MERGED ----> Fahrenheit 9/11 + fahrenheit 9/11

[kariatari]

I've gotta say there were very few things in F-9/11 that were new to me. All the film did for me was make me pissier.

 

[Diemen]

I would never patronize a far left liar like Moore. He has no idea what he is talking about.

I know many of you will say "You havent seen it, so how can you criticize it?" crap. Well, I dont need to see it to know that what he says are angry lies coming from nowhere in a desperate attempt to get Bush out of town.

Dont get me wrong, I guess he has the right to make the film. But I think he should be called an entertainer, not a documentarian. The whole idea of documentarians are to tell the truth, something which Moore is just not doing.

This is the kind of "review" I just don't understand. You haven't seen the film, and yet you categorically reject everything in it as "angry lies." It may interest you to know that MANY of the points made in this film are verifiable facts. Facts. Yes that's right, facts. Verified by several different and unaffiliated sources at that. Readily available to read in different newspapers and reports. Not conjured up by Moore and his cronies, but actual events/circumstances/relationships/etc that actually happened and are verifiable (tangent: if they were lies, then how come we haven't heard the Bush administration saying they don't have any ties with the Bin Laden family and Haliburton and other companies weren't trying to woo the Taliban into letting them build oil pipelines in Afghanistan. You would think they'd be jumping all over these "lies").

Oh wait, what's that, you don't like what they say? Oh well then, of course they must all be lies.

Look, here's my point. If you want to say that Moore isn't really a documentarian because he's only spouting lies, then you're not really making much of an argument and quite frankly, unless you can back up those claims, then you yourself are spouting lies. If, however, you want to say that Moore isn't really a documentarian because he only puts forth select truths and hides others which may not support his view (even if they might be pretty important), then my friend, you have a case.

More or less, Moore isn't interested in telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help him God. He's interested in the part of the truth that works for his motives. That doesn't make him a liar, it makes him a man with an agenda, and to that point Moore has been pretty outspoken.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

It's out here in Australia in mid-July I think. I'll see it, but not rush.
I hate Bush with every fibre of my heart and soul, but I'm under no illusions about what Michael Moore is either. Like someone said above, he's more entertainer then documentarian. A well produced documentary just presents things as they are, and leaves you to decide. Moore's films are designed to provoke emotion - the emotion he wants.

Still, I'm in two minds about whether this film is a good thing or a bad thing. I think a decent % of Americans are still pretty blind to Bush, thanks to the mainstream US media, which like Moore's documentaries are more about entertainment than facts. Michael Moore is to documentaries as Fox is to news. I'm sure this film will swing a lot of votes against Bush, but it feels kinda shallow that it's done that way.

The best result I'd hope for is that people see it, think about it, go check out more sources and make an informed decision. I'm betting if people do that, the majority will still swing against Bush.

 

[Diemen]

Great post, Earnie.

 

[BVS]

This is the kind of "review" I just don't understand. You haven't seen the film, and yet you categorically reject everything in it as "angry lies." It may interest you to know that MANY of the points made in this film are verifiable facts. Facts. Yes that's right, facts. Verified by several different and unaffiliated sources at that. Readily available to read in different newspapers and reports. Not conjured up by Moore and his cronies, but actual events/circumstances/relationships/etc that actually happened and are verifiable (tangent: if they were lies, then how come we haven't heard the Bush administration saying they don't have any ties with the Bin Laden family and Haliburton and other companies weren't trying to woo the Taliban into letting them build oil pipelines in Afghanistan. You would think they'd be jumping all over these "lies").

Oh wait, what's that, you don't like what they say? Oh well then, of course they must all be lies.

Look, here's my point. If you want to say that Moore isn't really a documentarian because he's only spouting lies, then you're not really making much of an argument and quite frankly, unless you can back up those claims, then you yourself are spouting lies. If, however, you want to say that Moore isn't really a documentarian because he only puts forth select truths and hides others which may not support his view (even if they might be pretty important), then my friend, you have a case.

More or less, Moore isn't interested in telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help him God. He's interested in the part of the truth that works for his motives. That doesn't make him a liar, it makes him a man with an agenda, and to that point Moore has been pretty outspoken.

Excellent post. The angry lies review is getting old. You can't claim lies by spouting off other lies.

