Has Michael Moore become a full blown Truther?

[AZCat]

Hey, can we at least talk about important stuff, like the upcoming election instead of fighting about the last one again? Like, will Hillary nuke Iran, or just give them a firm scolding? Who looks better in pearls, Hillary or Bill? Will Gravy accept appointment to head the Department of Homeland Security? Will Condi declare herself Queen, and who can oppose her if she does? Can I be Secretary of the Navy, or at least CNO for a day? Can we please just go ahead and annex Canada before they attack us? Makes me pretty nervous, being up on top of us!
Come on, let's talk the real issues!

Why don't we have a Department of Debunking? That would be sweet!

Gravy, of course, could be the inaugral Secretary.

[JimBenArm]

Why don't we have a Department of Debunking? That would be sweet!

Gravy, of course, could be the inaugral Secretary.
Inaugural? Hell, they'd make him Secretary for Life! Be sort of like a Supreme Court Justice!

[AZCat]

Inaugural? Hell, they'd make him Secretary for Life! Be sort of like a Supreme Court Justice!

That makes for a very nice mental image - Gravy staring down at Fetzer from up on the bench!

[ConspiRaider]

It is disgraceful to call a man who logged hundreds of hours flying a fighter jet a sissy.
You're right, I was too kind, which can be viewed by some as disgraceful. He was also an alcoholic, a user of cocaine, and was convicted of drunk driving. And his wife wasn't too good at handling a car either. She killed a teenager with her car (ran a stop sign at an intersection, smashed into car across the intersection, speed of her vehicle "smudged" on police report) - and didn't even receive a ticket! I wonder if Hillary had done that? You know what would have happened? The Republican smear and hate machine would have ensured that not a bit of Hillary's DNA remained on planet Earth. But Laura gets a pass. Hmm. Anyway back to GW Bush. He was AWOL. You don't know what that means? Absent Without Leave. I think it's closer to desertion, in his case.

If Kerry was this reprehensible - then why, all of a sudden, have the Swift Boaters melted back into the woodwork, Ron? Hmm? After all we have a traitor (according to you) on the loose! Get Kerry out of the Senate! Yeah, right. Don't hear much from the Swifters anymore. Did you know, by the way, that their campaign against Kerry was heavily funded by a Republican? Did you know that? Tens of thousands of dollars - or much more.

[LashL]

Inaugural? Hell, they'd make him Secretary for Life! Be sort of like a Supreme Court Justice!



This is entirely off-topic but your mention of the Supreme Court Justices reminded me of this recent drop-dead hilarious piece from the Onion and, hell, this thread could use some comic relief anyway :)

Supreme Court Reaches Landmark 'It Depends' Ruling

In a landmark 8-1 decision, an uncharacteristically subdued Supreme Court ruled "it depends" in the case of Panetti v. Quarterman, leaving the issue of executing the mentally ill completely open-ended.

The entirely indeterminate ruling is a first for the high court.

The case, which challenged the extent to which the Eighth Amendment permits the execution of a mentally ill death row inmate who has a factual awareness of the reason for his punishment but does not comprehend its retributive nature, was described in Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion as being "way too tough to call."


It really should be read in full to truly appreciated it (and it is not very long at all) but here are a few of my favourite lines from the story.

"We're just nine justices—we don't have all the answers to all the country's legal problems," Breyer added.


Hundreds of "seriously legal-looking" documents such as amicus briefs and depositions from mental health experts only served to further confuse members of the high court.
"Now Brown v. Board of Education—that was a no-brainer," said Justice Stephen Breyer, referring to the landmark school-desegregation case. "I wish I could have been on the Supreme Court then.

Link to the article here (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/supreme_court_reaches_landmark_it).

:D

[PhantomWolf]

I think the real question is who's smarter. Kerry, who got sent to Veitnam, Bush, who got himself into the National Gaurd, or Clinton, who skipped the country and went to Europe?

[JimBenArm]

This is entirely off-topic but your mention of the Supreme Court Justices reminded me of this recent drop-dead hilarious piece from the Onion and, hell, this thread could use some comic relief anyway :)



It really should be read in full to truly appreciated it (and it is not very long at all) but here are a few of my favourite lines from the story.




Link to the article here (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/supreme_court_reaches_landmark_it).

:D


Oh, yeah! :D

[WildCat]

Have we learned nothing from the whole Perry Logan affair? Give it a rest guys. :boxedin:

[Orphia Nay]

Back on topic.... do the guys at IMDB have a good sense of humour or is their use of CT language just a coincidence?

http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/#celeb1

"Moore: "Film Leak Was an Inside Job"


Documentary maker Michael Moore has accused movie executives of leaking his new film Sicko on the internet because he insists the weekend controversy must have been an inside job. The editors of video-sharing website YouTube.com were forced to pull links to pirated versions of Moore's new U.S. healthcare film after learning as many as 600 people had seen the movie illegally online. But Moore isn't buying suggestions the leak was a mistake or the result of a clever pirate - because the online footage was too good. He fumes, "The film that's leaked onto the internet is not taken at a movie theatre with a little home movie camera the way it's usually done. This is the master. This is the actual digital; it's perfect. You can't really get that unless you've been able to perform an inside job. If you were a police detective, one of the first questions you would ask is about motive: Who has a vested interest in ruining the opening weekend's box office of this movie? If I were the police or FBI investigating this felony that's taken place, that's where I would look." "

Also, I must admit, Moore ranting about an "inside job" makes him sound a bit twoofy.

[PhantomWolf]

Also, I must admit, Moore ranting about an "inside job" makes him sound a bit twoofy.

I'd say it's less about the truth and more (Moore) about the money.... Oh hang on, that's what a twofer is isn't it....

[Corsair 115]

Quite a few. Are you saying most audience members would immediately dismiss any information presented in the cartoon as non factual, because it's a cartoon?Depends on the sensitivities of the viewer, naturally. At what point do we hold Moore responsible if some of the audience makes incorrect assumptions about whether the film is intended as fully accurate documentary or exaggerated, over-the-top satire/opinion piece? How much is it the responsibility of the audience to be attentive to what they're watching?

Incidentally it was the similarity to South Park that got Moore blown up in Team America: World Police.I enjoyed that film. I got to see the extended DVD version with the, ah, extra puppet sex scenes. Yes, I can easily see why they didn't make the theatrical release. ;)

[gumboot]

Depends on the sensitivities of the viewer, naturally. At what point do we hold Moore responsible if some of the audience makes incorrect assumptions about whether the film is intended as fully accurate documentary or exaggerated, over-the-top satire/opinion piece? How much is it the responsibility of the audience to be attentive to what they're watching?


Well that's the ethical question that has been plaguing filmmakers for over a century. :) I think a filmmaker has a responsibility to understand how an audience are most reasonably going to receive their work.

In a court of law, it would come down to what a reasonable person would believe. I think that a reasonable person would believe that a great part of Moore's films were his own opinions, but I also think that a reasonable person would expect that the specific statements and facts offered in support of his opinion were true - regardless of how those statements were expressed (voice over, subtitle, cartoon, etc).

-Gumboot

[Corsair 115]

I think that a reasonable person would believe that a great part of Moore's films were his own opinions, but I also think that a reasonable person would expect that the specific statements and facts offered in support of his opinion were true - regardless of how those statements were expressed (voice over, subtitle, cartoon, etc).I don't know about the latter part - I would say the style with which a message is delivered could be reasonably expected to have a lot of impact on whether any information contained therein was interpreted as factual or not.

There's a reason why documentaries are not done in animation, beyond the financial and practical ones. :D

[gumboot]

I don't know about the latter part - I would say the style with which a message is delivered could be reasonably expected to have a lot of impact on whether any information contained therein was interpreted as factual or not.

There's a reason why documentaries are not done in animation, beyond the financial and practical ones. :D



Ten or twenty years ago, I would have agreed with you. But not today. The lines are diminishing, and it only increases the responsibility of filmmakers.

The History Channel, for example, employ computer game video in some of their factual documentaries. Documentaries on World War Two have used footage from Saving Private Ryan.

Heck, factual educational videos have been using cartoons for decades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_the_Turtle). And I would argue that the tone of the cartoon in Bowling For Columbine quite clearly and intentionally mimics the style of factual educational cartoons. This has been done very consciously. The message: You got lied to in school about our history, here's what really happened.

-Gumboot

[pomeroo]

You're right, I was too kind, which can be viewed by some as disgraceful. He was also an alcoholic, a user of cocaine, and was convicted of drunk driving. And his wife wasn't too good at handling a car either. She killed a teenager with her car (ran a stop sign at an intersection, smashed into car across the intersection, speed of her vehicle "smudged" on police report) - and didn't even receive a ticket! I wonder if Hillary had done that? You know what would have happened? The Republican smear and hate machine would have ensured that not a bit of Hillary's DNA remained on planet Earth. But Laura gets a pass. Hmm. Anyway back to GW Bush. He was AWOL. You don't know what that means? Absent Without Leave. I think it's closer to desertion, in his case.




So, you hurl a another barrage of smears and think you've accomplished--what?

The reason you know that Bush had a drinking problem is that he told you. His terrible offense was to get pulled over for driving too slowly after having several beers. Ted Kennedy plunged a car off a bridge, swam to safety, and went home to assemble his damage-control team WHILE A WOMAN REMAINED ALIVE IN THE SUBMERGED CAR SLOWLY SUFFOCATING. You love Ted Kennedy, remember?


The 17-year-old Laura Bush hit a Corvair sedan driven by Michael Douglas. He was thrown from the car and tragically killed. The police records reported that neither driver was drinking. So, it turns out that Laura was also a teenager, and she had no political connections. Hasn't she stated in many interviews how she grieved for the victim? Isn't it true that she knew him?

You are quite the character assassin. Is any blow too low for you?




