Moore in store....

Well spoken, Mary! I totally agree.

Yods, that's what they HAVE to say now that the reality has sunk in. But did they start out that way? No. They started off saying this would be an easy and short war, which wouldn't require many men. They still insist publically that everything is going well, but as Rumsfeld's leaked "snowflake" showed recently, they know full well that they have increased terrorism by this action, and that resolution in Iraq is in no way a certainty. They STILL don't openly admit that stuff - they STILL assert things that are contradicted by existing intelligence - like the idea that Saddam has links to al Qaeda - all under the guise of it being intelligence-based information. They STILL assert that no profit from oil is involved, yet with the iraq oil returning to petrodollars there is huge profit involved.

They couched everything in deceptive moralistic and anti-terrorism terms, using people's fear, and their better natures, to manipulate them into approving a basically insane action. Insane coz any US lead action will be like a magnet to terrorism. Anyone with the most basic understanding of that region could tell you that.

To me it seems like their greed blinded them to the flaws in their arrogant approach. Either way, even you must admit that things are NOT going well in Iraq, and only international intervention provides any hope of resolution. (and incidently, i still don't agree that things are currently better than under Saddam, as you have asserted on a recent thread - if only coz the social violence is comparable to the fear of torture. They are still in fear. In fact, nearly 6000 non-POWS are currently under detention, and locals resent the clsoed-trials, disappearing children and families, lack of information and alleged rough treatment.)

Unfortunately, it seems the media representation state side of life on the ground in Iraq might not be that broad. (over here we get constant updates from both imbedded and free-roving reporters - and altho it's quite in some areas, like the one where the identical soldier's letters of endorsement came out of - it's far from it in others. Ands terrorist activity in multiple forms is on the rise. Not to mention the other worrying phenomenon like 3000 Saudis going "missing" - probably disappearing over the border to cause yet more havoc)

The point still stands tho - Bush, Rumsfeld etc totally misrepresent the situation to you guys on a regular basis. Only now are they fully forced to admit to some of the undeniable problems - like the length of time required to acheive some form of stability in this area. (at least 100 years is what history would suggest )

Of course - but his sarcasm AND satire are all driven by his long-term-anger at the state of his nation. At the manipulations of the administrations. At the social problems with addressaable causes. Stuff like that. And I'm with him on almost all of it.

Gah - Moore's claims are based on facts - that doesn't make them conspiracy theories. I was just being kind by saying...for ultimate proof, we'd need Bush etc to admit to it (which is never going to happen). Here are some things that are NOT conspiracies:

-Inappropriate conflicts of interest were rife throughout the election (Jeb, Harris etc etc etc) and had an effect on the result.

-The Bush Admin has dealt extensively with both the Taliban and influential Saudis concerning oil/gas interests in those regions - to the extent that they (allegedly - according to ex CIA top brass and involved jornos and intelligence workers) told the CIA to leave Osama etc alone during negotiations - and has made no public steps to reprimand the Saudis for their roles in 9/11 etc (who are huge investors in your society). Lovely friends Bush has got at any rate

-The wife of the operative who showed the admin were lying about the Niger uranium claims was outed as an operative by admin officals - was that good practice? Or just more evidence of the Bush-admin's famed bullying tactics in political circles (whenever they don't get what they want - and probably generally as well )

-Huge political and financial profits to be made from trying to dominate Iraq and return the oil-trade to petrodollars. Not that you'd get them to admit that. [tho i do now believe they've just been incredibly bull-headed i.e. simplistic/stupid in how they've set about acheiving their aims - coz as far as control of that region goes, they're loosing that battle (as Rumsfeld admits) and they went about it in the wrong was (as everyone from Wesley Clark to me could have told them - Empire building is a dead "art")]


If you really want to bandy words like insane about - connect them with Karl. And if you think his stats backed up his view - with yourself too. Because all i was insisting on was standard methodological practice. I'm soooooo sorry if you find the niggling qualatitive details that are necessary a pain. He'd just thrown some stats together which could be used to "prove" various conclusions, including "guns controls have no positive or negative effects". Those stats as they stand were useless. His argument also centered around saying cities and sparsely-populated areas have the same dynamics, which is just....insane. You cannot base a social-wide theory on such scant facts. Unless you already "know" the answer. In case you haven't noticed, i actually now agree that strong gun-prohibition is not the answer. I'm just not as either-or simplistic as Karl, and you it seems, want to be.

