Look, if you hate Limbaugh so much, start a
website and debunk him.
And who is this "you" that you speak of? I have never been a Limbaugh
fan…never been a Moore fan.
Comment by Michael Moynihan — 7/1/2004 @ 7:47 pm
Moore's 9/11 was basically a political porno movie – it looks good,
but it's all fake from intro to climax. It's not the kind of film that
will persuade, especially since Moore's fabrications and lies have
been so readily revealed, but if you hold the world view he promotes
when you go to see it, I'm sure you'll be entertained, and walk away
with the warm fuzzy glow of simpleminded certainty that your world
view has just been validated by Maestro Moore. Frankly, as films go,
ignoring for a moment how intellectually bankrupt it was, it was a let
down. Moore heavy handed use of music to evoke themes (There's Bush –
cue ominous music, or morning DJ prat fall noise! Say, there's our
hero Moore, cue 60's folk music!!), his pedantic monologue and cutsey
movie clips dubbed in with Bush's head amount basically to an hours
long rasberry that is about as witty and sophisticated as a child on
the playground yelling, "You suck, you big meany!!! I hate you!!" Bush
as a deranged cowboy, Blair as a loopy sidekick – how witty, how
urbane…how very…French!!!! Heck, that's it – no wonder Moore won the
Pal d'Or, his movie plays like a badly done Jerry Lewis film!!!!
This won a Palm d'Or??
Comment by John — 7/1/2004 @ 7:47 pm
"There is a tie. He wasn't involved, he just caused it"?
Keep reaching for those straws!
Comment by Anonymous — 7/1/2004 @ 8:02 pm
Or "there is a tie; he offers support to blood-thirsty theocrats and
terrorists, attempts to buy off-the-shelf nukes from Kim Jong Il,
gives cash rewards to people who murder Americans, Israelis, etc."
Reaching for straws? Sorta like the Afghan war for Unocal!?!! Like the
war for Carlyle group? Like the conspiracy to keep blacks from voting?
Wait…who is grasping at straws again?
Comment by Michael Moynihan — 7/1/2004 @ 8:07 pm
Wrong, and wrong - wrong, and; wrong, wrong, wrong. You're wrong,
friend. If you parse Ms. Rice's words and really dissect where she's
coming from you see the deft footwork of the imperial shuffle,
although not SO deft…more vaklempt, like.
Seriously, don't you see? She brings up that there's a tie, then says
it's not a LITERAL tie, it's a figurative, almost philosphical tie -
all the while intoning "tie, tie, tie." Don't you see that when you
have to play dissection games to the degree that you do with the
Bushies that something's very wrong? That trust is out the window?
These people are animals, they can't be trusted with anything so
fragile, delicate, tender or loving as truth, just as an Orc can't be
trusted to stack porcelain figures without smashing more than a few to
dust in the process. They are clumsy fascists, idiot authoritarians,
measly imperialists, sick-***** Hitler-worshippers, and do you applaud
that kind of thing? Do you reward it? Do you take it out for drinks
and pretend you want to screw it? No, you don't. But I had to tell you
that. Friend. I had to tell you that.
"What must be told can't be rolled/in the crinkled fold" -
Shitforbrains
Comment by johnny pig — 7/1/2004 @ 8:10 pm
"Johnny Pig": One "wrong" will suffice. So are you really saying that
Moore's editing provides the appropriate context to Ms. Rice's
comments? Argue if you will with her characterization of Saddam and
bin laden being of the same ilk, but she is plainly being taken out of
context. End of story.
Comment by Michael Moynihan — 7/1/2004 @ 8:14 pm
I think what needs to be said, has been said. Both sides have made
their case. So, after 80 comments, the thread will be closed. Thanks.
Comment by Michael Moynihan — 7/1/2004 @ 8:16 pm
Why We Hate Michael Moore: PArt 4
He's disingenuous, hateful and, frankly, outright deceitful.
Condoleezza Rice says in Crapenheit 4-11: "Oh, indeed there is a tie
between Iraq and what happened on 9/11." Condoleezza Rice said in real
life: "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq…
Trackback by Insults — 7/1/2004 @ 11:09 pm
The Emperor's New Clothes
Michael Moore.
- Says he fact checked this time around.
- Was awarded medal by his courtiers in Cannes.
