Post War Iraq: Now in Progress

[Dan the Man]

Originally posted by CMJ
I am an independent voter and thus the left irritates me just as much as the far right. I agree with each party about half the time. Right now my vote is definitely up for grabs...and if you'd asked me a year ago I would've definitely voted for the President. So I suppose that's progress for you left leaning types. ;)

Sentiment echoed.

As a libertarian, and having no viable real choice for the presidency, I am forced to choose the lesser of the two evils.

The problem is, I simply can't decide which is the lesser right now.

This behavior of a few bad soldiers amongst the vast majority of good ones is more damaging than a thousand uprisings or a hundred Fallujahs. I am at a loss on the entire situation.

The ball was dropped, and heads are going to roll for this. I don't care whose heads they are, so long as the bottom line is that we keep this horrible stuff from happening again.

[Jedieb]

Grumbles in the military are starting to get louder.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11227-2004May8.html

"I lost my brother in Vietnam," added Hughes, a veteran Army strategist who is involved in formulating Iraq policy. "I promised myself, when I came on active duty, that I would do everything in my power to prevent that [sort of strategic loss] from happening again. Here I am, 30 years later, thinking we will win every fight and lose the war, because we don't understand the war we're in."

Torture

I go to aother forums where the debate goes on about this and honestly, you think some people are just plain stupid. They actually thought that the Iraqi's had the torture coming and these acts were justified!
I have no doubt that some of the Iraqis who were tortured were dirtbags. Some may have even made attempts to kill American soldiers. But that's irrelevant. We're suppose to be above that. If those had been images of captured coalition soldiers or hostages we would have bee disgusted. For some people the solution seems to be to toughen up. Increase the power and frequency of our military responses to the insurgents. I even heard someone I once respected, Dennis Miller, say the other night 'that we obviously didn't kill enough of these guys the first time around." It's braindead observations like that make me wonder if some of these hawks even realize that wars also have a political component to them. There's no military force in the Middle East that could defeat us in battle. But we've bungled the political aspects of this occupation so badly that winning the fantasy the democracy Bush envisioned is almost impossible now. Especially with Bush and the neo-cons continuing to call the shots.


"Don Rumsfeld is the best secretary of defense the United States has ever had,"
"People ought to get off his case and let him do his job,"
There's a Dick Cheney quote that makes my head spin. Yeah Dick, he's the BEST we've ever had. I'd hate to hear who Cheney thinks our worst was.

[CMJ]

Dan the Man: I guess my own politcal feelings are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal/moderate. Being a libertarian is much the same seeing as you want government out of everything. ;)

I'll probably vote for some 3rd party candidate if I can't make a decision between Kerry/Bush. I guess technically it's "throwing my vote" away, but if I can't fill out the ballot for either of the two main folks, what should I do in good conscience? It's what I did in 2000.

[Marcus Telcontar]

There's a Dick Cheney quote that makes my head spin. Yeah Dick, he's the BEST we've ever had. I'd hate to hear who Cheney thinks our worst was.

What a pity John McCain didnt get the nomination. Also what a pity Colin Powell is lumped with the idiots around him. IMO, Powell hasnt gotten out of this with too much reputation damaged. I would hate to think what things could be like without him about. Rumsfield has to go.

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by CMJ
Dan the Man: I guess my own politcal feelings are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal/moderate. Being a libertarian is much the same seeing as you want government out of everything. ;)

I'll probably vote for some 3rd party candidate if I can't make a decision between Kerry/Bush. I guess technically it's "throwing my vote" away, but if I can't fill out the ballot for either of the two main folks, what should I do in good conscience? It's what I did in 2000.

The only other option is to vote with the intention of causing gridlock (ie, voting Kerry in to get bodyslammed by a GOP-dominated congress, etc)

I dunno. As much as I think I'd like to do that, I'm gonna have a hard time voting for such a monumental douche such as Kerry.

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
The only other option is to vote with the intention of causing gridlock (ie, voting Kerry in to get bodyslammed by a GOP-dominated congress, etc)

I dunno. As much as I think I'd like to do that, I'm gonna have a hard time voting for such a monumental douche such as Kerry.

I'm actually a big fan of split government. That way the right can't railroad thru any whacko religious legislation and the left can't make us a socialist state.

When the government's split they actually have to COMPROMISE. Imagine that. :p

[Darth Viscera]

@Carr, Jedieb, Marcus

So if you had your druthers, what would you do right now in order to fix the situation and reduce the amount of hatred coming our way? I mean, if you had total control over everything the U.S. and its Coalition partners did pertaining to the middle east.

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by CMJ
I'm actually a big fan of split government. That way the right can't railroad thru any whacko relious legislation and the left can't make us a socialist state.

When the government's split they actually have to COMPROMISE. Imagine that. :p

Yeah, but as I said, Kerry is a tremendous douchebag. I trust him less than I do Bush, and considering Bush's convenient stance on the second amendment of late, thats saying alot.

So, its either a third party vote, or a ballot sabotage for me right now :grumble


Originally posted by Darth Viscera
@Carr, Jedieb, Marcus

So if you had your druthers, what would you do right now in order to fix the situation and reduce the amount of hatred coming our way? I mean, if you had total control over everything the U.S. and its Coalition partners did pertaining to the middle east.


Hot potato situation.

We've got the potato, and nobody wants it. So we either drop the thing and go hungry, or we burn the crap out of ourselves.

In the current scheme of things, I don't see a "win" scenario right now. Before this fiasco, I did. Now, I honestly have to ask myself where the incentive is for the Iraqi people to trust us worth a damn. Unless something absolutely miraculous happens, we are looking at a bad chain of events, either way.

We stay in, we get blown up, raked through the muck, and get people to hate us.

We pull out, Iraq becomes a thousand times worse than it currently is, our soldiers died for nothing, and people hate us.

I'm furious that it's come to this, but then again, I should've seen the writing on the wall. Ever since 9-11, we really have made it easy to lump our hatred as a country, haven't we? There are soldiers in Iraq, cursing the citizens there as "sand niggers" and other such things, as if they are the same people who brought down the WTC.

I have been blindsided by this indoctrinated racism, and I feel like a total heel for thinking we were above it.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am not sure about the solution, personally I think we should go to the UN get them to put troops there and split the burden of the war that might help and it will look more like a world situation, of course it could be too late, I honestly don't know.

[CMJ]

No way does the UN bail us out now. Maybe a year ago immediately after the war, but not anymore.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think it is more wishful thinking. I also don't think Bush could get them to do, unless he went and begged. Kerry maybe.

[Marcus Telcontar]

The UN WONT do it. Not unless the US Administration changed. They burned their bridges spectacularly well on that one. I'm afraid the Hot Potato analogy is right - it's the allies mess, they clean it up. Somehow.
Originally posted by Darth Viscera
@Carr, Jedieb, Marcus

So if you had your druthers, what would you do right now in order to fix the situation and reduce the amount of hatred coming our way? I mean, if you had total control over everything the U.S. and its Coalition partners did pertaining to the middle east.

Bring Israel to heel for one, force Sharon out and give back Palestinian land. That would go a long, long way.

Edit :

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/10/1084041307261.html

Ow. Oh man. this is bad stuff :( This is just unbelieveable

[Darth Viscera]

The Israelis would never agree to that though.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
The Israelis would never agree to that though.


Tough. They actually have WMD and they have state sponsored terrorism. They should be told to clean up, now or lose all support. It's this hyprocacy that rankles even non Muslims.

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
The UN WONT do it. Not unless the US Administration changed. They burned their bridges spectacularly well on that one. I'm afraid the Hot Potato analogy is right - it's the allies mess, they clean it up. Somehow.


Marcus, I don't believe a change in Administration will mean squat at the UN. Other countries are just not going to get involved now.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
Tough. They actually have WMD and they have state sponsored terrorism. They should be told to clean up, now or lose all support. It's this hyprocacy that rankles even non Muslims.

But they've been told to clean up before, remember the 1950's when Eisenhower put an arms embargo on Israel and the secretary of state was sending them telegrams to the effect that they should drop the conqueror mentality? They didn't comply then, why would they now?

[Jedieb]

Yeah, those crazy Vietnam veteran, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart winnin' Vietnam protester, douchebags. I've got 4 years of Bush crap to rant against. Exactly what has Kerry done for you to call him a douchebag? I'm just curious. Feel free not to like him, but that's pretty harsh. Give him 4 years to prove he's a douchebag. Boring, yes. Stiff, yes. But a douchebag? What did he do, dodge the draft? Get us into a misguided military operation under false pretenses? Alieniate the international community with arrogant foreign policy? Bungle an occupation and thus endager the lives of American soldiers and tarnish our reputation? Oh, wait, that's the OTHER guy.:rolleyes


"You are courageously leading our nation in the war against terror. You are doing a superb job."
Now this gem from Bush. You have got to be kidding. I wonder what a substandard job from Rummy would look like? Would all of a major U.S. city have to be made into a sheet of glass? I can understand backing your cabinet member, but in the middle of one the worst military scandals in recent memory it completely undermines our credibility to rail against images of humililation and abuse, while simultaneously vociferously patting the embattled Sec. of Defense on the back.

[Jedieb]

But they've been told to clean up before, remember the 1950's when Eisenhower put an arms embargo on Israel and the secretary of state was sending them telegrams to the effect that they should drop the conqueror mentality? They didn't comply then, why would they now?
Vis is right, the Israelis are going to do whatever they want. I've always been conflicted about Israel. On the one hand, they commit brutal acts in the name of self defense. Acts that we wouldn't tolerate, and don't tolerate, from their enemies. But on the other hand, they're are even more in the crosshairs of violence than we are. Israel is literally surrounded by nations and peoples that would like nothing better than to see the entire State of Israel burned to the ground. I've got no answers for Israel or their problems.

[Jedieb]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4934213/

It gets worse. Before the Senate Armed Services Committee last Friday, a chastened Rumsfeld warned that more photos and even videos will surface. (This time the Pentagon itself will release the video to Congress, rather than wait for the inevitable leak.) According to knowledgeable sources, the images include an American soldier having sex with a female Iraqi detainee and American soldiers watching Iraqis have sex with juveniles. Another photo shows a female prison guard gloating over the body of a dead Iraqi.
Oh crap. It's going to get worse. How exactly do we recover from this? Whatever Iraqi government takes power on June 30th, how can it have any credibility unless it starts criticizing coalition forces? Will it have to start demanding a withdrawal in order to stay in power?