 

[nbcrusader]

Are you suggesting that, even though Moore may only convey partial truths, it is falsehood free?

 

[Pinball Wizard]

Let's say for an instance, this movie is a complete fabrication, and that all of the material represents a web of lies spun by a doctor of leftist media. In terms of exposing the truth, who is responsible? An independent filmmaker (which is an immediate disclaimer) or the administration being scrutinized? I know it's not traditionally an American precept to negotiate with filmmakers sexywink, but in this case a statement on behalf of team Bush clarifying certain issues addressed in the movie would give some peace of mind to the average voter.

Should a man with clear individual intentions be allowed to carelessly misinform the American public? I don't think so. Moore may be conceived of guilt in that context as well... sexywink

It seems a lot of the contention towards this movie (notice I haven't used the term documentary) stems from a belief that it affords a disproportionate view of the political climate in the United States. Well fine then. In the past, voters in America have been relied upon for their individual interpretation and filtering of information in order to arrive at a decision. Through that intrinisic ability to decipher tangible truth in a situation of media barrage of personal attacks and special interest group lobbying, one is expected as a citizen to discover the most worthy candidate to represent their values (whatever they may be). What would be the danger in stoically accepting this concept? It is a testament to free will and democracy. With that in mind, what is the conflict with one viewing Fahrenheit 9/11, as well as the infinite number of other information outlets? Is there something inherently UnAmerican about Michael Moore? Or has faith in the individual waned to such a degree, that one is no longer able to arrive at a decision without outside interference? I'm not sure. In other words, is it more a case of Moore, or a general loss of respect for the interpretive capacity of the average American voter?

In any regard, disrespect may be bred, intentionally or not. I urge everyone to go see the movie... not because it will distort or reveal truth. Simply because you can exercise the right to see it. If one's convictions are strong, a two and a half hour movie should do none to damage it. Right?



This in no way was meant to offend anyone. I respect all the opinions that have been expressed thus far... hopefully all can accept mine, agreeance aside.

 

[zoney!]

(for P. Dubya's posting abilties)

A few comments on the movie:

Before seeing it last night, I read EVERY article and review I could get my hands on (which is "work and research" I have done before choosing any candidate I have ever voted for). I wanted to go into the movie being as objective as possible to what Moore was presenting (something I had not done before seeing "roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine").

I read about how the FBI/CIA actually "screened/questioned" the Bin Laden family members after 9/11 and flew AFTER regular scheduled flights began. The articles also stated that while the Taliban Leaders that visited Texas and Unocal when Bush was governor, they also visited with Clinton in the White House. No mention was made of the White House Visit in the movie.

Moore actually made all of the Senate (Republican AND DEMOCRATS) look like idiots for not standing up with the House of Representatives after the voting problems in 2000 in Florida, and also showed how the Democrats helped push through (NOT READ) the Patriot Act. It does not only bash Bush (although, the movie really is about Bush and his admin.).

As for Flint...

and michael, dear, shut the hell up about flint. flint's a dump. no one in michigan cares about flint anymore.

Ah, Irony. HERE is the problem...people should care about Flint. People should care about all of the areas in this country that have turned into supposed vast wastelands of economic paralysis - you know, rather than spending billions on oil interests in the Middle East.

Final word: SEVENTEEN MINUTES OF PREVIEWS

I will see everyone of those movies though

 

[BVS]

Are you suggesting that, even though Moore may only convey partial truths, it is falsehood free?

I don't know I haven't seen it or researched it yet. But I've yet to find one review that actually points out lies. I've seen a few pieces of information that were left out, but have yet to see lies. Not to say they aren't there. But I know there are enough facts that have turned the vote of a few fence sitters and one staunch Bush supporter. A close friend of mine who has researched the film quite a bit, and though found info. left out that he feels should have been put in, found enough facts where he will not vote for Bush. I was shocked.

 

[CampbellMSU]

michael moore made the democratic senators look like absolute useless idiots.

also, there was a mention of the taliban minister visitng the whitehouse. it was that scene where he told the woman that she would be difficult to handle.

i think my number one target of frustration is now saudi arabia. what a bunch of assholes. then again, we just keep shellin over the big bucks...

 

[ILuvLarryMullen]

I've gotta say there were very few things in F-9/11 that were new to me. All the film did for me was make me pissier.

ditto.

