photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
kliscinsky | profile | all galleries >> Charlotte Bush Protest tree view | thumbnails | slideshow

Charlotte Bush Protest

A very small group of protester's during a recent GW Bush visit
protester 1
protester 1		 Smile with your picture!
Smile with your picture!		 protester 3
protester 3		 protester 4
protester 4
protest 5
protest 5		 protest 6
protest 6		 protest 7
protest 7		 protest 8
protest 8
Get mad !!!!!
Get mad !!!!!

comment | share
xdiller 09-Mar-2007 16:15
2007 acadia gmc 2007 acadia gmc
xdiller 09-Mar-2007 16:14
2007 acadia gmc 2007 acadia gmc
www.volny.cz/jeeptoledo/ 08-Mar-2007 13:40
jeep toledo ohio www.volny.cz/jeeptoledo
www.volny.cz/jeeptoledo/ 08-Mar-2007 07:58
jeep toledo ohio www.volny.cz/jeeptoledo
Gomez 16-Sep-2005 13:51
There is no question about. Just "Google it!".
Go to www.google.com
Type the word failure
Click "I'm feeling lucky" button
Confirmed . . .
Guest 05-Nov-2004 04:52
Emphasis on "very small" :)
bushman 05-Nov-2004 03:24
4 more years... Move to Canada? get in line now !!!
andrew 21-Aug-2004 18:17
If this was my pbase account I'd delete the long, drawn out trash that people post here. No, it's not censorship, its deleting garbage.

BTW, great photos :)
Guest 20-Aug-2004 23:48
For a real discussion of issues without fear of deletion head to http://www.pbase.com/bush_kerry04
Guest 20-Aug-2004 04:37
For a discussion of the issues get over to:

http://www.pbase.com/minoltaman/the_words_and_deeds_of_john_kerry
Guest 18-Aug-2004 05:22
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

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

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

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

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

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Guest 17-Aug-2004 21:46
Now I do think the link says "Comment on this galley," not "Copy a bunch of crap into a semi-coherent an essay on this gallery"
EMangl12-Aug-2004 09:18
haha, that's not true:
again Ethan Tweedie with his special way to fill a guestbook - give this fool a comment in his galleries and he will delete it if you don't praise his "work"
Guest 12-Aug-2004 02:31
http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/vietnam.htm



Villaware Mickey Mouse Waffler


Waring Pro WMK300 Belgian Waffle Maker, Brushed Stainless
Loser

This just in.

KERRY'S SPEECH INSPIRES DEMOCRATS, DRINKING GAME
>
>Players Chug Beer at References to Military Service
>
>Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry's acceptance speech at the
>Democratic national convention last night inspired Democrats nationwide and
>a popular drinking game, with revelers taking pulls from their beers every
>time Mr. Kerry referred to his military service.
>
>Donny Timlin, a frequent patron at the T.G.I. Friday's in downtown Tulsa,
>Oklahoma, was one of many drinkers across the country who participated in
>the chugging contest based on Mr. Kerry's nationally televised address.
>
>According to the rules of the game, participants were to take one pull from
>their beer every time Mr. Kerry said the word "veteran," two when he said
>"Vietnam," and three when he said "band of brothers."
>
>Watching Mr. Kerry on the bar's widescreen TV, Mr. Timlin acknowledged that
>the drinking game was far more challenging than he originally thought it
>would be: "Dude's just ten minutes into his speech and I'm already wasted."


Kerry and his wife are very strange.

Dont forget to order your John Kerry Flip Flops! http://www.johnkerryflipflops.com/

NOW, his wife lies too!! Teresa Heinz Kerry tells editor to 'shove it'

By Colin McNickle
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Monday, July 26, 2004


BOSTON -- Teresa Heinz Kerry told this editor to "shove it" yesterday moments after she addressed the Pennsylvania delegation to the Democratic National Convention here.
During her brief remarks at the Massachusetts State House -- most of which were a generally positive recitation of her husband's vision for America -- Mrs. Heinz Kerry made an unclear reference to "un-American traits" that had entered the fabric of political life.

As she was making her way out of the reception hall, this editor asked what she meant by "un-American activity."

"No, I didn't say that," she said in an encounter also captured by reporters for The Sun of Baltimore, The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and WTAE-TV in Pittsburgh, which has aired the exchange on its 11 o'clock news.





Her answer prompted the following exchange:

Trib: "What did you mean?"

Heinz Kerry: "I didn't say that. I didn't say that."

Trib: "I was just asking what you said."

Heinz Kerry: "Why do you put those words in my mouth?"

Trib: "You said something about 'un-American activity.'"

A Kerry campaign worker attempted to stop the questioning.

Heinz Kerry: "No, I didn't say that, I did not say 'activity' or 'un-American.' Those were your words."

She walked away, paused, consulted with an associate and returned to this editor.

Heinz Kerry: "Are you from the Tribune-Review?"

Trib: "Yes I am."

Heinz Kerry: "Understandable. You said something I didn't say -- now shove it."

The Sun reporter, Washington correspondent Julie Hirschfeld Davis, thought Heinz Kerry had said only "shut up." But a review of a videotape shot by WTAE-TV confirms Heinz Kerry used the phrase "shove it."

A review of an audiotape recording made by Patriot-News political reporter Peter DeCoursey shows that Heinz Kerry used the term "un-American traits."

Returning to reporters after Heinz Kerry left, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell confirmed the "un-American" comment and attempted to put into context what John Kerry's wife at first said unclearly and then partially denied saying at all.

"She said there were some un-Pennyslvania and un-American things creeping into politics," he said, talking of the "nastiness," "viciousness" and "the attempt to make everything personal."

"And I agree with her. I think in my 26 years in politics I've seen it go from a business where Democrats and Republicans fought hard but then after the election got together and worked in the interest of the country or the state or the city.

"And now it's become just a set of highly partisan and venomous ... that it's not good-spirited democracy we once had. That's what Mrs. Heinz was saying," Rendell said.

Said Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Editor Frank L. Craig: "Colin McNickle did just what any good reporter does -- he asked questions. The tape of her speech shows she used the word 'un-American,' even though she denied it. It was a legitimate question for McNickle to ask. It is unfortunate that she ruined what was an otherwise good message by resorting to exactly the type of tactics she was criticizing."

UPDATE

TERESA HEINZ UNEARTHED: 'I DON'T TRUST TED KENNEDY'; DEMOCRATS 'PUTRID'

A historic bombshell interview has surfaced of Teresa Heinz Kerry ripping Ted Kennedy and the Democrat political machine!

The interview is set for splashing at the BOSTON HERALD, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, the newspaper which originally ran the session with a then Republican Teresa Heinz.

The candid flashback hits as both Teresa and "Bastard" Kennedy prepare to address the Democrat convention in Boston.

ABCNEWS's GOOD MORNING AMERICA plans to highlight the Teresa Heinz interview Tuesday.
Host Charlie Gibson presented Heinz Kerry with the unearthed quotes, sources tell DRUDGE.

Developing...

More Ta Reza

MILWAUKEE (Reuters) - Teresa Heinz Kerry, the outspoken wife of Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry (news - web sites), pulled no punches on Monday in telling a rally what she thought of the Bush administration -- hell.



And later, discussing the war in Iraq (news - web sites), Heinz Kerry subtly questioned Republican President Bush (news - web sites)'s intellect, saying: "It's vital for anyone with intelligence to acknowledge mistakes and change positions -- hello."


When a Bush supporter with a bullhorn shouted "four more years" from the back of a large crowd packed into a downtown Milwaukee park, Heinz Kerry, who was introducing her husband, responded: "They want four more years of hell."


"Three more months!," she declared, referring to the Nov. 2 presidential election.


Last week at the Democratic Convention in Boston, where Kerry formally accepted his party's nomination as Bush's opponent, Heinz Kerry briefly caused a stir when she told a reporter to "shove it."


"She speaks her mind and she speaks the truth and she's pretty quick on her feet too," the Massachusetts senator said when he took the microphone in Milwaukee.


"That's why America is going to embrace her and she'll make a spectacular first lady of the United States of America."


Guest 11-Aug-2004 19:21
I am Sailor serving in a Marine unit that has just returned from Iraq. Kerry's strategy to defend freedom and democracy is nothing more than to surrender America to the enemies. This is not acceptable. Leadership in difficult time requires moral strength to stand for your ideals to lead the country and the free world. To bad the left is blinded by it's rage - it sad.
Guest 09-Aug-2004 12:04
Maybe you should use this space to comment on the photographs instead of posting articles from the National Review..?
Guest 06-Aug-2004 06:23
Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911

By Dave Kopel



This is a preliminary version of an article that will be published on National Review Online. This report was first posted on the web on the morning of July 1. Since then, I've revised several sections in response to reader requests for clarifications, and have added additional deceits which have been pointed out by readers or journalists. As result, the number of listed deceits has been raised from 56 to 59.



Thanks to the readers who have written to point out additional deceits or to point out items which need clarification. Also thanks to the readers who have written in defense of Moore. All writers have been rational and civil. Moore's defenders have made two main points:



First, notwithstanding the specific falsehoods, isn't the film as a whole filled with many important truths?



Not really. We can divide the film into three major parts. The first part (Bush, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) is so permeated with lies that most of the scenes amount to lies. The second, shorter part involves domestic issues and the Patriot Act. So far, I've identified only one clear falsehood in this segment (Rep. Porter Goss's toll-free number). So this part, at least arguably, presents useful information. The third part, on Iraq has several outright falsehoods--such as the Saddam regime's murder of Americans, and the regime's connection with al Qaeda. Other scenes in the third part--such as Iraqi casualties, interviews with American soldiers, and the material on bereaved mother Lila Lipscomb--are not blatant lies; but the information presented is so extremely one-sided (the only Iraqi casualties are innocents, nobody in Iraq is grateful for liberation, all the American soldiers are disillusioned, except for the sadists) that the overall picture of the Iraq War is false.



Second, say the Moore supporters, what about the Bush lies?



Well there are plenty of lies from the Bush administration which should concern everyone. For example, the Bush administration suppressed data from its own Department of Health and Human Services which showed that the cost of the new Prescription Drug Benefit would be much larger than the administration claimed. This lie was critical to passage of the Bush drug benefit bill. Similarly, Bush's characterization of his immigration proposal as not granting "amnesty" to illegal aliens is quite misleading; although the Bush proposal does not formally grant amnesty, the net result is the same as widespread amnesty.



But two wrongs don't make a right, and the right response to Presidential lies is not more lies from his political opponents. Moreover, regarding the issues presented in Fahrenheit 911, the evidence of Bush lies is extremely thin. Moore shows Bush claiming that a particular day at the ranch in Crawford, Texas, was a working vacation, but Bush appears to be dissembling. Later, after Osama bin Laden was driven into hiding but was not captured, Bush unconvincingly claims not to spend much time thinking about bin Laden. Within Fahrenheit 911, most of rest of alleged Bush administration lies actually involve Moore's fabrications to create the appearance of a lie--such as when Moore chops a Condoleezza Rice quote to make her say something when she actually said the opposite.



The one significant Bush administration lie exposed in the film involves the so-called Patriot Act; as Fahrenheit accurately claims, at least some of the material in the Patriot Act had nothing to do with 9/11, and instead involved long-sought items on the FBI agenda which had previously been unable to pass Congress, but which were enacted by Congress under Bush administration assurances that they were essential to fighting terrorism.



If you look up the noun "deceit" in the dictionary, you will find that the definitions point you to the verb "deceive." According to Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary, the main (non-archaic or obsolete) definition of "deceive" is "to cause to accept as true or valid what is false of invalid." Although the evidence in this report demonstrates dozens of plains deceits by Moore, there are at least a few "deceits" in this report regarding which reasonable people may disagree. So if you find me unpersuasive on, for example, three alleged deceits, consider this article to have identified "Fifty-six Deceits" rather than fifty-nine. Whether or not you agree with me on every single item, I think you will agree that the evidence is undeniable that Fahrenheit 911 is filled with deceit.




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

There are many articles which have pointed out the distortions, falsehoods, and lies in the film Fahrenheit 911. This report compiles the Fahrenheit 911 deceits which have been identified by a wide variety of reviewers. In addition, I identify some inaccuracies which have not been addressed by other writers.



The report follows the approximate order in which the movie covers particular topics: the Bush family, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. This report focuses solely on factual issues, and not on aesthetic criticism of the film.



To understand the deceptions, it helps to understand Moore’s ideological position. So let us start with Moore’s belief that the September 11 attacks on the United States were insignificant.



Edward Koch, the former Democratic Mayor of New York City, writes:

A year after 9/11, I was part of a panel discussion on BBC-TV’s “Question Time” show which aired live in the United Kingdom. A portion of my commentary at that time follows:

“One of the panelists was Michael Moore…During the warm-up before the studio audience, Moore said something along the lines of “I don’t know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you will be struck by lightning than die from an act of terror.”…I mention this exchange because it was not televised, occurring as it did before the show went live. It shows where he was coming from long before he produced “Fahrenheit 9/11.”

Edward Koch, “Moore’s propaganda film cheapens debate, polarizes nation,” World Tribune, June 28, 2004. By the way, I don't disagree with the point that it is reasonable to consider the number of deaths from any particular problem, including terrorism, in assessing how serious the problem is. Moore's point, however, was willfully oblivious to the fact that al Qaeda did not intend 9/11 to be the last word; the organization was working on additional attacks, and if the organization obtained the right weapons, millions of people might be killed. More fundamentally, even if Moore's argument in London is conceded to be legitimate, it contradicts Fahrenheit 911's presentation of Moore as intensely concerned about the September 11 attacks.



As we go through the long list of lies and tricks in Fahrenheit 911, keep in mind that Michael Moore has assembled a “war room” of political operatives and lawyers in order to respond to criticism of Fahrenheit 911 and to file defamation suits. (Jack Shafer, “Libel Suit 9/11. Michael Moore’s hysterical, empty threats,” Slate.com, June 12, 2004.) One of Moore's "war room" officials is Chris Lehane; Lehane, as an employee of Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark (who was also supported by Moore), apparently spread rumors to the press about John Kerry's alleged extra-marital affair.



Of course if there are any genuine errors in this report, the errors will be promptly corrected. On July 5, I removed a complaint about a Presidential approval poll number, which I had wrongly thought was not supported by data.



Conversely, because Moore has a paid expert staff which is monitoring criticism of the movie, it is reasonable to assume that—unless I have specifically retracted some item in this report—Moore and his staff have not offered a persuasive rebuttal.



In this report, I number Moore’s deceits. Some of them are outright lies; some are omissions which create a false impression. Others involve different forms of deception. A few are false statements Moore has made when defending the film.



2000 Election Night

Deceits 1-2



Fahrenheit 911 begins on election night 2000. We are first shown the Al Gore rocking on stage with famous musicians and a high-spirited crowd. The conspicuous sign on stage reads “Florida Victory.” Moore creates the impression that Gore was celebrating his victory in Florida.



Actually, the rally took place in the early hours of election day, before polls had even opened. Gore did campaign in Florida on election day, but went home to Tennessee to await the results. The “Florida Victory” sign reflected Gore’s hopes, not any actual election results. (“Gore Campaigns Into Election Day,” Associated Press, Nov. 7, 2000.)



The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. According to the narrator, “Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy….All of a sudden the other networks said, ‘Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.’”



We then see NBC anchor Tom Brokaw stating, “All of us networks made a mistake and projected Florida in the Al Gore column. It was our mistake.”



Moore thus creates the false impression that the networks withdrew their claim about Gore winning Florida when they heard that Fox said that Bush won Florida.



In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in the evening—before polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle, which is part of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 p.m., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 p.m., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never lets the audience know that Fox was among the networks which made the error of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at 8:02 p.m., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were closed.



The premature calls probably cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that their state had already been decided, and many voters who were waiting in line left the polling place. In Florida, as elsewhere, voters who have arrived at the polling place before closing time often end up voting after closing time, because of long lines. The conventional wisdom of politics is that supporters of the losing candidate are most likely to give up on voting when they hear that their side has already lost. (Thus, on election night 1980, when incumbent President Jimmy Carter gave a concession speech while polls were still open on the West coast, the early concession was widely blamed for costing the Democrats several Congressional seats in the West. The fact that all the networks had declared Reagan a landslide winner while West coast voting was still in progress was also blamed for Democratic losses in the West.) Even if the premature television calls affected all potential voters equally, the effect was to reduce Republican votes significantly, because the Florida panhandle is a Republican stronghold; depress overall turnout in the panhandle, and you will necessarily depress more Republican than Democratic votes.



At 10:00 p.m., which network took the lead in retracting the premature Florida result? The first retracting network was CBS, not Fox.



Over four hours later, at 2:16 a.m., Fox projected Bush as the Florida winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 a.m.



CBS had taken the lead in making the erroneous call for Gore, and had taken the lead in retracting that call. At 3:59 a.m., CBS also took the lead in retracting the Florida call for Bush. All the other networks, including Fox, followed the CBS lead within eight minutes. That the networks arrived at similar conclusions within a short period of time is not surprising, since they were all using the same data from the Voter News Service. (Linda Mason, Kathleen Francovic & Kathleen Hall Jamieson, “CBS News Coverage of Election Night 2000: Investigation, Analysis, Recommendations” (CBS News, Jan. 2001), pp. 12-25.)



