Hollywood abuzz about 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2003
Hollywood abuzz about 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
712
Sun, 06-13-2004 - 2:23pm

"...and this country is really in the mood for somebody to tell ’em what they should think, what to do.”


That's exactly what democrats want--to tell the American people what we should think and what we should do. Unbelievable, he just gave away their secret! I'm glad I can think for myself, thank you.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5050832/


And how about the celebrity turnout for the premiere? Not a real shocker to see Martin Sheen, Demi Moore, Drew Barrymoore, et al excited to be there. And how about Camryn Manheim who was also there, quoted, "A lot of us look to Michael Moore to uncover the real truth." ROFL.


*sigh* These people...

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Sat, 07-03-2004 - 4:00pm
"t was unquestionably a good thing for the Iraquis. "

That's not what THEY say. Are you saying they're all stupid and don't know what's best for them?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Sat, 07-03-2004 - 4:18pm
I agree with you, but we should also not forget that the US supported and trained the Taliban and Bin Laden, when they were fighting the russians. They were just as backward and horrible then as they are today. The Taliban have a horrible track record, and we should have never sided with them. This being said, I supported the attacks in aghanistan, although I think they could have been done without as much collateral damage.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-02-2004
Sat, 07-03-2004 - 4:26pm
>>>it was unquestionably a good thing for the Iraquis.<<<

bush didn't declare war was for the good of the IRaqi people though, he declared war claiming connections with al queda, support coming from hussein for al queda,and an imminent threat from Iraq. As for what is good for the Iraqi people, that is not for us to decide but for them and so far they haven't thought anything we have done since occupying their country has been a good thing.

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=17


"Iraqis have lived this lie before"

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=5613

In Anger, Ordinary Iraqis Are Joining the Insurgency

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=5592


" Preachers in Iraq's mosques have heaped scorn on the American-run occupation every Friday for weeks, venting their anger and frustration from pulpits across the country."

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=5557

"US occupation of palace irritates Iraqis"

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=5462


currently women are NOT better off now, thing are horrific for them, not only due to security concerns, but fear of islamic fundamentalists, rape, kidnappings. Add to that the anger because of abu ghraib. People can convince themselves till the cows come home about how it was a good thing we invaded and occupied, but the iraqi people are speaking out and it isn't particularly nice.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 07-03-2004 - 4:54pm

Just for the record, I am of cóurse very aware that only part of the working class people live in housing projects. Of course

Djie

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-11-2004
Sat, 07-03-2004 - 11:25pm
I would have supported the decision regarding afghanistan no matter who the president was in office at the time, democrat or republican.

alfie

I completely agree. Afghanastan was legit. It was a necessary action. But Iraq is completely different to me.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Sun, 07-04-2004 - 12:01am
I think you're overstating Clinton's position on the war. Sure, he's not as animated as Gore is about it, but I wouldn't say he "backs Bush's decision."

Sections from an interview last week on Salon.com

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/06/25/clinton/index.html

Q: Al Gore gave a speech in Washington Thursday about the Bush administration's attempts to link Iraq and al-Qaida. Do you agree with him that the administration misled the country about those alleged links?

The whole time I was there , I knew of no links. Now, I don't think you can say for sure that there was never an al-Qaida member that was inside Iraq, but in terms of them being operational partners, I didn't know anything about that. I also never had any doubt that Iraq was not behind 9/11, because they didn't have the terrorist capacity to do it.

A: I supported -- as the whole world did -- resuming the weapons inspections inside Iraq, for a simple reason. When any kind of tyranny is running out of steam -- as Iraq seemed to be -- I was afraid if they still did have any of those chemical or biological agents, somebody might sell them or give them away, or they might be stolen. But in terms of working together, I never saw any evidence of it. And I have not seen any evidence since -- from what's been in the press -- that supports that contention. And apparently the 9/11 commission doesn't agree either.

Now I hear Vice President Cheney continuing to assert that there is a connection, but there's a difference between assertion and evidence. If they have some kind of evidence, they can come forward with it, but I haven't seen any yet.


Q: The administration and its supporters have often cited statements from you and your administration about Saddam Hussein's regime to justify the decision to go to war in Iraq. I have heard you say recently that the invasion was too precipitous -- and that the president should have waited until the inspections were completed, at least. Do you believe the war was justified?

A: Well, I believed at the time that it was far more important to win a complete victory in Afghanistan, do everything we could to try to find Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida's leadership, and help Hamid Karzai be the president of the whole country and not just Kabul. Now it seems to be moving in the right direction anyway because Karzai has proved to be a very able man and because we beefed up our support a little bit and the rest of the world came in a little bit. I thought at the time that we should take care of our Afghan obligations first. I thought it was curious -- given who did 9/11 and what the big terrorist threat was -- that we were sending 150,000 troops to Iraq and had only between 12,000 and 15,000 in Afghanistan.