- Beat out Jackass: The Movie as the best grossing… mockumentary?
- Is reported to be butt naked again.
Trackback by XiPE — 7/1/2004 @ 11:35 pm
THE LIES OF FAHRENHEIT II
http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/taliban_pipe_dream/
Taliban Pipe Dream
Posted by Lee on 06/30 at 01:04 AM
It's time to point out another of Michael Moore's whopping lies and
distortions. This one concerns the Taliban's trip to Texas. (In the
quoted text below, NARRATOR is Michael Moore.)
NARRATOR: Or was the war in Afghanistan really about something else?
Perhaps the answer was in Houston, Texas. In 1997 while George W. Bush
was Governor of Texas, a delegation of Taliban leaders from
Afghanistan flew to Houston to meet with Unocal executives to discuss
the building of a pipeline through Afghanistan bringing natural gas
from the Caspian Sea. And who got a Caspian Sea drilling contract the
same day Unocal signed the pipeline deal? A company headed by a man
named ***** Cheney: Halliburton.In 1997 George W. Bush was indeed
Governor of Texas, and Bill Clinton (a Democrat) was President of the
United States. Note that Moore does not state that Bush had anything
to do with the Taliban meeting, because Bush indeed had nothing to do
with it. He only states that Bush was governor at the time (a fact),
thereby implying that he had something to do with the meeting (a lie).
The Taliban's entry into the United States was requested by the
Unocal corporation and cleared by Clinton's State Department.
As far as Unocal and the pipeline deal goes, according to everything I
can find Unocal pulled out of the deal. This BBC article from May 30,
2002, states, "The US company Unocal led a consortium in the 1990s
which undertook feasibility studies, but it pulled out of the project
in 1998." When the pipeline deal was signed in 2002, Unocal issued
this press release denying their involvement. "Unocal Chairman
Charles R. Williamson told Unocal stockholders today that Unocal has
no plans or interest in becoming involved in any projects in
Afghanistan, including natural gas or crude oil pipelines. He made the
statement in response to recent erroneous news reports about Unocal
and the pipeline project in Afghanistan."
More...
It breaks down like this. In 1997 the Taliban comes to Texas with the
okay of Bill Clinton. This has nothing, nothing, to do with George W.
Bush. In December of 1998 Unocal pulls out of the project. Then, in
2002, Afghanistan signs a a deal not with an oil company but with
Turkmenistan and Pakistan to try and develop a pipeline. As the BBC
article states,
The presidents of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan have signed
an agreement to tap Central Asia's huge gas reserves.
The three leaders - Pakistani President Musharraf, interim Afghan
leader Hamid Karzai and Turkmen President Niyazov - agreed on the
construction of a $2bn pipeline to bring gas from Turkmenistan across
Afghanistan to Pakistan.
So, in other words, the three leaders got together and agreed to get
the ball rolling. Note that neither Unocal nor Halliburton has
anything to do with this. Then, according to Moore, Halliburton got
awarded work in the Caspian Sea the same say this "contract" was
signed. The only thing I can find is this Halliburton press release
from June 17, 2002.
Halliburton's Energy Services Group, a business segment of Halliburton
(NYSE: HAL), has been awarded a two year contract extension with Agip
KCO (formerly OKIOC) for providing integrated drilling services for
the Kashagan reservoir located in the northeast sector of the Caspian
Sea, Kazakhstan. Agip KCO, the field operator, is expected to deliver
first oil from the reservoir by 2005.So much for some nefarious
conspiracy between Halliburton, Unocal, Bush, and the Taliban. Moore
then continues:
NARRATOR: And who else stood to benefit from the pipeline? Bush's
number one campaign contributor, Kenneth Lay, and the good people of
Enron. (shot of BBC News website, 3 December 1997) Only the British
press covered this trip. Then in 2001, just 5 1/2 months before 9/11,
the Bush Administration welcomed a special Taliban envoy to tour the
United States to help improve the image of the Taliban government.This
is, like most of what Moore says, a nugget of truth wrapped in a
blanket of spin. The only documentation I could find about this trip
was from some loony left-wing site, which is probably the same place
Moore got it.