Moore’s editing technique of the election night segment is typical of his style: all the video clips are real clips, and nothing he says is, formally speaking, false. But notice how he says, “Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy…” The impression created is that the Fox call of Florida for Bush came soon after the CBS/CNN calls of Florida for Gore, and that Fox caused the other networks to change (“All of a sudden the other networks said, ‘Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.’”)



This is the essence of the Moore technique: cleverly blending half-truths to deceive the viewer.



2000 Election Recount

Deceit 3



A little while later:

…Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential vote, “under every scenario Gore won the election.”

What Moore doesn’t show is that a six-month study in 2001 by news organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN found just the opposite. Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily Democratic counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida and the election.

Thomas Frank, “Film offers limited view,” Newsday, June 27, 2004.



Florida Purge of Convicted Felons from Voter Rolls

Deceit 4



According to Fahrenheit, Bush cronies hired Data Base Technologies to purge Florida voters who might vote for Gore, and these potential voters were purged from the voting rolls on the basis of race. ("Second, make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote count woman. And that her state has hired a company that's gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you. You can usually tell 'em by the color of their skin.") As explained by the Palm Beach Post, Moore's claim is extremely incomplete, and on at least one fact, plainly false.



The 1998 mayoral election in Miami was a fiasco which was declared void by Florida courts, because--in violation of Florida law--convicted felons had been allowed to vote. The Florida legislature ordered the executive branch to purge felons from the voting rolls before the next election. Following instructions from Florida officials, Data Base Technologies (DBT) aggressively attempted to identify all convicted felons who were illegally registered to vote in Florida.



There were two major problems with the purge. First, several states allow felons to vote once they have completed their sentences. Some of these ex-felons moved to Florida and were, according to a court decision, eligible to vote. Florida improperly purged these immigrant felons.



Second, the comprehensive effort to identify all convicted felons led to large number of false positives, in which persons with, for example, the same name as a convicted felon, were improperly purged. Purged voters were, in most cases, notified months before the election and given an opportunity to appeal, but the necessity to file an appeal was in itself a barrier which probably discouraged some legitimate, non-felon citizens from voting. According to the Palm Beach Post, at least 1,100 people were improperly purged.



The overbreadth of the purge was well-known in Florida before the election. As a result, election officials in 20 of Florida's counties ignored the purge list entirely. In these counties, convicted felons were allowed to vote. Also according to the Post, thousands of felons were improperly allowed to vote in the 20 non-purging counties.



When allowed to vote, felons vote approximately 69 percent Democratic, according to a study in the American Sociological Review. Therefore, if the thousands of felons in the non-purging 20 counties had been not been illegally allowed to vote, it is likely that Bush's statewide margin would have been substantially larger. (On the other hand, John Lott's study of the Florida fiasco suggests that Republicans and Democrats were purged in approximately equal numbers, with Black Republicans being disproportionately impacted.)



It seems to me that even if we presume that the 1,100 wrongly purged Florida voters would have voted Democratic at the same rate that felons do (even though some of these voters were non-felons who were the victim of mistaken identity), the net result of the 2000 purge fiasco harmed Bush: the number of votes which Gore gained as a result of 20 counties refusing to conduct the felon purge far outnumbered how many votes that Gore lost as the result of the overbroad purges in other counties.



Regardless, Moore's claim that the purge was conducted on the basis of race was indisputably false. As the Palm Beach Post details, all the evidence shows that Data Base Technologies did not use race as a basis for the purge. Indeed, DBT's refusal to take note of a registered voter's race was one of the reasons for the many cases of mistaken identity.



Bush Presidency before September 11

Deceit 5



The movie lauds an anti-Bush riot that took place in Washington, D.C., on the day of Bush’s inauguration. Moore continues: “No President had ever witnessed such a thing on his inauguration day. And for the next eight months it didn’t get any better for George W. Bush. He couldn’t get his judges appointed; he had trouble getting his legislation passed; and he lost Republican control of the Senate. His approval ratings in the polls began to sink.”



Part of this is true. Once Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican party, Democrats controlled the Senate, and stalled the confirmation (not “appointment”) of some of the judges whom Bush had nominated for the federal courts.



Congress did enact the top item on Bush’s agenda: a large tax cut. During the summer, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives easily passed many of Bush’s other agenda items, including the bill whose numbering reflected the President’s top priority: H.R. 1, the Bush “No Child Left Behind” education bill. The fate of the Bush bills in the Democratic-controlled Senate, as of August 2001, was uncertain. The Senate later did pass No Child Left Behind, but some other Bush proposals did not pass.



Bush Vacations

Deceits 6-7



Fahrenheit 911 states, “In his first eight months in office before September 11th, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time.”

Shortly before 9/11, the Post calculated that Bush had spent 42 percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route, including all or part of 54 days at his ranch. That calculation, however, includes weekends, which Moore failed to mention.

Tom McNamee, “Just the facts on ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ Chicago Sun-Times, June 28, 2004. See also: Mike Allen, “White House On the Range. Bush Retreats to Ranch for ‘Working Vacation’,” Washington Post, August 7, 2001 (Many of those days are weekends, and the Camp David stays have included working visits with foreign leaders.)

[T]he shot of him “relaxing at Camp David” shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say “shows,” even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won’t recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.



The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that’s what you get if you catch the president on a golf course.

Christopher Hitchens, “Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore,” Slate.com, June 21, 2004.



By the way, the clip of Bush making a comment about terrorism, and then hitting a golf ball, is also taken out of context, at least partially:

Tuesday night on FNC’s Special Report with Brit Hume, Brian Wilson noted how “the viewer is left with the misleading impression Mr. Bush is talking about al-Qaeda terrorists.” But Wilson disclosed that “a check of the raw tape reveals the President is talking about an attack against Israel, carried out by a Palestinian suicide bomber.”

"Cyberalert," Media Research Center, July 1, 2004, item. 3.



September 11

Deceit 8



Fahrenheit presents a powerful segment on the September 11 attacks. There is no narration, and the music is dramatic yet tasteful. The visuals are reaction shots from pedestrians, as they gasp with horrified astonishment.



Moore has been criticized for using the reaction shots as a clever way to avoid showing the planes hitting the buildings, and some of the victims falling to their deaths. Even if this is true, the segment still effectively evokes the horror that every decent human being still feels about September 11.



But remember, Moore does not necessarily feel the same way. As New York’s former Mayor Edward Koch reported, Moore later said, “I don’t know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you will be struck by lightning than die from an act of terror.”



Like several of the other deceits identified in this report, the September 11 deceit is not part of the film itself. Several of the deceits involve claim that Moore has made when discussing the film. Like some deceits which are identified near the end of this report, the September 11 deceit involves the contradiction between Moore's purported feelings about a topic in the movie and what appear to be his actual feelings about that topic. If a Klansman made a film which feigned admiration for Rosa Parks, that too would be a form of deceit, even if the film were accurate in its portrayal of Parks as a great American hero.



On the other hand, a person might feel great personal sympathy for the victim of a lightning strike, but the same person might feel that, overall, the "lightning problem" is not worth making a big fuss over. Fahrenheit present September 11 as a terrible tragedy, and as something worth making a big fuss. On this latter point, Fahrenheit's purported view does not appear to be the same as Moore's actual view. Although I consider the disjunction to be deceitful, other people may not.



If you don't find my argument convincing, don't count this item as a "deceit." If you're not convinced by this item, you may likewise not be convinced by some of the items at the end of this report, which involves omissions rather than outright lies. If you think that this report would be better-titled as "The Fifty-Four Deceits of Fahrenheit 911," I accept your good-faith criticism. Let us just remember that whether the precise number of deceits is 54 or 59, it is unacceptable for a documentary or an op-ed to contain dozens of falsehoods.



Bush on September 11

Deceit 9



Fahrenheit mocks President Bush for continuing to read a story to a classroom of elementary school children after he was told about the September 11 attacks.



What Moore did not tell you:

Gwendolyn Tose’-Rigell, the principal of Emma E. Booker Elementary School, praised Bush’s action: “I don’t think anyone could have handled it better.” “What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?”…



She said the video doesn’t convey all that was going on in the classroom, but Bush’s presence had a calming effect and “helped us get through a very difficult day.”

“Sarasota principal defends Bush from ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ portrayal,” Associated Press, June 24, 2004. Also, since the President knew he was on camera, it was reasonable to expect that if he had suddenly sped out of the room, his hasty movement would have been replayed incessantly on television; leaving the room quickly might have exacerbated the national mood of panic.



Moore does not offer any suggestion about what the President should have done during those seven minutes, rather than staying calm for the sake of the classroom and of the public. Nor does Moore point to any way that the September 11 events might have turned out better in even if the slightest way if the President had acted differently. As with the previous item, people may differ about whether this segment should be considered deceitful, or perhaps just a very cheap shot.



Pre-911 Briefing

Deceits 10-12



Castigating the allegedly lazy President, Moore says, “Or perhaps he just should have read the security briefing that was given to him on August 6, 2001 that said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes.”



Moore supplies no evidence for his assertion that President Bush did not read the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief. Moore’s assertion appears to be a complete fabrication.



Moore smirks that perhaps President Bush did not read the Briefing because its title was so vague. Moore then cuts to Condoleezza Rice announcing the title of the Briefing: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”



However, no-one (except Moore) has ever claimed that Bush did not read the Briefing, or that he did not read it because the title was vague. Rather, Condoleezza Rice had told the press conference that the information in the Briefing was “very vague.” National Security Advisor Holds Press Briefing, The White House, May 16, 2002.



The content of the Briefing supports Rice’s characterization, and refutes Moore’s assertion that the Briefing “said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes.” The actual Briefing was highly equivocal:

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Shaykh” ‘Umar’ Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

(Some readers have wondered how this short segment qualifies as three deceits: 1. that Bush did not read the memo, 2. that the memo's title was offered as an excuse for not reading the memo, 3. omitting that the memo was equivocal, and that the hijacking warning was something that the FBI said it was "unable to corroborate.")



Saudi Departures from United States

Deceits 13-16

Moore is guilty of a classic game of saying one thing and implying another when he describes how members of the Saudi elite were flown out of the United States shortly after 9/11.

If you listen only to what Moore says during this segment of the movie—and take careful notes in the dark—you’ll find he’s got his facts right. He and others in the film state that 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country after Sept. 13.

The date—Sept. 13—is crucial because that is when a national ban on air traffic, for security purposes, was eased

But nonetheless, many viewers will leave the movie theater with the impression that the Saudis, thanks to special treatment from the White House, were permitted to fly away when all other planes were still grounded. This false impression is created by Moore’s failure, when mentioning Sept. 13, to emphasize that the ban on flights had been eased by then. The false impression is further pushed when Moore shows the singer Ricky Martin walking around an airport and says, “Not even Ricky Martin would fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one. Except the bin Ladens.”

But the movie fails to mention that the FBI interviewed about 30 of the Saudis before they left. And the independent 9/11 commission has reported that “each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.”

McNamee, Chicago Sun-Times. (Note: The Sun-Times article was correct in its characterization of the Ricky Martin segment, but not precisely accurate in the exact words used in the film. I have substituted the exact quote. One September 13, U.S. airspace was re-opened for a small number of flights; charter flights were allowed, and the airlines were allowed to move their planes to new airports to start carrying passengers on September 14. Although there is still conflict on the issue, there appears to have been a charter flight from Tampa, Florida, which took three Saudis to Lexington, Kentucky.)

Tapper: [Y]our film showcases former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, using him as a critic of the Bush administration. Yet in another part of the film, one that appears in your previews, you criticize members of the Bush administration for permitting members of the bin Laden family to fly out of the country almost immediately after 9/11. What the film does not mention is that Richard Clarke says that he OK’d those flights. Is it fair to not mention that?

Moore: Actually I do, I put up The New York Times article and it’s blown up 40 foot on the screen, you can see Richard Clarke’s name right there saying that he approved the flights based on the information the FBI gave him. It’s right there, right up on the screen. I don’t agree with Clarke on this point. Just because I think he’s good on a lot of things doesn’t mean I agree with him on everything.

Jake Tapper interview with Michael Moore, ABC News, June 25, 2004.



Again, Moore is misleading. His film includes a brief shot of a Sept. 4, 2003, New York Times article headlined “White House Approved Departures of Saudis after Sept. 11, Ex-Aide Says.” The camera pans over the article far too quickly for any ordinary viewer to spot and read the words in which Clarke states that he approved the flights.



Some Saudis left the U.S. by charter flight on September 14, a day when commercial flights had resumed, but when ordinary charter planes were still grounded. When did the bin Ladens actually leave? Not until the next week, as the the 9/11 Commission staff report explains:

Fearing reprisals against Saudi nationals, the Saudi government asked for help in getting some of its citizens out of the country….we have found that the request came to the attention of Richard Clarke and that each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.

No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001. After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace.

The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity.

The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether the TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the Terrorist Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on the flight manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current TIPOFF watchlist. There are no matches.

The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion.

(Deceits: 1. Departure dates for Saudis, 2. Omission of Richard Clarke's approval for departures, 3. Lying to Jake Tapper about whether Clarke's role was presented in the movie, 4. Omission of Commission staff finding that many Saudis were asked "detailed questions" before being allowed to leave.)



Bush and James Bath

Deceit 17

Moore mentions that Bush’s old National Guard buddy and personal friend James Bath had become the money manager for the bin Laden family, saying, [that after the bin Ladens invested in James Bath,] “James Bath himself in turn invested in George W. Bush.” The implication is that Bath invested the bin Laden family’s money in Bush’s failed energy company, Arbusto. He doesn’t mention that Bath has said that he had invested his own money, not the bin Ladens’, in Bush’s company.

Matt Labash, “Un-Moored from Reality,” Weekly Standard, July 5, 2004. See also: Frank, Newsday; Michael Isikoff & Mark Hosenball, "More Distortions From Michael Moore. Some of the main points in ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ really aren’t very fair at all," MSNBC.com, June 30, 2004.



Moore makes a big point about the name of James Bath being blacked out from Bush National Guard records which were released by the White House. The blackout might appear less sinister if Moore revealed that many other names were blacked out, to protect the privacy of former National Guard members. In fact, federal law required the Alabama National Guard to black out the names of all other Guardsmen whose medical information was on the same pages as the records which the Alabama Guard released regarding George Bush's health records. So what Moore presents as a sinister effort to conceal the identity of James Bath was in fact the legally-required compliance with federal law.



Bush and Prince Bandar

Deceit 18



Moore points out the distressingly close relationship between Saudi Arabia’s ambassador, Prince Bandar, and the Bush family. But Moore does not explain that Bandar has been a bipartisan Washington power broker for decades, and that Bill Clinton repeatedly relied on Bandar to advance Clinton’s own Middle East agenda. (Elsa Walsh, “The Prince. How the Saudi Ambassador became Washington’s indispensable operator,” The New Yorker, Mar. 24, 2003.)



President Clinton’s former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Wyche Fowler, has been earning a lucrative living as a Saudi apologist and serving as Chairman of the Middle East Institute—a research organization heavily funded by Saudi Arabia. (Joel Mowbray, “Feeding at the Saudi Trough,” Townhall.com, Oct. 1, 2003.)



I am not suggesting that Mr. Fowler is in any way corrupt; I’m sure that he is sincere (although, in my view, mistaken) in his strongly pro-Saudi viewpoint. What is misleading is for Moore to look at the web of Saudi influence in Washington only in regard to the Republican Bushes, and to ignore the fact that Saudi influence and money are widespread in both parties.



Harken Energy

Deceits 19-20



Bush once served on the Board of Directors of the Harken Energy Company. According to Fahrenheit:

Moore: Yes, it helps to be the President’s son. Especially when you’re being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
TV reporter: In 1990 when M. Bush was a director of Harken Energy he received this memo from company lawyers warning directors not to sell stock if they had unfavorable information about the company. One week later he sold $848,000 worth of Harken stock. Two months later, Harken announced losses of more than $23 million dollars.

Moore:…Bush beat the rap from the SEC…

What Moore left out: Bush sold the stock long after he checked with those same “company lawyers” who had provided the cautionary memo, and they told him that the sale was all right. Almost all of the information that caused Harken’s large quarterly loss developed only after Bush had sold the stock.



Despite Moore’s pejorative that Bush “beat the rap,” no-one has ever found any evidence suggesting that he engaged in illegal insider trading. (Byron York, “The Facts About Bush and Harken. The president’s story holds up under scrutiny,” National Review Online, July 10, 2002.)



Carlyle Group

Deceits 21-23

Moore’s film suggests that Bush has close family ties to the bin Laden family—principally through Bush’s father’s relationship with the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm. The president’s father, George H.W. Bush, was a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group’s Asian affiliate until recently; members of the bin Laden family—who own one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest construction firms—had invested $2 million in a Carlyle Group fund. Bush Sr. and the bin Ladens have since severed ties with the Carlyle Group, which in any case has a bipartisan roster of partners, including Bill Clinton’s former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt. The movie quotes author Dan Briody claiming that the Carlyle Group “gained” from September 11 because it owned United Defense, a military contractor. Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman notes that United Defense holds a special distinction among U.S. defense contractors that is not mentioned in Moore’s movie: the firm’s $11 billion Crusader artillery rocket system developed for the U.S. Army is one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration.