[quote=ConspiRaider;2710495]
If Kerry was this reprehensible - then why, all of a sudden, have the Swift Boaters melted back into the woodwork, Ron? Hmm?


Gee, that's a tough one. I think--I'm just guessing--that the statement the Swiftees issued when Kerry lost, that if he tries again they'll be back, might hint at the explanation.


[quote=ConspiRaider;2710495]
After all we have a traitor (according to you) on the loose! Get Kerry out of the Senate! Yeah, right. Don't hear much from the Swifters anymore. Did you know, by the way, that their campaign against Kerry was heavily funded by a Republican? Did you know that? Tens of thousands of dollars - or much more.



Kerry's appearance in Paris to argue for the North Vietnamese cause WHILE STILL A MEMBER OF THE U.S. MILITARY was technically an act of treason.
You don't care, and in the seventies it was nearly impossible to convict leftist radicals of anything. Jane Fonda's demonstrable treason was never prosecuted.

The Democrats clumsily tried to pretend that the Swiftees were all Republicans, but the falsehood was exposed. After John O'Neill debated Kerry on the Dick Cavett Show, Nixon invited him to White House. O'Neill commented that although he was grateful for the attention, he happened to be a Democrat who had voted for Hubert Humphrey in 1968.

Yes, it would seem likely that funding for the ads produced by the Swiftees would be more likely to come from Republican sources. Duh.

[pomeroo]

I think the real question is who's smarter. Kerry, who got sent to Veitnam, Bush, who got himself into the National Gaurd, or Clinton, who skipped the country and went to Europe?



I'd submit that a draft dodger who cons veterans into proclaiming undying devotion for him is pretty damn smart.

[parmanides]

I find it hard to take seriously the views of anyone so lethargically perched on the imagined, black and white, two party, good guys bad guys, sweat and tears fought for bosom, of some mythic motherland.

The reason people cant entertain any hidden collective agenda, is because it might rudely awaken that sentimental security. But realising that would require emotional awareness as well as a linear 'debunking' of 'theories' like the swatting of so many flies.

[Earthborn]

There's a reason why documentaries are not done in animationExcept of course Walking with Dinosaurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_with_Dinosaurs), Walking with Beasts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_with_Beasts), Walking with Cavemen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_with_Cavemen), Sea Monsters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Monsters), Dinosaur Planet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_Planet_%28TV_series%29), Micro Safari (http://natgeochannel.co.uk/explore/microsafari/) among others... And if you thought those transcend 'documentary film', then you obviously haven't seen The Future is Wild (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Future_is_Wild), Alien Planet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_planet) or Extraterrestrial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_%28TV_program%29).

In these programmes, the 'factual material' that makes it a documentary film is the scientific theories on which the almost entirely fictional works are based. It shows that the distinction between documentary and fiction is not only razorthin, the two can actually overlap.

[Dave Rogers]

I find it hard to take seriously the views of anyone so lethargically perched on the imagined, black and white, two party, good guys bad guys, sweat and tears fought for bosom, of some mythic motherland.

The reason people cant entertain any hidden collective agenda, is because it might rudely awaken that sentimental security. But realising that would require emotional awareness as well as a linear 'debunking' of 'theories' like the swatting of so many flies.

Nope. Read it three times, and I still have absolutely no idea what you're on about. I've posted it to a different thread where people might have some ideas though.

Dave

[thinkingaboutit]

The boy scouts are a terrorist group.

Hi firecoins, are you just padding the post count here or what? I'm curious as to why it's okay for you to make glib comments while I cannot. Get back to me.

[Corsair 115]

The lines are diminishing, and it only increases the responsibility of filmmakers.I would certainly agree with this. Maybe I'm too optimistic about people's ability to weed out the wheat from the chaff.

The History Channel, for example, employ computer game video in some of their factual documentaries. Documentaries on World War Two have used footage from Saving Private Ryan. I can understand the concerns such instances may cause, but I wouldn't automatically condemn such choices. It would very much depend on how those items were used within the programs and what such use was trying to achieve or illustrate.

Heck, factual educational videos have been using cartoons for decades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_the_Turtle). And I would argue that the tone of the cartoon in Bowling For Columbine quite clearly and intentionally mimics the style of factual educational cartoons. This has been done very consciously. The message: You got lied to in school about our history, here's what really happened. A good point, But in that instance, we may be back to the issue of the ability of the audience to understand interpret things again. ;)

Except of course...

(list omitted for brevity's sake)

In these programmes, the 'factual material' that makes it a documentary film is the scientific theories on which the almost entirely fictional works are based. It shows that the distinction between documentary and fiction is not only razorthin, the two can actually overlap.A good point as well. I probably should have been a bit more clear and said I meant documentaries in their traditional "talking head" type of form, and by animation I meant the cell-based animation as opposed to CGI effects used to depict things which can't really be depicted any other way.

The kind of programs you mentioned were not really the ones I hand in mind.

For the record, I have seen most of the programs you listed.

[gumboot]

I would certainly agree with this. Maybe I'm too optimistic about people's ability to weed out the wheat from the chaff.

I can understand the concerns such instances may cause, but I wouldn't automatically condemn such choices. It would very much depend on how those items were used within the programs and what such use was trying to achieve or illustrate.

A good point, But in that instance, we may be back to the issue of the ability of the audience to understand interpret things again. ;)



Oh I think that is what it's about. :) Bear in mind I'm not condemning use of cartoons, computer game footage, or fictional film footage. I'm just trying to illustrate that from an audience member's perspective it's no longer true that "live footage" = "true", "animation" = "false".

Moreso, I don't think that has ever been the case, as per old 50's educational films.

Looking at the cues the film gives the audience throughout, I believe the information presented in the cartoon is expected to be accepted as fact.

The film presents itself as an opinion piece, with a light scattering of facts supporting that opinion. A reasonable person expects those facts to be true. So this is the mindset already established when we reach the cartoon.

The cartoon satirises old educational films. It begins immediately by cynically portraying the arrival of English migrants to the New World, not as the Thanksgiving tradition portrays it, but as the migrants slaughtering all of the natives.

This, for me, is important. In recent years there has been a heavily cynical reevaluation of western history, in particular early interaction with indigenous populations. It's certainly not unique to the USA - it happened in New Zealand as well.

The first scene of the cartoon immediately takes advantage of this. It is broadly accepted that early education taught that the natives and migrants got a long initially, and that subsequent teaching has swung the other way, portraying westerners as genocidal. Hence the first point offered by the cartoon is something the audience already accepts as fact. This immediately opens the door to the audience believing everything else the cartoon offers.

I'm sure you've heard of the term "White Man's Burden"? It was an idea that was exploited to justify imperialism - the superior white man having an obligation to provide civilised rule to native peoples.

Today I see a new thing occurring in western history which I also call "White Man's Burden". This time the burden is guilt. It's a common theme in history classes these days that white man, in his past, has caused lots of trouble, caused lots of suffering, and has done nothing right. This psyche is used by a lot of people to add things to the list of "bad things white man did" without them being scrutinised properly.

A good example would be the Musket Wars in New Zealand.

Michael Moore is exploiting this new "White Man's Burden" to get his claims accepted without serious scrutiny.

I think that audiences need to take much more responsibility themselves, and look at any and all claims critically, but nonetheless, Moore did not do all of this by accident. He's much to good for that. It has all been very carefully calculated. He knows exactly how the audience will respond to what he is presenting. Hence my issue with it.

-Gumboot

[FactCheck]

There have been some very important hard facts left out of the critical thinking here.

Hard facts:

The evidence for a conspiracy to use 9/11 to invade Iraq is significant. While there is not one shred of evidence the government blew up the World Trade Center, there is evidence that they used the tragedy to remove Saddam Hussein using poor WMD evidence.

Below is a short list of people who blew the whistle on the misuse of pre-war intelligence.

Thomas Packard, acting FBI director: Summer before 9/11, Ashcroft told him he didn’t want to hear anything more about terrorist threats. During the 9/11 hearings other FBI people corroberated this. Someone lied to congress and yet this goes uninvestigated.

Larry Johnson, former counter terrorism agent with the CIA: Rumsfeld set up a special office to link Iraq and Al Qaeda cherry picking Intel; evidence is sent back saying, “That’s garbage, that’s misleading, that misrepresents,” then they would take the same brief to the vice president or one even worse.

Rand Baers, National Security Council: Resigns White House post and works against Bush. He said Cheney pushed CIA "Cheney said, “Everybody knows Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, tell us what you know, what’s your best stuff?..”

Downing Street Memo says Bush wanted to remove Saddam though military action. “Evidence fixed around the policy” How many other counties did the Bush Administration ask to fix evidence evidence around policy? Is the yellowcake part of this fix? If they did it to one country why wouldn't they do it to others?

Rice, Rove, Karen Hughes, Cheney have weekly closed door meetings on how to convince the American people.

John McLaughlin, CIA deputy director: “We did not clear that particular [Niger] speech”… Tenet’s “slam dunk” does not mean what the media thinks it means. Tenet also says the slam dunk was not about the evidence but the presentation of the evidence.

Michael Scheuer: Intel did not matter. We were going to war / Tenet researched 10 years worth of documents and found no connection to Al Qaeda. Tenet tells Bush / Administration yet administration continues to suggest connection.

Who is ‘Joe T’ and why was he the point man for analyzing nuclear weapon intel?

Gregory Thielmann, State Dept intelligence: More and more people said intel on tubes was that they were no good for a nuclear weapon. Official leak saying “Mushroom Cloud” misrepresents the intelligence community disagreement. Administration continues “No doubt” he has WMD. Tenet defends erroneous evidence while others in the CIA voice doubts. State department issues strong and lengthy dissent. Niger uranium purchase “Highly Dubious.” "Intelligence agencies, get your talking points”

CIA intel notes critical gaps in the evidence because of questionable reliability of many sources,

For the first time before a modern war, Bush did not ask for National Intelligence Estimate. Congress demands it. N.I.E. said Saddam not a threat.