[Dutchy]

Dutch government rocked by first military death in Iraq
(http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040511/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_netherlands_040511093634)


The Dutch government reacted with shock after its 1,260-strong contingent serving with the US-led occupation force in Iraq (news - web sites) suffered its first death: a soldier who died after being wounded in a grenade attack while on patrol in the southern town of Samawa.


Why do they react with shock? We shouldn't have sent them in the first place and now they're in shock. Gee, that's what you get when you sent soldiers to a war-like area.

Anyway, that's the first Dutch soldier to die in Iraq, hopefully it's also the last.

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by Jedieb
Yeah, those crazy Vietnam veteran, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart winnin' Vietnam protester, douchebags. I've got 4 years of Bush crap to rant against. Exactly what has Kerry done for you to call him a douchebag? I'm just curious. Feel free not to like him, but that's pretty harsh. Give him 4 years to prove he's a douchebag. Boring, yes. Stiff, yes. But a douchebag? What did he do, dodge the draft? Get us into a misguided military operation under false pretenses? Alieniate the international community with arrogant foreign policy? Bungle an occupation and thus endager the lives of American soldiers and tarnish our reputation? Oh, wait, that's the OTHER guy.:rolleyes

Oh can the melodrama already. Kerry is one of the biggest special-interest panderers in the history of the Senate, and I'd argue that he's even more "up for sale" than Bush ever was. I find him far more unscrupulous as a person than I ever found Bush.

[Jedieb]

Take whatever Kerry has taken in special interest and multiply that by FIVE and you might come close to what Bush has taken in half the time in office. Hell, what Bush got from Enron may come close to covering half what Kerry got in 16 years in the Senate from PACs.
2004 Campaign
Bush
Individual contributions
$181,788,181
PAC contributions
$2,623,262

Kerry
Individual contributions
$74,889,149
88%
PAC contributions
$118,859
Candidate self-financing
$6,387,965

And speaking of Enron, isn’t great how future convict to be Ken Lay raised tons of money for Bush-Cheney in 2000 and then even got to sit in and help craft the administration’s energy policy? Damn, you must think Bush is an uber-doushebag! How's that for melodrama?

And the inevitable payback has begun.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040511/ap_on_re_mi_ea/egypt_iraq_american_beheaded_5
Guys are going to be getting picked off until the day we finally pull out.

[Jedieb]

And more fun campaign contribution fact!
Paid Lobbyists
Bush
$960,154
Kerry
$234,920

Lawyers & Law Firms
Bush
$7,085,942
Kerry
$3,474,264

Real Estate
Bush
$6,678,976
Kerry
$787,124

Securities
Bush
$4,820,780
Kerry
$1,087,925

Health Professionals
Kerry
$3,010,576
Bush
$392,187

Insurance
Bush
$1,850,532
Kerry
$134,250

TV/Movies/Music
Bush
$522,725
Kerry
$475,050

Pharmaceuticals
Bush
$393,100
$55,650

Telephone Utilities
Bush
$285,250
Kerry
$10,000

Health Services/HMOs
Bush
$171,450
Kerry
$33,950

Tobacco
Bush
$107,500
Kerry
$5,300

Let's not be polyannas about this. All politicians have to take money. But some (ie BUSH) are more brazen about it that other. We covered this in the nomination thread awhile back. Basically, Bush has Kerry beat by a mile when it comes to taking money from special interests.


IT'S HARD TO RECALL a more brazen display of political chutzpah than the Bush campaign's assault on Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) as a captive of special interests. A video e-mailed Thursday night to 6 million supporters attacks the Democratic front-runner as an "unprincipled" collector of special-interest cash. The video cites a report in this newspaper that Mr. Kerry led the senatorial pack in collecting money from the very Washington lobbyists that he is busy decrying on the campaign trail. As the dollar amount -- $640,000 -- shows on the screen, a female announcer emits a sound of pained surprise. "Oooh," she says, "For what? Nominations and donations coincided." The video concludes: "Fact. Kerry -- Brought to you by the special interests. Millions from executives at HMOs, telecoms, drug companies. Ka-ching!"


Released MAY 5, 2004
Major Airlines $29-$99 Las Vegas from Across the U.S.
Qantas Airways $498-$598 Amazing R/T Fares to New Zealand & Australia
American Airlines $99 & up Mother's Day Sale to 100+ Cities
Discount Vacations $499 Week-Long Barbados Vacation, incl. Air
Condominium Rentals Hawaii $75 Maui Beachfront Condos at 40% OFF
Gate 1 Travel $399 Rome over Thanksgiving, 4 Nights & Air
*Fares listed may not include all taxes, charges and government fees. More information. © 2004 Travelzoo Inc.

Mr. Kerry's fundraising and his relationships with Washington lobbyists are a legitimate topic, even more so now that he has positioned himself, or tried to, as the scourge of Washington business as usual. But -- how can we say this politely? -- let's consider the source.

Mr. Bush's acceptance of special-interest money and his subsequent rewards to the industries doing the giving dwarf anything in Mr. Kerry's record. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, whose figures are cited in the Bush campaign video, Mr. Bush has raised more than four times as much from lobbyists during the 2004 race as Mr. Kerry has -- $960,000 for Mr. Bush to $235,000 for Mr. Kerry. During the 2000 contest, the Bush campaign assigned an industry code to givers so it would know precisely how much it was beholden and to whom. As electric utility lobbyist Thomas Kuhn explained in a 1999 letter to fundraisers, putting the code on the check "does ensure that our industry is credited, and that your progress is listed among the other business/industry sectors." Mr. Kuhn's progress may well have been noted; he met at least 14 times with Vice President Cheney's energy task force.

"Nominations and donations coincided"? You wonder what possessed the Bush people to bring that up. Of Mr. Bush's Pioneers -- those who raised at least $100,000 in the 2000 campaign -- 21 snagged ambassadorships, and these weren't hardship postings. Checks from "HMOs, telecoms, drug companies"? Mr. Bush has swamped Mr. Kerry in all three sectors during this campaign, raking in 10 times as much from donors connected to the pharmaceutical industry ($585,000 to $58,000) and telecommunications ($578,000 to $58,000). The liberal group Public Citizen counted 53 registered lobbyists among the current Pioneers and Rangers (the $200,000-and-up crowd.) Total amount bundled by lobbyists? At least $6.5 million this time around. Ka-ching. Ka-ching. Ka-ching.

And, since Mr. Bush brought it up, it's worth remembering that Mr. Kerry actually has some bona fides in the area of campaign finance ethics. He swore off checks from political action committees during his Senate races. He supported the McCain-Feingold legislation to end big soft-money checks to political parties -- which Mr. Bush's party did its best to kill and which the president only reluctantly signed. While the Bush administration fights to keep secret the activities of its energy task force, Mr. Kerry has promised to release the records of his meetings with lobbyists during his time in office.

The Bush video may be a long-shot effort to help derail Mr. Kerry's march to the Democratic nomination. More likely, it's an attempt to neutralize the special-interest issue, to inoculate the Bush White House against accusations that it's a captive of special interests and to muddy the waters by convincing voters that both candidates are equally complicit. We don't think voters are quite that slow.
Again, all politicians take money. But, like with so many issues that matter, Bush is just worse. Man, what an uber douchebag!

[Jedieb]

http://pennlive.com/newsflash/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-16/108430077760820.xml

The kid's family is just devastated. It's just friggin' disgusting. One of the ironies of the prison fiasco is that it's practically guaranteeing some kind of due process for Iraqi detainees while dooming many coalilition prisoners and western hostages to death and torture.

[Jedi Master Carr]

All politicians take money from special interests there isn't much you can do about that unless you want to vote for independent guys like Nader. I do think Bush raises more money from Special Interests than Kerry though.

[CMJ]

Naturally the President has more special interest money. More companies/people are willing to give money to the President of the United States than to a Sentaor.

Presidents HAVE to raise a large amount to run for re-election. Senators only have to run in one state...not 50. It's hardly a shock that Bush has raised so much.

Has Kerry gotten alot for *just* being a Senator? Sure. Honestly neither side has the higher ground on this one.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well that is my point they are all crooks I just think Kerry is less of a crook :p

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Well that is my point they are all crooks I just think Kerry is less of a crook :p

Only because he hasn't been President...or run for President before. It would be like having this discussion 4 years ago between Bush and Gore. I'm sure Al woulda had a similar sized lead over the Governor of Texas.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am not sure I think I remembered hearing that Bush had more money than Gore but I am not 100% certain of that. Personally that isn't the reason I am going to vote for Kerry so that is unimportant point to me.

[CMJ]

Maybe by the end of the campaign he did, but I doubt this early - especially since we're talking about amount of cash raised during their careers...Gore had 3 Presidential campaigns he slogged thru.

Also, Bush had to fight for his nomination while Gore decimated his competition. Thus he had more time to raise money, and his potential donors were not split between candidates.

I also agree it's not really an issue. I'm just pointing out both sides are being disingenous by taking the high road on this one.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well lately neither side has really brought up, it was a big issue once hopefully it won't be used again, its silly to be arguing about something you are both guilty of.

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Well lately neither side has really brought up, it was a big issue once hopefully it won't be used again, its silly to be arguing about something you are both guilty of.

It might not be discussed by the candidates themselves, but the fact that it even got mentioned in this thread shows that "people" (i.e. voters) do want to bring it up.

[Marcus Telcontar]

I thought it was well known Bush raised by far the most money of any Nominee, ever, period.

[CMJ]

Only because he's IN office. I'm pretty certain every President that runs for re-election becomes the new all-time leading fundraiser(inflation anyone?). It's just easy as hell to get money when you're President of the USA.

[Sanis Prent]

Correct. Incumbancy does have a way of bringing in a higher amount of money, and not necessarily because a candidate panders more to special interests. I'm referring to Kerry's senatorial career, and the times in comparison to his peers that he's been "on the take".

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by CMJ
Only because he's IN office. I'm pretty certain every President that runs for re-election becomes the new all-time leading fundraiser(inflation anyone?). It's just easy as hell to get money when you're President of the USA.

No, when he was running for nomination, not while he was in office. I distinctly remember the amounts he was rasing at the time were staggering.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I can't remember for sure honestly, somebody could do a search and find out I suppose. About Kerry honestly all senators take a lot of money I think Kerry is no different than any of them, IMO.

[Jedieb]

Well that is my point they are all crooks I just think Kerry is less of a crook
:lol
More bad news for the occupation. Polls taken BEFORE the latest round of pictures and violence show that 80% of Iraqis distrust the occupation. We've got a month and a half before the sovereignty date. I don't think the violence or the insurgents are going to let up. They're not nearly as scared of the date as some people would think. As long as the troops are there, they're going to have their targets. And if the interim government is seen as placating the U.S. then they're going to have bulleyes on their backs.