Michael Isikoff, “Under the Hot Lights. Moore’s movie will make waves. But it’s a fine line between fact and fanaticism. Deconstructing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11.” Newsweek, June 28, 2004.


Moore claims that refusing to mention the Crusader cancellation was alright because the cancellation came after the United Defense IPO. But the cancellation had a serious negative financial impact on Carlyle, since Carlyle still owns 47% of United Defense.

Moore tells us that when Carlyle took United Defense public, they made a one-day profit of $237 million, but under all the public scrutiny, the bin Laden family eventually had to withdraw (Moore doesn’t tell us that they withdrew before the public offering, not after it).

Labash, Weekly Standard.



There is another famous investor in Carlyle whom Moore does not reveal: George Soros. (Oliver Burkeman & Julian Borger, “The Ex-Presidents’ Club,” The Guardian (London), Oct. 31, 2000.) But the fact that the anti-Bush billionaire has invested in Carlyle would detract from Moore’s simplistic conspiracy theory.



Moore alleges that the Saudis have given 1.4 billion dollars to the Bushes and their associates.

Moore derives the $1.4 billion figure from journalist Craig Unger’s book, “House of Bush, House of Saud.” Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990’s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country’s military and National Guard. What’s the significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group, the powerhouse private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board has included the president’s father, George H.W. Bush.

...The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman, is that former president Bush didn’t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998—five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm.

Isikoff & Hosenball, MSNBC.com. (The full text of the article contains the counter-argument by Moore's "war room" and the replies by Isikoff and Hosenball).



Saudi Investments in the United States

Deceit 24



Moore asks Craig Unger: “How much money do the Saudis have invested in America, roughly?”

Unger replies “Uh, I've heard figures as high as $860 billion dollars.”



Instead of relying on unsourced figures that someone says he “heard,” let’s look at the available data. According to the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy (a pro-Saudi think tank which tries to emphasize the importance of Saudi money to the United States), in February 2003 total worldwide Saudi investment was at least $700 billion. Sixty percent of the Saudi investments were in the United States, so the Saudis had about 420 billion invested in the U.S.—a large amount, but less than half of the amount that Moore’s source claims he “heard.” (Tanya C. Hsu , “The United States Must Not Neglect Saudi Arabian Investment” Sept. 23, 2003.)



Special Protection for Saudi Embassy

Deceit 25



Moore shows himself filming the movie near the Saudi embassy in Washington, D.C.:

Moore as narrator: Even though we were nowhere near the White House, for some reason the Secret Service had shown up to ask us what we were doing standing across the street from the Saudi embassy….

Officer: That’s fine. Just wanted to get some information on what was going on.
Moore on camera: Yeah yeah yeah, I didn’t realize the Secret Service guards foreign embassies.
Officer: Uh, not usually, no sir.

But in fact:

Any tourist to Washington, DC, will see plenty of Secret Service Police guarding all of the other foreign embassies which request such protection. Other than guarding the White House and some federal buildings, it’s the largest use of personnel by the Secret Service’s Uniformed Division.

Debbie Schlussel, “FAKEN-heit 9-11: Michael Moore’s Latest Fiction,” June 25, 2004.



According to the Secret Service website:

Uniformed Division officers provide protection for the White House Complex, the Vice-President's residence, the Main Treasury Building and Annex, and foreign diplomatic missions and embassies in the Washington, DC area.

So there is nothing strange about the Secret Service protecting the Saudi embassy in Washington—especially since al Qaeda attacks have taken place against Saudi Arabia.



Alleged Bush-Saudi Conspiracy

Deceit 26

Moore asks, “Is it rude to suggest that when the Bush family wakes up in the morning they might be thinking about what's best for the Saudis instead of what's best for you?” But his Bush/Saudi conspiracy theory is contradicted by very obvious facts:

…why did Moore’s evil Saudis not join “the Coalition of the Willing”? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other’s pockets…then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq’s recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly. They fear the liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film’s “theory.”

Hitchens, Slate. This isn't to say that concerns about the wishes and interests of the Saudi rulers play too large a role in American foreign policy--especially in the U.S. State Department, which has been notoriously supportive of pro-U.S. Arab dictatorships for many decades. I would much prefer that the State Department and other American foreign policymakers spent less time worrying about friendly relations with the governments of Saudi Arabia, China, and other dictatorships, and more time supporting the aspirations of people who want to free themselves from dictatorship. But complaining about the historic pro-Saudi tilt in U.S. foreign policy, a tilt which is partly the result of extensive business relations between the two countries, is not the same as propounding a tin-hat conspiracy theory that George Bush is servile tool of the bin Laden family.



Proposed Unocal Pipeline in Afghanistan

Deceits 27-31

Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while Bush was governor, over a possible pipeline deal with Unocal. But Moore doesn’t say that they never actually met with Bush or that the deal went bust in 1998 and had been supported by the Clinton administration.

Labash, Weekly Standard.

Moore asserts that the Afghan war was fought only to enable the Unocal company to build a pipeline. In fact, Unocal dropped that idea back in August 1998.

Jonathan Foreman, “Moore’s The Pity,” New York Post, June 23, 2004.

In December 1997, a delegation from Afghanistan’s ruling and ruthless Taliban visited the United States to meet with an oil and gas company that had extensive dealings in Texas. The company, Unocal, was interested in building a natural gas line through Afghanistan. Moore implies that Bush, who was then governor of Texas, met with the delegation.

But, as Gannett News Service points out, Bush did not meet with the Taliban representatives. What’s more, Clinton administration officials did sit down with Taliban officials, and the delegation’s visit was made with the Clinton administration’s permission.

McNamee, Chicago Sun-Times.

Whatever the motive, the Unocal pipeline project was entirely a Clinton-era proposal: By 1998, as the Taliban hardened its positions, the U.S. oil company pulled out of the deal. By the time George W. Bush took office, it was a dead issue—and no longer the subject of any lobbying in Washington.

Isikoff & Hosenball, MSNBC.com.



On December 9, 2003, the new Afghanistan government did sign a protocol with Turkmenistan and Pakistan to facilitate a pipeline. Indeed, any Afghani government (Taliban or otherwise) would rationally seek the revenue that could be gained from a pipeline. But the new pipeline (which has not yet been built) has nothing to do with Unocal. Nor does the new proposed pipeline even resemble Unocal's failed proposal; the new pipeline would the bring oil and gas from the Caspian Sea basin, whereas Unocal's proposal involved deposits five hundred miles away, in eastern Turkmenistan.



Fahrenheit showed images of pipeline construction, but images have nothing to do with the Caspian Sea pipeline, for which construction has never begun. Nor do they have anything to do with the Unocal pipeline, which never existed except on paper.



According to Fahrenheit, Afghanistan's new President, Hamid Karzai, was a Unocal consultant. This is false. Sumana Chatterjee and David Goldstein, "A lowdown on the facts behind the allegations in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'," Knight-Ridder newspapers, July 2, 2004.



Bush Administration Relationship with the Taliban

Deceit 32

Moore also tries to paint Bush as sympathetic to the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan until its overthrow by U.S.-led forces shortly after Sept. 11. Moore shows a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban envoy, saying the Bush administration “welcomed” the official, Sayed Hashemi, “to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban.”

Yet Hashemi’s reception at the State Department was hardly welcoming. The administration rejected his claim that the Taliban had complied with U.S. requests to isolate Osama bin Laden and affirmed its nonrecognition of the Taliban.

“We don’t recognize any government in Afghanistan,” State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said on the day of the visit.

Frank, Newsday.



Moore Claimed that Osama bin Laden Might be Innocent and Opposed the Afghanistan War

Deceits 33-34



Fahrenheit 911 attempts in every way possible to link Osama bin Laden to George Bush. Moore even claims that Bush deliberately gave bin Laden “a two month head start” by not putting sufficient forces into Afghanistan soon enough. However:

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous “distraction” from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.

Hitchens, Slate.



Three days after September 11, Moore demanded that no military action be taken against Afghanistan:

"Declare war?" War against whom? One guy in the desert whom we can never seem to find? Are our leaders telling us that the most powerful country on earth cannot dispose of one sick evil f---wad of a guy? Because if that is what you are telling us, then we are truly screwed. If you are unable to take out this lone ZZ Top wannabe, what on earth would you do for us if we were attacked by a nation of millions? For chrissakes, call the Israelis and have them do that thing they do when they want to get their man! We pay them enough billions each year, I am SURE they would be happy to accommodate your request....

But do not declare war and massacre more innocents. After bin Laden's previous act of terror, our last elected president went and bombed what he said was "bin Laden's camp" in Afghanistan -- but instead just killed civilians.

Michael Moore, "War on Whom?" AlterNet, Sept. 14, 2004.



The next day he wrote:

Trust me, they are talking politics night and day, and those discussions involve sending our kids off to fight some invisible enemy and to indiscriminately bomb Afghans or whoever they think will make us Americans feel good.

...I fear we will soon be in a war that will do NOTHING to protect us from the next terrorist attack.

"Mike's Message," Sept. 15, 2001. Although Moore vehemently opposed the Afghanistan War, Fahrenheit criticizes Bush for not putting more troops into Afghanistan sooner.



Are we any safer because the U.S. military eliminated the al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, removed a government which did whatever al Qaeda wanted, and killed or captured two-thirds of the al Qaeda leadership? Fahrenheit's thesis that the Afghanistan War was solely for the pipeline and to distract attention from Saudi Arabia is inconsistent with the well-known results of the war. A sincere patriot could have opposed the Afghanistan War for a variety of reasons, such as fear that the invasion might stir up even more anti-American sentiment. But the only reason which Fahrenheit offers for opposing the war is the claim that not enough force was used in the early stages (a criticism contrary to Moore's 2001 opposition to the use of any force), and the factually indefensible claim that the results of the war did not help American security or harm terrorists.



Afghanistan after Liberation

Deceit 35

we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return….[A] highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

Hitchens, Slate.



John Ashcroft

Deceit 36

Moore mocks Attorney General John Ashcroft by pointing out that Ashcroft once lost a Senate race in Missouri to a man who had died three weeks earlier. “Voters preferred the dead guy,” Moore says, delivering one of the film’s biggest laugh lines.

It’s a cheap shot. When voters in Missouri cast their ballots for the dead man, Mel Carnahan, they knew they were really voting for Carnahan’s very much alive widow, Jean. The Democratic governor of Missouri had vowed to appoint Jean to the job if Mel won.

McNamee, Chicago Sun-Times.



Rep. Porter Goss

Deceit 37



Defending the Patriot Act, Representative Porter Goss says that he has an “800 number” for people to call to report problems with the Act. Fahrenheit shoots back that Goss does not have such a number; the ordinary telephone number for Goss’s office is flashed on the screen.



You’d never know by watching Fahrenheit, but Rep. Goss does have a toll-free number to which Patriot Act complaints can be reported. The number belongs to the Committee which Goss chairs, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The number is (877) 858-9040.



Although the Committee’s number is toll-free, the prefix is not “800,” and Moore exploits this trivial fact to create the false impression that Goss lied about having a toll-free number.



As far as I can tell, the slam on Rep. Goss is the only factual error in the segment on the misnamed Patriot Act. While there are a few good things in the Act, Moore's general critique of the Act is valid. The Act does contain many items which had long been on the FBI wish-list, which do not have real relation to the War on Terror, and which were pushed through under the pretext of 9/11. Similar critiques are also valid for the Clinton "terrorism" bill which was pushed through Congress in 1996. As for Moore's claim that the motive of the Patriot Act was to terrify the American people, I disagree, but it's a matter of opinion, and therefore beyond the scope of this report.



Saddam Hussein Never Murdered Americans

Deceits 38-39



Fahrenheit asserts that Saddam’s Iraq was a nation that “had never attacked the United States. A nation that had never threatened to attack the United States. A nation that had never murdered a single American citizen.”

Jake Tapper (ABC News): You declare in the film that Hussein’s regime had never killed an American …

Moore: That isn’t what I said. Quote the movie directly.

Tapper: What is the quote exactly?

Moore: “Murdered.” The government of Iraq did not commit a premeditated murder on an American citizen. I’d like you to point out one.

Tapper: If the government of Iraq permitted a terrorist named Abu Nidal who is certainly responsible for killing Americans to have Iraq as a safe haven; if Saddam Hussein funded suicide bombers in Israel who did kill Americans; if the Iraqi police—now this is not a murder but it’s a plan to murder—to assassinate President Bush which at the time merited airstrikes from President Clinton once that plot was discovered; does that not belie your claim that the Iraqi government never murdered an American or never had a hand in murdering an American?

Moore: No, because nothing you just said is proof that the Iraqi government ever murdered an American citizen. And I am still waiting for you to present that proof.

You’re talking about, they provide safe haven for Abu Nidal after the committed these murders, uh, Iraq helps or supports suicide bombers in Israel. I mean the support, you remember the telethon that the Saudis were having? It’s our allies, the Saudis, that have been providing help and aid to the suicide bombers in Israel. That’s the story you should be covering. Why don’t you cover that story? Why don’t you cover it?

Note Moore’s extremely careful phrasing of the lines which appear to exonerate Saddam, and Moore’s hyper-legal response to Tapper. In fact, Saddam provided refuge to notorious terrorists who had murdered Americans. Saddam provided a safe haven for Abu Abbas (leader of the hijacking of the ship Achille Lauro and the murder of the elderly American passenger Leon Klinghoffer), for Abu Nidal, and for the 1993 World Trade Center bombmaker, Abdul Rahman Yasin. By law, Saddam therefore was an accessory to the murders. Saddam order his police to murder former American President George Bush when he visited Kuwait City in 1993; they attempted to do so, but failed. In 1991, he ordered his agents to murder the American Ambassador to the Philippines and, separately, to murder the employees of the U.S. Information Service in Manila; they tried, but failed. Yet none of these aggressions against the United States “count” for Moore, because he has carefully framed his verbs and verb tenses to exclude them.



According to Laurie Mylroie, a former Harvard professor who served as Bill Clinton's Iraq advisor during the 1992 campaign (during which Vice-Presidential candidate Gore repeatedly castigated incumbent President George H.W. Bush for inaction against Saddam), the ringleader of the World Trade Center bombings, Ramzi Yousef, was working for the Iraqi intelligence service. Laurie Mylroie, The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks: A Study of Revenge (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2d rev. ed. 2001.)



But even with Moore’s clever phrasing designed to elide Saddam’s culpability in the murders and attempted murders of Americans, Tapper still catches him with an irrefutable point: Saddam did perpetrate the premeditated murder of Americans. Every victim of every Palestinian terrorist bomber who was funded by Saddam Hussein was the victim of premeditated murder—including the American victims.



So what does Moore do? He tries to change the subject. Moore makes the good point that the U.S. media should focus more attention on Saudi financial aid to Palestinian terrorists who murder Americans in Israel. On NRO, I’ve pointed to Saudi terror funding, as have other NRO writers. But pointing out Saudi Arabia’s guilt does not excuse Moore’s blatant lie about Saddam Hussein’s innocence.



Saddam’s Threats

Deceit 40



Moore’s pro-Saddam allegation that Saddam “never threatened to attack the United States” is true in the narrow sense that Saddam never gave a speech in which he threatened to, for example, send the Iraqi navy and army to conduct an amphibious invasion of Florida. But although Saddam never threatened the territorial integrity of America, he repeatedly threatened Americans. For example, On November 15, 1997, the main propaganda organ for the Saddam regime, the newspaper Babel (which was run Saddam Hussein's son Uday) ordered: "American and British interests, embassies, and naval ships in the Arab region should be the targets of military operations and commando attacks by Arab political forces." (Stephen Hayes, The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2004), p. 94.)



Moreover, Saddam did not need to make verbal threats in order to “threaten” the United States. He threatened the United States by giving refuges to terrorists who had murdered Americans, and by funding terrorists who were killing Americans in Israel. Saddam gave refuge to terrorists who had attacked the United States by bombing the World Trade Center. In addition:

In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more…

….Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam….On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the “Dear Leader” Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition’s presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)

Hitchens, Slate. The cited article is David E. Sanger & Thom Shanker, "A Region Inflamed: Weapons. For the Iraqis, a Missile Deal That Went Sour; Files Tell of Talks With North Korea, New York Times, Dec. 1, 2003.



As French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin stated on November 12, 2002, "The security of the United States is under threat from people like Saddam Hussein who are capable of using chemical and biological weapons." (Hayes, p. 21.) De Villepin's point is indisputable: Saddam the kind of person who was capable of using chemical weapons, since he had actually used them against Iraqi who resisted his tyrannical regime. As de Villepin spoke, Saddam was sheltering terrorists who had murdered Americans, and was subsidizing the murder of Americans (and many other nationalities) in Israel.