I thought the film was great, it discussed a lot of things that the mainstream media has ignored. My sister and mother saw it with me and liked it too, and my mother is by no means left wing. Up until fairly recently she considered herself a moderate republican.

 

[Diemen]

I tried to go see it today. Showed up at the theaters at 7:30 hoping to see the 7:45 showing, and both the 7:45 and 9:45 were already sold out. Surprising for a Monday evening.

 

[Nate Dogg]

I went on Monday afternoon....almost full theater. Amazing movie. I've never been to a movie where the entire audience stood up and applauded at the end. Worth seeing....

 

[Rono]

Are you suggesting that, even though Moore may only convey partial truths, it is falsehood free?

Don`t make this a FYM topic. I like the different revieuws about the movie as people see it.

 

[FullonEdge]

How can anyone want to watch a movie that is so disgustingly blatant in its purpose of manipulating facts in order to endorse a screwy political agenda!

 

[zoney!]

Go see it and tell us!

 

[ABEL]

Go see it and tell us!

i'm tired of people saying the movie is one sided so they won't even pay the money to go see it. if they don't even see it aren't they being just as one sided if not more so?

i intend on seeing the movie a second time, hopefully tonite but possibly not till the weekend.

 

[ILuvLarryMullen]

if you don't want to pay the money you can sneak in after seeing a different movie

 

[U2Kitten]

This is not being shown in my area, which features the largest concentration of military bases on the east coast. They might have thought people would be so pissed they might riot or something. All I know is, in a metropolitan area of over a million people, with dozens of 12-16 cinema theaters, we do not have this movie!

 

[Earnie Shavers]

How can anyone want to watch a movie that is so disgustingly blatant in its purpose of manipulating facts in order to endorse a screwy political agenda!

Oh, no need to get your panties in a twist. The best estimate is that about 15 million Americans will see this movie. I read, can't remember which one, that either Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh can have an audience of 15 million on any given day listening into their disgustingly blatant screwy political agenda.

 

[FullonEdge]

Oh, no need to get your panties in a twist. The best estimate is that about 15 million Americans will see this movie. I read, can't remember which one, that either Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh can have an audience of 15 million on any given day listening into their disgustingly blatant screwy political agenda.

I'm sorry I stirred some bad feelings but that doesn't mean you have to get snippy about it...in fact..well never mind.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I have seen the movie, it is a cynical and one sided look at the entire war that we are engaged in (for ellaboration please look at FYM and you will find many a long discussion of these concepts). As a film it seems to be slower than Bowling for Columbine, the spin it places on Bush's response to 9/11 was a quite poor, what would people expect Bush to do in those immediate minutes when there is a terrorist attack of no known how many people have died, if there is another attack planned. I think that Bush was taking a measured response and giving consideration before all the information was on the table and the proper arrangements got underway, having a smarny voice insist that it was Saudi business links on his mind did not seem very convincing.

The criticism of Haliburton and contractors going into Iraq as an inherently bad thing makes no sense, investing in rebuilding oil infrastructure will allow the Iraqi's to sell more oil and use the profits to invest in rebuilding the country, using a geriatric talking about some random bullshit saying that the Iraqi people will never be free trying to say that after removing the Baathist regime it will not be better is ignorant of the true nature of what went on prior to the invasion (Check out War there is a post called New Torture Video Released, that may help understand the other side of the argument but again not for here that belongs in FYM/War).

The links between the Bin Laden family and the Bush's was all on the table, nothing particulary shocking there: Saudi's Have Money to invest, Bush Runs Companys there are a few middlemen, hardly a massive conspiracy. The Unocal pipeline between Turkmenistan and Afghanistan was an interesting little sidenote because the talks with the Taliban were also matched by talks with tribal leaders and the northern alliance to discover the feesibility of such a plan, Unocal dropped out of the CentGas project after Clinton ordered submarine launched misslile strikes against Bin Laden in Afghanistan, this was in 98/99. Since this and the subsequent war in Afghanistan Unocal maintained that it did not intend on building the CentGas pipleine, it would seem that the conspiracy of Big Oil ordering war in Afghanistan was a bit of a pipe dream (http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/98news/centgas.htm)

Moore says that ?Of course, not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq.?, this is a distortion because there is one member of Congress with a child in Iraq but of course no parent anywhere would WANT to have their child die in a war, the implication is a false one. The Florida recount at the start of the movie is also false, Moore shows a single projection of a Gore victory however ignores the subsequent six month study that showed Bush won.