The Taliban visits to Washington continued up to a few months prior to
the September 11 attacks. The State Department's Bureau of
Intelligence and Research's South Asian Division maintained constant
satellite telephone contact with the Taliban in Kandahar and Kabul.
Washington permitted the Taliban to maintain a diplomatic office in
Queens, New York headed by Taliban diplomat Abdul Hakim Mojahed. In
addition, U.S. officials, including Assistant Secretary of State for
South Asian Affairs Christina Rocca, who is also a former CIA officer,
visited Taliban diplomatic officials in Islamabad. In the meantime,
the Bush administration took a hostile attitude towards the Islamic
State of Afghanistan, otherwise known as the Northern Alliance. Even
though the United Nations recognized the alliance as the legitimate
government of Afghanistan, the Bush administration, with oil at the
forefront of its goals, decided to follow the lead of Saudi Arabia and
Pakistan and curry favor with the Taliban mullahs of Afghanistan. The
visits of Islamist radicals did not end with the Taliban. In July
2001, the head of Pakistan's pro-bin Laden Jamiaat-i-Islami Party,
Qazi Hussein Ahmed, also reportedly was received at the George Bush
Center for Intelligence (aka, CIA headquarters) in Langley, Virginia.
According to the Washington Post, the Special Envoy of Mullah Omar,
Rahmatullah Hashami, even came to Washington bearing a gift carpet for
President Bush from the one-eyed Taliban leader. The Village Voice
reported that Hashami, on behalf of the Taliban, offered the Bush
administration to hold on to bin Laden long enough for the United
States to capture or kill him but, inexplicably, the administration
refused.
Okay, let's accept this article as being true. The State Department
was in contact with the Taliban government, and they permitted the
Taliban to have an office. Am I missing something here? Isn't this
exactly the type of thing the State Department is supposed to do?
This article is as nondescript and nonspecific as Moore. It says that
some Taliban came to America in 2001, and then it makes guesses as to
the motive. Did they meet with President Bush? Were they requested
to come by President Bush? Or is this all simply slinging mud and
hoping that some of it sticks? Moore continues:
NARRATOR: Here is the Taliban official visiting our State Department
to meet with US officials. Why on Earth did the Bush administration
allow a Taliban leader to visit the United States knowing that the
Taliban were harboring the man who bombed the USS Cole and our African
embassies? Well, I guess 9/11 put a stop to that. When the invasion of
Afghanistan was complete we installed its new president, Hamid Karzai.
Who was Hamid Karzai? He was a former advisor to Unocal. Bush also
appointed as his envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad who was also a
former Unocal advisor. I guess you can probably see where this is
leading. Faster than you can say Black Gold Texas Tea, Afghanistan
signed an agreement with her neighboring countries to build a pipeline
through Afghanistan carrying natural gas from the Caspian Sea. Oh, and
the Taliban? Uh, they mostly got away. As did Osama bin Laden and most
of al Qaeda.So, when the Clinton State Department brings the Taliban
to America in 1997 Moore uses it as an example of then-Governor Bush's
ties to the group. But when the Bush State Department meets with the
Taliban in 2001, it's all part of Bush's oil conspiracy. Moore wants
to have it both ways.
Also worthy of note is the mention of the bombing of the USS Cole and
the embassies. Odd, isn't it, that Moore neglects to mention who was
president at the time that these attacks happened: Bill Clinton, the
same guy whose administration met with the Taliban in 1997. Now, the
Cole attack happened on October 12, 2000. The embassy bombings were
on August 7, 1998. In response to these incidents Bill Clinton did
virtually nothing, launching cruise missile strikes against an
abandoned training camp in Afghanistan and a Sudanese pharmaceutical
factory.
Imagine, for a moment if this were the case:
President Bush meets with the Taliban in 1997.
The US embassies are bombed in 1998. Bush's response? A couple of
fruitless missile strikes.
The USS Cole is bombed in 2000. Bush's response? Nothing.
The US is attacked on September 11, 2001.
Can you possibly imagine Michael Moore not pointing his finger at this
series of events and drawing a conspiratorial conclusion? Of course
he would. The fact is that there is just as much "evidence" of
collusion or a conspiracy between Clinton and the Taliban as there is
between Bush and the Taliban. But Moore, in his quest to do anything
to make Bush look as bad as possible, only tells you a fraction of the
story.