Multiple my little green conservative. I put little synopsises of some of the core areas of amoral and venal actions above. Please do ask if you want some of the detail

We could also include relatively minor things that add up to a bad picture:

-a very venal family - grand-pappy looked after Nazi gold. The rest just play with influential political or media positions, or where the oil flows - which ain't bad in itself - until you get in charge of an economy and country thouroughly at the mercy of international oil "behaviour". i.e. when you start dictating economic and national policy to favour your energy buddies (whether it be Enron or Halliburton or whoever. And i still just can't understand how you can't understand the problem with the lack of open competition for the contracts in Iraq.)

-Bush bigs-up his military days yet was AWOL for most of them (interesting how he likes to dress up, use the lingo, and keep the troops happy - all the while using those speeches to reveal important domestic policy! Why announce the interstate electricity grid, the reform of the Medicare programme and taxation of small businesses to military gatherings? Could it be he wants them washed away in a wave of patriotism and unquestioning support?)

-He refuses to acknowledge his drink driving accident. (or to deny alledged cocaine use). Suspicious.

Overall Yods, i suspect you let all this stuff go, and other stuff, coz you think politicians are just venal and amoral no matter what for the most part. You seem to think Bush has strong economic policies so it makes everything alright (tho it also seems your pop and me would agree this is not the case). Personally, i'd say you can ask for a lot more from your politicans.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

"A campaign on harsh terrain in a vast country could be longer and more difficult than some have predicted. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable, and free country will require our sustained commitment. Yet, whatever is required of us, we will carry out all the duties we have accepted."
-- George W. Bush, March 22nd, 2003

That's 3 days after Bush's 48-hour ultimatum. The very next day, at a press conference:

"And so I can assure the American people we're making good progress, and I also can assure them that this is just the beginning of a tough fight."

More...

"The conflict continues in Iraq, and our military may still face hard fighting."
-- April 12th

I'm sorry, but this "they told us it was would be easy" stuff is demonstrably false. Selective memory is the only explanation I can put forward as to why you and others continually say it. The message has been very consistent: it could be tough, but we're going to win anyway.If you're going to equate resentment with torture, you're too wrapped up in your own politics to be reasoned with. Anyone who denies that things are better now (even amidst the hurdles we're currently up against -- though they are likely temporary) than they were under Saddam is, in my mind, letting their ideology utterly blind them.See above.Fair enough. Long-term anger I can understand, but his conclusions I cannot.Harris' vote ratification (after several recounts, I might add) was in complete accordance with state law. The fact that Dubya's brother is the state's Governor is not an "inappropriate conflict," because to say that it is implies that Jeb should have somehow stepped down. In reality, the Governor has plenty of checks and measures on his or her power level to prevent such conflicts of interest from making any difference.

Does that mean it's impossible that Jeb helped him out? No. But I've heard virtually no evidence in support of the idea that he did.

And no, Moore's claims are not necessarily based on facts. Some are, some aren't. That's rather my problem with him: he doesn't seem to mind acting as if they've all got factual backing, presumably because he feels, like you do, that his heart is in the right place and such truth-bending is acceptable if it achieves the desired result. If you're honest with yourself, I imagine you'd concede that you typically describe this sort of thing as "dodgy" when it comes from those whose viewpoint you do not share.I've heard vague stories about this before. Is there a source?Of course it's not good practice. It's inexcusable. Last I checked, however, the Administration was made up of a fairly large number of people. It's disconcerting that one of them was willing to do something as potentially dangerous (and juvenile, too) as that, but it doesn't necessarily imply a calculated effort.At what point did Rumsfeld admit they were "losing that battle"? I've read a number of statements from his now infamous memo, and I heard a lot of "we need to do more" and "we need to push harder," but I don't recall anything equivalent to "we're losing."I wouldn't fault someone for questioning statistics, so long as they did so reasonably. I don't believe you did. He cited, as evidence, the fact that most of the best cities had lax gun control laws, and most of the worst had strict gun control laws. You came back with a list of demands ("extenuating circumstances"), including: do any of these take place on drug routes? What are the finances of the city like? Do the cities have some sort of unusual setup, like Las Vegas?