The footage of maimed Iraqi children bleeding profusely, burned corpses, screams and the general horror of war did not sway me. We must remember that the is what war is, it is never taken lightly - look at what happens when a bullet or a piece of shrapnel hits a human being, it is not pretty. War is a solution to a worse problem, watch the video from the Abu Ghraib prison and you will see why I am not inclined to oppose a war because of minor (yes under 20,000 is minor for a war of that scale) civilian casualties. There are hundreds of thousands of people who lie in mass graves because we stood by and did not act, investigate what Saddam did and who his real backers were and you may find that removing him without UN backing was not a criminal action (again FYM, read comments and find out facts). Showing a grieving mother was sad but wee need to remember that it was her sons choice, he decided to join up and he died, it was a terrible price to pay but he was doing his job as every soldier should. The whole never send your soldiers into harms way unless it is absolutely neccissary is a subjective propaganda piece, what exactly is a neccissary way? WW2 were not really about defending America, they could have just let Japan expand into an Asian Economic Sphere and have the Nazi's control Europe, it wouldnt have endangered the US directly, The Actions in the former Yugoslavia were unneccisary because there was no Americans at risk, it is a very poor argument, Iraq is not some sort of Idle distraction, a modern day Vietnam, it is of strategic importance in the wider was against Islamist ideology that Iraq succeeds and to suggest that it is all unnecissary and pointless is an illogical emotional plea that if adopted by the mainstream will guarantee an even larger terrorist attack using the very weapons that we strive to keep out of reach from rouge state and terrorists.

Editing was slower paced and frankly seemed to be designed to lull the senses and bombard the audience with out of context facts and half truths weaving them into a scary picture of unnecicary perpetual war against make believe enemies (the threat is real, WMD's have technically been found as well as banned munitions and the equipment used to make them, Al Qaeda links between Iraq are also slowly being documented, a top Al Qaeda officer was also a ranking member of the Fedayeen). All in all I would say that it is worth about 2/5, I give it an extra 2 stars than it deserves because I get a laugh that this is now going to be a mainstream view - Get Out And Read People, deal with the fact and make up your own minds!!

 

[ABEL]

i'm back from seeing the movie a second time. it was just as good as the first time i saw it

i couldn't believe how crowded the movie theater was for a tuesday nite. it wasn't sold out but only the first couple rows in the front were available and maybe a seat or two here and there. there was already a line outside the theater for the next showing when we left.

 

[Mr. BAW]

if you don't want to pay the money you can sneak in after seeing a different movie

Hmm..must be a Democrat..

 

[~LadyLemon~]

Well I saw this tonight. It made me laugh, it made me think, and hell, my friend and I were wiping away tears during one scene. But the main thing is that it made my blood boil. Like someone else said, I walked in there feeling pissy about the situation and walked away feeling even more infuriated.

 

[FullonEdge]

I have seen the movie, it is a cynical and one sided look at the entire war that we are engaged in (for ellaboration please look at FYM and you will find many a long discussion of these concepts). As a film it seems to be slower than Bowling for Columbine, the spin it places on Bush's response to 9/11 was a quite poor, what would people expect Bush to do in those immediate minutes when there is a terrorist attack of no known how many people have died, if there is another attack planned. I think that Bush was taking a measured response and giving consideration before all the information was on the table and the proper arrangements got underway, having a smarny voice insist that it was Saudi business links on his mind did not seem very convincing.

The criticism of Haliburton and contractors going into Iraq as an inherently bad thing makes no sense, investing in rebuilding oil infrastructure will allow the Iraqi's to sell more oil and use the profits to invest in rebuilding the country, using a geriatric talking about some random bullshit saying that the Iraqi people will never be free trying to say that after removing the Baathist regime it will not be better is ignorant of the true nature of what went on prior to the invasion (Check out War there is a post called New Torture Video Released, that may help understand the other side of the argument but again not for here that belongs in FYM/War).

