Ive stated before that I dont necessarily want to attach myself to Michael Moore. I just think the ends justifies the means. Here is a good article on how other liberals and democrats feel(the writer foolishley assumes all). Ive said it before, I dont necessarily think Bush is a liar, just a naive puppet.

 

 

NY Times

 

Calling Bush a Liar

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

 

Published: June 30, 2004

?

So is President Bush a liar?

 

Plenty of Americans think so. Bookshops are filled with titles about Mr. Bush like "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," "Big Lies," "Thieves in High Places" and "The Lies of George W. Bush."

 

A consensus is emerging on the left that Mr. Bush is fundamentally dishonest, perhaps even evil ? a nut, yes, but mostly a liar and a schemer. That view is at the heart of Michael Moore's scathing new documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11."

 

In the 1990's, nothing made conservatives look more petty and simple-minded than their demonization of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were even accused of spending their spare time killing Vince Foster and others. Mr. Clinton, in other words, left the right wing addled. Now Mr. Bush is doing the same to the left. For example, Mr. Moore hints that the real reason Mr. Bush invaded Afghanistan was to give his cronies a chance to profit by building an oil pipeline there.

 

"I'm just raising what I think is a legitimate question," Mr. Moore told me, a touch defensively, adding, "I'm just posing a question."

 

Right. And right-wing nuts were "just posing a question" about whether Mr. Clinton was a serial killer.

 

I'm against the "liar" label for two reasons. First, it further polarizes the political cesspool, and this polarization is making America increasingly difficult to govern. Second, insults and rage impede understanding.

 

Lefties have been asking me whether Mr. Bush has already captured Osama bin Laden, and whether Mr. Bush will plant W.M.D. in Iraq. Those are the questions of a conspiracy theorist, for even if officials wanted to pull such stunts, they would be daunted by the fear of leaks.

 

Bob Woodward's latest book underscores that Mr. Bush actually believed that Saddam did have W.M.D. After one briefing, Mr. Bush turned to George Tenet and protested, "I've been told all this intelligence about having W.M.D., and this is the best we've got?" The same book also reports that Mr. Bush told Mr. Tenet several times, "Make sure no one stretches to make our case."

 

In fact, of course, Mr. Bush did stretch the truth. The run-up to Iraq was all about exaggerations, but not flat-out lies. Indeed, there's some evidence that Mr. Bush carefully avoids the most blatant lies ? witness his meticulous descriptions of the periods in which he did not use illegal drugs.

 

True, Mr. Bush boasted that he doesn't normally read newspaper articles, when his wife said he does. And Mr. Bush wrongly claimed that he was watching on television on the morning of 9/11 as the first airplane hit the World Trade Center. But considering the odd things the president often says ("I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"), Mr. Bush always has available a prima facie defense of confusion.

 

Mr. Bush's central problem is not that he was lying about Iraq, but that he was overzealous and self-deluded. He surrounded himself with like-minded ideologues, and they all told one another that Saddam was a mortal threat to us. They deceived themselves along with the public ? a more common problem in government than flat-out lying.

 

Some Democrats, like Mr. Clinton and Senator Joseph Lieberman, have pushed back against the impulse to demonize Mr. Bush. I salute them, for there are so many legitimate criticisms we can (and should) make about this president that we don't need to get into kindergarten epithets.

 

But the rush to sling mud is gaining momentum, and "Fahrenheit 9/11" marks the polarization of yet another form of media. One medium after another has found it profitable to turn from information to entertainment, from nuance to table-thumping.

 

Talk radio pioneered this strategy, then cable television. Political books have lately become as subtle as professional wrestling, and the Internet is adding to the polarization. Now, with the economic success of "Fahrenheit 9/11," look for more documentaries that shriek rather than explain.

 

It wasn't surprising when the right foamed at the mouth during the Clinton years, for conservatives have always been quick to detect evil empires. But liberals love subtlety and describe the world in a palette of grays ? yet many have now dropped all nuance about this president.

 

Mr. Bush got us into a mess by overdosing on moral clarity and self-righteousness, and embracing conspiracy theories of like-minded zealots. How sad that many liberals now seem intent on making the same mistakes.?

 

The mistake the left wont make however is not being united. All of us want Bush out. They we might not all agree with each other on the particular methods, unity is most important.

They want to seem like their the rational party and not attack the right's in office.

 

One thing I admire about The Right sadly, is their vicious and they don't let things stand in their way and people will buy that, that's why although I think Moore is a joke, he's doing something some other lefts should have done before. Attack Attack Attack.

Ive been debating this ends justifies the means argument with my friends lately. Im in agreement with you.