As for the election, there are some signs that Bush may be in more trouble than one would imagine. The last 6 incumbants to run for re-election are 3-3. Every single one of those who's approval numbers dipped below 50% the year of the election lost. Bush is now down to 46%. Kerry hasn't gained much but that's not without precedent. At this point, Clinton trailed Bush Sr. by 6 points then pulled ahead after his convention. Challengers usually pull away after their convention when they get that big exposure. Bush's last gasp may be the RNC convention, but holding it in NYC may end up costing him more than he ever imagined. The city is one of the most liberal in the country and Bush's Ground Zero glow has worn off. He's going to get protested so much it's bound to receive a fair share of media coverage. Except for FOX of course, I'm sure they'll try to spin it to his advantage somehow. Another thing to watch in regards to his approval numbers is the 40% mark. If he EVER dips below that he's DONE. I don't even think dragging Bin Laden out of a cave on Nov. 1st would save him.

[Marcus Telcontar]

I don't even think dragging Bin Laden out of a cave on Nov. 1st would save him.

Cynical, but you almost expect it. I've thought Bin Laden's been dead for a year or two, quietly where his body wont be found.

Personally, if Bin Laden is found soon, you would have to think most people would see it as an re-election stunt.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think he is dead too and his body burned too nothing, if we can't find it we would never know if he is dead or not.

[imported_Eve]

Personally, I never though Laden was dead. He's around. He has thousands of more people to kill.

This whole thing is hell. It is time to leave Iraq. I support Bush, but this is beyond him, and the US. I have been really pro-stay-in-Iraq until "power is transferred", but I saw something today that changed my mind.

On the one hand, if we leave now (and it really makes no difference if we leave now or in June), Iraq is vulnerable. Vulnerable like Germany was when Hitler came around. This hand's option is not in most countries' best interests.

On the other hand, we can't stay somewhere where the good things the troops are doing aren't considered (and are punished). Iraq is wreaking of terrorists, corruption, vulnerability, instability, and death.

It is a toss up. If we left Hussein in power, people would have died. We stay in Iraq, more people die. We leave now, people die.

This is a nightmare. Bush needs to bring everyone home and recooperate for what ever is coming. Maybe it won't be good for his campaign, but it is better than not.

I think Bush will win re-election because the country is in too deep to bring in Kerry. Even if everyone doesn't agree with Bush, they know him (and that counts for alot in wartime). He suffered with the country. Kerry can't compete with that.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think its a toss up I think it will be a close election that will come down to the the electorial college again. I think neither candidate will get more than 50% of the vote either, and I wouldn't be shocked to see the popular vote go to the loser again.

[Darth Viscera]

Eve, how can you not perceive a withdrawal from Iraq as a massively destabilising move which would compromise all our future aspirations in the Middle East? There are currently thousands of Al Qaeda and their derivitives in Iraq, some of whom were there before March 2003, some of whom snuck in from Afghanistan. If we withdraw now, we leave Iraq prostrate against them and such upstarts as Muqtada al-Sadr, not to mention foreign influences such as Iran. Iraq would be a basketcase country for the next 35 years!

[Marcus Telcontar]

Eve, how can you not perceive a withdrawal from Iraq as a massively destabilising move which would compromise all our future aspirations in the Middle East? There are currently thousands of Al Qaeda and their derivitives in Iraq, some of whom were there before March 2003, some of whom snuck in from Afghanistan. If we withdraw now, we leave Iraq prostrate against them and such upstarts as Muqtada al-Sadr, not to mention foreign influences such as Iran. Iraq would be a basketcase country for the next 35 years!

-_-

BZZZT, wrong! When are you going to accept the FACT that there are NOT thousands of terrorists in Iraq, that Al-Sadr is being controlled by the real leaders, that the country is bound to break up along ethinc lines?

Eve has it dead on. Thanks to the actions of a small minority, your now in a damned if you do, damned if you dont situation. What has happened is the sort of mire I feared before the war began.

The problem is, withdrawl is an admission 100 billion and 1000 lives, plus 20,000 wounded was effectively a waste of time. Saddam is gone, but at what cost? Was it worth it in the end? I personally dont think so.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
there are NOT thousands of terrorists in Iraq


I disagree. Al Qaeda and their ilk have deployed significant assets to Iraq.


Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
Al-Sadr is being controlled by the real leaders


Which real leaders are you referring to?


Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
the country is bound to break up along ethinc lines


This may occur in the distant future, however ATM the populace seems very much disinclined to break Iraq up into Kurdistan and a state each for the Sunni and the Shia, regardless of how Al Qaeda may try to press the issue. They're Iraqis first, Shia/Sunni second.

[Marcus Telcontar]

This may occur in the distant future, however ATM the populace seems very much disinclined to break Iraq up into Kurdistan and a state each for the Sunni and the Shia, regardless of how Al Qaeda may try to press the issue. They're Iraqis first, Shia/Sunni second.


Funny, just about every serious commentator disagrees with you. Just today, an ABC reporter was discussing the likelihood of this very fact. They are NOT Iraqi's, the populace has always seen themselves along ethnic lines.

Please stop watching FOX immediatly.

[Darth Viscera]

You know, if you had a dollar for every time you'd parroted that mindless slogan, you'd have a lot of dollars.

Show me one poll which indicates that Iraqis overwhelmingly want to break Iraq into 3 states.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I doubt a poll exists like it didn't exist when yugoslavia broke up. I see a similar situation really and the same thing might happen when we do leave.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Things are looking bleak for Bush though right now new CNN poll numbers has Kerry with a 51-46 lead, with Nader added inn 49-44-6, still early but this is bad news for him right now.

[imported_Eve]

Vis, I do see that. I believe my post said something along the lines of any option being retarded. That being said, and I think agreed on, we may as well just get out.

They said today: if the Iraq government (new one, obviously) asks the US to go, we will. It is a way out, and it's also a way to stay legitimately. If we have the support of the new government, the world can feel better (but probably not; everyone is so anti-USA). If they say go, then we go.

By the way, give the Nick Berg video a glance.

[Darth Viscera]

I wasn't able to find it

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
I wasn't able to find it

Do you have any peer to peer sharing program?

Kazaa, for instance, will for sure instantly find it.

[Jedieb]

One setback after another. I don't even know where to begin.

Ceratinly, we'll leave if asked!
Both Powell and Bremer made statements over the weekend to that effect. Now, can you imagine how eager members of the interim Iraqi government will be to publicly call for the U.S. to stay? We couldn't even protect the current President of the Governing Council from being blown to bits by a suicide car bomb today. Yet, we're deluding ourselves into thinking we can provide security for a fledgling government come June 30th. What are the odds that some members of this new government will call us on our "Yes, we'll leave if asked pledge?' Why would any member of the new government ask us to leave? I don't know, an overwhelming majority of the population no longer trusts us, Iraqis seen as aiding the coalition are constantly being targeted, and the forces on hand are obviously inadequate to provide security for reconstruction efforts, Iraqi citizens, and Governing Council members. About the only solution I can think of would be to double, possibly TRIPLE the number of troops in Iraq. I'm just wondering which populace would balk at that idea first, the Iraqi or ours.

Where else is the bad news coming from? If you believe the New Yorker's Sy Hersh, Rummy set rules in place that led right to the torture scandal. The Pentagon is calling Hersh's piece a hatchet job. Fair enough, but are they going to start doing the same to Newsweek?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/

That's two different credible news sources pointing the finger at Rummy and senior members of the Administration. I wonder how long before others join in. Berg's gruesome murder silenced many of the calls for release of the remaining Abu-Graid images. But this is just a temporary silence. It's only a matter of time before the images are released through leaks, defense lawyers, or public demand. More images will only further cripple our ability to provide stability or security.

Eve, how can you not perceive a withdrawal from Iraq as a massively destabilising move which would compromise all our future aspirations in the Middle East? There are currently thousands of Al Qaeda and their derivitives in Iraq, some of whom were there before March 2003, some of whom snuck in from Afghanistan. If we withdraw now, we leave Iraq prostrate against them and such upstarts as Muqtada al-Sadr, not to mention foreign influences such as Iran. Iraq would be a basketcase country for the next 35 years!

I don't think that's too far off the mark. I'd throw in Iran as well. There are reports that they've been sending funds and even personnel Sadr's way for some time now. I wouldn't be surprised if Iraq decends into civil war within months of our pullout. Here's the kicker though, WE WILL BE PULLING OUT. Whether the pullout comes in Jan. of next year, or Jan. of 06. Eventually, we WILL have to leave. Then it's a good bet chaos and civil war will reign. I see no way we're going to leave behind any government that won't be seen as a joke by millions of Iraqis. Right now we're trying to set up government departments and ministers who we can control and manipulate. They'll be in power before and after any newly elected government takes place. But how many of them won't find themselves parked next to an exploding car one day is beyond me.



I think Bush will win re-election because the country is in too deep to bring in Kerry. Even if everyone doesn't agree with Bush, they know him (and that counts for alot in wartime). He suffered with the country. Kerry can't compete with that.
Eve, if Iraq continues like this Bush will LOSE re-election. He's staked his Presidency on it. His approval numbers are in the low 40's right now and if Americans continue to see Iraq in disarray even after Jujne 30th his numbers won't come back over 50% and that's where they need to be for him to win re-election. As for the economy, it's improving but that always take months for people to really feel it. Paying over $2 a gallon for gas isn't going to help convince many Americans that the economy is better off in Bush's hands either. Especially if they read reports that one of the factors driving up oil prices are terroists attacks against Arab refineries.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah I was going to mention Gas prices they are insane, I have never seen them this high, and I don't see Bush doing anything about it.

[Dan the Man]

:lol there's not doing anything about it, and then there's approaching the situation with both hands and a leg tied behind your back.

I wouldn't exactly fault Bush for the gas prices, people.

[Jedi Master Carr]

What he should do is call, Opec and make them change it, believe me he can pressure them to do it but hasn't. Also he could open up the reservers although I am not sure if that is a good idea right now, maybe when we get near the winter months.

[Anbira Hicchoru]

He can also fly, stop bullets, and squeeze crude oil out of rocks with his bare hands. I mean, why is he sandbagging :rolleyes

Please take a few macroeconomics courses, and enjoy the sections regarding the cartel effect. I'm not sure what power you percieve us having over that, but it doesn't really exist.