Iraq and al Qaeda

Deceit 41-42



Moore declares that George Bush completely fabricated an Iraq/al Qaeda connection in order to deflect attention from his Saudi masters. But consider the facts presented in Stephen F. Hayes's book, The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2004). The first paragraph of the last chapter (pp. 177-78) sums up some of the evidence:

Iraqi intelligence documents from 1992 list Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset. Numerous sources have reported a 1993 nonaggression pact between Iraq and al Qaeda. The former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence now in U.S. custody says that bin Laden asked the Iraqi regime for arms and training in a face-to-face meeting in 1994. Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer al Iraqi met with Iraqi intelligence officials in 1995. The National Security Agency intercepted telephone conversations between al Qaeda-supported Sudanese military officials and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program in 1996. Al Qaeda sent Abu Abdallah al Iraqi to Iraq for help with weapons of mass destruction in 1997. An indictment from the Clinton-era Justice Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda "weapons development" in 1998. A senior Clinton administration counterterrorism official told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had supported al Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999. An Iraqi working closely with the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur was photographed with September 11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar en route to a planning meeting for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11 attacks in 2000. Satellite photographs showed al Qaeda members in 2001 traveling en masse to a compound in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Iraqi regime. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, senior al Qaeda associate, operated openly in Baghdad and received medical attention at a regime-supported hospital in 2002. Documents discovered in postwar Iraq in 2003 reveal that Saddam's regime harbored and supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attack...

Hayes is a writer for The Weekly Standard and much of his writing on the Saddam/Osama connection is available there for free; simply use the search engine and look for articles by Hayes.



Fahrenheit shows Condoleezza Rice saying, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.” The audience laughs derisively. Here is what Rice really said:

Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.

I agree with Hayes that there is significant evidence suggesting possible Iraqi involvement in 9/11, but Moore deceptively cut the Rice quote to fool the audience into thinking she was making a particular claim, even though she was pointedly not making such a claim.



The preliminary staff report of the September 11 Commission states, "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." Some critics, as a the chief prosecutor of the World Trade Center bombers, have argued that the staff report inexplicably ignores substantial evidence of Iraqi involvement in the September 11 attacks. Whether you agree with the staff report or the critics, there is no dispute that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with al Qaeda, an organization whose only activity was terrorism. Fahrenheit dishonestly pretends that there was no relationship at all.



Iraq before Liberation

Deceit 43

Moore shows scenes of Baghdad before the invasion (read: liberation) and in his weltanschauung, it’s a place filled with nothing but happy, smiling, giggly, overjoyed Baghdadis. No pain and suffering there. No rape, murder, gassing, imprisoning, silencing of the citizens in these scenes. When he exploits and lingers on the tears of a mother who lost her soldier-son in Iraq, and she wails, “Why did you have to take him?” Moore does not cut to images of the murderers/terrorists (pardon me, “insurgents”) in Iraq…or even to God; he cuts to George Bush. When the soldier’s father says the young man died and “for what?”, Moore doesn’t show liberated Iraqis to reply, he cuts instead to an image of Halliburton.

Jeff Jarvis, "Watching Michael Moore," Buzz Machine weblog, June 24, 2004.

The most offensive sequence in “Fahrenheit 9/11”’s long two hours lasts only a few minutes. It’s Moore’s file-footage depiction of happy Iraq before the Americans began their supposedly pointless invasion. You see men sitting in cafes, kids flying kites, women shopping. Cut to bombs exploding at night.

What Moore presumably doesn’t know, or simply doesn’t care about, is that the building you see being blown up is the Iraqi Ministry of Defense in Baghdad. Not many children flew kites there. It was in a part of the city that ordinary Iraqis weren’t allowed to visit—on pain of death.

…Iraq was ruled by a regime that had forced a sixth of its population into fearful exile, that hanged dissidents (real dissidents, not people like Susan Sontag and Tim Robbins) from meathooks and tortured them with blowtorches, and filled thousands of mass graves with the bodies of its massacred citizens.

Yes, children played, women shopped and men sat in cafes while that stuff went on—just as people did all those normal things in Somoza’s Nicaragua, Duvalier’s Haiti and for that matter Nazi Germany, and as they do just about everywhere, including in Iraq today.

Foreman, New York Post.



Invasion of Iraq

Deceits 44-45

According to the footage that ensues, our pilots seem to have hit nothing but women and children.

Labash, Weekly Standard.

Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment…I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn’t now, either. I’ll just say that the “insurgent” side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that’s not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)

Hitchens, Slate.



Major Coalition Partners Ignored

Deceit 46

Q: You mock the “coalition of the willing” by only showing the tiny countries that have voiced support. But you leave out England, Spain, Italy and Poland. Why?

Moore: “This film exists as a counterbalance to what you see on cable news about the coalition. I’m trying to counter the Orwellian nature of the Big Lie, as if when you hear that term, the ‘coalition,’ that the whole world is behind us.”

Patrick Goldstein, “Truth teller or story stretcher?” Los Angeles Times, June 22, 2004.



If it is a “Big Lie” to mention only the powerful and important members of the Coalition (such as England and Australia), then it is an equally “Big Lie” to mention only the small and insignificant members of the Coalition.



Media Attitudes

Deceit 47

In very selectively edited clips, Moore poses the absurd notion that the main news anchors—Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, and Ted Koppel—wholeheartedly support Bush and the War in Iraq….Has Moore forgotten the hour-long Saddam softball interview Rather did just prior to the war, [or] Jennings’ condescending coverage…?

Schlussel.



Jennings is shown delivering a broadcast in which he says, “Iraqi opposition has faded in the face of American power.” But Jennings was simply stating an undeniable fact, as he stood next to a map showing that Saddam’s army had collapsed everywhere, and all Iraqi cities were in Coalition hands. Despite what Moore implies, Jennings strongly opposed the liberation of Iraq. (Tim Graham, “Peter’s Peace Platoon. ABC’s Crusade Against ‘Arrogant’ American Power,” Media Research Center, March 18, 2003.)



Support for Soldiers and Veterans

Deceits 48-50



Bush “supported closing veterans hospitals” says Moore. The Bush Department of Veteran’s Affairs did propose closing seven hospitals in areas with declining populations where the hospitals were underutilized, and whose veterans could be served by other hospitals. Moore does not say that the Department also proposed building new hospitals in areas where needs were growing, and also building blind rehabilitation centers and spinal cord injury centers. (For more, see the Final Report of the independent commission on veterans hospitals, which agrees with some of the Bush proposals, and with some of the objections raised by critics.)



According to Moore, Bush “tried to double the prescription drug costs for veterans.” What Bush proposed was raising the prescription co-pay from $7 to $15, for veterans with incomes of over $24,000 a year. Prescription costs would have remained very heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Some, not all, veterans would have faced a doubling of their prescription co-pay, but only to a level which is common for many people with prescription insurance, and hardly a large enough increase to make a great difference in most cases.



Bush, announces Moore, “proposed cutting combat soldiers’ pay by 33%.” Not exactly. In addition to regular military salaries, soldiers in certain areas (not just combat zones) receive an “imminent danger” bonus of $150 a month. In April 2003, Congress retroactively enacted a special increase of $75, for the fiscal year of Oct. 1, 2002 through Sept. 30, 2003. At first, the Bush administration did not support renewing the special bonus, but then changed its position



Likewise, Congress had passed a special one-year increase in the family separation allowance (for service personnel stationed in places where their families cannot join them) from $100 to $250. Bush’s initial opposition to extending the special increase was presented by Moore as “cutting assistance to their families by 60%.” (Edward Epstein, “Pentagon reverses course, won’t cut troops’ pay,” San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 15, 2003.)



Even if one characterizes not renewing a special bonus as a “cut,” Fahrenheit misleads the viewer into thinking that the cuts applied to total compensation, rather than only to pay supplements which constitute only a small percentage of a soldier’s income. An enlisted man with four months of experience receives an annual salary more than $27,000. (Rod Powers, “What the Recruiter Never Told You: Military Pay.”)



Although Moore presents Bush as cutting military pay, Bush did the opposite: in 2003, Congress enacted a Bush administration proposal to raise all military salaries by 3.7%, with extra “targeted” pay increases for non-commissioned officer. NCOs are lower-ranking officers who typically join the military with lower levels of education than commissioned officers. (Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample, “Defense Department Targets Military Pay Increases for 2004,” American Forces Press Service.)



(Deceits: 1. Closing veterans hospitals without mentioning of opening of veteran's hospitals, 2. Cutting combat soldiers pay as if it were a cut in total salary, 3. Omission of Bush pay increase for military. Prescription drugs not counted as deceit, although important context is missing.)



Congressional Children in War

Deceits 51-54



Early in this segment, Moore states that “only one” member of Congress has a child in Iraq. The action of the segment consists of Moore accosting Congressmen to try to convince them to have their children enlist in the military. At the end, Moore declares, “Not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq.”



Moore’s statement is technically true, but duplicitous. Of course no-one would want to “sacrifice” his child in any way. But the fact is, Moore's opening ("only one") and his conclusion ("not a single member") are both incorrect. Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in Iraq in 2003. The son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter quit his job after September 11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery unit was deployed in the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden's son Beau is on active duty; although Beau Biden has no control over he is deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and therefore does not "count" for Moore's purposes.



How about Cabinet members? Fahrenheit never raises the issue, because the answer would not fit Moore’s thesis. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s son is on active duty. (Fahrenheit Fact.)



The editing of the Congressional scenes borders on the fraudulent:

….Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in Fahrenheit 9/11, was censored by Michael Moore.
According to the Star Tribune, Kennedy, when asked if he would be willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore that his son was thinking about a career in the navy and that two of his nephews had already served in the armed forces. Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive.

What was Michael’s excuse for trimming the key segment? Kennedy’s remarks didn’t help his thesis: “He mentioned that he had a nephew that was going over to Afghanistan,” Moore recounted. “So then I said ‘No, no, that’s not our job here today. We want you to send your child to Iraq. Not a nephew.’”

Kennedy lambasted Moore as a “master of the misleading” after viewing the interview in question.

Fahrenheit Fact.



George Stephanopoulos, of ABC News, asked Moore about the selective cuts in the Kennedy footage:

Stephanopoulos: You have a scene when you’re up on Capitol Hill encountering members of Congress, asking them if they would ask their sons and daughters to enlist … in the military. And one of those members of Congress who appears in the trailer, Mark Kennedy, said you left out what he told you, which is that he has two nephews serving in the military, one in Afghanistan. And he went on to say that, “Michael Moore doesn’t always give the whole truth. He’s a master of the misleading.”

Moore: Well, at the time, when we interviewed him, he didn’t have any family members in Afghanistan. And when he saw the trailer for this movie, he issued a report to the press saying that he said that he had a kid in—

Stephanopoulos: He said he told you he had two nephews.

Moore:… No, he didn’t. And we released the transcript and we put it on our Web site. This is what I mean by our war room. Any time a guy like this comes along and says, “I told him I had two nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan,” he’s lying. And I’ve got the raw footage and the transcript to prove it. So any time these Republicans come at me like this, this is exactly what they’re going to get. And people can go to my Web site and read the transcript and read the truth. What he just said there, what you just quoted, is not true.



This Week followed up with the office of Rep. Kennedy. He did have two nephews in the military, but neither served in Iraq. Kennedy’s staff agrees that Moore’s Website is accurate but insists the movie version is misleading. In the film, Moore says, “Congressman, I’m trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq.” But, from the transcript, here’s the rest:

Moore: Is there any way you could help me with that?

Kennedy: How would I help you?

Moore: Pass it out to other members of Congress.

Kennedy: I’d be happy to — especially those who voted for the war. I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.

This Week, ABC News, June 20, 2004.



So while Fahrenheit pretended that Kennedy rebuffed Moore, Kennedy agreed to help Moore.



Fahrenheit shows Moore calling out to Delaware Republican Michael Castle, who is talking on a cell phone and waves Moore off. Castle is presented one of the Congressmen who would not sacrifice his children. What the film omits is that Rep. Castle does not have any children.



Are Congressional children less likely to serve in Iraq than children from other families? Let’s use Moore’s methodology, and ignore members of extended families (such as nephews) and also ignore service anywhere expect Iraq (even though U.S. forces are currently fighting terrorists in many countries). And like Moore, let us also ignore the fact that some families (like Rep. Castle’s) have no children, or no children of military age.



We then see that of 535 Congressional families, there are two with a child who served in Iraq. How does this compare with American families in general? In the summer of 2003, U.S. troop levels in Iraq were raised to 145,000. If we factor in troop rotation, we could estimate that about 300,000 people have served in Iraq at some point. According to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000 households in the United States in 2000. (See Table 1 of the Census Report.) So the ratio of ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service personnel is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1.



In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service personnel is 535:2. This reduces to a ratio of 268:1.



Stated another way, a Congressional household is about 23 percent more likely than an ordinary household to be closely related to an Iraqi serviceman or servicewoman.

Of course my statistical methodology is very simple. A more sophisticated analysis would look only at Congressional and U.S. households from which at least one child is legally eligible to enlist in the military. Moore, obviously, never attempted such a comparison; instead, he deceived viewers into believing that Congressional families were extremely different from other families in enlistment rates.



Moore ignores the fact that there are 102 veterans currently serving in Congress. Regardless of whether they have children who could join the military, all of the veterans in Congress have personally put themselves at risk to protect their country.



(Deceits: 1. number of Congressional children in Iraq, 2. Mark Kennedy, 3. Michael Castle, 4. False impression that Congressional families are especially unlikely to serve in Iraq.)



Lila Lipscomb and Military Casualties

Deceit 55

Moore exploits the grief of Lila Lipscomb, the mother of a soldier who died in Iraq. She denounces Bush and the War. But there are many mothers and relatives of US soldiers, alive and dead, who served there who don’t agree with her. Don’t look for them in this agit-prop “film.”

Schlussel.



Fahrenheit wallows in pity for Mrs. Lipscomb. “I was tired of seeing people like Mrs. Lipscomb suffer,” he claims. Yet Moore’s website takes a different view:

I’m sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.

Michael Moore, “Heads Up... from Michael Moore,” MichaelMoore.com, April 14, 2004.



Fahrenheit is correct in pointing out that people who enlist in the military are less likely to be college graduates and more likely to be black than is the general U.S. population. However, Moore's portrayal of the socioeconomics of the U.S. military is false is several respects. First, people who are at the lowest end of the economic spectrum--people who have failed to graduate from high school or to obtain a G.E.D.--are not over-represented in the military. Like college graduates, they are under-represented. In the case of high school drop-outs, the reason is that the all-volunteer military can be selective, and generally prefers to not to enlist high-school drop-outs.



Although blacks are about twice as likely to serve in the military as is the general U.S. population, black people do not suffer disproportionate casualties in Iraq. To the contrary, the black casualty percentage is very close to the black population percentage. The reason is that many blacks in the military serve in support roles (such as providing supplies) which are unlikely to suffer high rates of casualties. Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr., "The Fallen: A profile of U.S. troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan," GovExec.com, May 28, 2004.



Moore’s Pro-Saddam Source

Deceit 56



Washington Representative Jim McDermott appears in several segments.

McDermott was one of three Congressmen who went on Saddam’s propaganda tour of Iraq in Fall 2002. The trip was funded by Life for Relief and Development (LRD), a “charity” which laundered money to terrorist group Hamas’ Jordanian operation. LRD is funded in part by Shakir Al-Khafaji, a man who did about $70 million in business with Saddam through his Falcon Trading Group company (based in South Africa). LRD’s Iraqi offices were raided by US troops last week, and the Detroit-area “charity” is suspected of funding uprisings, such as the one in Fallujah. Its officials bragged of doing so at a recent private US fundraiser.

Mr. Alkhafaji, one of two Americans named in Iraqi newspapers as a participant in Saddam’s “Oil for Food” scam, gave Congressman McDermott $5,000 in October 2002 for McDermott’s legal defense fund in a lawsuit against him….

Schlussel.



The McDermott quotes are, obviously, not similar to the deceitful quote of Condoleezza Rice, in which her quote was twisted to mean the opposite of what she really said. McDermott is apparently quite sincere, and there is no indication that anything he said was taken out of context. So you don't have to count this as a deceit if you don't want to. On the other hand, McDermott's quotes about the alleged motivations of the Bush administration are supported by no evidence, and amount to nothing more than the speculative ravings of one of the very few pro-Saddam members of Congress. To rely on McDermott to explain the Bush administration's alleged secret intentions is akin to relying on a bitter atheist to describe an alleged secret conspiracy in the Vatican.



Celebrities

Deceit 57

He shows Britney Spears saying she supports the President on Iraq. As if there weren’t a host of brain-dead bimbo celebs, (Madonna, Sean Penn, Russell Simmons, Lenny Kravitz, Susan Sarandon, The Dixie Chicks, etc.), spouting off on the other side.

Schlussel. As with much of the Iraq material, the Spears quote is not an outright fraud, but is the result of perspective which is so one-sided as to be misleading.



Moore Supports Terrorists

Deceit 58



In Fahrenheit 911, Moore claims to support our troops. But in fact, he supports the enemy in Iraq—the coalition of Saddam loyalists, al Qaeda operatives, and terrorists controlled by Iran or Syria—who are united in their desire to murder Iraqis, and to destroy any possibility of democracy in Iraq. Here is what Moore says about the forces who are killing Americans and trying to impose totalitarian rule on Iraq:

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.