White House Iraq group gives only evidence which supports policy while down playing dissent.

Last minute dispute over Niger speech.

Tenet and Powell argue about intel.

Carl Ford, Asst Sec of State, Intelligence: “This is all we got? And we’re making these firm judgments?

Powell not told about Curveball. Curveball was never debriefed by the CIA.

Col. Laurence Wilkerson: Evidence brought to the UN “It was anything but an intelligence document. It was a Chinese menu where you can pick and choose what you want”

A day before Powell’s UN speech, a CIA skeptic had warned Curve Ball is a lair. A superior sends an E-mail reply saying “This war’s going to happen regardless, the powers that be probably aren’t interested whether Curve ball knows what he’s talking about.”

Powell’s speech riddled with misleading allegations. Not outright lies but worded in such a way as to mislead.

Scott Ritter, ex UNSCUM weapon inspector: The evidence for war is not there. He goes on just about every TV station trying to stop the war.

Richard Clarke: Bush wanted to connect Iraq and 9/11. Invading Iraq for 9/11 is like China attacking us and we invade Mexico.

Gen. Clark: People in the Pentagon told him Bush was going to war no matter what.

New Memo DSM said Bush was going to war no matter what.

We know the PNAC wanted to invade Iraq before 911. Was 911 the perfect excuse?

Are you telling me all these high level people are lying?

Here is what I think happened...

PNAC has been looking for an excuse to invade IRAQ since the clinton years. They had a few reasons in mind.

1) Saddam was a nutcase (Trying to draw conclusions from his actions based on what the normal person would do is silly. He wasn't normal) - Problem: he was never shown to be more than a local threat
2) protect the oil supply - Problem: A good reason but not enough to invade. It's their oil and the american people will not go to war just to secure something which isn't theirs.
3) Stablize the middle east: Problem: The american people don't want to go to war to turn Iraq into a middle estern america.

I think what put them over the edge was money. Many of their supporters were going to make a lot of money if they went to war. I'm not saying they made the decision because they knew they were going to make a killing (No pun intended) but because it colored their judgement.

The proof that they didn't think there was WMD was the fact that he pulled the weapon inspectors out only 3 months after they began. Yet we spent more than a year with more than one group of inspectors only to realize they didn't have WMD.

So if you want to go to war what would you have to do? Paint Saddam as a threat by suggesting he was creating WMD and could give it to terrorists. You would do it with a small number of players. Just present the evidence the way conspiracy theorists present their evidence - tell half the truth.

You can want to believe we are killing people in Iraq for valid reasons and if that helps you sleep at night so be it.:D

[FactCheck]

Oh I think that is what it's about. :) Bear in mind I'm not condemning use of cartoons, computer game footage, or fictional film footage. I'm just trying to illustrate that from an audience member's perspective it's no longer true that "live footage" = "true", "animation" = "false".

Moreso, I don't think that has ever been the case, as per old 50's educational films.

Looking at the cues the film gives the audience throughout, I believe the information presented in the cartoon is expected to be accepted as fact.

The film presents itself as an opinion piece, with a light scattering of facts supporting that opinion. A reasonable person expects those facts to be true. So this is the mindset already established when we reach the cartoon.

The cartoon satirises old educational films. It begins immediately by cynically portraying the arrival of English migrants to the New World, not as the Thanksgiving tradition portrays it, but as the migrants slaughtering all of the natives.

This, for me, is important. In recent years there has been a heavily cynical reevaluation of western history, in particular early interaction with indigenous populations. It's certainly not unique to the USA - it happened in New Zealand as well.

The first scene of the cartoon immediately takes advantage of this. It is broadly accepted that early education taught that the natives and migrants got a long initially, and that subsequent teaching has swung the other way, portraying westerners as genocidal. Hence the first point offered by the cartoon is something the audience already accepts as fact. This immediately opens the door to the audience believing everything else the cartoon offers.

I'm sure you've heard of the term "White Man's Burden"? It was an idea that was exploited to justify imperialism - the superior white man having an obligation to provide civilised rule to native peoples.

Today I see a new thing occurring in western history which I also call "White Man's Burden". This time the burden is guilt. It's a common theme in history classes these days that white man, in his past, has caused lots of trouble, caused lots of suffering, and has done nothing right. This psyche is used by a lot of people to add things to the list of "bad things white man did" without them being scrutinised properly.

A good example would be the Musket Wars in New Zealand.

Michael Moore is exploiting this new "White Man's Burden" to get his claims accepted without serious scrutiny.

I think that audiences need to take much more responsibility themselves, and look at any and all claims critically, but nonetheless, Moore did not do all of this by accident. He's much to good for that. It has all been very carefully calculated. He knows exactly how the audience will respond to what he is presenting. Hence my issue with it.

-GumbootYou act as though Moore shouldn't be allowed to dabble in the possibility that white men in fear may be responsible for the gun culture in America. We are talking about the American experience which is far different that New Zealanders. They at least saw the dangers in guns and regulated them. For SOME reason americans fear restrictions on guns. Why is that? Moore gives one possible reason. If it's not the "white man's burdon" then give your view. Why do you think Americans can't live without unregulated guns?

[gumboot]

You act as though Moore shouldn't be allowed to dabble in the possibility that white men in fear may be responsible for the gun culture in America. We are talking about the American experience which is far different that New Zealanders. They at least saw the dangers in guns and regulated them. For SOME reason americans fear restrictions on guns. Why is that? Moore gives one possible reason. If it's not the "white man's burdon" then give your view. Why do you think Americans can't live without unregulated guns?



Er... have you read any of my posts?

I support his desire to have guns controlled. I think any society where people think they need a weapon to protect them from other people within that society has some serious issues.

As I've said in nearly every single post in this thread, I do not have issue with Moore's opinions. In fact I agree with most of them. I have issue with him supporting his opinion with "facts" that are not true.

Although I also think Moore missed a key element of the high school massacre formula, that being the way in which First Person Shooter computer games (or Murder Simulators, as Lt. Col. Grossman calls them) condition people to kill. I don't think this is so much an explanation for the killings, but for why such large numbers of people are killed.

-Gumboot

[Corsair 115]

Although I also think Moore missed a key element of the high school massacre formula, that being the way in which First Person Shooter computer games (or Murder Simulators, as Lt. Col. Grossman calls them) condition people to kill.If you thought we had differences of opinion about subjects before, well, we're really going to have a difference on this one! :D

But in fairness it's not a debate that belongs in this particular thread or forum.

[gumboot]

If you thought we had differences of opinion about subjects before, well, we're really going to have a difference on this one! :D

But in fairness it's not a debate that belongs in this particular thread or forum.



No, not really. :)

Maybe one day I will start a thread in politics about it, though I don't really want to, as it would get all political. Maybe I should put it in science, mathematics, medicine, and technology.

-Gumboot

[AZCat]

Although I also think Moore missed a key element of the high school massacre formula, that being the way in which First Person Shooter computer games (or Murder Simulators, as Lt. Col. Grossman calls them) condition people to kill. I don't think this is so much an explanation for the killings, but for why such large numbers of people are killed.

-Gumboot

I think you'll have a hard time proving any link between video games and body counts. Several of the high casualty U.S. incidents occurred long before first person shooters (FPSs) were common (or even invented), like the University of Texas shootings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman) (1966), the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_massacre) (1984), and the Texas Luby's massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre) (1991). The Luby's tragedy remained the deadliest until the recent horror on the campus of Virginia Tech. Why would we think that the reasons for the high school shootings could be any easier to divine than the reasons for these other cases? We can argue about the risk of exposing children and adolescents (or even adults) to this type of entertainment, but it seems pretty clear that we Americans are pefectly capable of wiping out large numbers of people without any help from id Software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Software).

[gumboot]

I think you'll have a hard time proving any link between video games and body counts. Several of the high casualty U.S. incidents occurred long before first person shooters (FPSs) were common (or even invented), like the University of Texas shootings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman) (1966), the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_massacre) (1984), and the Texas Luby's massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre) (1991). The Luby's tragedy remained the deadliest until the recent horror on the campus of Virginia Tech. Why would we think that the reasons for the high school shootings could be any easier to divine than the reasons for these other cases? We can argue about the risk of exposing children and adolescents (or even adults) to this type of entertainment, but it seems pretty clear that we Americans are pefectly capable of wiping out large numbers of people without any help from id Software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Software).


Perhaps you should do some research into conditioning before creating strawman arguments?

-Gumboot

[AZCat]

Perhaps you should do some research into conditioning before creating strawman arguments?

-Gumboot

Why is my post a strawman? If I misrepresented your position I apologize, but maybe you could point out how I have done so?

[gumboot]

Why is my post a strawman? If I misrepresented your position I apologize, but maybe you could point out how I have done so?


I've started a thread in Science and Medicine about the topic in case anyone is interested in discussing it. But the basic premise of conditioning is as follows:

1. Except for the 2% of humans that display sociopathic tendencies, humans have a natural biological resistance to killing other humans.

2. The effectiveness of this safeguard varies depending on proximity between the killer and victim (emotionally, physically, and technologically), and proximity between the killer and authority.

3. Armed Forces have developed highly effective methods of conditioning soldiers to kill, which disables the safeguard.

4. FPS computer games mimic the same conditioning methods used by the military.

5. It therefore seems logical that FPS computer games condition young people to kill by disabling their natural resistance to killing other people.

-Gumboot

[AZCat]

I've started a thread in Science and Medicine about the topic in case anyone is interested in discussing it. But the basic premise of conditioning is as follows:

1. Except for the 2% of humans that display sociopathic tendencies, humans have a natural biological resistance to killing other humans.