I suppose we could drill for oil in Alaska, but I don't really think its Bush keeping us from doing that. Some people really love caribou too much for their own damn good.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I disagree, Opec is not putting out enough oil, personally I think its because they are pissed at us. This doesn't effect the Europeans because when it gets this high they lay off on the gas taxes and people never feel it, so this is going straight to the U.S so of course in this regard they might not listen to Bush anyways.

[Anbira Hicchoru]

Europeans pay something on the order of three times the amount we pay for equal volumes of fuel. I'm pretty sure they feel that plenty enough.

[Jedieb]

I don't think there's much that Bush can do about gas prices. We can ask the Saudis and Opec to increase production, but we can't force them. It's not a question of whether or not Bush is to blame. It's just a fact that high gas prices will hurt the incumbant come November.

Nerve gas found in an IED in Iraq
I saw this blurb on CNN. I didn't see anything on the website so I knew there'd only be one place to go, FOX News! Of course they're touting it as "evidence" of WMD. Meanwhile, Kay and Blix are shooting the find down.
FOX
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

Gazi George, a former Iraqi nuclear scientist under Saddam's regime, told Fox News he believes many similar weapons stockpiled by the former regime were either buried underground or transported to Syria. He noted that the airport where the device was detonated is on the way to Baghdad from the Syrian border.

and on the other end...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/


Two former weapons inspectors — Hans Blix and David Kay — said the shell was likely a stray weapon that had been scavenged by militants and did not signify that Iraq had large stockpiles of such weapons.

But Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, said the discovery does not provide evidence that Saddam was secretly producing weapons of mass destruction after the Gulf War, as alleged by the Bush administration to justify the war that removed him from power.

[Darth Viscera]

CNN was also speculating that it was evidence of WMD.

[Anbira Hicchoru]

Not to wade too deeply into semantics, but what exactly are the stipulations of being in material breach of the UN disarmament demands?

[Jedieb]

More on oil and gas..
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4997738/

It'll take time to see just where the shell came from. There's artillery running loose all over the country. It's even likely that the insurgents who put the IED together thought they were handling a regular shell. Makes you wonder how the hell the regime lost control of these kinds of shells and who has them now. If there's a significant amount of WMD still running around then who the hell knows who's got it now.

[Anbira Hicchoru]

I'm just wondering where the big-wigs drew the line between X amount of nerve gas which delineates "Oops, we goofed" and "Haha, we're evil and hoarding WMD"

Its arbitrary I know, but one of those silly meter sticks in which both sides will claim victory.

As for the fuel issue, I'm all for being against drilling in Alaska, provided we find a way to power my truck on liquified caribou. Until then, TO HELL with them, you godless commie hippy terrorists, give me my delicious zoom-juice :mad

[imported_Marcus]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
I disagree, Opec is not putting out enough oil, personally I think its because they are pissed at us. This doesn't effect the Europeans because when it gets this high they lay off on the gas taxes and people never feel it, so this is going straight to the U.S so of course in this regard they might not listen to Bush anyways.

Rubbish. Utter rubbish. Fuel prices are not just dictacted by Opec, there are several factors, not just including a lack of refining capacity in Asia that is putting steep demands on world refineries. Not just including production problems in South America and Russia. Not just including speculators. As Charley said, do a course on economics first. OPEC != price fixers, especially not right now. There are far too many factors.


Oh booooo blooody hoo, your paying 2 dollars a gallon now. Cry me a frikking river. I'm paying 1.10 a LITRE. Yes, thats right, for a quarter of the fuel, I pay over half as much. Now factor in exchange rates and I pay roughly 50% more. And we know fuel in Aust is relatively cheap.

Come back when you really have a price to whine about. Right now, you have it extremely good. Nothing to do with cars gets me more flamed up in a hurry than the unjustified bitching of SUV drivers in the USA over prices. You still have it miles better than anyone else, so count your blessings. Yoru not paying 5 dollars a litre, are you?



Right, now that rant is over....

I doubt one old shell is the smoking gun FOX wants it to be. We all know Iraq used to have WMD, it could well be a leftover from the early 90's, in fact I would think it was very likely. I would think that also, the insurgents might not have known what it was.

[Anbira Hicchoru]

I'm not terribly put off by gas prices. I just find it zany that the price has more than doubled since I started college, which is pretty noteworthy.

I get about 22 mpg in my pickup truck. While not great, its quite manageable, especially given how much I travel. I spend maybe 50-75 bucks per month on zoom juice, so its quite fine by me.

[Jedieb]

Its arbitrary I know, but one of those silly meter sticks in which both sides will claim victory.
That's exactly what will happen. My main concern right now is if there are a few of these laying around. Obviously, we can't find them. Whatever is still out there may be lying around waiting for someone to make horrific use out of it. If the insurgents that laid that IED out thought it was a regular shell then they probably know by now it was a chemical weapon. Wherever they got access to that shell there may be more of them and they may try to use it more effectively next time.


Oh booooo blooody hoo, your paying 2 dollars a gallon now. Cry me a frikking river. I'm paying 1.10 a LITRE. Yes, thats right, for a quarter of the fuel, I pay over half as much. Now factor in exchange rates and I pay roughly 50% more. And we know fuel in Aust is relatively cheap.

Come back when you really have a price to whine about. Right now, you have it extremely good. Nothing to do with cars gets me more flamed up in a hurry than the unjustified bitching of SUV drivers in the USA over prices. You still have it miles better than anyone else, so count your blessings. Yoru not paying 5 dollars a litre, are you?

We B&M because we're paying more than we're use to. It's that simple. I would also imagine that the primary reason that our gas prices our lower than Europe's are because we burn more crude and use more gas than any other part of the world. I don't care where you live, if you have to spend 30%-50% more on gas every month it's going to hit your pocket book. Especially if you depend on cars as much as Americans do. Should we be building and buying more fuel efficient cars? Yes, of course. Have we created a society that depends far too much on the automobile? Yes, of course. But that's where we're at right now. And this increase in price is hitting Americans pretty hard. Summer is coming and things are only going to get worse.

[Dan the Man]

Originally posted by Jedieb
I would also imagine that the primary reason that our gas prices our lower than Europe's are because we burn more crude and use more gas than any other part of the world.

I'm not sure if economies of scale would translate to the world market, but its better than any other explanation I can think of.

[imported_Marcus]

Originally posted by Dan the Man
I'm not sure if economies of scale would translate to the world market, but its better than any other explanation I can think of.

Considering this, there are three reasons I can think of that would explain the disparagy -

1) Petrol is heavily taxed. But that's only a part of it.

2) Low Refining capacity, leading to petrol being in shorter supply, hence driving prices up.

3) Historical tolerance of higher prices, ie the market will tolerate a high price of the commodity in question.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well the Europeans use rail way more than we do, so they don't drive as much hence part of the reason for higher prices. Second this price rasing has influenced me to buy a hybrid once I can afford it. Those things cost 20k but you end up saving money on gas, they go 3 times the normal car without getting filled up.

[imported_Eve]

Paying over $2 a gallon for gas isn't going to help convince many Americans that the economy is better off in Bush's hands either. Especially if they read reports that one of the factors driving up oil prices are terroists attacks against Arab refineries.

And so Bush is the "warmongerer" trying to fight terrorism. Trying to rid Iraq of it. Your statement seems contradictory. No one denies Bush's agenda there.

Didn't we have a discussion in another thread about the economy not being the president's personal play toy? Just like OPEC isn't. Influence is different, and America doesn't have alot right now.

You can't exactly decide you hate a country and start charging them more in the world market. Trade relations specify certain conditions per trade relationship. America exports (not as much as it would like, but it does) in return for "whatever". Sometimes, the richer countries buy at a higher price, and sell at a lower price (to even out the world economy; makes the poorer countries less poor, and makes the rich countries level out). Again, there are things you could do to impose higher prices on your export, but not if you want to keep trading with certain nations and keep certain trade deals. And more than charging high prices, you need buyers who can afford it.

The US does have it's own oil reserves, but the treehuggers prevent drilling. If things ever get really bad in terms of gas prices, I'm sure (1) certain oil exporting countries will lose beneficial trade relationships (us buying from them - and they do NOT want that), and (2) we'll find another reserve. Else, necessity breeds invention - we all start driving cars powered on other things. Hybrids are out now. They're more expensive, but if demand is created for it...

Basically, it would be a very bad business decision to just raise your prices like that. Higher prices are likely a result of other things.

[imported_Marcus]

Hybrids suck. That's my professional opinion. They are a stop gap until fuel cell cars arrive in about 10 years. Nothing more - I would advise to ignore them for now. Fuel Cell cars that run basically on water (Hydrogen for the more scientific accurate) are running and are coming to a showroom soon to you. You might see the first by 2010. Believe me, fuel cells are the way of the future and they are now finally getting close

The fact is, if the western world wasnt so addicted to oil and even bit the bullet and told the tree huggers to naff off, we could have much more nuclear power for starters. Nuclear power can be made safe by design. Okay, so there's a waste product problem. A small price to pay for the power nuclear can deliver.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I know people who have Hybrids they are good cars and are affordable unlike Electric cars. I still might get one, fuel cells could be farther than 10 years away.

[Dan the Man]

Okay, go get a hybrid, and I'll notify somebody when you need to be pushed up the hill.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Ha Ha, actually where I live is very flat not many hills around besides that is a myth, I have seen these cars and talk to people who own them they drive just fine sure they do have to go that some cars have but actually they have more horsepower than the current car I own so there :p

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Marcus
The fact is, if the western world wasnt so addicted to oil and even bit the bullet and told the tree huggers to naff off, we could have much more nuclear power for starters. Nuclear power can be made safe by design. Okay, so there's a waste product problem. A small price to pay for the power nuclear can deliver.


I tend to believe that given the dramatic increase in power demand over the past 10 years, plus the slow rate at which alternative/renewable fuel technology is growing, nuclear fission is going to make a significant comeback out of necessity. Unless there are massive breakthroughs in fusion in the next 15-20 years, I see little alternative.

Part of the reason for higher gas prices in the US are the sheer number of formulations required by federal law. It's no coincidence that two of the higher priced areas in the nation, California and the Chicago/Milwaukee metropolitan area, require specific forumulations that are not useable anywhere else in the nation. It's particularly bad in California because of the sheer volume of consumption, and refineries that service that state can't keep up.

I'm all for the Clean Air Act, but it needs to be re-written. Some parts of it haven't provided the environmental benefit expected and have simultaneously caused real economic and poltical messes.

[Kieran Devaneaux]

I live in Southern California myself. When I first moved down here in 1999, regular unleaded was a buck fifty. Now it's two-fifty. And in some places, diesel fuel (which we use for my grandfather's F-450) is more expensive than the regular unleaded. Now this is just plain stupid, IMHO....