Michael Moore, “Heads Up... from Michael Moore,” MichaelMoore.com, April 14, 2004. Of course if you believe that the people who are perpetrating suicide bombings against Iraqi civilians and American soldiers in order to force a totalitarian boot onto Iraq are the moral equivalent of the American Founders, then Moore's claim about the Iraqi insurgents could be valid. But even if that claim were valid (and I do not believe that any reasonable person can equate people fighting for totalitarianism with people fighting for constitutional democracy), then Moore is still being dishonest in Fahrenheit when he pronounces his concern for American troops. To the contrary, he is cheering for the forces which are killing our troops, as he equates the killers with freedom-fighters. And if you think that the people who are slaughtering American soldiers, American civilians, Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi civilians are terrorists rather than "minutemen," then it is true that Moore supports terrorists.



There are some sincere opponents of the Iraq War who want to "support our troops" by bringing them home, and thereby getting them out danger. But it's deceptive to say that you support the troops if (besides lobbying for troop withdrawal) you are actively recruiting enemy fighters to kill our troops. Moore is doing so, as the next item details.



Moore is Working with Terrorists to Distribute His Film

Deceit 59



As reported in the trade journal Screen Daily, affiliates of the Iranian and Syrian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah are promoting Fahrenheit 911, and Moore’s Middle East distributor, Front Row, is accepting the terrorist assistance:

In terms of marketing the film, Front Row is getting a boost from organizations related to Hezbollah which have rung up from Lebanon to ask if there is anything they can do to support the film. And although [Front Row’s Managing Director Giancarlo] Chacra says he and his company feel strongly that Fahrenheit is not anti-American, but anti-Bush, “we can’t go against these organizations as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria.”

Nancy Tartaglione, “Fahrenheit to be first doc released theatrically in Middle East,” Screen Daily.com, June 9, 2004 (website requires registration). The story is discussed in Samantha Ellis, “Fahrenheit 9/11 gets help offer from Hezbollah,” The Guardian, June 17, 2004; and “Moore film distributor OK with terror support: Exec says firm doesn’t want to risk boycott of ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ in Mideast,” WorldNetDaily.com, June 22, 2004.


According to Screen Daily, Moore’s film will open in mid-July on ten screens in Lebanon and two screens in Syria. Syria is a terrorist state which invaded Lebanon in the 1970s and controls the nation through a puppet government. The main al Qaeda commander in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has worked with Hezbollah and has operated out of Syria.



Moore accuses the United States of sacrificing morality because of greed: “The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich.” David Brooks, “All Hail Moore,” New York Times, June 28, 2004.



Yet it turns out that the self-righteous Moore is the one who is accepting aid from a terrorist organization which has murdered and kidnapped hundreds of Americans--and also an organization that works with Zarqawi and al Qaeda. Just to avoid a boycott on a dozen screens in a totalitarian terrorist state and its colony?



Moore is, with terrorist assistance, pushing the film in Syria and a Syrian colony, both of which are places which supply some of the fighters who are currently killing Americans and anti-totalitarian Iraqis. Fahrenheit presents the fighters as noble resistance, and the American presence as entirely evil. It is reasonable to expect that such a film, when shown in Syria and Lebanon, will aid in the recruiting of additional fighters to kill Americans and Iraqis. In effect, the presentation of Fahrenheit in Syria and Lebanon--especially with explicit endorsement from a terrorist organization--amounts to a recruiting film for terrorists (or, in Moore's terms, "minutemen") to go to Iraq and kill Americans.



Because of Syria's oppression of Lebanon and its support for terrorism in Iraq and other nations, Congress passed and President Bush signed the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. The Act authorizes the U.S. government to freeze the assets of individuals or organization "who are determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to be or to have been directing or otherwise significantly contributing to" Syrian sponsorship terrorist organizations or the destabilization Iraq.



Theoretically, it might be possible that Moore has no personal awareness that his Middle East distributor is working with terrorists. But such ignorance is unlikely for two reasons: First, Moore’s “war room” staff monitors controversial articles about the film, and there could hardly be anything more controversial than making common cause with terrorists. Not only has the Hezbollah relationship been publicized in a leading film trade on-line newspaper, the Moore-Hezbollah connection has been reported in one of the very most significant British newspapers, and in an important American on-line newspaper.



Second, Moore was personally questioned about the terrorist connection at a Washington, D.C., press conference. He at first denied the terrorist connection, but was then confronted with the direct quote from his distributor. He stonewalled and refused to answer. So the man who spends so much time getting in other people’s faces with tough questions is unwilling to explain why he is accepting aid from Hezbollah.



The conclusion of Fahrenheit quotes from George Orwell’s 1984, the novel of a totalitarian state perpetually at war. According to Orwell, the true purpose of the war was to perpetuate “a hierarchical society” based on “poverty and ignorance.” The real purpose of war as “to keep the very structure of society intact.” Fahrenheit applies Orwell’s words to the United States of today.



Moore’s purported positions on some issues in Fahrenheit are different from his previous positions: whether people should have made a big deal about September 11, whether Osama bin Laden is guilty of the September 11 attacks, whether American families, including the Lipscombs, deserve to suffer the deaths of their children because they supported the war. But throughout Michael Moore’s career, he has remained true to the central theme of Fahrenheit: capitalist America is the real terrorist state. Because America is a capitalist society, American use of force is necessarily evil.



Four days after September 11, Moore announced: “We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants.” (The statement has been deleted from Moore’s website, but is available through the web archive service called the Wayback Machine.) This is the view of Fahrenheit 911: Iraq under Saddam was fine until America began terrorizing it.



Saddam Hussein agrees; after September 11, his government issued an official statement declaring, "The American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their crimes against humanity." Saddam's media showed him telling his generals, "Those who do not want to harvest evil, should not plant evil...Despite the contradictory humanitarian feelings on what happened in America, America is harvesting the thorns that its rulers have planted in the world...Nobody has crossed the Atlantic carrying weapons against America, but it has crossed the Atlantic carrying death and destruction to the whole world." (For more of Moore's anti-American statements, see "ScaryJohnKerry and Michael Moore." It should be noted, though, the John Kerry has never associated himself with Moore's hateful comments.)



Throughout American history, there have always been patriotic Americans who criticized particular war-time policies, or who believed that a war was a mistake and should be promptly ended. Today, there are many patriotic Americans who oppose some or all aspects of the War on Terror. I am among them, in that I have strongly opposed the Patriot Act from its first days, have denounced the Bush administration for siding with corporate interests rather than with public safety by sabotaging the Armed Pilots law, and have repeatedly stated that the current Saudi tyranny should be recognized as a major part of the problem in the War on Terror--despite the tyranny's close relationship with America's foreign policy élite.



In contrast to the large number of patriots who have argued against particular wars or wartime policies, a much smaller number of Americans have hated America. They have cheered for the fighters who were killing Americans. They have belittled America’s right to protect itself, and they have produced propaganda designed to destroy American morale and to facilitate enemy victory. To advance their anti-American cause, they have sometimes feigned love for the nation they despised.



Do the many falsehoods and misrepresentations of Fahrenheit 911 suggest a film producer who just makes careless mistakes? Or does a man who calls Americans: “possibly the dumbest people on the planet" believe that his audience will be too dumb to tell when he is tricking them? Viewers will have to decide for themselves whether the extremist and extremely deceptive Fahrenheit 911 is a conscientious work of patriotic dissent, or the cynical propaganda of a man who gives wartime aid to America’s murderous enemies, and who accepts their aid in return.



Dave Kopel is Research Director of the Independence Institute and an NRO columnist. He has previously written about the deceptions in “Bowling for Columbine.” Like Michael Moore, in 2000 Kopel endorsed and voted for Ralph Nader.


1963 COMMUNIST GOALS

The following was entered into the Congressional record by Albert Herlong, Jr. (a Floridian who served in Congress from 1949-69) in 1963.

1) US acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war
2) US willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war
3) Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the US would be a demonstration of "moral strength"
4) Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5) Extension of long term loans to Russia and Soviet Satellites
6) Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination
7) Grant recognition of Red China, and admission of Red China to the UN.
8) Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the Germany question by free elections under supervision of the UN
9) Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the US has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress
10) Allow all Soviet Satellites individual representation in the UN
11) Promote the UN as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the UN as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo)
12) Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party
13) Do away with loyalty oaths
14) Continue giving Russia access to the US Patent Office
15) Capture one or both of the political parties in the US
16) Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17) Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism, and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in text books.
18) Gain control of all student newspapers
19) Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20) Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21) Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures.
22) Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings", substitute shapeless, awkward, and meaningless forms.
23) Control art critics and directors of art museums. " Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art".
24) Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25) Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography, and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.
26) Present Homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as "normal, natural, and healthy".
27) Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch"
28) Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state"
29) Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30) Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man".
31) Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture:" Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32) Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture - - education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33) Eliminate all laws or procedures, which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34) Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35) Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI
36) Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37) Infiltrate and gain control of big business
38) Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.
39) Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40) Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41) Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42) Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special interest groups should rise up and make a "united force" to solve economic, political, or social problems.
43) Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44) Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45) Repeal the Connally Reservation so the US can not prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.
Guest 05-Aug-2004 15:04
Terrorists are bad. 911 was terrible Saddam was/is terrible
911 had nothing to do with Irac or Saddam
Irac is now a mess with little hope and a breeding ground for terrorists
The USA is no safer than it was pre Irac but is more isolationist and hated
The USA has provided Islamic extremists what amounts to recuitment videos
The world would have helped the USA fight terror. After 911 you had the worlds sympathy. You could have used it instead of abusing anyone who didn’t go along with the USAs distorted and now proven wrong view of who was responsible
Most of the world was not against tracking terrorists down and bringing them to justice. It is a shame the USA did not take a more inclusive aproach
Guest 04-Aug-2004 01:48
Total crap. I'm all for the U.S. colonizing the world. A lot of people seem to forget about all the United Nations Sanctions Iraq ignored, what about all the Iranians and Kurds that were gassed by Saddam.
Guest 03-Aug-2004 20:03
If you guys don't like the way the U.S. is run then why don't you move out to someplace friendly like Iran or Iraq and try to protest,Oh thats right if you did they would shoot you on sight,I guess the U.S. isn't so bad after all is it?
californiaguy 29-Jul-2004 22:26
Sorry, I'm a complete dumb ass. I just found out the REAL truth fromhttp://www.prisonplanet.com. Oh wait, I'm not a complete dumb ass, I mean I know really big fancy words like cost benefit analysis. And how that translates into justification of killing innocent people on our watch.

Look californiaguy, you make good points about the amount of poeple that died due to sanctions on Iraq (your 10K a month figure). And I don't think the guy before you was saying Iraq was better off before we went in there. But the fundamental problem is the amount of deceit that was fed to us from our Govt. And how that led us into this war, of which we now carry all this blood on our hands. I know you Right Wingers think liberals are pussy's and we're a bunch of cowards. That really isn't the truth. We would be behind this war if it was truly just, honestly (less the hardcord anti-war folks). But we Liberal's (like france / germany and most of europe) believe that you can solve a lot of the world's problem's not through force but through using your words and your mind (intellect)...in conjunction with our relationships around the world to assist us in those efforts. We didn't in this case, and that is why you have so many pissed of individuals.

Don't you think man will eventually evolve past having to resort to violence and war to solve problems? We need to begin taking these steps and setting these examples now for the sake of future generations.
californiaguy 28-Jul-2004 03:52

Make the "oil" argument when it's convenient, "human rights" argument when it's convenient. Grow up, dickhead, and learn to take everything into account when making decisions instead of cherry-picking your arguments.
Guest 27-Jul-2004 15:56
In that case Californiaguy, we should be at war with Somalia (near ethnic cleansing going on) and Saudi Arabia (worse human rights violations than Iraq). Face it dumb ass, it a war over oil and no lame excuse can justify it for anything else.
Guest 27-Jul-2004 12:44
WHEN CLINTON LIES NO ONE DIED:

October 3rd and 4th 1993, Mogadishu, Somalia.
californiaguy 25-Jul-2004 21:57

Rational discourse essentially means cost-benefit analysis. Going to war costs us...but guess what, you idiot, not going to war also costs us. War kills people...but guess what, you imbecile, not going to war also kills people (on average 10k Iraqis a month under Hussein). It is so easy for you liberals to talk about the killings that take place because of war, but you people are oblivious to the killings that take place because we didn't go to war earlier! Go back to college and learn about cost-benefit analysis and opportunity cost, you idiots.
Guest 24-Jul-2004 02:50
Have you noticed how all these bush-bashers you see in the street always look like freaks? These people are just plain weird! Not to mention they always seem to have time to protest, I mean don't these people work? Hatred and envy against the US is alive and strong, of course these are the same people who only wish they could live in this great nation.
D. Trump 24-Jul-2004 01:40
Randal:

Why? The US offers the highest potential to get rich. Never mind the slim chances, it's MONEY that's on immigrants minds. If this feature of the US makes it the best country in the world, than so be it. Who cares about the world outside of the US once you're in it. No one.
Doug Frost23-Jul-2004 20:28
It's interesting to see how the pro-Bush posters almost always resort to ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with them. Instead of rational discourse, they usually take the cowardly route and fall back on name-calling and insults. Perhaps this kind of bludgeoning is the only way they can get people to agree with them.

I can't help but wonder if this were 1933 Germany, how many of these same people would have lined up to join the Nazi party. Ad hominem attacks on political opponents were the Nazis' stock-in-trade in the early days too, before they acquired an appetite for more final solutions.
Guest 23-Jul-2004 20:02
I particularly like the photo with the sign about the difference between Clinton's lies and Bush's. Whatever you may think of Clinton's lies about Monica Lewinsky, at least no one had to die because of them. The rabid right will goosestep behind Bush no matter what. It's up to thinking Americans to send him packing on election day.

November 5, 2004: Regime change in America!
randal 18-Jul-2004 23:57

Statistics from the United Nations, Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2001):

Top 5 countries - net migrants (immigration-emigration) 1995-2000

(1) USA = 6.3 million
(2) Germany = 924k
(3) Canada = 720k
(4) Italy = 588k
(5) UK = 475k

If this is a stupid country, then why are there more people waiting in line to get into this country than any other in the world? Mr. Guest, your own ignorance is showing.




Guest 17-Jul-2004 23:30
What a stupid country you are livining in...
californiaguy 16-Jul-2004 21:26
Liberals (and Bush haters) are emotionally driven, not knowledge-driven. They neither understand how to be objective nor the negative impact of their ignornance. Cost-and-benefit analysis is a foreign language to them. What does ignorance look like? See pictures above.

I was an immigrant to this country. These liberals do not know what it is like to be oppressed. I'm damn proud of President Bush. These people do not deserve the freedom of America (I don't care if they were born here!).
californiaguy 16-Jul-2004 21:19
Liberals (and Bush haters) are emotionally driven, not knowledge-driven. They neither understand how to be objective nor the negative impact of their ignornance. Cost-and-benefit analysis is a foreign language to them. What does ignorance look like? See pictuers above.
Guest 15-Jul-2004 21:18
You communist make me sick...some day i'll find a way to get you all deported! Take your Bush-hating propaganda, and keep it away where I dont have to see it!
Guest 11-Jul-2004 00:51
Interesting comments here from both sides: It comes down to this, Your Vote, plain and simple, yeah yeah, 911 Im still feeling it, probably will for the rest of my life. .."It comes down to this baby, your VOTE. Come November, we'll see what party affilitaion has the larger testicles, or ovaries from that matter, until then hand me another kleenex and keep our troops in God's hand.....Oh did I mention that 911 is also my phones speed dialing # to my local Pizza Hut,

Please vote come November and put all the verbal trash talk to bed for the next 4 yrs.

Rober (French for "I lick you wife's...never mind)
Guest 09-Jul-2004 18:24
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatrotic and servile, but is morally treasonous to the American public." - Teddy Roosvelt. 1918
monique jansen07-Jul-2004 08:34
to the photographer: you should delete all the cowardly comments where people have just logged on as guests - if they are too cowardly to show their face/name, in order to come up for their beliefs...
POMAH07-Jul-2004 00:36
Nicely captured! I am still amazed at how hilariously misguided some conservatives really are. Some of the things they can say with a straight face would make many a stand-up comedian jealous. If it weren't all that serious, I would still be laughing. And what confounds me even more is that these very same folks take these excellent, gorgeous photos! They know how to work the camera so I guess that can't be all that #%*&-ed in the head. But if they cannot be convinced, can they be cured?

Guest 05-Jul-2004 17:08
Idiots...
Guest 04-Jul-2004 20:28
Photos of no major significance. These fools believe that the vast Right Wing Conspirancy is shadowing this country! Let's all protest and run toward the hills. Eight years of Clinton led to lies and degradation of American security. Where were these bozos then?? Hypocritical and misinformed masses.
Guest 02-Jul-2004 18:24
MlKE

hey dude, why waste energy on bush, just relax man.
do you also stand up for your mother or daddy like you do it for bush?
relax man, come to holland and have some weed man, and go to the girls too will ya!!! i really know you need it!!!
Robert 02-Jul-2004 03:12
Bush does not lie... tell me what he has lied about specifically citing your references and NOT inuendo. I think your proof is week and you speak from your fear of the future. Remember freedom is NOT free. It has and will continue to cost lives of friends, family, loved ones, and those we have never known. All being part of the wall that protects us from the religous fanaticism of Islam and their demented view of Holy War.
lulloff 01-Jul-2004 18:35
the problem with you liberals is that you all have erased from your memories the feelings that you had on sept 11 and the weeks after. We can not afford to be reactive anymore, thank the Lord for George Bush, Cheney, Rice et al, they are cleaning up the mess Clinton left and trying to bring some ethics and respectability to the oval office.
Go Bush 2004
Guest 01-Jul-2004 15:26
In response to comments: you are dickheads.

