So Michael Moore tells the truth?

[Harold7]

Here's a very good article, by very credible reporters, that shoots some serious holes in Moore's propaganda screed against Bush: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/ .

After reading the article, if you still are in raptures over Moore's so-called "documentary" , you obviously need to examine your own grounding in objective reality..

[butch81385]

[MTAtech]

Although Bush senior was not on the Carlyle Board until 1998, G. W. Bush on the Carlyle board in the early 1990s - apparently a no-show favor (see: http://prorev.com/bushcarlyle.htm) Also on the board is/was James Baker.

I really wished all these journalists that are dissecting Michael Moores analysis with a fine tooth comb would have spend 1/2 as much effort analyizing Bush's reasons for going to war.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/02/op...er=rssuserland

Quote:

Many of these same pundits consider it bad form to make a big fuss about the Bush administration's use of association and innuendo to link the Iraq war to 9/11. Why hold a self-proclaimed polemicist to a higher standard than you hold the president of the United States?

...

Mr. Moore may not be considered respectable, but his film is a hit because the respectable media haven't been doing their job.

For example, audiences are shocked by the now-famous seven minutes, when George Bush knew the nation was under attack but continued reading "My Pet Goat" with a group of children. Nobody had told them that the tales of Mr. Bush's decisiveness and bravery on that day were pure fiction.
...

Mr. Moore's greatest strength is a real empathy with working-class Americans that most journalists lack. Having stripped away Mr. Bush's common-man mask, he uses his film to make the case, in a way statistics never could, that Mr. Bush's policies favor a narrow elite at the expense of less fortunate Americans — sometimes, indeed, at the cost of their lives.

I liked the part of the film when Moore describes the average soldier, 'they come from the less privileged part of society and volunteered to defend us and our country and risk their own life. They only ask one thing from us, only put us in harms way when it is absolutely necessary.'

[Epidemic]

And with that metric apparently Bush has succeeded. A high majority of people I have talked with heard and read within the military family seem to support the action.

I am quite sure you can find a few people within the military to bash their duty in Iraq, however they are probably, overwhelmingly the same people who would bash duty in germany or korea as well.

When the troops start bashing the idea of being in Iraq is when I will take notice.

[RADAR1797]

Quote:

by MTAtech

I really wished all these journalists that are dissecting Michael Moore’s analysis with a fine tooth comb would have spend 1/2 as much effort analyzing Bush's reasons for going to war.

But interestingly enough you can't seem to counter their analysis only complain that they spend too much time criticizing Moore. And BTW, I know bleeding heart liberals think us poor, dumb military guys are just pawns of the administration and can't think for ourselves. Furthermore, the bleeding heart liberals think they need to protect us from the big, bad administration, because we are too stupid, incompetent and incapable to take care of ourselves. This is an opinion that comes out of arrogance and frankly it is getting old. If you don't mind, we have a job to do and would prefer your support and not your condescending pity.

-RADAR

[MTAtech]

Nah, as the article said Moore's website is doing just that. So, I didn't think it was a valuable use of my time.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

[usslindstrom]

There probably isn't very many people from within the military itself, that thought Iraq was a bad idea. Everyone I know and work with, understands the reasoning, and the costs involved, and believe the world is a better place because of what happened. Sure, we have a long way to go though.

So much for that liberal media crap they propogate on TV.

[John Prophet]

I dont see why people listen to M Moore and dont listen some to others who are not part of the "mainstream" media....Moore seems like just a "performing whale" to distract people from more real issues.....its like he is accusing the govt of the mildest things possible in comparison to the true things the govt does....sort of like a smokescreen.

I mean, Moore is up there accepting his award for this and that..hobnobbing with the elite...I dont really see how I can trust someone who is THAT accepted by the same mainstream he is supposedly "outing"...?

He reminds me of my tactic as a kid when I knew I was in trouble for something....I would go and act all honest by forthrightly confessing....to something WAY SMALLER than I actually did...and of course the trusting parents soaked it up cuz they wanted to believe I was good etc.

Moore is on the govt, or rather "governing elites" payroll/favor list...he performs the service of giving slight "shock value" at a very low level..and of course the govt then acts "shocked" and put off by Moore's accusations...but if the average person knew things the govt really did they would see through the little "shock game" Moore is perpetrating. the "shocking" things Moore is "uncovering" are quite trite compared to the things the govt actually does.

Meanwhile of course the mainstream media, controlled by multinational companies owned by the governing elite's, lol...are just propaganda machines and they totally blackout/play down the more shocking things that sometimes surface.

For example, how many of you have heard of "operation northwoods"? maybe not many....but it was a secret govt operation back in Kennedys day to provide a reason to go to war against Cuba. the plan was for us to do "terrorism" on our own citizens and blame it on Cuba.

These documents have recently come to light, after 40 years...and have been given the standard "backpage" coverage by the propaganda, oh I mean "mainstream" networks. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...fs_010501.html

To me, I am thinking "where is the national/worldwide outcry?"

---------------------

Think about it..these documents show a plan by the US Govt to KILL its own people just to give reason for going to war...and the plan was signed off and approved all the way up to Kennedy who didnt approve it....but it made it all the way thru the JCOS etc to Kennedys desk....one signature away from implementation.

"Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.

Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof … that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic]."

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...fs_010501.html

So the mainstream media 'covers' this....but why is it they cant quite make the conenction between the way the govt worked THEN and the way it works NOW...??