[imported_Marcus]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
I know people who have Hybrids they are good cars and are affordable unlike Electric cars. I still might get one, fuel cells could be farther than 10 years away.

You dont wanna be doubting my word on cars.... it's more than just a hobby of mine

The present breed of hybrids have fuel efficency levels that can almost be matched by a LEV design. Diesel LEV are startlingly frugal, especially with stratospheric direct injection. Sarach (sp) type injection systems are stunning in the fuel efficency. Hybrids are needlessly complex, are mere convenances, have no dynamic benifit and are costly to produce, both in time, money and resources, with no real hope on return on investment. They are also clearly a technological dead end.

Normal internal combustion motors still can be made a lot cleaner and efficent and that will happen as fuel cell cars come online. While the cut over occurs, hybrids will be just a blip in vehicle history.

In fact, Hyandai have a Getz with a full blown fuel cell / electric drivechain that is filled by water. GM have a fully working prototype that runs and drives. Mazda have hydrogen powered rotaries, running now.

Your looking at two branches of hydrogen powered vehicles - fuel cell (which are electric in drive) and hydrogen gas internal combustion, with a cracker / catalyst to deliver hydrogen out of solution (or using a fuel cell to crack hydrogen out of water). These vehicles are on the roads now, they work and are the future. The only things the car companies are workign out are the fuel delivery solutions, because hydrogen is very, very explosive. Hyandai is betting on pure water. GM is somethign else, I cant remember the technology off hand.

Hydrogen fuel wont reach heavier vehicles for a while, nor sports or more specialised ones. But you can bet, you will see a hydrogen powered car, of fuel cell or internal combustion by 2010. I'll bet on it too.


Edit : The probelm of hydrogen is not the technology. As I've outlined, it's working right now. It's the fuel delivery infrastructure thats the problem. That's where the oil guys will probably come in, they have the facilities, methods and infrastructure to hang hydrogen off. Desite what the tin foil hat brigade want to tell you, the oil companies arent stopping alt fuels. They are just interested in beign the distributors, which logical as no one else has the infrastructure.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Jedieb
Paying over $2 a gallon for gas isn't going to help convince many Americans that the economy is better off in Bush's hands either.

Man, $2 a gallon. Over here we pay $6 a gallon. :\

[JMK]

It would cost me $4 for a gallon, but we pay by the liter here, and it's 99.9¢ per liter right now.

[Dutchy]

double

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by JMK
It would cost me $4 for a gallon, but we pay by the liter here, and it's 99.9¢ per liter right now.

Yeah, we pay by the liter too, but I thought it would be more comfy to convert it to gallons for the sake of comparison. :p

[Loklorien s'Ilancy]

I have plans to install a Mr. Fusion in my car :)

[Dutchy]

U.S. Reportedly Kills 40 Iraqis at Party (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040519/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_attack_4)

[Darth007]

It's a shame too because there's really no way to prevent that. If gunshots are used at celebrations, how are we supposed to know if they are hostile or not? I'm not blaming anyone but it should be common sense for those people to not be doing stuff like that during wartime. It's like setting off firecrackers or playing with paintball guns while an army is occupying your town.

[Dutchy]

True, though killing 15 children isn't exactly gonna give the U.S. back some of the credit they've lost recently.

[Darth007]

Yeah.. thats the bad part

Now the Pentagon is denying it, no proof yet though.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/19/iraq.main/index.html

It was probably just a few insurgents that mixed into the party and started it, knowing that the U.S. would return fire, so that they could hurt our image even more.

[Marcus Telcontar]

It was probably just a few insurgents that mixed into the party and started it, knowing that the U.S. would return fire, so that they could hurt our image even more.

WHAT????????????

NO

The fact is, this type of mistake has happened before in Afghanistan. If that's what it really is, it was just one big dumb trigger happy mistake. The sad thing is, the Pentagon denied another incident in Afghanistan much like this, then it was quietly admitted a few days later.

Whatever the case, it appears that the pictures of dead children from the incident is another flashpoint.


In July 2002, Afghan officials said 48 civilians at a wedding party were killed and 117 wounded by a US airstrike in Afghanistan's Uruzgan province. An investigative report released by the US Central Command said the airstrike was justified because American planes had come under fire.

From AAP News. What a joke, they claimed they were fired on????? I'm calling BS on that one.

[Darth007]

oh, nevermind then

[Marcus Telcontar]

<img src=http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,3600,345800,00.jpg>

[JMK]

Originally posted by Marcus Telcontar
The fact is, this type of mistake has happened before in Afghanistan. If that's what it really is, it was just one big dumb trigger happy mistake. The sad thing is, the Pentagon denied another incident in Afghanistan much like this, then it was quietly admitted a few days later.

Whatever the case, it appears that the pictures of dead children from the incident is another flashpoint.


Like the time 4 Canadian soldiers were blown off the face of the earth during training excercises in Afghanistan by 'friendly fire'?

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by JMK
Like the time 4 Canadian soldiers were blown off the face of the earth during training excercises in Afghanistan by 'friendly fire'?

And the Brit helicopter shot down in Iraq - it's nto a unique incident. The US killed more via friendly fire in Gulf war I than were killed by the Iraqi army. Plus also missiles being lobbed into family neigbourhoods in Gulf war II.

The below article however, shows that Rumsfield was right. There's worse to come witht he Iraqi mistreatment issue. The man in question seems to have died whilst under interrogation. Or torture.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/20/1084917702557.html

Iraq just a clusterfrell and it just gets worse :/ This is like a manual out of how to win a war but lose the peace.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/9316830p-10241546c.html

And words failed me.

[jjwr]

That interview was interesting, though it didn't quite sound right.

I found this article from a link in your first, this quote kind of sums up what one of my biggest beefs against Bush has been...


In an interview yesterday with AP reporters and editors, he also criticised President George W Bush for damaging relations with allies. There is so much strain in those relationships now, he said, that only a new president can repair them.

"Every president of the last century, Republican and Democrat alike, worked differently from this administration, reached out to other countries and worked with greater respect through international structures," Kerry said.

"This has been a terrible period of loss of American influence, respect and prestige, and it costs us all across the globe."


The fact that there is even a chance this guy could get re-elected scares me, if we give him four more years who knows what else he will do to our country, probably alienate us from our remaining allies and upset everyone else off to boot.

[Marcus Telcontar]

I dont realyl know the truth abotu the interview, needless to say I have some doubts too, but with recent events coming to life....

I guess that Jedieb would have some friends in the military, maybe he can get the truth on what the soliders on the ground think.

Think about this when you vote in November - the World is watching and waiting. You see, the President of the USA has such global influence, the election has true global signifigance. Witht he USA the only superpower, you are voting on the most powerful man in the world.

despite some trolling I do nwo and then, I dont hate americans, far from it. Your all a bunch of good people, even if some of your ways and customs are often totally foriegn to me. Okay, your TV sucks, but we can deal with that. despite speaking the same language, us aussies really do have some problems understanding you and we do liek to have a dig at your expense, but that okay, your weird, we accept that and get along.

The world in general, even fundamental Muslims dont hate you either. what we are however pretty much united by is the disgust in how the present Administraion has acted and totally wasted the good will 11/9 gave you on a plate. The fact is, with that good will, your administration could have done so much good! 11/9 was simply uncalled for and shocking, doen by a bunch of madmen. Yes, even funamentist Muslims thought it was a low and cowardly act.

But look nearly three years on. Look at what's been done. Look where Bush and cronies have taken us. Look at the hate, the division, the anger. Look at how even allies have turned away, offended in the administraions actions. Look how your good name is now in the mud. Your moral high ground is now gone. The pictures from Iraq of torture and shameings, now the stories coming out of Guantanamo Bay of torture, rape and beatings, the PATRIOT act, the abuse of the system in the name of the war on Terror - when it going to end? why is it Clintion is now looked back on in as the best president from a world view and Bush with disgust?

See what the Administration has done? You guys and gals here have to realise, your not just voting for a President for yourselves, your voting for a leader on the world stage. The President of the USA means somethign to the world - it should mean the leader of a jsut and moral nation.

well, right now, it dont look like that right now. Looking fromt he outside, I hear Bush sprouting about freedom, democracy and release from tyranny, but the image aint matching his words. He says one thing, then we see pics of a dead Iraqi, beaten to death with a smiling American with a thumbs up.

doesnt that make you want to puke? Isnt that wrong? doesnt that make you angry to see how the USA's name is being dragged down and trampled by a handful of imeciles at the coal face and up top?

Please..... remember in November we're all watching and praying the right decision is made. What that decision is, is up to you.

I know Bush's lil ally in Australaia, the most contemptable Hon John Howard is goign to get voted out if I have anythign to do with it.

[Jedieb]

And so Bush is the "warmongerer" trying to fight terrorism. Trying to rid Iraq of it. Your statement seems contradictory. No one denies Bush's agenda there.
The contradiction stems from the belief of many that Bush has actually made things WORSE by fighting terroism ineffectively. It goes to whether you believe in some of the observations made by terroist experts like Clarke, or adamant supporters of the President. One can argue that there are far more terroists in Iraq now than there were before the war. If you're a terroist now and you want to kill some American troops you have no farther to go than Iraq. They're easy targets. You don't have to pile explosives onto a raft and blow a whole in the Cole anymore. Now you just have to plant an IED in the dirt and watch the fireworks. And they'll keep doing just that until we leave.


I guess that Jedieb would have some friends in the military, maybe he can get the truth on what the soliders on the ground think.

I'd like to say I have a pipeline of info and sources but I don't. I have a very close childhood friend that almost found himself activated recently. He transferred from the Naval Reserves to a Reserve Coast Guard unit. He's a detective in Oakland, a former MP, and now specializes in security on naval bases. The last time we got together he had some pretty scary intel stories about what our troops were finding in Afghanistan. Things that would make you think it's only a matter of time before we get hit again.

I can only guess what some of those soldiers on the ground are thinking. The Reservists I can identify with because that's how I was activated and how I served in Desert Storm. I can tell you that those guys, and gals, are seriously stressed out. Many of those Reservists did not know whether they were going to be activated for a few months, or a year. Now some of them are serving their SECOND year in Iraq. That is just DEVASTATING for morale. Some people like to criticize some of these reservists by saying things like; "Well, no one forced them to enlist. Did they think they were never going to get called up? Blah, Blah, Blah." They're missing the point and they're probably not speaking from experience. Most of us joined the Reserves knowing full well we could be activated at any moment. The current crop of Reservists knew this far better than I did because they had the first Gulf War as a recent reminder that the order to go could come at any time.