Bush lies ABOUT KILLING PEOPLE. Clinton lied about having HIS DICK SUCKED. This country is one puritanical, over-religous, stupidly patriotic excuse for a wanna-be-empire; barely even noticing it’s own decline. The US population is so in fear, that they'll likely re-elect this false President because he talks kinda tough, using words of limited syllables, so your average Fox News audience thinks they’re understanding. Most people here haven’t got the time or interest to actually be educated about the issues. Americans are too busy over-consuming to think beyond their own daily wants. It’s disgusting.

Thankfully the rest of the civilized world just laughs.
Guest 01-Jul-2004 01:10
"When Clinton Lied Noone Died" ---> RIDICULOUS

While Clinton was busy lying, instead of attending to the security of the US, people died in the first World Trade Center attack, in the attack on the US Warship Cole, etc. Had Clinton declared war on Osama when he declared war on us, instead of waiting for Bush to act maybe 3000 lives could have been saved on September 11th. Plenty of lives were lost while Clinton was lying!!!
MIke 01-Jul-2004 00:59
You are one dumb butt ugly bitch. I can see why you are angry at the world.

Do us all a favor and buy a turbo vibrator...it might make you a nicer person

BUSH RULES












































































































































































monique jansen30-Jun-2004 11:46
ALthough I still like that "When CLinton lied, nobody died" slogan. A very good find.
JG 30-Jun-2004 01:00
YOU BUSH BASHERS NEED YOUR HEADS EXAMINED. ADDITIONALLY, YOU NEED AN ECONOMIC EDUCATION.
LET'S HOPE PRES.BUSH STAYS THE COURSE TO VICTORY OVER WORLD TERRORISM.
Guest 29-Jun-2004 16:06
Guest, GUEST!!! Sorry, just trying to wake you from your liberal, freedom loving Michael Moore worshipping slumber.
Did you say provoked by the prison abuse?? These people have been cutting peoples heads off for centuries; please say you don't believe that they need provoking!

Ok, let's say that you uneducated buffoons are right; the war was based on pure greed! The end result is that a man that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people is no more. Oh, wait, you guys probably think the mass graves are the result of some terrible accident, like a mustard or Sarin gas leak, no; Sadaam didn’t have that type of stuff, no way. The Kurds just all happened to get a bad case of indigestion and died with their guts spewing out of their throats all at the same time by coincidence.
Who the F… would they sell the oil too, Toys R Us, you Morons, Texaco happens to be a huge Gasoline producing company, you know, that stuff you don’t mind guzzling in your SUVs and bitch about when the price jumps 2 cents.

Here’s something for all of you (you know who you are) to think about. I lost a friend last week, that makes four, he was 22, he died fighting so that Bush and the other rich folks could get richer; you F..king wish! He died trying to remove a group from power that has terrorized their own people and the world for decades, he died trying to help rid the world of a terror organization that invariably killed someone that you knew, or was a friend of someone you knew. While you were getting up late and painting some new signs to protest the government that gives you this dreamland life that you live, his mother was telling the media that he died doing what he believed in. What do you really believe in?

I am one small, unimportant man! Soon, I leave again for that vacation mecca called Afghanistan, it’s ok, I’ve been there before. Except this time I’m really scared! I’m scared because there’s a chance that while I’m there my commander may change, my BIG BOSS may end up being someone that I fear more than war.

So, here’s my warning, from a man that has spent his entire adult life in the intelligence/counter-intelligence world. If you think Bush is doing such a poor job, then put John Kerry in office, but be prepared, because shortly, within a year, there will come a time when we may not have to leave the US to see war casualties. They’ll be in the airports (Europe), train stations (Spain), office buildings (US) and maybe your neighborhood.

Screk

Guest 29-Jun-2004 03:34
Gennady is a stupid uneducated shmuck! Being born in the USSR was not enough for him: he wants to be f***d by the really Big Brother now! Ask your relatives to send you some old copies of Brezhnev-era gazeta Pravda newspaper-see how that compares to USA Today and Fox TV nowadays! YOu'll be amazed.
Gennady 28-Jun-2004 17:34
Leftiest liberals are the best friends of dictators and islamic terrorists.
Saddam killed millions but liberals like him as they liked Stalin before 70 years.
I was born in USSR and I hate leftiest.
EMangl27-Jun-2004 05:56
amazing reactions here; can it be that government puts something into water or mc-food to keep people blind and stupid ?
Harold 27-Jun-2004 03:36
You stupid liberals are a joke. Thank god you dont control the white house.

Why are female liberals so ugly,,,,,,guess that is why they are angry at the world
Guest 24-Jun-2004 05:12
At this point one should be mentally challenged to vote for Bush.

Unless
1. You enjoy seeing young men and women of this country die and kill other innocent people in a foreign land following the commands of a liar.
2. You like your country losing its credibility all over the world and don't mind rest of the world to hate you.
3. You are in the oil business and have close connections with Bush Inc.
4. You only watch Fox and CNN and have a tendency to believe everything you hear.
Guest 24-Jun-2004 02:40
Some of the bush in the other galleries should be protested...ugh.
monique jansen18-Jun-2004 14:08
too bad most of the commentary is political instead of photo criticism - but with galleries like these, I guess that is what you have to expect. It is certain that Bush is dividing a nation.
Hannah 13-Jun-2004 01:18
Amazing photos. I especially love "when Clinton lied, no one died!" I'm not going to bash the Republican POV, because everyone is entitled to an opinion, but the fact that they all have to flame your gallery is sad.
Guest 12-Jun-2004 15:39
from the # of responses to this gallery, indeed it is true that pictures are worth a thousand words. keep shooting!
Guest 11-Jun-2004 23:03
By the way, I did enjoy your journalistic photos.
Guest 11-Jun-2004 23:01
Here we go again. A liberal asshole posts photos and all the American apologists come out of the woodwork. I am amused by this, because I used to be a liberal too. Then I grew up and realized the freedom you miserable protesters take for granted are not so free. As far as I'm concerned, George Bush and his friends can have all the oil in Iraq. It is a just reward for standing up to dictators and terrorists. Something our friend Clinton didn't have the balls to do. France??? Irelevent!!! There would be no France if it were not for the US and it's allies. Germany!!! Count them among your friends, but don't turn your back on them. They are known for well built autos and their love of war-but only ones they start. Of course the country of Hitler would love Saddam Hussein.
Thank God for our American heroes, George Bush Sr. and Jr. and all the men and women who put their life on the line so you miserable apologists can go on with your silly rants.
Guest 11-Jun-2004 08:58
Wow. First vessel of crude oil was sold from the United States of Iraq to Texaco. Everything sure must be fine and dandy by now in Texas.

Gee, if only I was from an oil tycoon family and have the power to kill of my competitors. I wonder what I'd do.

We don't blame you Bush. Our Boys will continue fighting for your oil!

WAKE UP AMERICA! WHY ARE HICKS SO BLINDED?
Guest 10-Jun-2004 20:34
"Cutting off a mans head while he screams for mercy, that's abuse..."

Ever thought for a moment that they might have been provoked by the Iraqi Prison abuse?

Didn't think so.

Oh, I forgot. The Geneva agreement doesn't count anymore, according to the White house.



November can not come soon enough.
Guest 08-Jun-2004 18:46
Or listening to what's really going on around you and perhaps doing something positive with your time!!
Guest 08-Jun-2004 15:23
Carrying signs and throwing tantrums sure looks a lot easier than getting a job and going to work.
Guest 07-Jun-2004 12:57
QUOTE:Where are those weapons of mass destruction? All I've seen are my countrymen come home in body bags. Oh, and pictures of them abusing prisoners of war. Shame on us, America, for allowing this president to run rampant with little regard for human life.QUOTE

I only see one weapon of mass destruction and that was enough for me. His name was Sadaam and he ran the largest terrorist camp in the world, Iraq. If you can't accept that then this discussion is in vain.

Oh, and as far as abusing prisoners; Walking up on a car full of wounded Americans, throwing gas into the vehicle and burning them alive, then pulling their bodies out and hanging them from bridges while small boys stand on their charred skulls, that's abuse my friend, not this frat boy prankish crap we all have seen pictures of. Cutting off a mans head while he screams for mercy, that's abuse "blind man".

You people wake up or one day it just might not be a stranger that one of these guys kill!!
Guest 06-Jun-2004 03:23
I"m not gonna hide behind being a guest. I think that your generation is messed up...you liberals really scare me. You oppose everything but have no solutions that are realistic to the problem.
Guest 06-Jun-2004 00:48
Where are those weapons of mass destruction? All I've seen are my countrymen come home in body bags. Oh, and pictures of them abusing prisoners of war. Shame on us, America, for allowing this president to run rampant with little regard for human life.
D. J. 04-Jun-2004 20:40
This are really sad pictures. Not of the reason for the protesting, but of the people in the pictures who haven't a clue. Spoon-feed misinformation from who knows where.

People who protest the movement to free the people over there should go on a vacation trip and visit the country they so quick to protest what we are doing over-there and talk to the people how have been terrorized by their occupants for years on end. People over there who welcome our troups and the chance to free a country of a dicator and the torture these people/groups bring. They may walk away with a correct understanding of what exactly the reason we are there for instead of this political mud-slinging garbage!

Where were all you people on 9-11? I don't remember seeing any protestors and signs during the media coverage of the World Trade Centers.

It must be very nice to sit back in the comfort of your well protected homes and take time out of your busy schedules to make up those signs. Protection paid for by the blood of Americans and other nationalities from around the world who gave their lives and shed their blood for freedom! I understand now that your kind does not support freedom, just by the actions you take. Sounds very much like your kind protests the wars for freedom and support the terroristic dictators and groups who shed blood in the name of torture and terror!
Tim Rucci04-Jun-2004 06:28
The reason it was a "small group" of protestors is that the majority of people are in support of the President, and the cause to help the Iraqi people.

Isn't this supposed to be a photo site? You'd be better to post your political BS somewhere else.
Guest 04-Jun-2004 01:12
Thanks Andrew, I did it for people just like you. And it sounds like I will be doing it again soon. I didn't mean to rant in my post, I just get angry sometimes, I apologize!
Guest 03-Jun-2004 22:05
I thank you for your service to our country, Willy. Toni.......(sigh)....what can I say? How so very soon the liberal segment of this country forgets 911 and most recently the beheading of Mr. Berg. This is what they want for YOU, Toni! For all of us. Are you truly so blind? Or just so filled with hatred towards one man? It's so very heartbreaking to read such misinformed posts such as yours. Again...thanks Willy. It's brave young men and womaen such as yourselves that insure our way of life. And if it weren't for my age I'd have been standing shoulder to shoulder with you my friend.
Guest 01-Jun-2004 15:11
After my last post I thought about calling my friend Helge and asking him to read your BS and tell me what he thought. But then, I remembered, he died in Afghanistan fighting for the freedoms you so readily take for granted.
Guest 01-Jun-2004 14:46
First: TONI, learn to spell stupid ass!

Second: I just got back from Iraq, the year before I was in Afghanistan. If you pieces of bleeding heart crap don't like it move to your precious France or Germany. Let's see the freedoms you have there.

There were/are more terrorist training bases in Iraq than in almost any other country in the world (Africa, yes your beloved Africa has the highest NEWS FLASH)

Please, be my guest, vote Kerry into office, then we can all sit back and watch this country crumble under the punishment of an enemy that will not care, will not falter and will NOT STOP until we are all dead. We can all walk around with our protest signs and tie-dyed shirts while they slowly take over the world with fear and murder. Do you think that they care for one f..king minute about your ideals or that you want to find out "what really makes them hate us". To them, you are a cancer that needs removing and they will stop at nothing to make that happen.

Enjoy this posting place, enjoy your comments, just remember something, no matter how many times you've heard soemone say this, when a veteran hears you say this kind of garbage all he or she can think to say is "you're welcome"!
Guest 01-Jun-2004 14:37
I may be wrong in thinking this but these protesters have the freedom to go and buy a ruler for thier signs.
Yawn 31-May-2004 23:35
Death to Islam.
Toni 31-May-2004 15:08
"the root cause of today's terrorism is that there are certain people who wish to inflict their medieval theocratic vision of squalor"

i agree! bushist "christianism" is just theocracy at the lowest degree.
all true americans are wellcome to europe, but mad wardogs it is better stay at home.
on the 4th of july we will wormly wellcome mr bush (the first unelected president) in Rome, stay tuned.

thanks for the pictures: it is a real pleasure to see americans that still hold the flag of freedom and peace, not of obscurantistic war and hate & fear. you are the best part of the big country, don't let the illeterate texas oil bosses stop you.

out the us troops from irak
Another Tim 31-May-2004 06:54
Uh, to answer a question from earlier, the root cause of today's terrorism is that there are certain people who wish to inflict their medieval theocratic vision of squalor on both their own people and the rest of the world. To imply that Osama Bin Laden could have been avoided if we'd done the diplomatic equivalent of attending his Little League games is silly.

Just as odd is the idea of Canada and France being the Jiminy Cricket of the world. Canada doesn't even teach Canadian history in its schools and that seemingly disqualifies the northerners from having a world view at all, and France is terrified that Ronald McDonald is going to take over.

Time to grow up, kids.

PS The people I know aren't real sharp, and I've never a person who thinks Iraq is responsible for the unpleasantness of 9/11. That's an urban legend mixed with an infoworm.
Guest 31-May-2004 02:36
You know your free to move to another country!!
ANTI W. 31-May-2004 00:35
I AGREE COMPLETLY WITH BOB.

AMERICA SUCKS
AMERICA SUCKS
AMERICA SUCKS
AMERICA SUCKS
AMERICA SUCKS
AMERICA SUCKS
AMERICA SUCKS
AMERICA SUCKS
AMERICA SUCKS
Bob 31-May-2004 00:26


BUSH AND ALL HIS AMERICAN CRONIES ARE EVIL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THANK YOU CANADA FOR STANDING UP AGAINST THE TRUE TERRORISTS













!
Guest 30-May-2004 16:56
EXCELLENT! THANK YOU!!! Isn't it amazing how many people think that Iraq was responsible for 9-11?? Bush did (and still does) such a good job of clouding the facts. France (among others) was/is brave enough to stand up for REASON and LOGIC! Viva France!!
Guest 30-May-2004 09:30
As a foreigner it's interesting to read some americans view on your presidents crusade across the world.
Here's some thoughts.
1. Yes Iraq is more or less a "free" country now, but you should take a closer look on how "free" it will be for the people of Iraq once the ruling is turned over to the Iraqees this summer. A lot of stuff will still be decided by the US.

2. If George W Bush decided to free a country from a dictator whydid he choose Iraq? there's several other countries in the world that are ruled by dictators and where people can't vote.
I will put my money on the opinion that it was oil that drove him to Iraq.

3. You don't effectivly fight terrorism with guns and violence. Dig a little deeper and see why people resort to violence and terrorism in the first place.

4. Please stop blaming France for being cowards just for threatening to executing theire democratic right of having a veto in the UN security council. Have a closer look as to how many times the US has used that right regarding the Palestinian conflict.
And be serious...the US wouldn't even be "The United States of America" if it weren't for the french.

5. Stop harrasing people that demonstrate. Isn't that the right you go around the world dying for so that other people in the world can enjoy it?
A democracy only works if you say what you think. An elected leader should always be measured and critiziezed in what he is doing. You, the voters, has given him the job and you should be the one that decides if he's doing the job properly.

Regards.....//Magnus, Sweden
Guest 30-May-2004 00:46
Sorry Photos,Should YOU have been on the 100th floor of the Twin Towers????? Bob
Guest 29-May-2004 03:27
Honestly, I didn't have the mind to read over everyone's post. The ones I did read were, for the most part, at least well thought out.

My personal opinion is this...

As Americans, living in the United States, we have come to an interesting time in our history. In the grand scheme of the world, we are but a young country. Yet, almost no one alive today can look back on their lives and say that they did not have freedom.

Freedom, an over used word in my opinion. Personally, I find people using the term "freedom" so often that the true meaning behind that lone word has been lost. As Americans we believe that we have the "freedom" to do whatever we want...such as protest. As Americans we believe we have the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom to decide what we do, etc...

Frankly...we do. God help us, we do. We are spoiled. We are spoiled by having it in our lives for so long that we do not appreciate it. We have forgotten what "freedom" has costed us. More so, we have forgotten that their are many places in this world that do not have our "forgotten freedoms".

Iraq was such a country. A country without the freedom to decide who should run the country, yes I know they voted...but let us be realistic. A country that once would cart you off, to never be seen again, by holding a sign up in protest.

The current Iraq, is a better place then it once was. There are jobs, there is food, there is the ability to practice one's religion. There is freedom.

Freedom is never easy...freedom is never "free"...and once had, freedom should never be forgotten.

I am a Corporal in the United States Marine Corps. My friends...my family...my brothers have fought this war, and have died in this war. They have not fought and died for oil...not for the President...not for any political reason. They have fought, and died, so that these same people can hold those protest signs. They have fought, and died, so that years from now...a Iraqi citizen can have the same freedoms we have here. Even if it is to hate us...like alot of you already have the freedom to do.