2. The effectiveness of this safeguard varies depending on proximity between the killer and victim (emotionally, physically, and technologically), and proximity between the killer and authority.

3. Armed Forces have developed highly effective methods of conditioning soldiers to kill, which disables the safeguard.

4. FPS computer games mimic the same conditioning methods used by the military.

5. It therefore seems logical that FPS computer games condition young people to kill by disabling their natural resistance to killing other people.

-Gumboot

It is late and I may not be thinking as clearly as I should be, but I still don't see how this makes my post a strawman.

[gumboot]

It is late and I may not be thinking as clearly as I should be, but I still don't see how this makes my post a strawman.


Well there's a number of reasons. Firstly, being conditioned to kill doesn't mean you will kill. It just means you can. For example, if the hypothesis re: conditioning is correct, I am conditioned to kill. I have never killed anyone, nor do I have any plans to kill anyone.

Secondly, of the three killings you cited, at least two of the killers were suffering severe psychological disorders (thus in the 2% without a natural safeguard) and two of the killers had served in the military and therefore had been conditioned to kill.

The conditioning theory relates to an enabler, not cause for the killing itself. Consider: traditionally mass killings are the sole domain of the mentally ill. While mentally sound people do kill, it is traditionally done in a fit of rage, against close associates or relatives, and more often than not results in an immediate murder suicide.

This is due to the biological safeguard. Normal people are not capable of mass killings. But, if you add computer game conditioning into the mix, you have large numbers of normal psychologically healthy people who are capable of mass killings, and from a very young age. This won't cause them to carry out mass killings, of course. And there are a host of things which cause the killings to occur. But given the triggers necessary to produce the desire to carry out a mass killing, conditioning and access to firearms makes it possible.

-Gumboot

[AZCat]

Well there's a number of reasons. Firstly, being conditioned to kill doesn't mean you will kill. It just means you can. For example, if the hypothesis re: conditioning is correct, I am conditioned to kill. I have never killed anyone, nor do I have any plans to kill anyone.

Secondly, of the three killings you cited, at least two of the killers were suffering severe psychological disorders (thus in the 2% without a natural safeguard) and two of the killers had served in the military and therefore had been conditioned to kill.

The conditioning theory relates to an enabler, not cause for the killing itself. Consider: traditionally mass killings are the sole domain of the mentally ill. While mentally sound people do kill, it is traditionally done in a fit of rage, against close associates or relatives, and more often than not results in an immediate murder suicide.

This is due to the biological safeguard. Normal people are not capable of mass killings. But, if you add computer game conditioning into the mix, you have large numbers of normal psychologically healthy people who are capable of mass killings, and from a very young age. This won't cause them to carry out mass killings, of course. And there are a host of things which cause the killings to occur. But given the triggers necessary to produce the desire to carry out a mass killing, conditioning and access to firearms makes it possible.

-Gumboot

In your original post, you said:

Although I also think Moore missed a key element of the high school massacre formula, that being the way in which First Person Shooter computer games (or Murder Simulators, as Lt. Col. Grossman calls them) condition people to kill. I don't think this is so much an explanation for the killings, but for why such large numbers of people are killed.

I replied:
I think you'll have a hard time proving any link between video games and body counts. Several of the high casualty U.S. incidents occurred long before first person shooters (FPSs) were common (or even invented), like the University of Texas shootings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman) (1966), the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_massacre) (1984), and the Texas Luby's massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre) (1991). The Luby's tragedy remained the deadliest until the recent horror on the campus of Virginia Tech. Why would we think that the reasons for the high school shootings could be any easier to divine than the reasons for these other cases? We can argue about the risk of exposing children and adolescents (or even adults) to this type of entertainment, but it seems pretty clear that we Americans are pefectly capable of wiping out large numbers of people without any help from id Software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Software).

You then stated:
Perhaps you should do some research into conditioning before creating strawman arguments?

A strawman is a refutation of an argument based on a misrepresentation of an opponent's position. In your originating post, you posited a causal relationship between FPS games and the numbers of people killed in high school shootings (I assume in the U.S.A.). I responded that there are a number of historical examples in America of mass shootings prior to the invention of the FPS game (there are plenty more, by the way) and that you would "have a hard time proving a link" between the games and the deaths. You stated that my response was a "strawman" argument, but your post was not an explanation of why my response is a strawman but rather a further explanation of your own argument, including information that was not available in the original claim (and therefore could not have been taken into account by me in my response). In order to back up your claim of "strawman", you need to show where I have misrepresented your original claim.

[gumboot]

In your original post, you said:



I replied:


You then stated:


A strawman is a refutation of an argument based on a misrepresentation of an opponent's position. In your originating post, you posited a causal relationship between FPS games and the numbers of people killed in high school shootings (I assume in the U.S.A.). I responded that there are a number of historical examples in America of mass shootings prior to the invention of the FPS game (there are plenty more, by the way) and that you would "have a hard time proving a link" between the games and the deaths. You stated that my response was a "strawman" argument, but your post was not an explanation of why my response is a strawman but rather a further explanation of your own argument, including information that was not available in the original claim (and therefore could not have been taken into account by me in my response). In order to back up your claim of "strawman", you need to show where I have misrepresented your original claim.



Well my claim is that conditioning to kill is an explanation for large numbers of deaths. Computer games offer the only likely way high school children are conditioned to kill. You cited examples of killings carried out by adults who had also been conditioned to kill, but another way.

Upon reviewing my post I see that I wasn't overly clear in what I was saying. Sorry about that. :) My fault.

-Gumboot

[AZCat]

Well my claim is that conditioning to kill is an explanation for large numbers of deaths. Computer games offer the only likely way high school children are conditioned to kill. You cited examples of killings carried out by adults who had also been conditioned to kill, but another way.

Upon reviewing my post I see that I wasn't overly clear in what I was saying. Sorry about that. :) My fault.

-Gumboot

Ahh - thanks. Clarity is sometimes difficult when discussing something close to one's heart. I have begun to shift discussion into the thread you began (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85651) in SMMT, as it is probably more appropriate there.

Again, my apologies for the confusion.

[Skiltch]

A quick check of the Swift Boat vet claims reveals them to be easily debunkable.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200704180002

Some of the people making the claims directly and specifically contradict their earlier statements. Some of them admit their claims are based on second hand gossip. Some are simply wrong (such as the guy who said that Kerry wasn't under fire on the day he got his Bronze Star... when the guy himself also got a Bronze Star citation for reacting well under fire while next to Kerry's boat.)

[pomeroo]

A quick check of the Swift Boat vet claims reveals them to be easily debunkable.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200704180002

Some of the people making the claims directly and specifically contradict their earlier statements. Some of them admit their claims are based on second hand gossip. Some are simply wrong (such as the guy who said that Kerry wasn't under fire on the day he got his Bronze Star... when the guy himself also got a Bronze Star citation for reacting well under fire while next to Kerry's boat.)


Kerry received three purple hearts. He missed exactly ONE day of duty as a result of his "wounds." That isn't debunkable.

[boloboffin]

Kerry received three purple hearts. He missed exactly ONE day of duty as a result of his "wounds." That isn't debunkable.

Kerry received three Purple Hearts. He also received a Bronze Star and a Silver Star.

[pomeroo]

Kerry received three Purple Hearts. He also received a Bronze Star and a Silver Star.


Uh, yes, that is correct.

[boloboffin]

Uh, yes, that is correct.

So it's your position that Purple Hearts aren't really Purple Hearts if the person wounded doesn't miss some on-duty time as a result?

ETA: A recent blog on Michael Moore hating being a "worn-out cliche. (http://pandagon.net/2007/06/24/hating-on-michael-moore-is-a-worn-out-cliche/)"

[pomeroo]

So it's your position that Purple Hearts aren't really Purple Hearts if the person wounded doesn't miss some on-duty time as a result?

ETA: A recent blog on Michael Moore hating being a "worn-out cliche. (http://pandagon.net/2007/06/24/hating-on-michael-moore-is-a-worn-out-cliche/)"


The position of the Swift Boat vets is that Kerry's scratches did not merit purple hearts.

[ConspiRaider]

Kerry received three purple hearts. He missed exactly ONE day of duty as a result of his "wounds." That isn't debunkable.
Hey non-military guy:

You just put the word wounds in quotes. Kerry did not give himself those 3 Purple Hearts, correct? The United States Armed Forces gave them to Kerry. Let's say he was faking it. The military has a term for that: Malingering. He'd have been busted for it.

Tell me this, smart guy. Why would Kerry need to have his medals record padded when he's got 10 medals (including the Silver Star and Bronze Star, you twit) already? Do you think the U.S. military just hands out Silver Stars and Bronze Stars like party favors?

You have just implicated an entire branch of the U.S. Government for conspiring to pad the service record of one of its members, by giving that member various service medals which were not earned. So that he could - what - someday run for President? That's the conspiracy theory?

How exactly is it that you and Gumboot, neither of whom have served a single day in the U.S. military, feel that you can speak so "authoritatively" about that military? By reading the stupid innernetz? Doesn't cut it with me. And don't hand me that "Well I have friends who were in the military!!!11one!!111" crap. Yeah? I have friends who sell houses. Doesn't qualify me to speak with any authority whatsoever on matters of purchasing real estate.

A swift boat twoofer. That's you, Ron. You've become what you oppose. Twoofing.

Remember those disgusting, traitorous individuals who were mocking the entire U.S. military by wearing purple band-aids at the Republican National Convention? Was one of them you, perhaps?

You weren't in the military. All you "know" is what you've read, and what others have told you. No practical experience whatsoever.

The court martial which had to have ensued for Kerry's malingering, since you have accused him and the U.S. military of a conspiracy: Could you point me to it, please? What was the outcome? Was Kerry guilty or innocent? If guilty, what sentence was handed down?