THE LIES OF FAHRENHEIT III
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/site/newsweek
More Distortions From Michael Moore
Some of the main points in ‘Fahrenheit 9/11' really aren't very fair
at all
(Very long article...click on the link above)
SPLENDID ISOLATION: If you want proof that Jacques Chirac would never,
ever have acquiesced in the removal of his old buddy, Saddam Hussein,
you only have to look at his decision to prevent any NATO cooperation
in Iraq, now that sovereignty has been transferred. He has one central
plank in his foreign policy: the obstruction of American power. If
that means hoping for the failure of Iraqi democracy, so be it. If it
means turning a blind eye to terror, so be it. But even Le Monde is
beginning to see through his cynicism. Here's an extract from their
editorial today, translated by my France-watcher:
"For the 15 months since the beginning of the American-British [notice
avoidance of the Vichy expression "Anglo-American" -- translator]
intervention in Iraq, Jacques Chirac has been working on the solution
to a difficult diplomatic equation: how to maintain his opposition to
the war without seeming to be shamefully nostalgic for Saddam Hussein
-- something the Americans have hinted at on several occasions -- and
while also fulfilling his obligations as an ally of the US. . . . In
Iraq, the United States has two goals: to give international
legitimacy to its intervention and to replace a portion of its troops
with NATO forces. France has conceded the first point in voting in
favor of the recent UN resolutions. France still resists the second,
but without having been able to block an involvement susceptible of
leading, sooner or later, to the presence of the trans-Atlantic
organization in Iraq. This is a rear-guard battle that illustrates
Chirac's dilemma: he must not oppose the reconstruction of a
"sovereign" Iraq while at the same time not appearing to give the lie
to his own [anti-war] policies. This is also a position of watchful
waiting, permitting cooperation with John Kerry, if he wins the
Presidential election, and also permitting living with George Bush, if
reelected."
But it's so nakedly self-interested it's self-defeating. Chirac is
already being isolated within Europe, and is striking out at potential
rivals in his own party. He's a tired, pompous, corrupt hack. Always
has been.
WHAT THE MEDIA WON'T BROADCAST: Oh, they'll find out details of
people's sex lives and sue to publish and broadcast them, and they'll
show endless footage of Abu Ghraib abuses. But terrorist beheadings?
Nah. Here's a classic statement of the journalist elite, from the Los
Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/services/site/premium/access-registered.intercept
"Any news outlet — or any private individual, for that matter — who
makes available footage of the actual beheadings is, to my mind, an
accessory to the crime itself," says Kunkel, dean of journalism at the
University of Maryland. "Those are the individuals who are essentially
finishing the work of the terrorists, by delivering their grisly
'message.'"
And why isn't the broadcasting of the Abu Ghraib abuses also adding to
the humiliation of the victims? Remember that the acts occasioned
shame (which was, in part, the point) and the shame is immeasurably
amplified by repeated broadcasts. I think the answer is that the media
will broadcast anything that will embarrass Americans or America. But
they will give terrorists a pass. No surprises there, I guess.
And there is a WHOLE lot more at this link that exposes Moore for the
liar a lot of us already know he is.
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_06_27_dish_archive.html#108864966008144677
I hope this helps you out Krisblake with your research paper, and the
other sheep who blindly followed the big fat man from Canada who
called Americans a bunch of idiots.
.
|
|
| User: "pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Helping Krisblake and her research |
02 Jul 2004 07:33:22 AM |
|
|
(osprey) wrote in message news:<8912d58d.0407012101.69d9f968@posting.google.com>...
Krisblake claimed she saw the movie FAHRENHEIT 9/11 because she had to
do a composition on the movie.
Any person who has been in college
knows better than to listen to you...
and done research papers knows that
"and done research papers"? ROFL!!!!!! And, now you want to give
pointers on how to write a research paper? ROFL!!!!
most colleges require APA style format.
Oh hell, here we go. Asspry is probably going to try and brag about
what a wonderful writer he is.
Obviously, poor grammar is acceptable at the school you attend since
you claim to get perfect or near perfect grades. I wouldn't be
surprised if they accept papers written in crayon.
I am going to help Krisblake out because she needs all the help she
can get.