While asking questions are reasonable, I think you know quite well that it's virtually impossible to answer questions 1 and 3. While I admit being pleasantly surprised at your willingness to drop the idea of total gun control, I still think your informational demands are too high.

Let's face it: when it comes to gun control, or an Al-Qaeda link, nothing less than a smoking gun (no pun intended) will please you, but when it comes to Enron, American intelligence, or anything else you don't particularly like, you're content to label it as "dodgy," thereby filing it in your head as another Bush screwup.I can understand why it would be a cause for concern, but not why it would immediately invoke the reactions it has. I've heard many, many people (and I suspect you have, as well) point out that Cheney had ties to Halliburton, ergo they got the contract unfairly. This, of course, begs the question: who else should have gotten it? Do we have any real reason at all to believe that the companies chosen were not the most deserving?

His grandfather (Prescott Bush) "looked after Nazi gold" in a very indirect sense. He was an investment banker for Brown Brothers Harriman, which was sending cash to Germany in the 20s and 30s. He also owned a single share of stock in Union Banking Corporation, which was run by Fritz Thyssen, who helped the Nazis in a much more explicit way. According to Cecil Adams (the source for most of these specifics), "some of the most distinguished names in American business had investments or subsidiaries in prewar Germany, including Standard Oil and General Motors."

Even if Prescott Bush were the Fuhrer's right-hand man, however, why would Bush be held in any way accountable for what his grandfather did? One of my grandfathers was a drunk. Am I a shady character by genetic association? This feels more like the kind of story you'd leak the day before an election than it does an actual argument or indictment of Dubya.Even by some of the fairly damning accounts, Bush served the first four years of his six-year commitment uneventfully. So "AWOL for most of them" is a gross mischaracterization. After four years, he requested a transfer to Alabama, in part so he could help a campaign there (no, it was not his father's). His superiors approved, but those higher-up in the military hierarcy said no (an event which seems to go against the notion that his old was pulling all sorts of strings for him). The most damning thing you can say about him in regards to his military days is that he may have failed to report to a unit in the Alabama guard for a couple of months.

He says he did. They say he didn't. Regardless, seeing as how he was more or less universally hailed as an excellent pilot, and put in loads of extra time after this alleged incident, I don't see him as a hypocrite. Even if I did, it would still only speak to his character, and not the validity of his actions.No it's not. I suspect he did both. He's just not stupid enough to talk about them openly. It'd be political suicide.I let this stuff go because we saw the same rabid nonsense directed at Clinton. The Republicans had been soundly beaten and proceded to throw a temper-tantrum by digging up all sorts of things about him. You're seeing the exact same thing under Bush.

Make no mistake, the Republicans had plenty of "evidence" that Clinton had done every God-awful thing you can imagine. But I don't believe most of it. I don't think he was ordering the death of everyone who opposed him. I don't think he was having all sorts of people audited on vindictive grounds. When you mix political passion with spite and anger, you get exactly what we're seeing now: laundry lists of complaints that, if true, would indicate that our country is being run by a human being worse than anyone we've ever met.

Tell me, Gol: do you believe it? Do you believe our last two Presidents have been murderous Nazi-like bastards? Because I find it far more likely that people find exactly what they're looking for, whether it's there or not.Whoa whoa, hold up. My "pop" would not agree with you in the least; he's even gone so far as to write a book on the boom he expects out of Bush's policies. Here were my exact words:

"My old man is partial to the term "jawboning," and is of the mindset that Bush talking the dollar down is about the only thing that can kill this economic bounceback."

That's rather like me saying "Chicago's the only city that can stop us from winning the Super Bowl this year" and you saying, a week later "hey, you said you thought Chicago would beat us."

Group this with your claim that Rumsfeld said we were losing, and your claim that they told us this would be an easy war, and I'm left with the inevitable conclusion that you're too often hearing what you want to. I'm sorry if that comes off as insulting, but what else am I to say in light of these misinterpretations?