[boloboffin]

The position of the Swift Boat vets is that Kerry's scratches did not merit purple hearts.

And this is your position as well, since you didn't use the Swift Boat Vet foil to shield yourself from criticism in your "ONE day" post.

The Swift Boat Vets and you are wrong (http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp).

[Checkmite]

The Swift Boat Vets are about the same as Michael Moore in my estimation. They both bend the truth for a political agenda.




A distinct possibility. However, what this proves is that people who 'were in Vietnam and know what it was like' (such as these "Swift Boat Vets") have no magical quality which grants them impeccable credibility on a political issue. The obverse is also true - that someone who was not in Vietnam and didn't know "what it was like" (often by virtue of the fact of his/her age - what a grand offense that is) is not necessarily dismissible out-of-hand.

Arguments win by preponderance of evidence. Let's not fall into the trap of prostituting a record of honorable military service for the purpose of gaining an "edge" in a political argument on a message board. For every person you can dismiss with "oh, you were never in the military; you don't know what it was like, therefore you have no place to talk", there's a few military vets who hold the exact same political position.

[Checkmite]

Whoops, double post.

[Skiltch]

According to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Heart#Criteria

The wound does not even need to be a "physical lesion." It just needs to be severe enough that treatment is required (and treatment records have to exist). There is no requirement of missing service.
Also, again, the Swift Boat Vets saying that Kerry did not merit the medals were not there (Albert French and Dr. Letson, for instance) and had no way of knowing about his wounds.


Edited out irrelevencies and clarified

[Texas]

There have been some very important hard facts left out of the critical thinking here.

Hard facts:

The evidence for a conspiracy to use 9/11 to invade Iraq is significant. While there is not one shred of evidence the government blew up the World Trade Center, there is evidence that they used the tragedy to remove Saddam Hussein using poor WMD evidence.

Below is a short list of people who blew the whistle on the misuse of pre-war intelligence.

Thomas Packard, acting FBI director: Summer before 9/11, Ashcroft told him he didn’t want to hear anything more about terrorist threats. During the 9/11 hearings other FBI people corroberated this. Someone lied to congress and yet this goes uninvestigated.

Larry Johnson, former counter terrorism agent with the CIA: Rumsfeld set up a special office to link Iraq and Al Qaeda cherry picking Intel; evidence is sent back saying, “That’s garbage, that’s misleading, that misrepresents,” then they would take the same brief to the vice president or one even worse.

Rand Baers, National Security Council: Resigns White House post and works against Bush. He said Cheney pushed CIA "Cheney said, “Everybody knows Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, tell us what you know, what’s your best stuff?..”

Downing Street Memo says Bush wanted to remove Saddam though military action. “Evidence fixed around the policy” How many other counties did the Bush Administration ask to fix evidence evidence around policy? Is the yellowcake part of this fix? If they did it to one country why wouldn't they do it to others?

Rice, Rove, Karen Hughes, Cheney have weekly closed door meetings on how to convince the American people.

John McLaughlin, CIA deputy director: “We did not clear that particular [Niger] speech”… Tenet’s “slam dunk” does not mean what the media thinks it means. Tenet also says the slam dunk was not about the evidence but the presentation of the evidence.

Michael Scheuer: Intel did not matter. We were going to war / Tenet researched 10 years worth of documents and found no connection to Al Qaeda. Tenet tells Bush / Administration yet administration continues to suggest connection.

Who is ‘Joe T’ and why was he the point man for analyzing nuclear weapon intel?

Gregory Thielmann, State Dept intelligence: More and more people said intel on tubes was that they were no good for a nuclear weapon. Official leak saying “Mushroom Cloud” misrepresents the intelligence community disagreement. Administration continues “No doubt” he has WMD. Tenet defends erroneous evidence while others in the CIA voice doubts. State department issues strong and lengthy dissent. Niger uranium purchase “Highly Dubious.” "Intelligence agencies, get your talking points”

CIA intel notes critical gaps in the evidence because of questionable reliability of many sources,

For the first time before a modern war, Bush did not ask for National Intelligence Estimate. Congress demands it. N.I.E. said Saddam not a threat.

White House Iraq group gives only evidence which supports policy while down playing dissent.

Last minute dispute over Niger speech.

Tenet and Powell argue about intel.

Carl Ford, Asst Sec of State, Intelligence: “This is all we got? And we’re making these firm judgments?

Powell not told about Curveball. Curveball was never debriefed by the CIA.

Col. Laurence Wilkerson: Evidence brought to the UN “It was anything but an intelligence document. It was a Chinese menu where you can pick and choose what you want”

A day before Powell’s UN speech, a CIA skeptic had warned Curve Ball is a lair. A superior sends an E-mail reply saying “This war’s going to happen regardless, the powers that be probably aren’t interested whether Curve ball knows what he’s talking about.”

Powell’s speech riddled with misleading allegations. Not outright lies but worded in such a way as to mislead.

Scott Ritter, ex UNSCUM weapon inspector: The evidence for war is not there. He goes on just about every TV station trying to stop the war.

Richard Clarke: Bush wanted to connect Iraq and 9/11. Invading Iraq for 9/11 is like China attacking us and we invade Mexico.

Gen. Clark: People in the Pentagon told him Bush was going to war no matter what.

New Memo DSM said Bush was going to war no matter what.

We know the PNAC wanted to invade Iraq before 911. Was 911 the perfect excuse?

Are you telling me all these high level people are lying?

Here is what I think happened...

PNAC has been looking for an excuse to invade IRAQ since the clinton years. They had a few reasons in mind.

1) Saddam was a nutcase (Trying to draw conclusions from his actions based on what the normal person would do is silly. He wasn't normal) - Problem: he was never shown to be more than a local threat
2) protect the oil supply - Problem: A good reason but not enough to invade. It's their oil and the american people will not go to war just to secure something which isn't theirs.
3) Stablize the middle east: Problem: The american people don't want to go to war to turn Iraq into a middle estern america.

I think what put them over the edge was money. Many of their supporters were going to make a lot of money if they went to war. I'm not saying they made the decision because they knew they were going to make a killing (No pun intended) but because it colored their judgement.

The proof that they didn't think there was WMD was the fact that he pulled the weapon inspectors out only 3 months after they began. Yet we spent more than a year with more than one group of inspectors only to realize they didn't have WMD.

So if you want to go to war what would you have to do? Paint Saddam as a threat by suggesting he was creating WMD and could give it to terrorists. You would do it with a small number of players. Just present the evidence the way conspiracy theorists present their evidence - tell half the truth.

You can want to believe we are killing people in Iraq for valid reasons and if that helps you sleep at night so be it.:D
Impressive list. Now tell me where were those folks when the Democrats were saying the following in the years leading up to the invasion?

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

[boloboffin]

Impressive list. Now tell me where were those folks when the Democrats were saying the following in the years leading up to the invasion?

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Glenn Beck (http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml)! Is that really you?

[Texas]

LOL No, I am just trying to keep things in perspective.

[gumboot]

So in conclusion, no Michael Moore is not a "full blown truther".

-Gumboot

[PhantomWolf]

LOL No, I am just trying to keep things in perspective.

I think that you'll find that his point was that if you plan to C&P from a website, reference the site.

[The Mysterian]

Impressive list. Now tell me where were those folks when the Democrats were saying the following in the years leading up to the invasion?

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

How about this: "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

[Texas]

I think that you'll find that his point was that if you plan to C&P from a website, reference the site. I apologize for that

democrat statements before Iraq war

[PhantomWolf]

So in conclusion, no Michael Moore is not a "full blown truther".

-Gumboot

Just a half-blown one.

Now Clinton was full blown, but not as a truther. You know, you'd think that a guy who was smart enough to dodge the draft, and still have Vets love him, would have been smart enough to have kept his fly zipped while in the Oval Office. I might man, USE A HOTEL!!

[Texas]

How about this: "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
Cockeyed optimism I guess. I will agree that the invasion was doomed from the start simply because it is unrealistic to hope that this country could possibly stick together long enough to see the operation through. It has been so since the end of WW2 and the US has lost every war since.

[The Mysterian]

Cockeyed optimism I guess. I will agree that the invasion was doomed from the start simply because it is unrealistic to hope that this country could possibly stick together long enough to see the operation through. It has been so since the end of WW2 and the US has lost every war since.

I'd call it lying.

[PhantomWolf]

I'd call it lying.

I wouldn't. When was the last major Allied action against Iraqi combat forces?

[The Mysterian]

I wouldn't. When was the last major Allied action against Iraqi combat forces?

It's supposed to be going on now isn't it?

[Texas]

I'd call it lying.
That is an interesting viewpoint. What did he gain by telling that "lie"? To have lied he would have had to have known that an insurgency would form in the first place. So if he knew this and given electoral politics at the time why would he have told a lie that was bound to be reported 24/7 for the next 4 years?

[PhantomWolf]

It's supposed to be going on now isn't it?

No, what is happening currently is insurgent strikes and occasional purges by the Allies. There have been no Iraqi Combat Forces opposing the Allies since 2004, if not before.

[pomeroo]

And this is your position as well, since you didn't use the Swift Boat Vet foil to shield yourself from criticism in your "ONE day" post.

The Swift Boat Vets and you are wrong (http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp).


No, YOU are wrong. Kerry's "wounds" were scratches.

[boloboffin]

No, YOU are wrong. Kerry's "wounds" were scratches.

When you follow my link, you will find the Snopes page that details just how Kerry got his wounds, and what mortal danger he was in when he got each of those wounds, and why your attempt to minimize Kerry's heroic service is misguided, partisan, and wrong.

[Tbone]

In a rare attempt at critical thinking of mine, the problem I see with this specific debate over Kerry's wounds/scratches is as follows:

No, YOU are wrong. Kerry's "wounds" were scratches.