The links between the Bin Laden family and the Bush's was all on the table, nothing particulary shocking there: Saudi's Have Money to invest, Bush Runs Companys there are a few middlemen, hardly a massive conspiracy. The Unocal pipeline between Turkmenistan and Afghanistan was an interesting little sidenote because the talks with the Taliban were also matched by talks with tribal leaders and the northern alliance to discover the feesibility of such a plan, Unocal dropped out of the CentGas project after Clinton ordered submarine launched misslile strikes against Bin Laden in Afghanistan, this was in 98/99. Since this and the subsequent war in Afghanistan Unocal maintained that it did not intend on building the CentGas pipleine, it would seem that the conspiracy of Big Oil ordering war in Afghanistan was a bit of a pipe dream (http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/98news/centgas.htm)

Moore says that ?Of course, not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq.?, this is a distortion because there is one member of Congress with a child in Iraq but of course no parent anywhere would WANT to have their child die in a war, the implication is a false one. The Florida recount at the start of the movie is also false, Moore shows a single projection of a Gore victory however ignores the subsequent six month study that showed Bush won.

The footage of maimed Iraqi children bleeding profusely, burned corpses, screams and the general horror of war did not sway me. We must remember that the is what war is, it is never taken lightly - look at what happens when a bullet or a piece of shrapnel hits a human being, it is not pretty. War is a solution to a worse problem, watch the video from the Abu Ghraib prison and you will see why I am not inclined to oppose a war because of minor (yet under 20,000 is minor for a war of that scale) civilian casualties. There are hundreds of thousands of people who lie in mass graves because we stood by and did not act, investigate what Saddam did and who his real backers were and you may find that removing him without UN backing was not a criminal action (again FYM, read comments and find out facts). Showing a grieving mother was sad but wee need to remember that it was her sons choice, he decided to join up and he died, it was a terrible price to pay but he was doing his job as every soldier should. The whole never send your soldiers into harms way unless it is absolutely neccissary is a subjective propaganda piece, what exactly is a neccissary way? WW2 were not really about defending America, they could have just let Japan expand into an Asian Economic Sphere and have the Nazi's control Europe, it wouldnt have endangered the US directly, The Actions in the former Yugoslavia were unneccisary because there was no Americans at risk, it is a very poor argument, Iraq is not some sort of Idle distraction, a modern day Vietnam, it is of strategic importance in the wider was against Islamist ideology that Iraq succeeds and to suggest that it is all unnecissary and pointless is an illogical emotional plea that if adopted by the mainstream will guarantee an even larger terrorist attack using the very weapons that we strive to keep out of reach from rouge state and terrorists.

Editing was slower paced and frankly seemed to be designed to lull the senses and bombard the audience with out of context facts and half truths weaving them into a scary picture of unnecicary perpetual war against make believe enemies (the threat is real, WMD's have technically been found as well as banned munitions and the equipment used to make them, Al Qaeda links between Iraq are also slowly being documented, a top Al Qaeda officer was also a ranking member of the Fedayeen). All in all I would say that it is worth about 2/5, I give it an extra 2 stars than it deserves because I get a laugh that this is now going to be a mainstream view - Get Out And Read People, deal with the fact and make up your own minds!!

I couldn't have said it any better, Wanderer

 

[zoney!]

great post A_Wanderer!

Moore did mention the single congressman with a child in Iraq. I felt the same way....NO parent wants a child at war. I feel Moore's point, though, is that the people that are in the US Armed Forces are people who really do not have a better choice. The US education systems are failing at giving children in poverty situations an opportunity to move out of those situations. The G.I. Bill helps these individuals, and now in Iraq...hurts these opportunities.

I do not agree with you on the connection between Al Q. and Iraq. I think (read: personal opinion) that any connections that are "slowly materializing" are going to be weak connection at best. Like any political situation, as much as the right wing feels that Moore is half-truthing the general public, I see it as an even BIGGER CRIME that an elected official would half-truth us (ala dubya). If you are going to Iraq to fight Human Rights attrocities (you mentioned the mass graves) and the freedom of the Iraqi people...don't tell us (the citizens of the US) that we are sending thousands and thousands of troops to Iraq to fight terrorism and find WMDs. Tell us that this will help our (or, in his case, your, as in the Bush family) pocketbooks/economy.



I love all of Moore's movies...I felt this was by far the slowest.

 

[cydewaze]

Well I saw the movie, and I plan to see it again once Jessica gets here.

Like someone else mentioned, most of what was in the movie was familiar. There were a few new things I came away with, but for me the important part of the movie was how packed to capacity the theatre was. It meant a lot to me that enough people still care enough about the country to pack a theatre like that, in the middle of the day. Maybe we're not doomed yet.