I've said enough... God bless and Semper Fidelis.
paul cipriano28-May-2004 02:53
Regardless of the political message, I think this is a rather dull gallery with images that are poorly composed. Pictures of people holding up signs is boring. Where are the shots of people with fists raised in the air? Where are the wide angle group shots? This could have been alot better in my opinion.
david pee 19-May-2004 20:13
This is the second gallery I've seen like this today. Are you serious? I have to agree with the comment about not really understanding how the world works. I'm neither dem or rep, and am stuck in the harsh dilemma of how to waste my vote this year. Regardless, The world is a crappy place. War is a crappy thing, but protestors really take away from the "United" state of the United states. Look, Kerry, Bush, Hell! Nader! Any one of them would be confronted with the same issues. My fear is that Kerry would eff it up alot worse than it already is. carzy shit happens everyday. Get used to it, and realize that picketing and singing songs doesn't do anything for anyone, and when you get older and read a few books you'll really be ashamed of yourself.....
Rich Corey 14-May-2004 20:48
The last image in this gallery sums up this election year. "Get Mad" The democratic base is not voting for Kerry, they are voting against George W. Bush. I haven't seen this much hate. Not even in light of the Clinton/Lewinski scandal. In my opinion, If Bush prevails in being re-elected (which I think he will), The demoralization of the Democratic party will be unpresidented. Short of assasination, Democrats have thrown everything but the kitchen sink at this man. Bush's numbers are going down slightly but interesting enough Kerry's is not raising much considering the recent events in the middle east etc.
Guest 05-May-2004 03:16
Tim,

Read my post in the other gallery!
Tim 04-May-2004 21:43
Anthony, Anthony, Anthony,
Here you go again. Instead of providing an intelligent argument to state your case, you always resort to slander and slurs. That is something I have noticed about ALL Rebublican, conservative, right-wingers. When your back is against the wall, faced with with facts, you ALWAYS resort to slander and slurs.
Anthony, why is that? Is it your lack of knowledge of how the world REALLY works? Or is because you have no FACTS of your own to express and make a logical argument?
Let me know...
Guest 04-May-2004 03:20
Who give's a F@uck if your votes for Kerry, It will be a losing vote. Bush/Cheney in 2004!!!
Bright 03-May-2004 21:17
Great Pictures! My vote will be for Kerry!
Hal 03-May-2004 11:43
You stupid bitches.........go make us men some food and shut the fuck up already





































Guest 02-May-2004 04:03
You frigging people need to get a LIFE!!!!!!!!!! You can protest, but do like some of us did and serve your country, but oh wait your a bunch of frigging COWARDS!!!!!!
Paul 28-Apr-2004 15:42
I sure hope the families of western soldiers getting killed to secure cheap oil for yiii-haaa cowboy and his friends get a direct share of the profits for they are the true men of courage.
Sean P 25-Apr-2004 02:47





ALL CANADIANS, FRENCH AND GERMAN MEN ARE PUSSY COWARDS

USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA


WE RULE THE WORLD

















































































































































































































































































































Guest 23-Apr-2004 16:07
http://www.presidentmoron.com/
David - Ontario, Canada 23-Apr-2004 01:19
What you guys should be afraid of is not Bush's war on terrorism, or foreign policy but his domestic policy if re-elected.

He is a Fundie Christian and will exert his Fundie agenda in his 2nd term - why not he has nothing to lose as he can't run again.

Say good bye to alot of your freedoms such as Choice! when it comes to abortion, gay rights, censorship, the draft, freedom of religion etc.

When Americans go on about the security of Canadian borders you should think of two things;

1) it is the U.S. Customs agents that clears anyone coming across the Canadian Border into the U.S. - not ours - so where is the true fault if someone who shouldn't gets through?

2) we have 1/10th your population - hence 1/10th your tax base - but we have the 2nd largest country in the world with the world's largest coastlines to try and defend with that tax base - it isn't as black and white as your news agencies make it out to be.

Just some thoughts,
David
David - Ontario, Canada 23-Apr-2004 01:16
What you guys should be afraid off it not Bush's war on terrorism, or foreign policy but his domestic policy if re-elected.

He is a Fundie Christian and will exert his Fundie agenda in his 2nd term - why not he has nothing to lose as he can't run again.

Say good bye to alot of your freedoms such as Choice! when it comes to abortion, gay rights, censorship, the draft, freedom of religion etc.

When Americans go on about the security of Canadian borders you should think of two things;

1) it is the U.S. Customs agents that clears anyone coming across the Canadian Border into the U.S. - not ours - so where is the true fault if someone who shouldn't gets through?

2) we have 1/10th your population - hence 1/10th your tax base - but we have the 2nd largest country in the world with the world's largest coastlines to try and defend with that tax base - it isn't as black and white as your news agencies make it out to be.

Just some thoughts,
David
Guest 22-Apr-2004 16:08
I do not want to offend anyone, but why would this gallery be
considered anything more than propaganda? I think I can guess
what political party the photographer is affiliated with.....
Thanks but no thanks, anyone can take pictures like these.
And these stink.
Guest 22-Apr-2004 09:10

The stupidity and rabidity of SOME Americans is truly astonishing to foreigners. It's almost unbelievable that people can be so ignorant, so uneducated, so callous... but the scary thing is that it's all true.

You kill your fellow human beings for what? Because they wear different clothes, speak a different language, pray to a different god? You fools! You fight and hate your fellow working man so the rich can get richer while you stay poor. Racism and hatred is what they want you to feel... you're just being manipulated to be used as cannon fodder! You think Bush's children will die for your country? No that's what your children are for!
Sherry Arnett 22-Apr-2004 04:54
You pussy cowards want all of us to someday wear muslims clothes dont you.

GOD LOVES AMERICA. GOD LOVES GW BUSH

SO FUCK YOU LOSERS....GROW UP AND FACE REALITY....ISLAM IS FUCKING EVIL

























































































































































































































































Guest 22-Apr-2004 01:05
No group. Just my own mind -- like you have yours, which I respect. (Civility will get us everywhere ;-) No money parted, just my time which I'm more than happy to give in exchange for being able to look myself in the mirror and sleep soundly at night. Kalashnikovs don't exactly use Depleted Uranium. Can I also point out that, a/ The American taxpayer pays for the defense budget, which is more than the rest of the world put together (whilst US population is around 5%), and b/ Democracy depends on the constant questioning of her elected leaders. No questions ultimately = autocracy = dictatorship. It's a trifle Orwellian to argue that free expression undermines the right to have it in the first place, don't you think? And you know you're on the slippery slope, when you start making comparisons to something far worse, rather than better. All the best Dear Guest, and thank you for your well-argued contribution. I'm going now -- it's not my gallery ;-)
Guest 22-Apr-2004 00:37
M, Let me guess you probably belong to Green Peace, PETA, and any other environmental WACKO group you can find that is looking for a willing fool to soon part with his money…

M, in one of your post you state that the USA has manufactured and spread our weapons all over the world just to make money from the sales of them. Sir you may want to become more familiar with the weapons used by the Armys of the World. The weapons that are most commonly being used by those that are willing to kill Americans and our friends were not made in the USA but in Socialist Communist Countries such as Russia, China, and North Korea. It has been report that more than 76% of all military weapons produce in Russia are exported each year. In fact here is a quote from Amnesty International
According to reports, the Russian Federation has substantially increased its exports of Kalashnikov rifles (AK-47) to countries since 1999 despite numerous armed conflicts where such weapons have been used to facilitate gross human rights violations.

M, the next time you are watching CNN you may want to take note as to the type of weapons that are being use to attack and kill US troops. They were not made in AMERICA.

M, I wonder when you and your Socialist Communist friends are going to start protesting the Presidents of Russia, China, North Korea? NEVER

M, be glad you live in this Great Country because your type would be killed in the countries you hold so dear such as Russia…

M, I hope that one day you will wake-up and realize that your right to protest did not come cheap. Millions of men and woman have died for your right to express your disagreement with our present President the Wonderful President BUSH!!!!

Oh and by the way here is another report you may want to read:
Clinton and Gore Okayed Russian Weapons Sales To Iran In 1995 On condition that such sales would end by the end of 1999
Guest 21-Apr-2004 12:49


Guest 21-Apr-2004 03:53
did you stop to think that they might have been talking about the posts, not the pictures?
Guest 20-Apr-2004 17:49
So what are YOU doing here? The title is a bit of a giveaway, no?
Guest 20-Apr-2004 13:58
I thought PBase was a refuge from this sort of crap... Isn't it enough that other forums of photography are already filled with arrogant egomaniacs jabbering about their political views? Why here?
Guest 20-Apr-2004 13:28

How is giving the article author's name "copy and past[ing] words from other documents pawning them off as their words"?

Doh!
Memyself&i 20-Apr-2004 13:14
Unfortunately we are all locked in by the system we have developed.Our intelligence is also going to be our downfall.We do not live in harmony with our planet and we are rapidly destroying the only thing we have to live on.It is sad to say but I believe mankind has a very short lifespan in the time that this planet will exist for,the next species to survive and dominate will be the humble insect and he will continue on for a very long time as they are much smarter than ourselves.You wont find them poisoning or blowing themselves out of existence.
Guest 20-Apr-2004 12:43
Thank you for that instructive bit of history. Unfortunately, unless we can start exploiting resources on other planets in the Solar System, or find another source of energy here (both of which courses paradoxically require the continuing use of existing technology), our easy Western lifestyle will come to an abrupt end. Most experts agree that Peak Oil, ie the point at which the global demand will outstrip the supply, even with the Caspian Sea reserves, is likely to occur no later than 2020, and likely before 2012. Some even think we have already peaked, and we are just beginning to feel the consequences. (Think of the current Shell debacle) In the meantime, it has been calculated that the money Bush has already spent on invading Iraq, could have built enough windmills in the US to supply a quarter of her annual energy requirement.
Hydrogen fuel currently needs to be made using fossil fuels, so this only temporarily shifts the problem away from the gas pump. Nuclear fusion is this civilisation's great hope, but the science has not yet been fully resolved.
We are running out of time, and it seems that instead of focusing on solving the long-term global problem, the US solution is to grab all the remaining fossil fuel reserves, share some with her 'strategic' allies, and kill anyone else who stands in the way. Perhaps the logic is that if we reduce the world population by 90%, there will be enough oil for our 'superior culture' to enjoy the current lifestyle for a few more generations, before some other form energy comes along.
Is this what is to become of the human race? A final battle to the death, squabbling over the last remaining scraps of the planet's resources? In the 10,000+ years, have we only learned how to BURN things? Then we will all burn, in earthly hell of our own making.
If anybody still has any doubts about our dependence on oil, with its impact on basics, such as food production, please know that,
"if you remove fossil fuels from the equation, the daily diet will require 111 hours of endosomatic labor per capita; that is, the current U.S. daily diet would require nearly three weeks of labor per capita to produce."
and with regards to the rest of the world,
"Total fossil fuel use in the United States has increased 20-fold in the last 4 decades. In the US, we consume 20 to 30 times more fossil fuel energy per capita than people in developing nations."
(From 'Eating Fossil Fuels"http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html)
So the doomsday scenario looks like this
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
But that's still no reason to kill your fellow human beings. Remember, we have one planet, one vessel, and if we capsize it -- we'll all go under.
Let's use these human minds of ours, or else we have evolved for no reason at all.

(Looney m ;-)






Guest 20-Apr-2004 12:27
Two things that are very silly:
1. People that come on here and flame then give false names and or emails....
2. People that copy and paste words from other documents pawning them off as their words.

People bitching on a web board is just the same as bitching and holding signs on the street, it won’t accomplish a damn thing.

HERE IS MY COPY AND PASTE:

If you look at the stats in history you will see that very few protests have ever changed the minds that are in power of making decisions...

Grow a mind.

Guest 20-Apr-2004 12:16
Report from Baghdad -- Hospital Closings and U.S. War Crimes

Published on Monday, April 19.
by Rahul Mahajan

NOTE: Doctors from four hospitals in Baghdad were interviewed in compiling this report; all asked that their names be left out.

Baghdad, Iraq -- “Why do you keep asking about the closing of the Fallujah hospital?” my Iraqi translator asks in exasperation. I explain that this is big news, and it hasn’t really been reported in English. He looks at me, incredulous; all Iraqis know about it.

When the United States began the siege of Fallujah, it targeted civilians in several ways. The power station was bombed; perhaps even more important, the bridge across the Euphrates was closed. Fallujah’s main hospital stands on the western bank of the river; almost the entirety of the town is on the east side. Although the hospital was not technically closed, no doctor who actually believes in the Hippocratic oath is going to sit in an empty hospital while people are dying in droves on the other bank of the river. So the doctors shut down the hospital, took the limited supplies and equipment they could carry, and started working at a small three-room outpatient clinic, doing operations on the ground and losing patients because of the inadequacy of the setup. This event was not reported in English until April 14, when the bridge was reopened.

In Najaf, the Spanish-language “Plus Ultra” garrison closed the al-Sadr Teaching Hospital roughly a week ago (as of yesterday, it remained closed). With 200 doctors, the hospital (formerly the Saddam Hussein Teaching Hospital) is one of the most important in Iraq. Troops entered and gave the doctors two hours to leave, allowing them to take only personal items -- no medical equipment. The reason given was that the hospital overlooks the Plus Ultra’s base, and that the roof could be used by resistance snipers. Al-Arabiya has also reported that in Qaim, a small town near the Syrian border where fighting recently broke out, that the hospital had been closed, with American snipers positioned atop nearby buildings.

The United States has also impeded the operation of hospitals in other ways. Although the first Western reports of U.S. snipers shooting at ambulances caused something of a furor, two days ago at a press conference the Iraqi Minister of Health, Khudair Abbas, confirmed that U.S. forces had shot at ambulances not just in Fallujah but also in Sadr City, the sprawling slum in East Baghdad. He condemned the acts and said he had asked for an explanation from his superiors, the Governing Council and Paul Bremer.

There are also persistent claims that after an outbreak of hostilities American soldiers visit hospitals asking for information about the wounded, with the intent of removing potential resistance members and interrogating them. Nomaan Hospital in Aadhamiyah and Yarmouk Hospital in Yarmouk (both areas of Baghdad) got visits from U.S. forces in the first days after the fighting in Fallujah started -- the lion’s share of evacuated wounded from Fallujah were taken to those two hospitals. Doctors generally resist being turned into informants for the occupation; one doctor actually told me that he has many times discharged people straight from the emergency room, with inadequate time to recuperate, just to keep them out of military custody. As he said, “They are my countrymen. How can I hold them for the Americans?”

While the American media talks of the great restraint and “pinpoint precision” of the American attack, over 700 people, at least half of them civilians, have been killed in Fallujah. And, according to the Ministry of Health, in the last two weeks, at least 290 were killed in other cities, over 30 of them children. Many of those who died because of the hospital closures will never be added in to the final tally of the “liberation.”

By any reasonable standard, these hospital closings (and, of course, the shooting at ambulances) are war crimes. However afraid the Plus Ultra garrison may have been of attack from the rooftops, they didn’t have to close the hospital; they could simply have screened entrants. In the case of Fallujah, it’s clear that one of the reasons the mujahideen were willing to talk about ceasefire was to get the hospital open again; in effect, the United States was holding civilians (indirectly) hostage for military ends.

After an earlier article about attacks on ambulances, many people wrote to ask why U.S. forces would do this -- it conflicted with the image they wanted to have of the U.S. military. Were they just trying to massacre civilians? And, if so, why?

In fact, it’s fairly simple: the United States has its military goals and simply does not care how many Iraqi civilians have to be killed in order to maximize the military efficiency of their operations. A senior British army commander recently criticized the Americans for viewing the Iraqis as Untermenschen -- a lower order of human being. He also said the average soldier views all Iraqis as enemies or potential enemies. That is precisely the case. I have heard the same thing from dozens of people here -- “They don’t care what happens to Iraqis.”

Although this relatively indiscriminate killing of civilians may serve American military ends -- keeping the ratio of enemy dead to American soldiers dead as high as possible -- in terms of political ends, it is a disaster. It is very difficult to explain to an Iraqi that a man fighting from his own town with a Kalashnikov or RPG launcher is a “coward” and a “war criminal” (because, apparently, he should go out into the desert and wait to be annihilated from the sky) but that someone dropping 2000-pound bombs on residential areas or shooting at ambulances because they may have guns in them (even though they usually don’t) is a hero and is following the laws of war.

When I was here in January, there was a pervasive atmosphere of discontent, frustration, and anger with the occupation. But most people were still just trying to ride it out, stay patient, and hope that things improved. The wanton brutality of the occupation has at long last put an end to that patience.

Before, the occupation might have succeeded -- not in building real democracy, which was never the goal, but in cementing U.S. control of Iraq. It cannot succeed now. The resistance in Fallujah will be beaten down, with the commission of more war crimes; if the United States invades Najaf, it will be able to win militarily there as well. But from now on, no military victory will make Iraqis stop resisting.
Oil 20-Apr-2004 09:32
Oil and what it represents - energy - have always been a source of conflict.

Oil was a factor in Japan's surprise 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had its origins, at least in part, in a decision by the United States to limit oil exports to Japan in 1941 in response to the Japanese invasion of China.