Everyone here has seen your writing and grammar skills. She'd be
better off getting help from her dog.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somesappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Helping Krisblake and her research |
02 Jul 2004 07:23:53 AM |
|
|
On 1 Jul 2004 22:01:02 -0700, (osprey) wrote:
Krisblake claimed she saw the movie FAHRENHEIT 9/11 because she had to
do a composition on the movie.
If you bothered to read, you'd have noticed that I said "commentary
about the movie in Spanish."
It means that I wrote my OPINION about the movie, in Spanish -- that
is what was exepected of me. And I received extra credit for
expressing my honest opinion about Moore AND Bush fluently in Spanish.
Can't stand it? Go to a real college that encourages you to think with
an open mind.
Any person who has been in college and done research papers knows that
most colleges require APA style format.
Any idiot with an education above a seventh grade level would have
noticed that no where in my post did I say I was doing a research
paper about the movie.
I am going to help Krisblake out because she needs all the help she
can get.
You're a control freak who cannot stand that fact that a woman is
smarter than you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Helping Krisblake and her research |
02 Jul 2004 07:47:01 AM |
|
|
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:qjkae01f2a08t33a4sn5qavmvuikugbafn@4ax.com...
On 1 Jul 2004 22:01:02 -0700, (osprey) wrote:
Krisblake claimed she saw the movie FAHRENHEIT 9/11 because she had to
do a composition on the movie.
If you bothered to read, you'd have noticed that I said "commentary
about the movie in Spanish."
It means that I wrote my OPINION about the movie, in Spanish -- that
is what was exepected of me. And I received extra credit for
expressing my honest opinion about Moore AND Bush fluently in Spanish.
Can't stand it? Go to a real college that encourages you to think with
an open mind.
Wilmington College isn't real???
Oh boy, wait until I tell my instructors this...ROFL
Any person who has been in college and done research papers knows that
most colleges require APA style format.
Any idiot with an education above a seventh grade level would have
noticed that no where in my post did I say I was doing a research
paper about the movie.
I am going to help Krisblake out because she needs all the help she
can get.
You're a control freak who cannot stand that fact that a woman is
smarter than you.
There are many women who are smarter than I am...you are just not one of
them..:o)
.
|
|
|
| User: "pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Helping Krisblake and her research |
02 Jul 2004 01:25:43 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <> wrote in message news:<hcOdnVa-0q8mxXjdRVn-vA@comcast.com>...
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:qjkae01f2a08t33a4sn5qavmvuikugbafn@4ax.com...
On 1 Jul 2004 22:01:02 -0700, (osprey) wrote:
Krisblake claimed she saw the movie FAHRENHEIT 9/11 because she had to
do a composition on the movie.
If you bothered to read, you'd have noticed that I said "commentary
about the movie in Spanish."
It means that I wrote my OPINION about the movie, in Spanish -- that
is what was exepected of me. And I received extra credit for
expressing my honest opinion about Moore AND Bush fluently in Spanish.
Can't stand it? Go to a real college that encourages you to think with
an open mind.
Wilmington College isn't real???
If Stanford isn't real, then certianly Wilmington isn't - remember,
this is your claim. By the way, do you happen to know the difference
between a "university" and a "college" and the opportunities afforded
to the students of each, dipshit?
Oh boy, wait until I tell my instructors this...ROFL
I'm sure the professors at Stanford (and just about anywhere for that
matter)aren't real impressed by you claiming that Stanford isn't a
"real school". Maybe you're just pissed that you couldn't get an SAT
score high enough to get into Stanford. You do know what the SAT's
aren't don't you?
Any person who has been in college and done research papers knows that
most colleges require APA style format.
Any idiot with an education above a seventh grade level would have
noticed that no where in my post did I say I was doing a research
paper about the movie.
I am going to help Krisblake out because she needs all the help she
can get.
You're a control freak who cannot stand that fact that a woman is
smarter than you.
There are many women who are smarter than I am...you are just not one of
them..:o)
My 4 year old niece is smarter than you. And, certianly, Sappy is
smarter than you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somesappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Helping Krisblake and her research |
02 Jul 2004 01:43:48 PM |
|
|
On 2 Jul 2004 11:25:43 -0700, (pr0r3p) wrote:
"Osprey" < > wrote in message news:<hcOdnVa-0q8mxXjdRVn-vA@comcast.com>...