Getting activated is a hardship. Most of these Reservists end up losing income, being estranged from family members; spouses, children, parents, and friends. Their families suffer greatly while they gone. Forget about the economic hardships, I'm talking about devastating emotional problems. I didn't know it at the time, but my mother suffered a nervous breakdown while I was gone. And I had a job and mission that kept me in the rear, surrounded by JAG officers, documenting War Crimes. I shudder to think what my mother and father would be going through this time around if I were over there. This time around I wouldn't have a girlfriend worrying about me. This time the gal in question would be my wife and mother of 3. The strain of raising our 3 children with me out of the country for over a year would be tremendous. The separation would be difficult for me as well.

That takes us to what the daily lives of those soldiers are like right now. We never had this level of fighting to deal with once the intial combat was over in Desert Storm. Kobar towers was bad and I was there just 2 weeks before it happened, but our heads weren't on a swivel 24/7. Whether you were in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, after a time the situation stabalized. Security concerns were NOTHING like they are today. The main reason was that we were NOT occupying Iraq or Kuwait. We removed the occupiers, put the Kuwaiti royals back in charge, and then gradually began pulling back to bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain. The soldiers were welcomed and they were relatively few in comparison to what we have stationed in Iraq now. The situation is completely different now.

Right now soldiers have to take a different route every day they go to work. Venturing out of a secured compound is done only if you're on a specific mission. There's no sightseeing going on right now. Something as benign as driving some supplies into base can end up getting you killed. Every day you hear a story about a friend of yours getting nailed by an IED. You run into a buddy and find out some SFC who you worked with a couple of months ago is dead. You wake up in the middle of the night because someone fired an RPG into a nearby building. You patrol alleys and you can't tell if the Iraqi standing in the doorway is an insurgent lookout, or a shopkeeper. A shell explodes nearby and you turn your weapon in its direction and all you see are targets. You can't tell which ones are insurgents, or which ones are civilians caught in the crossfire. You engage the enemy and kill 5 of them. Even if you're lucky enough to only suffer some wounded, it turns out some civilians were wounded, maimed, or killed. You can't win. Every other day some civilian shouts anti-American insults at you. They're furious at the insurgents but they're just as pissed off at you.

And this is going on day, after day, after. I'm afraid that the way this occupation has been handled is going to severely effect the Reserves. People are going to be dropping like flies. They're not going to re-up, and their experiences are going to discourage future citizens from enlisting in the Reserves. We're going to have to increase the size of our standing Army in response. I don't see how we can rely on the Reserves the way we currently do 5-10 years from now. The numbers simply won't be there.

This takes me to the current abuse scandal. Part of me is furious that a small number of enlisted soldiers are apparently being hung out to dry. Look, I'm telling you, THERE'S NO FRIGGIN' WAY THESE RESERVISTS WOKE UP ONE MORNING AND DECIDED TO START HUMILIATING SOME IRAQIS! Orders had to have been given, procedures had to have been put in place, and a mind set had to be fostered. These soldiers didn't just simply snap under stress. Military Intelligence, CIA, and/or civilian security contractors had to have been helping these abuses to happen. Take you pick, it doesn't really matter. If these PFC's, and SGT's are going to be dishonrably discharged and imprisoned then I want to see some other people go down as well. I want to see someone from MI get tried and sent to Levenworth. I want to see someone from the CIA end up in prison. And someone in the Department of Defense has to be held accountable as well. I don't care if it's Rummy, Wolfy, someone further down the chain. If some Reservist from West Virginia is going to end up in prison then whoever the hell put her in the position of posing in front of a camera should be held accoutable as well.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Now this is disturbing

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&e=10&u=/afp/20040521/pl_afp/iraq_us_chalabi_iran_040521144154

This guy was once the darling of the U.S and now it seems he might be a puppet for Iran. This is a huge embarrassement, IMO. Also more pictures and a video surface this gets worse every day.

[JediBoricua]

He was the neo-con's darling, he was the man responsible for the intelligence about WMD's, he sold the world the 'connections' between Al-Quaeda and Saddam, and he was being paid 260,000 dollars a month by the Pentagon (ok the check was for his organization, but looking at the footage of his house we can all figure out where that went).

Embarrasing indeed. :x

If you needed any more proof about the farse of this war, there you have it.

[Master Yoghurt]

This is depressing :(

More details and photos of the abuse here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43783-2004May20.html

According to a Norwegian news source, Delta Force is currently being investigated for interrogation abuse. This is still a rumor, but if it turns to be true.. good grief. Those are supposed to be cream of the top highly trained professional soldiers.

[Master Yoghurt]

Story on Delta Force:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/


According to two top U.S. government sources, it is the scene of the most egregious violations of the Geneva Conventions in all of Iraq’s prisons. A place where the normal rules of interrogation don’t apply, Delta Force’s BIF only holds Iraqi insurgents and suspected terrorists — but not the most wanted among Saddam’s lieutenants pictured on the deck of cards.

These sources say the prisoners there are hooded from the moment they are captured. They are kept in tiny dark cells. And in the BIF’s six interrogation rooms, Delta Force soldiers routinely drug prisoners, hold a prisoner under water until he thinks he’s drowning, or smother them almost to suffocation.

[Dutchy]

I wonder if Darth Viscera adds the video of all the abuse to his GW2 DVD footage.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah its embarrasing, I got to wonder if this was the plan of the Iranians, sell us on False information so we can get rid of Saddam and then we pull out, they install a puppet government.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Carr, please dont encourage Viscrea with another it's all Iran's fault conspiracy theory.

Chabli was the neo-cons hero cause he was saying what they wanted to hear and they didnt bother checking facts. I do find it hard to believe he's in Iran's pocket tho - he was out for his own power. He probably told the allies what they wanted to hear to get the inside running on being the head of the Governemt. The allies however have a reason to go after him, because he dared turn against them and tell them off for the things they had done wrong. . Like I find it hard to believe anything the USA says about this war now.

what is disturbing me is comments I see else where that Saddam was worse he did yadda yadda yadda. That misses the point - the point being the Aliies have invaded a country with no valid reason, have not really bought any benifit and now are behaving in such a way it's hard to tell the difference between the old regime and what is there now.

<img src=http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,3600,346523,00.jpg>

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well I was just making that suggestion, I think he might be in Iran's pocket when that happened who knows. Iran would love to take Iraq over there is no doubts there. Still, this is very embarrasing we backed this guy now he turns out to betraying us for months now, that doesn't make us looks good.

[Jedieb]

Every time I think it can't get worse, it does. More pictures, Chalabi get raided, a wedding party massacre or a strike against militants sneaking into Iraq from Syria? Here's the latest CNN article tying Chalabi and Iran.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/21/iraq.chalabi/index.html

This doesn't just humiliate Bush, Cheney, Wolf and company, it embarrasses the entire country. Plus, more pictures are starting to leak out. I'm at a loss for words.

[Marcus Telcontar]

This doesn't just humiliate Bush, Cheney, Wolf and company, it embarrasses the entire country

I feel sorry the whole country and a lot of good people are being smeared by a small pack of idiots who just dont get it.


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/21/1085120120940.html

While more details of the abuses and lets face it, human rights failures are saddening, it's the last line of this report that gets to me.

Put back in a command position whilst being accused???????

Okay, so there should be a presumption of innocence. But frankly, with how bad this looks, anyone under investigation should be relieved of duties until proven innocent or guilty. It just looks bad otherwise.

Again, the people in charge just dont get it.

[Jedieb]

This Chalabi thing is friggin' ridiculous.

Senior coalition law enforcement and justice officials said the raid was part of an investigation of "suspected fraud in a government ministry." Chalabi himself was not named in any of the warrants.

Coalition spokesman Dan Senor said, "It was an Iraqi-led investigation, an Iraqi-led raid. It was the result of Iraqi arrest warrants."

And how does the Council respond the next day?


The U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council on Friday issued a statement condemning the U.S.-led coalition forces and Iraqi police for raiding the home of Ahmed Chalabi, a member of the council, this week.

"The council condemns and denounces this act and calls for respect of law and the inviolability of political institutions and national symbols and announces full solidarity with Dr. Ahmed Chalabi," the statement said.
Just what in the Wide World of Sports is going on over there?

[Jedi Master Carr]

I have no idea. What is hilarious I was watching CNN and some NeoConservative (that is what CNN called him) said that he wasn't assosicated with Iran, even though the CIA thinks he is. That whole thing is just a mess, I have no idea what is going on really.

[Dutchy]

'Fahrenheit 9/11' Wins Cannes' Top Prize (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040522/ap_en_mo/france_cannes_awards_4)

[CMJ]

That was a no brainer...Tarantino was the head of the jury and Moore are good friends.

[Darth007]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/22/iraq.main/index.html

good news, right?

[Master Yoghurt]

That was a no brainer...Tarantino was the head of the jury and Moore are good friends.

Arguably, thats a good point. However, I am not sure how much difference it would have made. He got a 15 minute standing ovation from the crowd when receiving the prize. Not a common occurance, so I would say there is more to it than just the friendship between Tarantino and Moore. Fahrenheit 9/11 is becomming a hit, and sooner or later, I am sure an American distributor pops up to squeze the $$ orange.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by CMJ
That was a no brainer...Tarantino was the head of the jury and Moore are good friends.

No. It's a no brainer because Moore's opinions speaks to the huge majority of the rest Of the World who detests Bush. You are at a French film festival, in amongst a hot bed of people who loathe the present administration. Moore's opinion piece (and lets get that one right, Moore isnt a documentary maker, these are his opinions, right or wrong) speaks exactly what they wanted to hear and then some.

Fahrenheit 9/11 will have big audiences around the world, where it will simply reinforce opinions. what this win does is now guarenttee US audiences will get to see it. Somewhere and somehow.

Moore's stated aim is to vote Bush out. I'm expecting a highly bias movie, with no regard to the other side of the story. If you remember that it's Moore's opinion, that's fine by me.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/23/1085250866184.html?from=storylhs

Article on this very subject.

[Sanis Prent]

I don't care how many french people laud Moore's diatribes for whatever they're worth. He's a rather unsavory and unscrupulous "documentary" maker, and every ticket or DVD he sells should come with a grain of rock salt to balance it out.