I'm also impressed by the number of people (not just here, but everywhere) critiquing the movie, sight unseen. I guess that's their perogative, but I'm still happy to see that someone is *finally* showing us the other side of the coin that the media hasn't been showing us. As for the accuracy of the movie, it's no less accurate, nor is it any more biased than an episode of Rush, O'Rielly, or any of the others. It's just the view of the other side of the political coin.

Should everyone see it? Not if it's going to raise your blood pressure. But if you're apolitical or progressive, it's defeinitely worth seeing. I give it several thumbs ups.

 

[enggirl]

Moore says that ?Of course, not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq.?, this is a distortion because there is one member of Congress with a child in Iraq but of course no parent anywhere would WANT to have their child die in a war, the implication is a false one. The Florida recount at the start of the movie is also false, Moore shows a single projection of a Gore victory however ignores the subsequent six month study that showed Bush won.

Let me say first that I am not personally attacking A_Wanderer--but that what has been said here has been said in other places and I just wanted to respond to these ideas...

No one, of course, would want a child--or husband, wife, brother, sister, etc.--to die in a war. But the point I think Moore, and others, is trying to make is that:
a) soldiers are dying in a war that was started under many false pretenses (WMD, "freeing" the Iraqis from a man who we helped once upon a time, etc.), and
b) we are constantly told via the media that these soldiers are "protecting our freedom"--when, in fact, there has been no absolute evidence that Saddam was a threat to the US. So, if there was no threat of attack, then how can there be a threat to freedom? (Personally, I find the conservatives who are trying to stir up theaters to boycott/not show this film to be a bigger threat to freedom...but that's another conversation).

The footage of maimed Iraqi children bleeding profusely, burned corpses, screams and the general horror of war did not sway me. We must remember that the is what war is, it is never taken lightly - look at what happens when a bullet or a piece of shrapnel hits a human being, it is not pretty. War is a solution to a worse problem, watch the video from the Abu Ghraib prison and you will see why I am not inclined to oppose a war because of minor (yes under 20,000 is minor for a war of that scale) civilian casualties. There are hundreds of thousands of people who lie in mass graves because we stood by and did not act

Unfortunately, our media in the US doesn't often give us a real look at the "horror of war." But what I find really maddening is hearing on the news how "insurgents" are attacking our troops. I just think of the 11,000-15,000 or so Iraqi civilians who have been killed (I guess exact numbers have been very difficult to calculate), and I think of how many relatives each person had. I think you have to agree that a force invading your country and killing one--or even all of your realtives--will lead you to taking up arms and trying to blow away anyone you see in a certain uniform. How many people are woth it? If it was 50,000 would we start to think "Hmmm...maybe now it wasn't such a good idea." 100,000. Half a million. I wonder when it's OK to kill those same people we say we are "freeing." Saddam didn't gas the people he did in the name of freedom...

And we stand by and don't act all the time when humans are killed on massive scales. The Sudan anyone? It's going on right now. If that was our excuse for going to war, then I think we need to have that sort of rule across the board.

Iraq is not some sort of Idle distraction, a modern day Vietnam, it is of strategic importance in the wider was against Islamist ideology that Iraq succeeds and to suggest that it is all unnecissary and pointless is an illogical emotional plea that if adopted by the mainstream will guarantee an even larger terrorist attack using the very weapons that we strive to keep out of reach from rouge state and terrorists.

Something that everyone seems to forget is that Iraq under Saddam was Muslim, yes, but had a secular government. The women worked and were not covered head to foot in public, for one thing. Yeah, I agree that he was a dangerous and hugely egotistical dictator. But he did it for his own glory, not the greater glory of Allah, as the fundamentalist Islamist terrorists do. And to bunch all Islamic countries together seems an illogical emotional plea. It's that fear button that this administration keeps on pushing--that has a majority of people polled linking Saddam to 9/11, when there is no clear, proven link.

There is so much more to say, but I'm afriad of really stepping in it. Again, this is not a personal attack. But in these polarized political times, when one side has been hollering for years that to say anything against the administration is akin to treason, it feels good to finally have somewhere where we can discuss things--and at least try to be grown ups about it.

 

[joyfulgirl]

enggirl