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:qjkae01f2a08t33a4sn5qavmvuikugbafn@4ax.com...
On 1 Jul 2004 22:01:02 -0700, (osprey) wrote:
Krisblake claimed she saw the movie FAHRENHEIT 9/11 because she had to
do a composition on the movie.
If you bothered to read, you'd have noticed that I said "commentary
about the movie in Spanish."
It means that I wrote my OPINION about the movie, in Spanish -- that
is what was exepected of me. And I received extra credit for
expressing my honest opinion about Moore AND Bush fluently in Spanish.
Can't stand it? Go to a real college that encourages you to think with
an open mind.
Wilmington College isn't real???
If Stanford isn't real, then certianly Wilmington isn't - remember,
this is your claim. By the way, do you happen to know the difference
between a "university" and a "college" and the opportunities afforded
to the students of each, dipshit?
See, he's attending a junior college and that's the extent of a higher
education he possesses. I am not sure why he's embarassed about
attending a two year college -- I attended one of those, once, and it
was more family orientented and beneficial in terms of convenience
than the private, prestigous four-year college I attend. But the
college I attend provides a far better education.
Oh boy, wait until I tell my instructors this...ROFL
I'm sure the professors at Stanford (and just about anywhere for that
matter)aren't real impressed by you claiming that Stanford isn't a
"real school". Maybe you're just pissed that you couldn't get an SAT
score high enough to get into Stanford. You do know what the SAT's
aren't don't you?
If he worked hard enough at Del. Tech. and proved himself, he might be
able to attend a good university.
[...]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somesappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Helping Krisblake and her research |
02 Jul 2004 08:01:23 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 08:47:01 -0400, "Osprey" <>
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:qjkae01f2a08t33a4sn5qavmvuikugbafn@4ax.com...
On 1 Jul 2004 22:01:02 -0700, (osprey) wrote:
Krisblake claimed she saw the movie FAHRENHEIT 9/11 because she had to
do a composition on the movie.
If you bothered to read, you'd have noticed that I said "commentary
about the movie in Spanish."
It means that I wrote my OPINION about the movie, in Spanish -- that
is what was exepected of me. And I received extra credit for
expressing my honest opinion about Moore AND Bush fluently in Spanish.
Can't stand it? Go to a real college that encourages you to think with
an open mind.
Wilmington College isn't real???
You _NEVER_ went there (at least that's my opinion, going by your own,
indirect admission).
[...]
Any person who has been in college and done research papers knows that
most colleges require APA style format.
Any idiot with an education above a seventh grade level would have
noticed that no where in my post did I say I was doing a research
paper about the movie.
I am going to help Krisblake out because she needs all the help she
can get.
You're a control freak who cannot stand that fact that a woman is
smarter than you.
There are many women who are smarter than I am...
I am one of them. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Helping Krisblake and her research |
02 Jul 2004 10:41:20 AM |
|
|
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:lpmae09vjlu6c6kn74tcf6pdm2pklv8k79@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 08:47:01 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:qjkae01f2a08t33a4sn5qavmvuikugbafn@4ax.com...
On 1 Jul 2004 22:01:02 -0700, (osprey) wrote:
Krisblake claimed she saw the movie FAHRENHEIT 9/11 because she had to
do a composition on the movie.
If you bothered to read, you'd have noticed that I said "commentary
about the movie in Spanish."
It means that I wrote my OPINION about the movie, in Spanish -- that
is what was exepected of me. And I received extra credit for
expressing my honest opinion about Moore AND Bush fluently in Spanish.
Can't stand it? Go to a real college that encourages you to think with
an open mind.
Wilmington College isn't real???
You _NEVER_ went there (at least that's my opinion, going by your own,
indirect admission).
I don't care what your opinion is.
Your opinion would be absolutely 100% wrong, but you are too much of a
coward to find out.
[...]
Any person who has been in college and done research papers knows that
most colleges require APA style format.
Any idiot with an education above a seventh grade level would have
noticed that no where in my post did I say I was doing a research
paper about the movie.
I am going to help Krisblake out because she needs all the help she
can get.
You're a control freak who cannot stand that fact that a woman is
smarter than you.
There are many women who are smarter than I am...