The article does not contend that Kerry's wounds were serious, though it does state that they were more than scratches (and I would agree, penetrating shrapnel wounds do not agree with the dictionary definition of scratch, which is what I assume the miltary would use). It explains quite clearly that in 2 of 3 cases, he resumed duty immediately after treatment, except in one case that did not even require a hospital stay after treatment.

However, this is not the point you were trying to make.

The point is that some people contend that Kerry's wounds/scratches were not meritous of receiving the Purple Heart. If you or anyone disagrees, then one must explain under what conditions one believes wounded soldiers (and remember that Kerry in fact was a wounded soldier, despite the seriousness or lack thereof) should be awarded the Purple Heart; for example, requiring 'X' number of days off duty. Stating an opinion that his wounds were only "scratches" is not a refutation, nor a good arguement at all.

[Texas]

In a rare attempt at critical thinking of mine, the problem I see with this specific debate over Kerry's wounds/scratches is as follows:



The article does not contend that Kerry's wounds were serious, though it does state that they were more than scratches (and I would agree, penetrating shrapnel wounds do not agree with the dictionary definition of scratch, which is what I assume the miltary would use). It explains quite clearly that in 2 of 3 cases, he resumed duty immediately after treatment, except in one case that did not even require a hospital stay after treatment.

However, this is not the point you were trying to make.

The point is that some people contend that Kerry's wounds/scratches were not meritous of receiving the Purple Heart. If you or anyone disagrees, then one must explain under what conditions one believes wounded soldiers (and remember that Kerry in fact was a wounded soldier, despite the seriousness or lack thereof) should be awarded the Purple Heart; for example, requiring 'X' number of days off duty. Stating an opinion that his wounds were only "scratches" is not a refutation, nor a good arguement at all. You make a good point and one I couldn't quite figure out why the swiftVets made such an issue of. The SwiftVets and many VietNam Vets had a legitimate gripe with Kerry over his actions after he left the military, one that left a bad taste in their mouths and his actions were fully documented. There was no need to focus on the legitimacy of his combat medals at all. It was not good strategy. The same can be said for the CBS attempt to swiftboat Bush with forged documents. If you have shaky sources someone is going to rub your face in them.

[gumboot]

Personally I find the entire Purple Heart thing really silly. Soldiers are meant to try avoid getting wounded. If anything you should give medals to soldiers who don't get wounded under enemy fire.

As Colby Buzzell said; the only medal ceremonies where the soldiers don't get jealous are the ones for Purple Hearts.

-Gumboot

[Skiltch]

In bolobuffin's snopes link it clarifies that:
Admiral Zumwalt states that more often than not people who were wounded/got purple hearts did not need to take time off. If Kerry's medals shouldn't count based on that, neither should over half of the ones delivered.
He was then wounded by shrapnel, RPG shrapnel, and a mine in the water.
Furthermore, regulations stipulated that anyone wounded thrice would then be transfered away unless they requested to stay, and that's what happened to Kerry.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Don't know if someone has already said this as I haven't read the whole thread:

I've skimmed, not read, cause he's unreadable,three of Michael Moore's books and he clearly states he doesn't believe in any CTs, including the 9/11 ones. He jokes that the only ones he believes in are those involving dentists.

MM's shtick is funny in a film because he's an activist with the soul of a stand up comic but on page, it's an effect like reading a 200-page rant on a blog entry or a transcript of a 10 hour stand up show.

[FactCheck]

Why should I guess about Kerry's medals? The book by the Swiftees discusses them in detail. Kerry's purple hearts are bad jokes. He and the Swift Boat vets disagree about his other ribbons, but Kerry apparently forgot his promise to release ALL of his relevant military records to settle the disputes.

I find it strange that someone who describes himself as a vet is defending a scoundrel who gained celebrity by lying about men who fought bravely and honorably in an unpopular and misguided war.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2004/story?id=166434

The swift boaters are no different than the toofers. Motivated by politics and hate for speaking out against the war. :P

[FactCheck]

Er... have you read any of my posts?

I support his desire to have guns controlled. I think any society where people think they need a weapon to protect them from other people within that society has some serious issues.

As I've said in nearly every single post in this thread, I do not have issue with Moore's opinions. In fact I agree with most of them. I have issue with him supporting his opinion with "facts" that are not true.

Although I also think Moore missed a key element of the high school massacre formula, that being the way in which First Person Shooter computer games (or Murder Simulators, as Lt. Col. Grossman calls them) condition people to kill. I don't think this is so much an explanation for the killings, but for why such large numbers of people are killed.

-Gumboot

It doesn't matter if you agree with gun regulations. I aplaude you for that. But you are using the same tactics of only seeing one side of things you say he does.

This country had a love for guns long before the first computer was invented. Just because the name of the movie was bowling for columbine doesn't mean that's the only thing the movie was about. It was about Americans dogmatic love for guns. Surely, you must admit that. So if it was more than just columbine then it wasn't the computer games that led to the shooting. If they didn't have those guns in the first place it wouldn't matter what video game they played.

I also don't buy the computer game triggering the event. They sell the same video games in canada but they don't have nearly the death rate. Why? Because thought many have guns in canada they are regulated. People tend to use guns legally when they are registered to the owner. Every handgun is registered in canada.

[WildCat]

Every handgun is registered in canada.
Except the illegal ones... ;)

[FactCheck]

Kerry received three purple hearts. He missed exactly ONE day of duty as a result of his "wounds." That isn't debunkable.

What is debunkable is the characterization that he somehow should be thought of padding his heroism because the government gives EVERYONE purple stars for even less than the wound he had.

He wasn't saying "Vote for me because I have a purple star." He was saying "Vote for me because I actually KNOW what combat is." Something Bush and the right had to counter with slander and nutcases with a grudge from the past.

[FactCheck]

Except the illegal ones... ;)

Which are very few because of them needing to be registered. ;) No one wants an illegal gun traced back to them.

[Corsair 115]

Except the illegal ones... ;)Many of which are smuggled into Canada from the United States, according to law enforcement authorities.

[PhantomWolf]

Something Bush and the right had to counter with slander and nutcases with a grudge from the past.

Hang on, that's a pretty serious allegation there. As much as I detest the chimp guy, do you actually have any evidence that he was the one that was behind such groups as the Swift Boat Vets?

[FactCheck]

Hang on, that's a pretty serious allegation there. As much as I detest the chimp guy, do you actually have any evidence that he was the one that was behind such groups as the Swift Boat Vets?

Connections with the Bush campaign

The Bush campaign became part of the general SBVT controversy when McCain condemned the first SBVT ad, and said, "I hope that the president will also condemn it." The Bush campaign did not condemn SBVT or the SBVT ads The campaign did not endorse the group either, stating "We have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam."[80] Kerry was dismissive of this statement, saying, "Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that."[81] Kerry also alleged that SBVT was "a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won’t denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know — he wants them to do his dirty work".[82] When pressed on the issue, President Bush called for an end to all 527 group political advertisements, and challenged Kerry to do the same.[83]

Critics and the Kerry campaign pointed to several specific connections between SBVT and the Bush campaign. The Kerry campaign asserted that Bush campaign headquarters in Florida distributed fliers promoting SBVT events, a charge the Bush campaign denied.[84] Kenneth Cordier, former vice-chair of Veterans for Bush/Cheney (in 2000) and volunteer member of the Bush campaign veterans steering committee, appeared in the second SBVT advertisement. The Bush campaign asked him to resign and stated that it had been unaware of his SBVT involvement.[85]

On August 25, 2004, Benjamin Ginsberg, the top election lawyer to the Bush campaign on campaign finance law, also resigned after it was learned that SBVT was one of his clients. Ginsberg stated that he was withdrawing to avoid being a distraction to the campaign. He declared that he had acted "in a manner that is fully appropriate and legal,"[73] arguing that it was not uncommon or illegal for lawyers to represent campaigns or political parties while also representing 527 groups. He also maintained that he did not disclose to the Bush campaign that he was simultaneously representing the SBVT group. After leaving the Bush campaign, Ginsberg retained his status as counsel to SBVT.

In January 2005, Governor Jeb Bush, the President's brother and Florida chairman for his 2004 campaign,[86] sent a letter to SBVT member and former POW Bud Day, thanking him for his "personal support of my brother in his re-election." In addition, Governor Bush said of the SBVT:

"As someone who truly understands the risk of standing up for something, I simply cannot express in words how much I value their willingness to stand up against John Kerry."[63][87]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth

At a minimum, Bush helped slander him by not denoucing them. He gave them a little more credibility.

[FactCheck]

Hang on, that's a pretty serious allegation there. As much as I detest the chimp guy, do you actually have any evidence that he was the one that was behind such groups as the Swift Boat Vets?

Connections with the Bush campaign

The Bush campaign became part of the general SBVT controversy when McCain condemned the first SBVT ad, and said, "I hope that the president will also condemn it." The Bush campaign did not condemn SBVT or the SBVT ads The campaign did not endorse the group either, stating "We have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam."[80] Kerry was dismissive of this statement, saying, "Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that."[81] Kerry also alleged that SBVT was "a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won’t denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know — he wants them to do his dirty work".[82] When pressed on the issue, President Bush called for an end to all 527 group political advertisements, and challenged Kerry to do the same.[83]

Critics and the Kerry campaign pointed to several specific connections between SBVT and the Bush campaign. The Kerry campaign asserted that Bush campaign headquarters in Florida distributed fliers promoting SBVT events, a charge the Bush campaign denied.[84] Kenneth Cordier, former vice-chair of Veterans for Bush/Cheney (in 2000) and volunteer member of the Bush campaign veterans steering committee, appeared in the second SBVT advertisement. The Bush campaign asked him to resign and stated that it had been unaware of his SBVT involvement.[85]

On August 25, 2004, Benjamin Ginsberg, the top election lawyer to the Bush campaign on campaign finance law, also resigned after it was learned that SBVT was one of his clients. Ginsberg stated that he was withdrawing to avoid being a distraction to the campaign. He declared that he had acted "in a manner that is fully appropriate and legal,"[73] arguing that it was not uncommon or illegal for lawyers to represent campaigns or political parties while also representing 527 groups. He also maintained that he did not disclose to the Bush campaign that he was simultaneously representing the SBVT group. After leaving the Bush campaign, Ginsberg retained his status as counsel to SBVT.