But Paul Wolfowitz always had a theory that if they got rid of Saddam Hussein they could build a democracy in the Middle East that would shake up the other authoritarian Arab regimes, and that would give them greater leverage in making peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The only legal justification they had for going to war was Saddam Hussein's failure to comply with the U.N. resolutions .

And I didn't see how we had triggered that by substituting our judgment for that of Hans Blix. If Blix had said this guy won't cooperate, he's bad, and we ought to take him out, then I would have favored military action. But had that happened, then whether the Security Council voted for it or not, we would have had many more allies and far fewer enemies, and no one would have thought we had a different agenda.

...

(Clinton, in his answer to a question about Blair & Iraq)

To me, the evidence was more limited than what Vice President Cheney said. There were unaccounted-for stocks of chemical and biological agents; a few unaccounted-for missiles that could be loaded with chemical and biological agents; and some quite limited laboratory capacity to do very preliminary work toward nuclear weapons. That's what we knew. I never knew of any yellowcake from Niger or any of that stuff.

My view was that it would be good if we could account for all that. And if we had a corollary benefit of installing a more representative, less tyrannical government in Iraq, that would be a good thing. But I thought we didn't want to start the doctrine of preventive war there, because we had a lot of fish to fry with bin Laden and al-Qaida and Afghanistan.

My view was somewhere, I guess, between where Al Gore's was and where Bush and Blair were. I never liked Saddam Hussein and I wasn't sure he didn't have some of that chemical and biological weaponry left. So I was left without a home for my policy when Hans Blix wasn't allowed to finish his job. Blix was plainly an honest and competent man who wasn't rolling over for Saddam Hussein. He was tough on the Iraqis when they didn't help him. He tried to totally play it straight.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-29-2004
Sun, 07-04-2004 - 9:09am
First of all, I work in the media business & I'm a Republican (which is RARE to say the least). I think Michael Moore is a complete idiot!!! I have always believed that whether you like your president or not, you should still show respect. This guy is out there making movies to get people to dislike our President. To me, that is just bad taste! I happen to think that Bush has done a good job. What do you think Gore would have done? Probably NOTHING!!! & I bet we would have been attacked again.

I am praying to God that Kerry doesn't get elected. I am, with no doubt, voting for Bush. But, I saw that there was interview on TV last week w/ Kerry. & I thought I would see what he was like (even though I've seen enough). I had to turn it off 15min into the show. This guy is so ARROGANT!!!!! He is going around OUR country in a plane that says "KERRY PRESIDENT". What? Am I missing something? Did I miss the election? Because I thought Bush was President. They asked him if there was a word missing, like "for". & And he simply stated, "No". How cocky is that? Hopefully we can put LOSER on his plane instead!

~Amy

 Mommy to:

Maggie - 4/16/98

Joey - 8/31/01

Robert James 8/12/08

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-26-2003
Sun, 07-04-2004 - 12:44pm
<>

You're joking, right? My ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War. One helped draft the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and two served as President of the United States. This country was founded by rebels who refused to be blindly led.

How DARE you suggest that those who are unhappy with the current administration leave the country? Questioning and rebellion are woven into the fabric of America---good Americans question their leaders. They expect answers, and accountability.

The current leave-it-if-you-don't-like-it climate is terrifying to me. It epitomizes everything UN-American.

Happy Fourth, Patriot. After your Buds with the good ole boys, maybe you'll want to crack open that American history book and see what this country is supposed to be about.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-20-2004
Sun, 07-04-2004 - 1:14pm
I am neither a Muslim nor black, but if America is soooooooooooooooooooooo concerned about democracy how comes that it has supported so many totalitarisms in Latin America -as the Soviet Union did in Eastern Europe- just to keep away left-sided governments, democratically elected by people? We all remember, or should remember, Pinochet. The ONLY Latin American totalitarism that they fought was the Cuban one, just because they were communist.

Moreover, I am very concerned by the conclusion of the column. Pacifists are stigmatized, as if being pro-war were the only proper way of thinking. If the United States are sooooooooooooooooooooo democratic, how comes that left-sided people are condemneded 4 their ideas? This assumption of being ALWAYS right, after all, it's not democratic in itself. We live in a dangerous world.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Sun, 07-04-2004 - 1:28pm
I sorry you don't know how, I don't think I'm the one to explain.

Pages