I am one of them. :-)
Only in your dreams.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somesappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Helping Krisblake and her research |
02 Jul 2004 11:33:51 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:41:20 -0400, "Osprey" <>
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:lpmae09vjlu6c6kn74tcf6pdm2pklv8k79@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 08:47:01 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:qjkae01f2a08t33a4sn5qavmvuikugbafn@4ax.com...
On 1 Jul 2004 22:01:02 -0700, (osprey) wrote:
Krisblake claimed she saw the movie FAHRENHEIT 9/11 because she had to
do a composition on the movie.
If you bothered to read, you'd have noticed that I said "commentary
about the movie in Spanish."
It means that I wrote my OPINION about the movie, in Spanish -- that
is what was exepected of me. And I received extra credit for
expressing my honest opinion about Moore AND Bush fluently in Spanish.
Can't stand it? Go to a real college that encourages you to think with
an open mind.
Wilmington College isn't real???
You _NEVER_ went there (at least that's my opinion, going by your own,
indirect admission).
I don't care what your opinion is.
Is that why you responded?
Your opinion would be absolutely 100% wrong,
You've lied about everything else, why should you be believed now?
but you are too much of a
coward to find out.
You're too much of a coward to admit that you're not college material.
[...]
Any person who has been in college and done research papers knows that
most colleges require APA style format.
Any idiot with an education above a seventh grade level would have
noticed that no where in my post did I say I was doing a research
paper about the movie.
I am going to help Krisblake out because she needs all the help she
can get.
You're a control freak who cannot stand that fact that a woman is
smarter than you.
There are many women who are smarter than I am...
I am one of them. :-)
Only in your dreams.
Only in YOUR dreams.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Helping Krisblake and her research |
02 Jul 2004 03:20:23 PM |
|
|
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:ng3be014f619jhttra3be3uk4u0avf3ohc@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:41:20 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:lpmae09vjlu6c6kn74tcf6pdm2pklv8k79@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 08:47:01 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:qjkae01f2a08t33a4sn5qavmvuikugbafn@4ax.com...
On 1 Jul 2004 22:01:02 -0700, (osprey) wrote:
Krisblake claimed she saw the movie FAHRENHEIT 9/11 because she had
to
do a composition on the movie.
If you bothered to read, you'd have noticed that I said "commentary
about the movie in Spanish."
It means that I wrote my OPINION about the movie, in Spanish -- that
is what was exepected of me. And I received extra credit for
expressing my honest opinion about Moore AND Bush fluently in
Spanish.
Can't stand it? Go to a real college that encourages you to think
with
an open mind.
Wilmington College isn't real???
You _NEVER_ went there (at least that's my opinion, going by your own,
indirect admission).
I don't care what your opinion is.
Is that why you responded?
Your opinion would be absolutely 100% wrong,
You've lied about everything else, why should you be believed now?
You refused to follow up on the link for information I provided you months
ago.
Most likely because you are too afraid to admit when you are wrong.
Hint: I started attending Wilmington College in 1993.
but you are too much of a
coward to find out.
You're too much of a coward to admit that you're not college material.
[...]
Any person who has been in college and done research papers knows
that
most colleges require APA style format.
Any idiot with an education above a seventh grade level would have
noticed that no where in my post did I say I was doing a research
paper about the movie.
I am going to help Krisblake out because she needs all the help she
can get.
You're a control freak who cannot stand that fact that a woman is
smarter than you.
There are many women who are smarter than I am...
I am one of them. :-)
Only in your dreams.
Only in YOUR dreams.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SomeSappyWriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Helping Krisblake and her research |
02 Jul 2004 04:55:55 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 16:20:23 -0400, "Osprey" <>
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:ng3be014f619jhttra3be3uk4u0avf3ohc@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:41:20 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:lpmae09vjlu6c6kn74tcf6pdm2pklv8k79@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 08:47:01 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:qjkae01f2a08t33a4sn5qavmvuikugbafn@4ax.com...
On 1 Jul 2004 22:01:02 -0700, (osprey) wrote:
Krisblake claimed she saw the movie FAHRENHEIT 9/11 because she had
to
do a composition on the movie.
If you bothered to read, you'd have noticed that I said "commentary
about the movie in Spanish."
It means that I wrote my OPINION about the movie, in Spanish -- that
is what was exepected of me. And I received extra credit for
expressing my honest opinion about Moore AND Bush fluently in
Spanish.