In January 2005, Governor Jeb Bush, the President's brother and Florida chairman for his 2004 campaign,[86] sent a letter to SBVT member and former POW Bud Day, thanking him for his "personal support of my brother in his re-election." In addition, Governor Bush said of the SBVT:

"As someone who truly understands the risk of standing up for something, I simply cannot express in words how much I value their willingness to stand up against John Kerry."[63][87]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth

At a minimum, Bush helped slander him by not denoucing them. He gave them a little more credibility. I never said he was behind them. Though it's exactly the tactic Rove would come up with.

[WildCat]

BTW, the US and Canada actually have very similar murder rates among the same demographic groups. What skews the data is that the US has more of the groups likely to commit murders.

Of course, this is the racial 3rd rail no one wants to touch. Please don't interpret this as me saying that blacks and hispanics are inherently more likely to be violent, it's just pointing out that factors other than gun availability are in play here, and far more relevant.

[pomeroo]

Connections with the Bush campaign

The Bush campaign became part of the general SBVT controversy when McCain condemned the first SBVT ad, and said, "I hope that the president will also condemn it." The Bush campaign did not condemn SBVT or the SBVT ads The campaign did not endorse the group either, stating "We have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam."[80] Kerry was dismissive of this statement, saying, "Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that."[81] Kerry also alleged that SBVT was "a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won’t denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know — he wants them to do his dirty work".[82] When pressed on the issue, President Bush called for an end to all 527 group political advertisements, and challenged Kerry to do the same.[83]

Critics and the Kerry campaign pointed to several specific connections between SBVT and the Bush campaign. The Kerry campaign asserted that Bush campaign headquarters in Florida distributed fliers promoting SBVT events, a charge the Bush campaign denied.[84] Kenneth Cordier, former vice-chair of Veterans for Bush/Cheney (in 2000) and volunteer member of the Bush campaign veterans steering committee, appeared in the second SBVT advertisement. The Bush campaign asked him to resign and stated that it had been unaware of his SBVT involvement.[85]

On August 25, 2004, Benjamin Ginsberg, the top election lawyer to the Bush campaign on campaign finance law, also resigned after it was learned that SBVT was one of his clients. Ginsberg stated that he was withdrawing to avoid being a distraction to the campaign. He declared that he had acted "in a manner that is fully appropriate and legal,"[73] arguing that it was not uncommon or illegal for lawyers to represent campaigns or political parties while also representing 527 groups. He also maintained that he did not disclose to the Bush campaign that he was simultaneously representing the SBVT group. After leaving the Bush campaign, Ginsberg retained his status as counsel to SBVT.

In January 2005, Governor Jeb Bush, the President's brother and Florida chairman for his 2004 campaign,[86] sent a letter to SBVT member and former POW Bud Day, thanking him for his "personal support of my brother in his re-election." In addition, Governor Bush said of the SBVT:

"As someone who truly understands the risk of standing up for something, I simply cannot express in words how much I value their willingness to stand up against John Kerry."[63][87]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth

At a minimum, Bush helped slander him by not denoucing them. He gave them a little more credibility. I never said he was behind them. Though it's exactly the tactic Rove would come up with.



In your opinion, did Kerry slander the men who served in Vietnam when he compared them to the "hordes of Genghis Khan" and falsely accused them of committing atrocities? Were those men justifed in taking offense at what they regarded as Kerry's lies? Were the Swift Boat veterans, some of them Democrats, merely "Republican operatives" or could it be that they were actually making a point?

[Calcas]

Move it to politics...

[boloboffin]

In your opinion, did Kerry slander the men who served in Vietnam when he compared them to the "hordes of Genghis Khan" and falsely accused them of committing atrocities? Were those men justifed in taking offense at what they regarded as Kerry's lies? Were the Swift Boat veterans, some of them Democrats, merely "Republican operatives" or could it be that they were actually making a point?

You could at least get the quote right:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the "Winter Soldier Investigation." The term "Winter Soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.

[PhantomWolf]

Connections with the Bush campaign

Let's check these one by one shall we...

The Bush campaign became part of the general SBVT controversy when McCain condemned the first SBVT ad, and said, "I hope that the president will also condemn it." The Bush campaign did not condemn SBVT or the SBVT ads The campaign did not endorse the group either, stating "We have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam."[80] Kerry was dismissive of this statement, saying, "Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that."[81] Kerry also alleged that SBVT was "a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won’t denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know — he wants them to do his dirty work".[82] When pressed on the issue, President Bush called for an end to all 527 group political advertisements, and challenged Kerry to do the same.[83]

So what we have here is Kerry's campaign saying that Bush was behind them, without any proof, and Bush's campaign denying it. Yes Bush didn't condem their action, but he didn't endorse it either, so there is no evidence of a Bush-SBVT connection here, other than Kerry's (a non-unbiased party) claims of such a connection.

Critics and the Kerry campaign pointed to several specific connections between SBVT and the Bush campaign. The Kerry campaign asserted that Bush campaign headquarters in Florida distributed fliers promoting SBVT events, a charge the Bush campaign denied.[84] Kenneth Cordier, former vice-chair of Veterans for Bush/Cheney (in 2000) and volunteer member of the Bush campaign veterans steering committee, appeared in the second SBVT advertisement. The Bush campaign asked him to resign and stated that it had been unaware of his SBVT involvement.[85]

So again we have unproven alogation by a non-unbiased party which was refuted by the Bush Campaigners. When one volenteer of the Bush Campaign did show up to have a connection to bioth, he was made to resign. Where is the evidence of a Bush being behind them here? If anything it shows he didn't agree with them and wanted to stay clear of them by forcing the resignation of someone involved in both.

On August 25, 2004, Benjamin Ginsberg, the top election lawyer to the Bush campaign on campaign finance law, also resigned after it was learned that SBVT was one of his clients. Ginsberg stated that he was withdrawing to avoid being a distraction to the campaign. He declared that he had acted "in a manner that is fully appropriate and legal,"[73] arguing that it was not uncommon or illegal for lawyers to represent campaigns or political parties while also representing 527 groups. He also maintained that he did not disclose to the Bush campaign that he was simultaneously representing the SBVT group. After leaving the Bush campaign, Ginsberg retained his status as counsel to SBVT.

So where's the connection here? The lawyer resigned when a conflict of interests come to light, and states that he never told the Bush Campaign that he was representing both.

In January 2005, Governor Jeb Bush, the President's brother and Florida chairman for his 2004 campaign,[86] sent a letter to SBVT member and former POW Bud Day, thanking him for his "personal support of my brother in his re-election." In addition, Governor Bush said of the SBVT:

"As someone who truly understands the risk of standing up for something, I simply cannot express in words how much I value their willingness to stand up against John Kerry."[63][87]

So Bush's brother thought they did a good job and wrote to them to say so... how is this proof of any connection to Bush and him "being behind them"?

At a minimum, Bush helped slander him by not denoucing them. He gave them a little more credibility.

No, you need to check the definition of slander. It doesn't include failure to denounce or reprim someone else for saying untrue things. Your demoratic colours are showing here.

I never said he was behind them.

You said that he countered Kerry's "I've seen Combat" with "slander and nutcases with a grudge from the past." So far you haven't proven your case that Bush was in any way involved it in, and merelty standing to one side and not opposing them is not slander as you claim.

Though it's exactly the tactic Rove would come up with.

More biased and unproven supposition. You really need to stop letting your own political views from colouring your view of things. As a foreigner I don't have a Democrat/Republican bias. Personally I don't really like either, but politically I'm more likely to lean Democrat (If I was Californian, I'd have voted for Arnolt as Gov, but I'd vote Hillary for Pres ;)) so I don't read what quote you have provided with any preconcieved bias. The simple fact of the matter is that Bush just didn't do anything to stop them, but nor was he actually obigated too do anything. Kerry tried to drag Bush into it by claiming he was behind it, but didn't actually prove anything.

[FactCheck]

BTW, the US and Canada actually have very similar murder rates among the same demographic groups. What skews the data is that the US has more of the groups likely to commit murders.

Of course, this is the racial 3rd rail no one wants to touch. Please don't interpret this as me saying that blacks and Hispanics are inherently more likely to be violent, it's just pointing out that factors other than gun availability are in play here, and far more relevant.

First, what does it matter? If the crime rate drops as a whole with stronger regulations, are the lives saved not worth saving because the rate for blacks and hispanics is high? I don't understand what's relevant about it?

Ever since the stronger regulations both the US and Canada have enjoyed a lower murder rate. Especially NY which has lots of blacks and Hispanics. It also has one of the toughest gun laws in the country. Lets look at poverty and education and not race. They tend to go hand in hand with race but there are many poor and uneducated whites who also murder more than whites as a whole.

I researched this long before I became a 9/11 debunker. Do you know where the crime guns were traced to in NY? Virginia for the most part. The same was true for most cities. Where ever there was strong gun laws the criminals went over the city or state lines to buy guns in areas with lax gun laws. The gun lobby said the murder rate was going to climb if the guns were regulated in the 90's but it went down. The south bucked the trend and continued to have lax gun laws. They also had the most murder with gun loven Texas as one of the highest. People love to point to DC but DC crime guns were almost exclusively from Maryland which also had lax gun laws. That was until Bush stopped the gun trace studies.