I do apologise on the first one. I read "taking" not "talking" b4, and assumed he agreed with that article that devalueing the dollar would be a bad idea. Me seeing what i want to see indeed The third time i've done that. I shall be taking my brain back to the shop forwith, have no fear

The other allegation about bias affecting my intepretation, i have to say to, coz as much as i'm affected by this like everyone else, i do do my best to be objective and seek out as many perspectives as possible. But unfortunately, when i feel there's a lot of inappropriate spin being put out [remember i only get to see speeches and brit-reports of announcements etc, so i've no idea about your media's presentations and leanings etc] - so all i see is over-stated rhetoric from the Bush camp - and it gets my back up and i behave a bit emotionally, and maybe spin a bit accidently

With Bush i've never reeeaaaally read enough pro or neutral stuff to balance out all the bad i've read this is true. But let me quote you this Rumsfeld thing for a start, and we'll see if you a haven't been a bit too tart with me


Yes i would have been painting with a broad brush if i suggested all was lost (and that Rummy backed it up). But what i said was "losing" - i.e. that things are not going well. And i said failing in their aims. One of the stated aims for this war was the reduction/combatting of Terrorism. And to me, even tho you may disagree, this "snowflake" here backs various signs us currently losing the both "wars" on Terrorism and in Iraq i.e.:

-not knowing the "metrics" of our opponents in such a shadowy "war" is only a problem for us really. The terrorists know where their enemies are. He's just verifying that we're at a distinct disadvantage.

-The money thing spells a deadline further down the line [altho of course, a return to international cooperation could help mightily with funds, resources, coordination etc. Not really Rummy's thing tho is it ]

-Basically he's backing up the events as they stand, events which almost any anti-this-war proponent could have predicted (and not merely thru bias - but thru pragmatic assessment of historical and concurrent events too ) -i.e.- A US-led occupation leads to long-term rises in terrorism (above and beyond what an international force would have to deal with IMand-othersO). With broken oil pipes, lawlessness and continuing/rising terrorism, things look bleak in Iraq [I know Rummy doesn't state this, but he doesn't have to ]

EDIT: To qualify this a bit more in the light of the red-cross bombings etc - this destabilising stuff would have happened regardless i feel - the main arguments for a US-led-occupation being a dumb idea are:
-A significant amount of negative feeling to be overcome and continually countered.
-lack of peace-keeping experience in comparison to varied international forces
-lack of arabic/Muslim nationals involved who could disappate some of the muslim-vs scenarios/mind-sets [despite the complexities of the region - i believe a coalition force could have acheived this. The neighbours were no fans of Saddam either]
-And all of this can be summed up in the perceptual aspect: if the locals felt more confidant that "the world" was interested and active in re-establishing their country, there'd be more resistance to homegrown and externally-sourced aggression [which seems to be undeniably, and unsurprisingly on the rise]. The US-centric nature of it just makes it more of a magnet for terrorist action (we can assume, from terrorist declamations etc etc)

...

You'll still say all that's biased i dare say. I still say, hearing the Bu****es spouting the near opposite of all this makes my blood boil for its inexcusable deceitfulness - for example these quotes from the Times again:

"may"? May still face hard fighting? It was a near certainty. Only Rummy and pals, at that point still i believe, thought they could do it all with a minimal number of troops. Also, there was often an intimation that fighting would go on in the form of fighting-terrorism - not big land occupations. But still, very well, maybe i have talked that up too much, just as the Bushies talked ****e about the terror connections and WMD threat and the-lack-of-oil-profiteering [petrodollars, peeetrooodollaaaars...sing it with me] etc. We are all human eh? Thank god i'm not running a country tho

Oh ideo-log,you have the wrong end of the stick entirely i'm afraid. I was quite clearly talking about their FEAR of street crime etc [plus old remenants of the Baath part, new terrorist elements from Iran/Saudis etc etc]. I wasn't talking about the varied levels of anti-US/occupation sentiment.
As we can see from yesterdays attacks tho - that's still running high enough. And incidently, anyone who thinks there aren't currently grave fears and discomforts imposed on the populations of iraq by lawlessness and shortages, is clinging to the happy-ending ideal a touch too much [these things all equate to fear of torture in an "ordered" world to my mind - i do see them ending (hopefully), but not for a long time. That's part of the problem]

Well, letting in un-dated over-seas votes seems a bit dodgy [that's how i like to spell it alright] to me.