Can't stand it? Go to a real college that encourages you to think
with
an open mind.
Wilmington College isn't real???
You _NEVER_ went there (at least that's my opinion, going by your own,
indirect admission).
I don't care what your opinion is.
Is that why you responded?
Your opinion would be absolutely 100% wrong,
You've lied about everything else, why should you be believed now?
You refused to follow up on the link for information I provided you months
ago.
A link which did not name you as one Wilimington's alumni? :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Helping Krisblake and her research |
02 Jul 2004 05:00:43 PM |
|
|
"SomeSappyWriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:kdmbe0hoclb4vtcins7dq07suo7vbehdbr@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 16:20:23 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:ng3be014f619jhttra3be3uk4u0avf3ohc@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:41:20 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:lpmae09vjlu6c6kn74tcf6pdm2pklv8k79@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 08:47:01 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:qjkae01f2a08t33a4sn5qavmvuikugbafn@4ax.com...
On 1 Jul 2004 22:01:02 -0700, (osprey)
wrote:
Krisblake claimed she saw the movie FAHRENHEIT 9/11 because she
had
to
do a composition on the movie.
If you bothered to read, you'd have noticed that I said
"commentary
about the movie in Spanish."
It means that I wrote my OPINION about the movie, in Spanish --
that
is what was exepected of me. And I received extra credit for
expressing my honest opinion about Moore AND Bush fluently in
Spanish.
Can't stand it? Go to a real college that encourages you to think
with
an open mind.
Wilmington College isn't real???
You _NEVER_ went there (at least that's my opinion, going by your
own,
indirect admission).
I don't care what your opinion is.
Is that why you responded?
Your opinion would be absolutely 100% wrong,
You've lied about everything else, why should you be believed now?
You refused to follow up on the link for information I provided you
months
ago.
A link which did not name you as one Wilimington's alumni? :-)
You already saw the proof, you admitted it in
Message-ID: <tcmbe0dnckf09r930jtvmaq745b2rti349@4ax.com>
I have already shown part of my transcripts and you stated you seen the
proof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SomeSappyWriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Helping Krisblake and her research |
02 Jul 2004 05:27:22 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 18:00:43 -0400, "Osprey" <>
wrote:
"SomeSappyWriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:kdmbe0hoclb4vtcins7dq07suo7vbehdbr@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 16:20:23 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:ng3be014f619jhttra3be3uk4u0avf3ohc@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:41:20 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:lpmae09vjlu6c6kn74tcf6pdm2pklv8k79@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 08:47:01 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:qjkae01f2a08t33a4sn5qavmvuikugbafn@4ax.com...
On 1 Jul 2004 22:01:02 -0700, (osprey)
wrote:
Krisblake claimed she saw the movie FAHRENHEIT 9/11 because she
had
to
do a composition on the movie.
If you bothered to read, you'd have noticed that I said
"commentary
about the movie in Spanish."
It means that I wrote my OPINION about the movie, in Spanish --
that
is what was exepected of me. And I received extra credit for
expressing my honest opinion about Moore AND Bush fluently in
Spanish.
Can't stand it? Go to a real college that encourages you to think
with
an open mind.
Wilmington College isn't real???
You _NEVER_ went there (at least that's my opinion, going by your
own,
indirect admission).
I don't care what your opinion is.
Is that why you responded?
Your opinion would be absolutely 100% wrong,
You've lied about everything else, why should you be believed now?
You refused to follow up on the link for information I provided you
months
ago.
A link which did not name you as one Wilimington's alumni? :-)
You already saw the proof...
That you are no alumni of Wimlington's.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Helping Krisblake and her research |
02 Jul 2004 05:40:39 PM |
|
|
"SomeSappyWriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:68obe0p01hp5avujae36rqaa8p8t6h11mc@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 18:00:43 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"SomeSappyWriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:kdmbe0hoclb4vtcins7dq07suo7vbehdbr@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 16:20:23 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:ng3be014f619jhttra3be3uk4u0avf3ohc@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:41:20 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:lpmae09vjlu6c6kn74tcf6pdm2pklv8k79@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 08:47:01 -0400, "Osprey"
<>
wrote:
| | | | | | | | | | |