After all the research I've done there is no doubt in my mind that gun regulation has a positive effect on the murder rate. I also found that race had to do with education and poverty which has more to do with the murder rate.

[FactCheck]

In your opinion, did Kerry slander the men who served in Vietnam when he compared them to the "hordes of Genghis Khan" and falsely accused them of committing atrocities? Were those men justifed in taking offense at what they regarded as Kerry's lies? Were the Swift Boat veterans, some of them Democrats, merely "Republican operatives" or could it be that they were actually making a point?

Now for the research:

"They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

This was taken out of context just the same as CT's take the NIST out of context. So he didn't slander anyone because he was only relying what was told to him. No one to date from the group has come out saying one one in the group said that. And some of the atrocities are well documented.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/20/vietnam_atrocities_revealed_in_report_boston_globe/

So even if he did say it the facts support it.

There are atrocities in every war and by every side. Even the one we're in now.

I know it's romantic to think we are above that kind of thing but we aren't. The day we went to war I said on a forum something like "Be prepared for atrocities commited by our own military."

There was a cable access show, just after the war started that had a vet talking to some school children about war. He told the children without batting an eye that he used to rip open up the wounds of the prisoners to get information from them.

You see how easy it is for CT's to buy lies? It seems you have.

Now a question for you. After I show you everything that was told about Kerry was no different than a CT lie will you do more research before bashing the liberal candidate? :)

[FactCheck]

"Let's check these one by one shall we..."

Yes lets...

"So what we have here is Kerry's campaign saying that Bush was behind them, without any proof, and Bush's campaign denying it. Yes Bush didn't condem their action, but he didn't endorse it either, so there is no evidence of a Bush-SBVT connection here, other than Kerry's (a non-unbiased party) claims of such a connection."

None of that matters because I never said Bush was behind it. I said he slandered him. There is a difference.

"So again we have unproven alogation by a non-unbiased party which was refuted by the Bush Campaigners. When one volenteer of the Bush Campaign did show up to have a connection to bioth, he was made to resign. Where is the evidence of a Bush being behind them here? If anything it shows he didn't agree with them and wanted to stay clear of them by forcing the resignation of someone involved in both."

This goes more to republicans helping slander him. Again, I never said Bush was behind it so this is a moot point. There are two parts to the quote. You are fixated on the word Bush.

"So where's the connection here? The lawyer resigned when a conflict of interests come to light, and states that he never told the Bush Campaign that he was representing both."

Again, I didn't say Bush was behind it. Only that he slandered Kerry by not denouncing the swift boaters helping them to gain credibility.

"So Bush's brother thought they did a good job and wrote to them to say so... how is this proof of any connection to Bush and him "being behind them"?

I never said he had a connection I simply quoted the text in full because being a debunker I hate when people take a sentence out of context. If I wanted to lie I would have only quoted small parts like republicans and CT's do. :P

"No, you need to check the definition of slander. It doesn't include failure to denounce or reprim someone else for saying untrue things. Your demoratic colours are showing here."

For the record I'm a card carring independent who has voted republican more than once. I also call myself a flaming liberal and I'm proud of it. That doesn't change the facts.

And for the record I know what the legal definition is but the effects are the same here. If you don't like how I used the word, fine. We aren't in a court room and I am using writers license. It's slander to me. But I'll change it if we can get back to the real issue and that is what was said about Kerry was a lie.

"You said that he countered Kerry's "I've seen Combat" with "slander and nutcases with a grudge from the past." So far you haven't proven your case that Bush was in any way involved it in, and merelty standing to one side and not opposing them is not slander as you claim."

That's because I never said he was involved in it. Are your colours showing?

"More biased and unproven supposition. You really need to stop letting your own political views from colouring your view of things. As a foreigner I don't have a Democrat/Republican bias. Personally I don't really like either, but politically I'm more likely to lean Democrat (If I was Californian, I'd have voted for Arnolt as Gov, but I'd vote Hillary for Pres ;)) so I don't read what quote you have provided with any preconcieved bias. The simple fact of the matter is that Bush just didn't do anything to stop them, but nor was he actually obigated too do anything. Kerry tried to drag Bush into it by claiming he was behind it, but didn't actually prove anything.

As I said I'm not a democrat but I never said that was a fact. It's clearly my opinon based on past actions by Rove which I am entitled to.

[DavidJames]

You see how easy it is for CT's to buy lies? It seems you have.Exactly, belief in the Swifties claims is no different then belief in the 9/11 CT claims.Now a question for you. After I show you everything that was told about Kerry was no different than a CT lie will you do more research before bashing the liberal candidate? :)The political "woo" is strong in him, I doubt it.

[PhantomWolf]

And for the record I know what the legal definition is but the effects are the same here. If you don't like how I used the word, fine. We aren't in a court room and I am using writers license. It's slander to me. But I'll change it if we can get back to the real issue and that is what was said about Kerry was a lie.

I'm going to deal with this bit, because the rest of it boils down to this section, especially the bit I have underlined.

It seems that your entire case here is that you think Bush should have denounced them, and because he didn't, he thus supported them. I'd say this is the same as Dylan Avery claiming that since 80% of the population of the US don't say they disagree with him, they must support him.

Sure I can see that politically Bush wouldn't have been worried about them attacking Kerry because it certainly wasn't hurting him, but he had no obilgation to refute or rebuke them ethier, just as Kerry had no obligation to refute or rebute CBS for the faked Bush memos they aired.

Esentially you are trying to tar Bush with the actions of the SBVT group when in reality he had nothing to do with them, isn't this the same as blaming him for 9/11 because he didn't do anything to stop it? (okay so he knew a little more about the SBVT than ther 9/11 Hijackers, but still...) Personally I think that Bush has done enough in the past 6 years to nail him as a blitherring idiot, without making up stuff to add to the mix.

That's because I never said he was involved in it.

Something Bush and the right had to counter with slander and nutcases with a grudge from the past.

Are your colours showing?

If you have read my postings here you'd know my view on American politics and Bush in particular very well, I don't hide them.

[boloboffin]

Hey, folks!

There's already a thread in Politics talking about John Kerry and the Swift Boat liars that attacked him (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=26643&page=12), and it's freshly bumped, tidied up, and waiting for us. What say we get some more people into the conversation?

[David Wong]

You see how easy it is for CT's to buy lies? It seems you have.


I know, I get so embarrassed for my liberal friends who start talking about fixed elections via Diebold voting machines, and Bush starting the Iraq war purely for oil, and Bush being AWOL from the National Guard. They're so quick to buy into that nonsense but are able to see the 9/11 CT stuff for what it is. Bizarre.

Too many people clinging to wacky conspiracy theories, too few people wanting to talk about boring, serious issues.

[Corsair 115]

BTW, the US and Canada actually have very similar murder rates among the same demographic groups. What skews the data is that the US has more of the groups likely to commit murders.Do you have any sources for this handy? I'd be interested in seeing the specific numbers involved.

[FactCheck]

"It seems that your entire case here is that you think Bush should have denounced them, and because he didn't, he thus supported them. I'd say this is the same as Dylan Avery claiming that since 80% of the population of the US don't say they disagree with him, they must support him."

Absurd analogy. It would be the same if 80% of the population was asked if they agree with him and they all said nothing. Do you think they would all say nothing?

"Sure I can see that politically Bush wouldn't have been worried about them attacking Kerry because it certainly wasn't hurting him, but he had no obilgation to refute or rebuke them ethier, just as Kerry had no obligation to refute or rebute CBS for the faked Bush memos they aired."

He had the same obligation McCain had when he denouced the SB truthers. A moral one.

"Esentially you are trying to tar Bush with the actions of the SBVT group when in reality he had nothing to do with them,"

That's a matter of opinion. My opinion is based on past history. He has outright lied about his opponents in the past. "Gore thinks he invented the Internet! Harharhar." Remember that? "He voted for it before he voted against it!" Harharhar" And conservatives lapped it up without using critical thinking skills. He voted for the democrat bill which had checks and balances while republicans voted and pasted a bill with no checks and balances. That's just two of a long string of lies Bush said about his opponents. No, he or the other republicans have no obligation to tell the truth.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200701160013?offset=20&show=1
http://www.factcheck.org/article155.html

With all the lies hes told I'm supposed to believe them when they deny something? With McCain's honesty I'm supposed to believe Rove when he says he had nothing to do with saying McCain had an illegitimate black child? Credibility has to come into play when drawing a conclusion on two opposing statements.

"isn't this the same as blaming him for 9/11 because he didn't do anything to stop it?"

I blame him for not trying. Bush was charged with protecting Americans and when he was told Bin Laden determined to attack America he did absolutely nothing. Not one finger was lifted. Not a memo sent out to law enforcement as clinton did to be alert for possible hijackings. Not a memo to the FAA telling them to make sure pilots close cockpit doors. Not a mandate to force airline companies to install hardened cockpit doors. Nothing... In fact, Ashcroft was about to cut counter-terrorism funding on Sept 10th. The same day others were having meetings suggesting an attack was imminent. Could one of those things prevented 9/11? Sadly, we'll never know will we... Whether it fits the legal definition of negligent homicide I'm not qualified to say.

"(okay so he knew a little more about the SBVT than ther 9/11 Hijackers, but still...) Personally I think that Bush has done enough in the past 6 years to nail him as a blitherring idiot, without making up stuff to add to the mix."

I agree which is why I said it was only my opinion. But it doesn't come out of thin air and I think I've shown that. At a minimum we should have never voted him back in office.

Something Bush and the right had to counter with slander and nutcases with a grudge from the past.

I stand by that statement. Bush helped the lie to the point most republicans believed it. Lets call it an informed opinion. I don't want to give any other impression.

If you have read my postings here you'd know my view on American politics and Bush in particular very well, I don't hide them.

Trust me, the reason I'm a debunker is because I was fact checking liberals on another forum.

I understand where you're coming from.