Jeb seems to have helped his bro via Harris in his elections department [she's a strong "link" what with her dual roles and all ] - i.e. the DBT debacle, which you don't seem to have any problems with. Is this more political cynicism/bias me-wonders :whistles-innocently-smilie:

No, i've repeatedly stated that Moore has been dodgy, or seemed to have been (it turns out he wasn't concerning certain Columbine slurs). My main observation of this is that one or two of his vote-counting stats were pointless spin really in "Stupid...". And i don't agree with all his conclusions - but that's not the same as not appreciating the facts he does dig up - and they're plentiful. And I'll state again - that in the face of prevelant institutional spin, it's more justifiable to spin back (if only to spark debate. It's the old, if someone's trying to kill you you're allowed to try and kill them back thing ) [EDIT: Both spins are "dodgy" in their own ways, but to accuse me of only having a problem with spin in anti-my-ideas areas is way off track. I think some of Moore's spins are justifiable and some aren't. I think the same for institutional spin. And your assessment of my qualatative assessments is far too cynical - you constantly seem to assume i just shift the boundaries to suit my self. You show yet again that you know next to nothing about me ]

This book (by a french jorno and an intelligence officer) and the interviews etc there-in (the CIA guy who resigned etc)...

Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy, Saudi Arabia and the Failed Search for bin Laden
by Jean-Charles Brisard, Guillaume Dasquie, Wayne Madsen, Lucy Rounds (Translator)


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...68930?v=glance

It does look suspiciously like ham-fisted bullying tho doesn't it. I mean, what other explanations do you have for why the info was leaked? I'd be interested to hear anything like that.

I wasn't expecting him to come up with them - i was expecting him to either come up with someone who had, or stop making his overblown claims. Because without contextual information the conclusions are fairly meaningless - How long have the gun controls been in effect in each place? What type of gun controls are they [submachine gun ownership? Handgun? House-ownership only?] - and again: you need to account for differences in the natures of the cities - from size to culture to wealth to ease-of-drug distribution to racial tensions etc etc etc.

Be a bit slower to call me a filing cabinet my man. I do consider Bush a ferocious fool, who might just scrape something positive together, and that's about as kind as i'll get. But i'm prepared to be wrong about it.

However...the problem is - i'm also against his economics [all-out capitalism is the death-knell for our societies as far as i'm concerned, and not in a benefical-advancing-change way, on current evidence. Melodramatic i know, but there you go ]... his social policies, just about every policy i know of. I'm pleased he's interested in renewable energy sources - i just wish he'd take the precautionary approach of actually giving the greenhouse gases theory some credit. His new hydrogen program, if it works, will also produce significant amounts of greenhouse gases as a byproduct, so it's no real step forward in an ecological/long-term sense.

So you see, i'm against Enron's deregulation-push for many reasons. Like i'm against Monsanto's interfering with regulatory bodies like the FDA and their suppression of journalists concerning things like the carcinogenic rBGH hormone (for starters). And like i'm against the Cheney-Halliburton tie [i.e. yet more insider-back-patting while they mouth free-trade/equal-playing-field platitudes. A recent survey in Britain showed just how closely knit most CEOs are, and that's not even taking uni and non-public connections into account etc]. From docs i've seen all the other potential players were outraged for never even having been invited to the table. So the choice was made between a select few, and there's plenty of argument as to whether there was enough genuine competition. And the result is suspicious.

Here's the problem again. Overly feral and amoral business practice [and Bush's family ties to it]. The first thing with his grandpa is the only really important one [tho i think people should evaluate the morality of things they invest in]. I'm not suggesting anyone's fascist here. Just too full-on capitalist for the world's good (you know i'm not against many of the principles of capitalism per se - i'm just against all the unbalanced variations of it)

Bush is still heavily tied to big business one way or another. And not businesses with good records either.

Ah ok, fair enough. I thought it was something like 1 year out of a 3 year stint. My mistake. He still wondered off for a couple of months tho didn't he. Surely he would have got more stick for that if he weren't influential.

Fair enough. But it doesn't mean some of it isn't true

Well, i think you should remember the old maxim "absolute power corrupts absolutely" - and indeed, Georgey is one of the most powerful in the world (even with all the power ties and neogtiations that have got him there). And Cheney and Rumsfeld and Gingrich and the like have all dogged the reigns of power for what seems like an eternity. These people are in the position to take exceptional decisions, and to alter the world radically (not always how they intend to, but there you go ). It'd be no surprise if they are, or become, a teeny bit different from the norm.

Seeing as i believe the ripple-out of many of Bush's policies (and other's policies to varying degrees) are negative, i do see him as an exceptionally "negative" person and influence in the world (whether by intent or accident, in person or by extrapolation, that's my impression)