[Jedieb]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast...main/index.html

good news, right?
This is something else that will drag on for weeks. I've read reports that there's actual video of the wedding and the celebration. There's hours worth of the video. There's also photos of graves containing women and children. Other reports cite that destroyed musical instruments were found at the site as well. Bottom line, however this incident plays out, it's another massive PR disaster in the region. Even if U.S. forces are cleared, many Iraqis will simply believe it's a cover-up. If it turns out it was a wedding party then it's just another nail on the coffin.

The Moore documentary is going to be enormously successful. It'll probably top BFC and set more documentary B.O. records. I've read a few reviews and it looks like Moore spends far less time on screen then he has in his previous films. It looks like he's trying to let the material speak for itself more. There's some damning footage in there. He's probably going to keep making additions and changes right up until the release. It's a pretty sad story that some of his worst footage has been outdone by the Abu-Graid scandal and the above mentioned wedding debacle.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Even if U.S. forces are cleared

Who's goign to believe it? Unless it's a independant investigation, no one Intl is going to beleive a word that comes out of the Administration and their propaganda sources - their cedibility is in the toilet.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/23/1085250870734.html

More signs the stink of prisioner abuse goes right to the top.

I'll make a call on this one now - some very senior chickenhawks are going to be forced otuto save the Bush electroal chances. Rumsfield for one. He's a dead duck and serious political liability now. Now that some journalists smell blood, you watch what else comes out.

watch also for how FOX goes with this. Murdoch wants to make sure he's in deep with whomever is in power. If FOX shifts, then Murdoch is sure the Presidency will change

[CMJ]

Marcus I have no doubt Moore's politics helped it to win, but Tarantino is also a close friend. I'm sure he also shares Moore's views, in fact most folks think it was a very political victory.

I think their PERSONAL friendship played a big part in the decision though. Also, this film was going to be seen regardless. It was a non-issue raised by Moore to get the film a higher profile.

[Marcus Telcontar]

To be honest, I was expecting F9/11 to win stuff, even before I knew who was judging. I really dont think it would have mattered. F9/11 gave the fesival what they expected to hear and they lapped it up.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040524/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_attack&cid=540&ncid=716

I'd say that the wedding story may... MAY have some validity.

[Jedieb]

Retired General Anthony Zinni ripped the Pentagon and the Administration a new one yesterday.

In the book, Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."

“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was dereliction in lack of planning,” says Zinni. “The president is owed the finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He didn’t get the first two.”

Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy. And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress: “This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it needs to be done now.”

But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war the civilians wanted.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

Clancy co-wrote the book with Zinni. There's so much bad press out there that I wonder if this will make much noise. If the election were held today Bush wouldn't stand a chance.

[Jedieb]

Why can't they just admit the truth? He was drunk and he fell down! It's happened to the best of us! >D
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040523/i/r2365922059.jpg

[CMJ]

My favorite entertainment journalist David Poland(I used to love the guy, don't read him as often anymore, though I still recommend his stuff) on Moore in today's column.

*****************************

May 24, 2004
To call Michael Moore a pathological liar is just too easy…

I have been as guilty as anyone of simplifying him, both in praise and scorn. I don't really care about the lies that littered Bowling for Columbine since I saw it as a true P.O.V. documentary that effectively presented an argument about America's culture of fear. To repeat "facts" from the film or from Moore's interview screeds would make a fool of me as a journalist. But ultimately that responsibility is mine (and ours), not his.

In my personal experience, back at the 2002 Toronto Film Festival, Moore was selling the idea that Bowling For Columbine would not play in significant portions of America because right-winger Phil Anchutz and the various exhibition outlets he owned would not play the film for political reasons. But he was pissed not only at Anchutz & Co., but the many journalists whom he had told the story to who failed to print the accusation.

As a journalist without a corporation to answer to, a fan of Moore's and the film's, and as a First Amendment absolutist, I was excited by the prospect of beating that drum and beating it hard. Unfortunately, it took just a few hours to get rather detailed denials of the story. A deal with Regal (Anchutz' primary exhibition chain) was in place and Bowling For Columbine would play in his theaters. Within 24 hours, I watched Moore burn his last bridge to the financier of Bowling, Alliance Atlantis, and start down that same road with UA, if not Bingham Ray, who I have not called to ask, but who would never diss a filmmaker publicly even if I did.

Still, I supported Bowling For Columbine as the great film experience it was and was pleased at its success and recognition. But two things happened as the film hit the awards circuit 18 months ago or so. America was in a hyperbolic whirlwind as the Bush Administration and the Congress prepared for war in Iraq and Michael Moore took the next step. He got himself a very specific target and he also took a deep, deep gulp of his own Kool-Aid.

Launching off of his very successful, Oscar-winning film, Moore decided to make a documentary in a lightening-fast eight months, with a documentary-large budget of $6 million, with the specific stated goal of assisting in the removal of George Bush from office.

The arrogance of the idea is a bit eye-popping. So be it. I didn't vote for Bush the first time. I won't vote for Bush the next time. (I didn't vote for dad either.) But I would have been equally supportive of any filmmaker who chose to make a film about their own beliefs, even if I heartily disagreed with those beliefs.

Where Mel Gibson and Michael Moore both lost me - and if you don't think their filmic crusades are analogous, you're wearing leftie-colored glasses - is in that blurry place that is about selling the films, not making them. And in both cases, the onus is on the journalists and the editors of the journalists who decide how to handle the spin being offered by the filmmaker, as well as the spin of those who are against him or her.

The problem is that journalists, like real people, are susceptible to spinning themselves. So, when Frank Rich goes on the attack against right-wing Christian Mel Gibson for making a manipulative movie that he considers dangerous, and just months later can't wait to spread Michael Moore's easily verifiable media manipulation - some of which Moore himself has spun both ways in the press - much less the factual question marks in the film itself, tells you a lot more about Frank Rich than Michael Moore. (Note that Moore showed the film to various liberal media outlets before Cannes in very much the same way and with the same purpose that Gibson showed his film to the O'Reillys of the world.)

I was horrified to hear Tammy Bruce on L.A. righty radio (Air America is not on the radio here, so I only listen to it on my computer) ripping into Moore for being fat, therefore being self-destructive, therefore wanting to take us all down with him. How this lesbian former Femi-Nazi (and Rush Limbaugh's abusive term fit her unlike most… she was an unyielding inflexible automaton) who would have spent hours screaming down anyone who judged anyone based on their physical attributes ended up in this place, I do not know. It also made me a little sick when another radio show host compared Moore's movie to Nazi propaganda.

But as a journalist, it isn't supposed to matter what side you are on personally. And when it does, as it must given our status as human beings, we must be doubly vigilant.

Whether it is intended or not, the methodology of propaganda is to repeat a lie enough times to make it into perceived truth. And as with all the best lies, the higher the percentage of truth you can get into the mix, the more successful the lie. Unfortunately, the newly added element (which has probably always been a part of the process, but with which I have never had so much clear and direct contact) is the clarion call to journalists who want to believe the lie and therefore fail to challenge it, even when the facts are right in front of them. "The coalition of the willing," when confronted with their failure to do their jobs, will offer up many reasons why the lies they have embraced are not as bad as other lies that have been told on the other side of the aisle. But while that is all well and good after a few beers at the pub, it is not journalism.

Before I list the key lies surrounding the selling of Fahrenheit 911, let me make clear once again, I am not attacking or questioning the personal or professional opinions about the film itself. I am an unflinching supporter of Moore's right to make whatever film with whatever beliefs and goals he so chooses. I support the right of film critics to embrace the film or as Todd McCarthy has, to reject the film.

The big problem is, the people who embrace the film have a strong tendency to write off anyone who rejects the film as a kook or being politically motivated… unlike their pure selves. When there is no room for dissent when discussing art, that is effective fascism, no matter the side of the political spectrum in which you live.

On the flip side of this issue, I would argue that the distinction between civil union and marriage for gay Americans is very much the same. If you claim you believe in gay rights, but have some indefinable belief that the word "marriage" is sacred and cannot take on a new line of definition in the dictionary, you are wiling to void someone else's right to something that will make them happy because it disconnects from your personal feelings… not your logic.

The challenge of freedom is not when you agree, but when you disagree. And in today's media universe, the trend is isolate anyone who dares to question the "right" point of view. It is also the challenge on the west side of Los Angeles in general.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain political power deserve neither liberty nor power.

Moore himself told the Cannes audience, ""There was a great Republican president who said, 'If you give the American people the truth, the Republic will be safe.' "

Unfortunately, Moore is as loose with the truth as any president has been.

And now, the List Of Media Lies -

MOORE AND MIRAMAX THOUGHT THAT DISNEY WOULD CHANGE ITS MIND ABOUT DISTRIBUTING THE FILM AFTER SEEING IT COMPLETED

"Eisner said he would never let my film be distributed through Disney even though Mr. Eisner had not seen any footage or even read the outline of the film." Michael Moore, May 7

"Miramax said there was no problem. I got the idea that everything was fine." Michael Moore, May 7

"Last month, Walt Disney, the distributor of the movie through its Miramax division, had blocked the release of the documentary, citing its politically divisive content." Desson Thomson, Washington Post, May 23 (And a million other "journalists" in recent weeks)

When this all hit the fan, Moore's agent Ari Emmanuel acknowledged that his conversations with Disney in which they were trying to persuade him to look elsewhere for financing came before the deal with Miramax was signed. Moore has, in some interviews, acknowledged the same, albeit consistently pointing out that the film was already in production when he got the word from Disney. There has never been any indication that any signal came from Disney suggesting in any way that there was a change of heart forthcoming nor has there even been an indication of such from Moore, Miramax or any of their representatives.

The content of the film certainly was no less inflammatory than it was a year before. But Moore has pointed out that Eisner decided against distribution without any specific knowledge about the film at all. And indeed, as of the last time Moore publicly addressed the issue, Michael Eisner and the Disney board made this decision without making any specific judgment of the film itself.

THERE WAS A SCHEDULED JULY 2 RELEASE DATE.

"(Disney's decision not to distribute) left Fahrenheit 9/11 high and dry as it approached its scheduled July 2 opening date." Desson Thomson, Washington Post

There has never been a publicly announced release date for this film, from Miramax or anyone else. Michael Moore has said that he wanted the film released on July 4/July 2. But there has been nothing remotely official.

On a side note, Miramax has in the last week shifted Zatoichi to July 4 (which is, oddly for an opening, a Sunday), which seems far more likely to be an effort to hold space available for Fahrenheit 911 while exhibitors will still entertain the idea rather than waiting a few more weeks for a deal to be done only to find that there are no screens that haven't been obligated.

Of course, for those of us who love Hero, the next question will be whether Zatoichi moves into Hero's August slots, pushing Hero into fall or if Zatoichi moves into fall. Of course, it is always possible that Zatoichi actually opens on a symbolic American holiday that falls on a Sunday.