-----------


Now when you start to see this evidence of how to govt did things 40 years ago....you start to get an idea of how it also works today...and society today has degraded to a point much worse than the "good old days" 40 years ago...the stakes are way higher.

you start to look at things like 911...Oklahoma city...USS Cole..JFK assasination...even Space Shuttle Columbia...and if you have a brain you start to ask questions...."gee, if the govt would do that back THEN....what about NOW...now when sooooo many members of the govt have HUGE business interests in oil etc. When soooo many are members of the CFR and have European "bosses" who want to see a single global govt.

You start to look at all the "neutral commitees" in the govt that are supposedly checking out things like 911 etc and you see one guy checking out another guy..but then those two guys sit next to each other drinking coffee and the annual Bilderberger meeting.


There is the "govt" that we see..Senators, Congressmen, mid level managers like Clinton and Bush--the hollywood-ish facade, and then there is the real "govt" who calls the shots....Ill give you 3 guesses as to which "govt" is never mentioned by the media or by its puppets like M Moore. (and the first 2 guesses dont count)


Ask yourself....why is it that when THE MOST POWERFUL people in the world meet every year at the Bilderberger meeting....that there is total media blackout? Why is that? Dont you think that the people have a right to know what the world leaders are discussing in their secret little conclave??

So where is the media then? They set themselves up as the protectors of truth..what a freaking JOKE!!

So why is there total media blackout of this??? Easy, cuz the media know who pays their bills and who pulls the strings...they know who their masters are.

of course the media icons themselves do attend the meeting...because they have to have their instructions for the year etc...but they attend on the condition that what happens in the meeting stays in the meeting....and these are the people you all trust to tell you whats going on in the world???



for example http://isuisse.ifrance.com/emmaf/base/bb.html
-----
The Bilderberg membership is made up of Kings, Queens, Princes, Chancellors, Prime Ministers, Presidents, Ambassadors, Secretaries of State, Wall Street investors, international bankers, news media executives, and wealthy industrialist. Their meetings are by invitation only, and no outsiders in the news media are allowed, except by special invitation.

However, the news media are always present at these meetings such as: Peter Jennings (BB and Anchor & Senior Editor of ABC News, World News Tonight), Joseph C. Harsch (BB, CFR and former Commentator for NBC, Inc.), Bill D. Moyers (BB and Executive Director of Public Affairs TV, Inc. and former Director of the CFR), William F. Buckley, Jr. (BB, CFR and Editor-in-Chief of "National Review" and host of PBS's Firing Line), Gerald Piel (BB, CFR and former Chairman of Scientific America, Inc.), Henry Anatole Grunwald (BB, CFR and former Editor-in-Chief of "Time, Inc."), Mortimer B. Zuckerman (BB, CFR and Chairman & Editor - in - Chief of the "US News and World Report", "New York Daily News "and "Atlantic Monthly"), Robert L. Bartley (BB, CFR, TC and Vice President of the "Wall Street Journal"), Peter Robert Kann (BB, CFR and Chairman & CEO of Dow Jones & Company, and husband of Karen E. House, CFR), William Kristol (BB and Editor & Publisher of the new "The Weekly Standard" magazine), Donald (Don) C. Cook (BB, CFR and former European Diplomatic Correspondent for the "Los Angeles Times"), Robert Leroy Bartley (BB, CFR, TC and Vice President of the "Wall Street Journal"), Albert J. Wohlstetter (BB, CFR and writer for the "Wall Street Journal"), Thomas L. Friedman (BB, CFR, TC and columnist for the "New York Times"), and the "Queen" of the Elite - Katharine Graham (BB, CFR, TC and Owner and Chairwoman of the Executive Committee of the "Washington Post"). Even though these media moguls attend the secret meetings, they do not file reports about the Elite Bilderberg activities during their meetings, nor do they allow their reporters to write about these meetings.

A couple of weeks before the 1996 BB meeting, "The Spotlight" sent over 600 notices to key members of all forms of news media, including Rush Limbaugh, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and other prominent members of news magazines, newspapers, television and radio, advising them of the pending meeting, telling the date, time and place that the meeting would take place and a list of probable attendees. Only four newspapers showed up, the "Toronto Sun", "Toronto Star", "Globe & Mail", and "The Spotlight". The word is that Katherine Graham put the word out that this meeting was "NOT" to be covered by any news media for "ANY" reason. I personally called the editor of "USA Today" to warn him of this meeting at least a week prior to this meeting. A couple of weeks later, when asked why they did not attend, the answer was "We had more important news to cover during this period."

-----

So I am sorry, but when they parade out M Moore as if he has something shocking to say, forgive me if I am not shocked.



JP

[MTAtech]

Quote:

Originally Posted by usslindstrom

There probably isn't very many people from within the military itself, that thought Iraq was a bad idea. Everyone I know and work with, understands the reasoning, and the costs involved, and believe the world is a better place because of what happened. Sure, we have a long way to go though.

So much for that liberal media crap they propogate on TV.

First, the media is rather conservative.

Second, I enjoy listening to people make their case more credible by saying 'everyone I know' thinks the same way that I do.

Not everyone agrees:

Quote:

For the first time in ABC News/Washington Post polls, more than half of Americans, 52 percent, say the Iraq war was not worth fighting. Seven in 10 call U.S. casualties there "unacceptable," a new high. And there's been a steady slide in belief that the war has enhanced long-term U.S. security; 51 percent now say so, down 11 points this year. http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/u...on_040621.html

[Epidemic]

Quote:

The world is a far more dagerous place. We were told that overthrowing Saddam would help solve our terrorist problem. Saddam has not been in power for more than a year and has been in custody since Dec. 03. However, Ridge warned of a serious terrorist attack.

russia implies that ,,, no states as fact that iraq was working with al-qaeda on plots against the US. This would be state sponsored terrorism would it not? A terrorist organization with the power of a state behind it is a pretty scary prospect.