Japan was almost totally reliant on imported oil, mainly from the United States, and it needed oil for its navy.

It concluded that if the American tap was going to be turned off, it would have to get its oil elsewhere. This was a factor in its decision to invade the oil-rich Dutch-held Indonesian islands.

Coups and power-play

Japan still relies on imported oil but this now comes substantially from the Middle East, another part of the world where oil has long played a vital role.


Kuwaiti wells on fire in 1991 after the Iraqi invasion
Britain first became interested in the Gulf because of its maritime interests, long before oil was discovered.

Then, when oil extraction was developed in the 1930s, the strategic value of the region increased significantly.

Other powers began to get interested, especially the United States. The West was determined to secure the Gulf as a main source of its energy.

Oil played its part in a 1953 coup in Iran - organised by the US and Britain. They managed to overthrow an elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, and installed Shah Reza Pahlavi whose reign came to an inglorious end at the hands of Islamic fundamentalists in 1979.


Who holds the world's oil - and how long will it last?


At-a-glance

Mossadegh's main sin was to have nationalised the British-owned Anglo Iranian oil company.

Just how far the United States was prepared to go for oil was shown by the recent release of documents from the British National Archives.

An intelligence assessment by the British government in January revealed that in 1973 Washington drew up a plan to seize oilfields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi to counter an Arab oil embargo against the West.

One recent study paper by an American military analyst even suggests that one day the United States and Europe might be in conflict over dwindling Middle East oil supplies.

The analyst, Major Chris Jeffries, Assistant Professor at the US Air Force Academy wrote: "Is it unthinkable that the US might enter into an agreement with the Middle East to secure its supply over the interests of the other industrialized nations - including Europe?"

Gulf wars

The intervention by the United States and its allies over Kuwait in 1991 was in large part motivated by a need to secure oil and also to prevent Saddam Hussein from expanding his access to it.

And, although the more recent war with Iraq had other motives as well, oil was a factor as the US Vice President Dick Cheney, warning of Iraq's ambitions, said in August 2002: "Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East [and] take control of a great proportion of the world's energy supplies..."


Will Baku see another oil boom?
But oil does not just produce outside intervention. It can produce internal abuse of power.

Saddam Hussein himself is a prime example: it was oil that gave him the resources with which to arm himself.

Looking ahead, new areas of interest are opening up, especially the Caspian Sea where a new "Great Game" is developing to mirror the rivalry between Russia and Great Britain in Asia in the 19th Century.
Bill Gates 20-Apr-2004 00:54




























OSAMA PRAYS EVERY NIGHT FOR JOHN KERRY TO WIN






























Condi Rice 19-Apr-2004 18:50



Look... I didn't mean what I wrote earlier about GW and his British poodle being heroes. It's just that I've been an ugly bitch all my life and killing defenceless civilians is the only thing that gives me real satisfaction. Sorry...









Guest 19-Apr-2004 13:27
GAY - This is Sooo GAY
Guest 19-Apr-2004 13:07

Ha ha! What a shock... rabid right wingers trying to forcibly drown out voices of dissent... who would have thunk it? They're learning well from the fascist-in-chief Bush and his lapdogs Blair and "the butcher of Sabra and Shatila" Sharon.

The biggest "terrorist" in the world is the US state and its cronies, Britain and Israel. The evidence is overwhelming: the heaps of Iraqi and Afghan bodies don't lie (to mention but two victim nationalities)!

Educate yourselves you insular, ignorant, brainwashed, biblle-bashing, "civilisation"-protecting, "freedom"-loving morons! Ask the four million Cambodians and Vietnamese butchered, burned and long buried how they liked your napalm version of "civilisation" and "freedom" or the families of the 20 000+ Iraqis and Afghan civillians murdered in the last two years by "Operation Enduring Freedom, Preserving Civilisation and Protecting Little Iraqi Furry Animals while Raping a Country of its Rightful Wealth" (or whatever they're calling naked colonialism and imperialism today).


Btw, the day an ill-educated, oil-grabbing, cocaine-snorting, alcoholic mass murderer and liar like Bush and a country that barely has a quarter of a century of history becomes the defender of world "civilisation" by levelling a nation that has a stood for 5000 years, is a bad day for irony and truth.

Condi Rice 19-Apr-2004 11:50






Grow Up and realize the world is more dangerous than you little simple minds can understand. GW Bush and Tony Blair are true heros in the fight against Terrorism
























































































































Merloz Paris18-Apr-2004 08:04
For sure.. a world with GW Bush is not a fairy tale...
Q 17-Apr-2004 18:11
Why does John Snead end his post with so much empty space such that it shunts everyone else's views off the 'page'. Let everyone have their say. Folks just keep scrolling down for other views.
John Snead 17-Apr-2004 10:50
You liberals are so retarded. Thank God we have GW Bush protecting all of us. Grow up little cretins and realize that the world is not a fairy tale.

GOD BLESS GW BUSH AND GOD BLESS AMERICA
























































































Tim 17-Apr-2004 03:41
Good stuff. What has GWB done to this nation? They bood the U.S. National Anthem in Montreal Canada. In Canada!!!
Matt Reichel17-Apr-2004 03:36
Nice gallery, I agree with these folks whole-heartedly. If you are ready to argue visit the opposite of this site right here on pbase, see www.pbase.com/ethanbird/saddam_is_gone . Good work, you have inspired me to photograph a protest, although I’m not one to join in myself, hehe.
Brian 16-Apr-2004 01:33
Wow! People like this "M" person really scare me. OMG, better lock the doors people; there are some real looneys out there.
Guest 15-Apr-2004 20:13
Answers for Sega:

1. Go back to your Fox News and other outlets of 'mainstream information'. It is obvious you're not comfortable with another point of view. EVERYONE has an agenda of sorts, even if yours is only to slavishly repeat what others tell you to.

2. Because Bush is a selfish and greedy sociopath who only cares about profit for himself and his circle of privileged friends, and not too bothered about destroying the world in the process. Chopping down nature reserves to prevent forest fires? Why doesn't he kill himself to prevent a potential deadly disease! He is a winner only for himself and his masters -- all at our expense.

3. Because America has been doing most of the killing (whilst supporting oppressive, International Law-flouting regimes) since WW2. Let's face it, your country is not manufacturing all these weapons just to make money from sales. Shock - horror: World's most sophisticated weapons ARE actually being used by America and her 'friends' against weaker nations for all these years. How do you think she got so powerful? With Coca-Cola and McDonalds?

Who told you all the 'facts' about 9-11? Oh yes, I forgot: the 'mainstream media'...

If killing innocent people wholesale, living in fear of your own goverment and poisoning your body is what you call a way of life -- you're welcome to it.
nanina 15-Apr-2004 15:32
I AGREE WITH THESE PROTESTS.

US, RETIRE YOUR TROOP FROM IxxK BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!
YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR SONS THERE!

STOP THE IxxK CITIZEN MASSACRE!!!
Sega 15-Apr-2004 15:10
Question 1: Does this website have an Agenda?

Question 2: Why do so many on this site hate President Bush? Could it be that they actually hate him because he is a man of principle a man that is a WINNER?

Question 3: Why does Islamic nations hate America and want to kill all of us?

Isn't it amazing how many people hate the Man that is willing to stand up and protect our way of life, our Country and its people!!! All you haters need to denounce your American Citizenship and move to one of the Islamic countries that are trying to destroy us. Remember Muslim Islamic militants attached The USA on 9-11-01, we did not start the war but at least we have a God Fearing President who is not afraid to do the right thing. PRESIDENT BUSH WILL BE RE-ELECTED HE IS A WINNER!!!! KERRY IS A LOSSER!!!!
nevadaoutback14-Apr-2004 17:20
Opinions are like Ass Holes and everyone has one. The world is what you make of it, if it doesn't fit you make alterations. BUSH KEARY CLINTON they are all from the same boy's club. You did nice work, and you took the shot., thats what photography is. Keep up the good work and bepartisan only to your art..............Markos
Guest 14-Apr-2004 13:06
I feel very sorry for you misguided people, who support all these 'tough decisions' from the comfort of your armchairs. When was the last time someone came to 'liberate' you with a bomb? (Somehow I don't think you would appreciate it...) You are very arrogant to assume that just because someone has a heart, they have no brain. 'Informed' pseudo intellectuals like yourself are really what's wrong with the human race. The primitive, the greedy, the brutal, and the selfish are easy enough to identify, but those who use their gifted minds to intellectuallise the killing of strangers and propagate its virtues under some self-righteous cloak of lies, represent an evolutionary cul-de-sac. One day, this world-construct you cling to will come crashing down, and the only thing which will matter will be whether you are a human being or a twisted parody of one. Nature corrects all its mistakes, eventually.

"The means by which we live have outdistanced the ends for which we live. Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." - Martin Luther King Jr.
http://history1900s.about.com/library/weekly/aa011101a.htm
truthteller 14-Apr-2004 12:04
I feel sorry for you misguided people led astray by the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Barbara Boxer. The 3 most liberal, out of touch, idiots ever elected to the senate. Try thinking for yourselves for once and actually read more than a biased newspaper headlines or a propoganda web site like move on. The true terrorists are you and your supporters who are blinded by liberal non-thinking. Support against a war-time President is disgusting, whether he is a Rep or Dem. You have the right to protest, but not in this vitriolic manner. You represent what is WRONG with this country and I'm sad to say we are headed into further dispair because of your lack of morals and respect.
Guest 14-Apr-2004 10:52
more than 80 percent of us germans fully support your protesting against bush.
me too.
Guest 13-Apr-2004 19:16

"Get mad" is a good capture but the other lack punch.

"Smile with your picture!" is particularly sinister. Like Norman Mailer said, "a proto-fascist state".

Peace, brothers and sisters.
Guest 13-Apr-2004 18:53
Great pictures..... If you look at the stats in history you will see that very few protests have ever changed the minds that are in power of making decisions...

Now back to the picks…. I like them.

Thomas 13-Apr-2004 18:52
In my bible I read: Matthew 5,9
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."

Those who hate and insult Jesus Christ by following the devils temptations of greed and power, worshipping weapons and violence, spitting on pacifists and "wimps", praying to their golden calf of "patriotism" and "nationalism", should listen to Timothy (6,9):

"But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and [into] many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness."

Regards
Thomas
Guest 13-Apr-2004 16:08

I suggest you take your own advice and read up some history: comparisons with 1930s appeasement of Hitler are woefully off the mark and betray a complete lack of historical and political understanding.

1) There is no comparison between Saddam and Hitler in terms of threat. Hitler header the second biggest military complex in the history of humanity (in relative economic terms) and was intent on aggressive expansion primarily into eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and more broadly into the rest of Europe. Iraq in 2003 was a economically broken and militarily entirely impotent state, that had NO ability to expand beyond its borders. WMDs were a calculated lie by Bush and Blair and have been exposed as such one year on. The country had no airforce and 40% of its land mass was subject to the allied no-fly zone, with the Kurds forming a de facto autonomous state in the north. Sound like a threat to US security to you?

2) What has Al Quaeda got to do with Iraq? Saddam's secular regime was a well known enemy of Bin Laden and veiwed him as threat to their power base in Iraq. There has never been any connection proven between the two and in fact ALL the evidence points in the opposite direction. The very suggestion was and is laughable i.e. a blatant lie.

3)If this war is about terrorism, then why has the US devoted the bulk of its forces to Iraq when the perpetrators of 911 roam free in Eastern Afghanistan and Western Pakistan's mountains? Simple: that's were the lovely oil is (the world's second biggest reserves i.e. enough cheap oil to keep the US economy ticking over for a LONG time).

2800 innocent people died in the horrific attacks of 9-11. Since that horrible day, 4000 innocent Afghans have died as a direct result of US action, 11 000 Iraqi men women and children civillian have died (reported and verified, let alone the unreported civillian deaths) as a result of US aggression. 15 000 innocent lives. How would you feel is 15 000 American civillians died? You call this fighting terrorism? From where I stand it looks like a very good impression of terrorism to me.



Dave Werner13-Apr-2004 14:07
This gallery brings to mind the Oxford Union vote “not to die for king and country” back in the 1930’s. I remember seeing several of the “pacifists” that took part being interviewed in the late 1059’s with tears streaming down their faces, for their part in the horror that in part, stemmed from their naivety. (Hitler often sited that vote as proof that the Western Democracies were weak and decadent.)

I hope that your intellectual and moral cowardice does not succeeding in encouraging newer forms of terror, and that you may continue your lives as naive spoilt children whining in the background never having to pay the price in guilt that those participants in the Oxford Union vote did following WWII.

They were wrong then, as you are now. Perhaps a little historical study would help?
Guest 13-Apr-2004 05:54
I really liked your gallery and I just want to say one more thing. As a damn foreigner living in the US one thing is clear for me now: the republicans aren't exactly the smartest people in this country.
Guest 13-Apr-2004 05:21
One more gallery of brain-dead pacifists, making fools of themselves. We did much the same thing back in the late 60s and early 70s. I wonder where these snot-nosed punks were when Clinton was bombing Kosovo, without even consulting the UN.
NoMoreBush 12-Apr-2004 22:48
BUSH - WMD = Words of Mass Distortion
Guest 12-Apr-2004 22:09
England calling: this is mostly about terrorism. America and co in Iraq is a controlling presence in a region run by dictators - you know like Saddam, Gadaffi, Iranian religious nutters, etc who have all supported terrorism against the West for years. Odd how Libya suddenly became open... Odd how Iran wants to be open about its nuclear stuff... Could this be that America and allies are now next door?

Of course oil will figure in this. It would be stupid if it did not. Encase you had not noticed we NEED oil to live the way we do. Like how you live in London? Thank oil for making it possible. These countries have oil. We PAY them for it. Now, if we could just get democracies to happen there, then the people could benefit too and not just the dictators...

Do you know that London is a prime target for a terrorist dirty bomb or any bomb? Do you know that Bin Laden claims to have nuclear devices bought from Russia? He has said he willuse them on many occasions. What do you want to do then? Sit there and wait for them to bomb you or go out and try to stop them? I'm for going out and trying to stop them. I'm for cutting off their supplies where they originate. Now, I wonder, where could that be and hoiw best I could do that...
Guest 12-Apr-2004 18:44

London calling: people of America open you eyes! This criminal war is to control the oil of Iraq, it has NOTHING to do with "terrorism".

You are being lied to continually to ensure your continued support for the slaughter of innocents in Iraq. 11,000 Iraqi civillians murdered for oil in tweleve months, and rising every day!

Nearly 700 of your young sent by a chickenhawk to die for a LIE!


WAKE UP!
Guest 12-Apr-2004 18:08
great pix, good work.It's not us they hate it's our governments and thier policies!
Guest 12-Apr-2004 17:32
Bush did nothing but made the world hate amirecans
any place you go they hate us
not because of us as people no ....
but because of bush and Israel .
are we going to wake up some day and realise that supporting Israel brought us nothing
but hate and kidnap
Guest 11-Apr-2004 20:29
great work, way to go
sara 11-Apr-2004 13:02
these photos make me sick
Vincent Belford10-Apr-2004 12:22
PS
Just to show that the more things change the more thins remain the same, go tohttp://www.pbase.com/vincebelford/msm_1970 - my coverage of a peace ralley in the aftermath of Kent State,
Vince
Vincent Belford10-Apr-2004 12:15
Why do people want to beat on the reporter?
Great Work!
Thanks for sharing,
Vince
Bart 09-Apr-2004 19:15
Great Work... I'm looking foward to another March on Washington as I did in the 70's. All the conservatyives can do is call names and Lie. Clinton lied about sex BUSH lies about death. The conservatives just call names. Liberal and progressive are good words. They think.... Conservatives just follow blindly. Look at the big deal made about Janet Jackson. wAG tHE dog
Don Northup09-Apr-2004 14:45
so many lost liberals...
Guest 09-Apr-2004 08:07
I agree with Ted. I lived 9/11 first hand. I had poison dust all over me. Some of my friends were in the WTC and died on that day. After 9/11 there were no Liberals or Conservatives JUST AMERICANS. After Afganistan we were also ONE.
Now we have no more Credibility. In the 60's and 70's I was in Washington protesting Vietnam. I am looking foward to go back and protest the US against most of the world. "BUSH's WAR" Great GAllery. Keep up the great work
donaldddavisjr09-Apr-2004 02:56
Liberals are very strange. They say we should have preempted the 9/11 attacks with action (against who?) ... but should not have acted against Iraq. Hmmm... I think they'd rather have the war fought on our soil instead of the enemy's. No matter - I have been to Charlotte many times. No surprises here, just what you'd expect. Light up another Marlboro and tell me what you think.
Snapping Turtle09-Apr-2004 02:42
Great gallery! Well done!
Ted Levin09-Apr-2004 00:01
Love this Gallery. Only if the conservatives would take their heads out of the sand. I'm for the war in Iraq and I'm against the war in Iraq. (will they understand this) If we do it ourselves I'm against it but if we have help from other countries and don't have 95% of the soldiers then I'm for it. You have guts and I respect you for it.
Guest 07-Apr-2004 21:04
I'd hate to see a liberal response to terrorism. Actually I'd love to see one, if they had the stomach for it.
Don Northup06-Apr-2004 17:30
Can't wait do see some pro-bush stuff you shoot.
click on thumbnails for full image