Attack attack attack. Everyone is paranoid and thinks the other side is out to get them, so use people like Anne Coulter or Michael Moore because "at least their heart is in the right place." bulls***. A civilized society never puts the ends before the means at whatever cost.

 

Anyone have a time machine? I suddenly have a desire to live in Ancient Greece. Aristotle would tear Moore a new one.

Since we are engaging in historical extrapolation, what would Aristotle think of Bush & company?

Since we are engaging in historical extrapolation, what would Aristotle think of Bush & company?

434585[/snapback]

 

How the hell should I know? I wasn't talking about Bush.

No, you were talking about Aristotle and his possible (violent) responses to present-day political figures. But, hey, if you were just whistling Dixie that's fine, too.

Excellent analogy, tonyi. Even though it was propaganda, Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will is watchable even today. It is next to impossible to imagine anyone watching Fahrenheit 9/11 six months from now.

434592[/snapback][/right]

 

 

It was a throwaway line. Don't nitpick.

Bush is a liar... No sugar coating there. Michael Moore did not have to make "Farenheit 9/11" for me to know that. I witnessed it myself in real life. I believed him when he said that Saddam was building WMD, that he was an imminent threat to America and that he was buddy buddy with Osama Bin Laden. I started to worry when we couldn't find the "stockpiles" of WMD Saddam supposedly had. It has been a year and we never found anything. My aprehension turned to anger and I could no longer trust that Bush was telling the truth after it was confirmed that Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with Al-Qaeda and 9/11.

 

I am a rabid anti-Bush liberal now, thanks to Mr. Bush's dishonesty. If we would have found those WMDs, if we would have captured Osama when it mattered... Maybe the story would have been different.

Bush is a liar... No sugar coating there. Michael Moore did not have to make "Farenheit 9/11" for me to know that. I witnessed it myself in real life. I believed him when he said that Saddam was building WMD, that he was an imminent threat to America and that he was buddy buddy with Osama Bin Laden. I started to worry when we couldn't find the "stockpiles" of WMD Saddam supposedly had. It has been a year and we never found anything. My aprehension turned to anger and I could no longer trust that Bush was telling the truth after it was confirmed that Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with Al-Qaeda and 9/11.

 

I am a rabid anti-Bush liberal now, thanks to Mr. Bush's dishonesty. If we would have found those WMDs, if we would have captured Osama when it mattered... Maybe the story would have been different.

434633[/snapback]

 

I don't know if anyone with a sig saying "Big Brother is watching you" would be a fan of any president, let alone a right wing one.

Bush is a liar... No sugar coating there. Michael Moore did not have to make "Farenheit 9/11" for me to know that. I witnessed it myself in real life. I believed him when he said that Saddam was building WMD, that he was an imminent threat to America and that he was buddy buddy with Osama Bin Laden. I started to worry when we couldn't find the "stockpiles" of WMD Saddam supposedly had. It has been a year and we never found anything. My aprehension turned to anger and I could no longer trust that Bush was telling the truth after it was confirmed that Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with Al-Qaeda and 9/11.

 

I am a rabid anti-Bush liberal now, thanks to Mr. Bush's dishonesty. If we would have found those WMDs, if we would have captured Osama when it mattered... Maybe the story would have been different.

434633[/snapback]

 

I don't know if anyone with a sig saying "Big Brother is watching you" would be a fan of any president, let alone a right wing one.

434645[/snapback]

 

It is an Orwellian thing. And no, I have no problem with a right wing president, as long as he is willing to work for the good of the country and his people, not just a few of his friends.

 

The president of my birth country is right-wing and I wouldn't change him for anybody. I'm actively supporting his re-election bid.

I don't know if anyone with a sig saying "Big Brother is watching you" would be a fan of any president, let alone a right wing one.

 

 

"Big Brother" can exist in a left-wing society just as easily. Just ask anyone who lived in the U.S.S.R.

The fear of 'big brother' (1984) is also a fear of conservatives. I for one hate big govt and any attempt by them to watch over our lives.

The fear of 'big brother' (1984) is also a fear of conservatives. I for one hate big govt and any attempt by them to watch over our lives.

 

 

Spoken like someone who has never read 1984 or even knows of the existence of a leftist dictatorship (*cough*Cuba*cough*).

Actually it seems you totally misinterpreted my post. What in fact i am saying is that when people think of government spying on people and such people automatically think right wing. When in fact the basic theory of classical liberalism is government has one role which is to protect our rights of life liberty and property, other than that the individual has all the freedom they deserve to do as he/she pleases. Furthermore, government interfering in our lives (such as electronic surveillance) is the most un-conservative thing to do. And nowadays the world suffers more from leftist dictatorships such as in cuba, N. korea, Cambodia, and Vietnam to name a few