THE PALM D'OR GOING TO FAHRENHEIT 911 HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS.

"We all agreed that Fahrenheit 9/11 was the best movie of the competition totally independent of all the politics crap." Quentin Tarantino, May 23, 2004

Unlike some, I would not accuse Quentin Tarantino of pushing his home studio's hot product into a Palm d'Or. But the notion that a deeply political movie being awarded is not a political statement is nothing but marketing <smallfont color={hovercolor}>-Censored-</smallfont>. The telltale sign was the consistency and ferocity of this "it's not politics" message… starting with Saturday's win.

As Moore said himself, people will try to paint this as a "French thing." It is fair to say that it is not a French thing at all. Any anti-war movie that wins in the midst of that war and not as a film that is reflective of another war (see: M*A*S*H or Dr. Strangelove) must be seen as a political choice… and those two examples… them too.

The mere fact that Moore and Tarantino are selling this "it's not a political thing" bull is kind of horrifying really. But the urge to sell this political lie was so strong that Tarantino and his jury held an unprecedented post-awards press conference to explain their selection to the press. And that I will attribute to Harvey Weinstein and his zeal to sell this movie to an audience beyond the pre-sold anti-Bush-ites.

You can make the argument that Roger & Me and Bowling For Columbine are political, but are more sociological studies. Certainly, both films are against the callousness of American wealth. But neither film serves as a direct call to political action. (That is much like my argument earlier this year that although I believe The Passion of The Christ to be anti-Semetic, I do not see it as a call to rage against Jews in this era.)

When the filmmaker repeatedly states his artistic goal as the removal of a president and makes good on that promise in the film from all accounts, it is political. And I don't think anyone interested in the truth will argue that.

MOORE DID NOT INTEND THE FILM AS A POLITICAL ARGUMENT

"If I wanted to make a political speech, I'd run for office. I'm a filmmaker, and I wanted to make a movie for people to go see it." Michael Moore

When Moore told this to an AP reporter in a phone interview, how the journalist managed not to laugh out loud is beyond me. (Maybe the reporter did laugh at him.) Moreover, all you have to do is to go back in the clippings a few weeks, when Moore was still telling everyone that the film was intended exclusively to influence the election and the lie is crystal clear.

This is the new spin. And any outlet that prints it without referring back to Moore's comments in recent weeks, not one but dozens, is failing in their responsibility to their readers/viewers.

THE PALM D'OR WILL HAVE ONE IOTA OF AN EFFECT ON ANYONE IN THE U.S. SEEING FAHRENHEIT 911

"You will ensure that the American people will see this movie." Michael Moore

The hype leading up to this festival defined the film and generated as much public awareness as the film will ever have. There is zero indication that the Palm d'Or has more than a couple million dollar effect on the domestic box office success of its winners. In the decade since Pulp Fiction ("You know what they call a mutha<smallfont color={hovercolor}>-Censored-</smallfont>in' Golden Palm in France?"), The Pianist is the only film to have any real box office success here at home after winning the award, less than 25% of which came before the film was nominated for Best Picture and 6 other Academy Awards.

Fahrenheit 911 needs to open as soon as possible, while the hype is still hot. The Palm d'Or will not sell a single ticket in the U.S. or help close an alternative distribution deal.

MOORE AND MIRAMAX ARE HAVING A HARD TIME FINDING AN ALTERNATE DISTRIBUTOR.

"I'd give it about one more day (if that) before we have someone brave enough (and smart enough) to show Americans what the world can already see." Michael Moore, On His Website

"I would be surprised within the next 24 hours if we don't have somebody. Miramax has been fielding calls all day." Michael Moore At A Press Conference

I am surprised that they haven't made a deal already. I had some good sourcing that said they were very close. But the idea that the phone rang even once (except with congratulations) because of the Palm d'Or is absurd.

Certainly, the same political issues that kept every single major studio from financing this film and some of their arthouse arms from wanting to as well are still in play. However, the primary thing keeping a deal from closing with a distributor now seems to be the terms that Moore and Miramax are demanding for their new "partner."

I cannot swear by the factuality of Jeff Wells' report of a distributor who told him that Miramax was looking for a better deal than Mel Gibson got for The Passion of the Christ. (I believe Wells was told this, but cannot confirm that he wasn't being played.) But it sounds right in principle and it jibes with the behavior of all the usual suspects.

Miramax has been, from early on, pushing the notion that they were trying to put together a group of studios to unite behind this film, much as they gathered together to fight the screener ban. Admirable. But not if you want total control, all the credit, all but a tiny slice of the financial pie and an enforced release date within six weeks of signing on the line that is dotted.

What is the upside for Lion's Gate or Newmarket, both of whom are trying to build their profile up to the level of the studio dependents and, of course, Miramax itself? What Dependent would submit to being bossed around by Harvey and Bob and Michael and receive all the political heat, from politicians and the American consumers who also lean to the right, without much financial upside or even much credit from the left-leaning supporters of the film.

Miramax will find another distributor as soon as they want to make a deal that someone can live with.

FINAL THOUGHTS

I was deeply disturbed by Moore's comment upon receiving the Palm d'Or that, "I want to make sure if I do nothing else for the rest of this year that those who died in Iraq have not died in vain."

What does that mean? If you believe the war was a horrible decision by the Bush Administration, then you must believe that every life that has been lost in the process has been in vain, no? Is there an upside to any of those deaths if you see no viable goal in having the war in the first place?

Now, the way I read the comment - and you will correct me if you disagree - is that somehow getting Bush out of office will mean that those who have died in Iraq have not died in vain… that somehow, if this film has that effect, there is a win.

Moore cannot, clearly, make that argument in public and will not. But I believe that it is what he means and he is a man who is willing to invoke the dead to give testimony, even if he is the puppeteer.

When Moore dedicates his award "to all the children in America and in Iraq, and throughout the world who suffer as a result of our actions," no one seems concerned that it is not a sincere dedication. Michael Moore clearly does not see himself as some sort of overriding American "us." That American "us" is also responsible for children in America and in Iraq and throughout the world who are better off as a result of "our" actions. But none of that counts, so long as there is a Republican in office. He has also been unable to call for an end to America's occupation of Iraq because John Kerry is out talking about increasing troop numbers… but Moore's not saying that we should get more troops over there to close this thing out. He wants us all focused on W choking on a pretzel, as mockery is much easier than answers.

None of this means that I am calling for anyone to support the war or to overlook the damage the United States is doing, has done and will do in the future. It just means that I wish that entertainment journalists - the least closely edited of all journos - would slap some cold water on their faces and seek truth instead of bandwagonning, repeating everything they are told by people they like or agree with in principle. It is a terrible failure of our responsibilities.

Everyone who has died in Iraq has died in vain. They have died in a failure of statesmanship… of leadership… and of humanity. The choice that we all must make for ourselves is where we draw the line between wasting human life in war and not doing so. Not everyone who is for the war is a moron or a dupe and not everyone who is against it has a realistic grip on the political reality of the world.

I have nothing against Michael Moore's position about Bush or the Iraq Occupation or the creation of a powerful film to illustrate the same. But the only lie in which honor lies - especially for someone who claims they are an absolute truth teller - is one of kindness. "Your <smallfont color={hovercolor}>-Censored-</smallfont> doesn't look big in those jeans." Do I care whether Albania is really the only country on the planet besides the U.S. that does not have a distribution agreement for this film? No. But it is clearly hyperbole. And it should not be blindly repeated by the media, though it will be. But it is the big lies that scare me. I don't care which side the come from. Journalists, if no one else, must stay above them. Or we become nothing but another <smallfont color={hovercolor}>-Censored-</smallfont>ing marketing tool.

We must not forget that every nations' leaders thought they were doing the right thing when they did it. They may have been horribly wrong or manipulative in their route to what they thought was right. Fighting fire with fire only assures one thing… a lot of burning crap.

[ReaperFett]

The big problem is, the people who embrace the film have a strong tendency to write off anyone who rejects the film as a kook or being politically motivated… unlike their pure selves. When there is no room for dissent when discussing art, that is effective fascism, no matter the side of the political spectrum in which you live.

So true.

[Jedieb]

The New York Times really took some hits this week.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/27/times/index_np.html

I wasn't really all that impressed with BFC. I enjoyed Roger & Me much more. What really did it for me was the Heston interview. I'm not a NRA member, I support gun control, banning assualt weapons, etc. But the Heston interview was just cheap. I'm not even interested in looking up all of the false claims the film makes, the interview was enough for me. It made me think that Moore will do just about anything to drive his message or point of view home. I'll see F9/11 when it's released. If it hurts Bush, then that's gravy. But Moore should be more honest about the film. It's a political attack. Some of it will be accurate, some will be twisted. Just be straight about it..

[Dutchy]

Yesterday I watched an item on TV about a small village that lost 5 soldiers in the war. A kindergarden teacher told her children: "He died for us".

Is that really how people look at it? That soldiers die for the USA? In the beginning, when they were still looking for WMD's and preventing for them to get launched to the States it was pretty much true, but after that appeared to be bogus and the war was all about deliberating the Iraqi people, I'd say that soldiers die for them.

Right now, though, I'm not sure what soldiers are dying for in Iraq. Pretty much in vain, or so it seems.

[Dutchy]

US halts quest for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050113/ts_afp/usiraqwmd_050113082120)


WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States has stopped searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (news - web sites) -- one of its key reasons for invading the country -- and a report saying there are no such weapons to find there will likely stand, the White House confirmed.

I'd hate to see this spoil Darth Viscera watching his war DVD collection. :\

[Ka' el Darcverse]

Iraqi insurgents kidnapped a Roman Catholic Arch Bishop today in Mosul. He is a native born Iraqi.

Here is the CNN.com link

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/17/iraq/index.html

Ah nothing like a good Holy War to start the day off right.

[Dutchy]

Where is everyone anyway? What happened to the tough language from almost 2 years ago?

How does everyone look at the current Iraq situation?

[Jedieb]

We're burned out. It's bad and it's not going to get better anytime soon. Hell, even Bush admits now that there will still be violence after the elections. I'm tired of ranting about it. It's his mess to clean up now, let him sink in it.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I see civil war after we leave and if that is the case. Iran will have a puppet leader in there. This is exactly what they wanted they are grateful we took out Saddam for them. Speaking of Iran, you think we would actually have the gall to attack them? Surgical strikes might not work we might have to go in, if that happens we would have to have a draft. Iran has a larger population than Iraq it would be a much tougher fight.