• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

michael moore to partner with disney to make a bush bashing documentary

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Erroneous assumptions do not = solid proof.

When talking about war are assumptions a good thing? Erroneous or not.
 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
Originally posted by: KenGr
No surprise about Disney getting involved here. This is a sure fire money maker and Moore isn't going to complain about capitalism when it feeds his ego and his bank account.

The cost to make this will be tiny. No actors to pay. Use stock news footage and edit to create the message. No expense required for fact checking. Operating costs to keep the big boy in junk food and you're off to the box office. Market it based on his "documentary" awards. (How many in Hollywood have ever seen a documentary other than Moore's?)

If they can con 100,000 people into buying tickets, this thing is in the black. And if Disney can get political funding, it may make money before it even hits the screens. Striesand might front the whole thing.

No actors to pay?!? LOL. Disney certainly can't lose any more credibility with Moore. :) Their documentaries were notoriously staged for years.
:p
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Erroneous assumptions do not = solid proof.

When talking about war are assumptions a good thing? Erroneous or not.
Intelligence assessments are called that for a reason since getting "solid proof" is typically impossible in a totalitarian country when they are hostile to your intentions. Asking for "solid proof" prior to action is asking for paralysis. We don't demand that of our police forces even in the guarantee of our most basic rights under the Bill of Rights.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: Gaard
Erroneous assumptions do not = solid proof.

When talking about war are assumptions a good thing? Erroneous or not.
Intelligence assessments are called that for a reason since getting "solid proof" is typically impossible in a totalitarian country when they are hostile to your intentions. Asking for "solid proof" prior to action is asking for paralysis. We don't demand that of our police forces even in the guarantee of our most basic rights under the Bill of Rights.
Andrew,
Does our president know this? When he said 'solid proof' what he really meant was 'to the best of our knowledge'?

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
part of the solid proof was in the form of testimony from a former Iraqi WMD scientist. He described in such great detail mobile Bio WMD labs he worked in that we were able to make accurate drawings and show them to the UN, who of course had never seen nor heard of these in 12 years of inspections. What do ya know, we found 2 of them, outfitted and layed out exactly as Powell claimed with no other use other than ILLEGITIMATE biological production. Filtration systems that were used to wipe out any chemical signature of the agents produced prove their intended use, even if you somehow forget the confession and overwhelmingly accurate information provided.

Remember when they went to the UN and also said there is a terrorist traning camp associated with Al-Qaida that we believe is being used to train and teach WMD uses in combat. Do you think that might be the same terrorist training camp we fought against
al-qaida for in Iraq where we found recipes for WMD and dispersion manuals? Yes traces of ricin were found there, but that grows there naturally, forget it is one Al-Qaida's preferred WMD. You do remember the admitted Al-Qaida member arrested in London this year in Jan? he was making ricin himself.

Bush could get shot with an Iraqi anthrax bullet by OBL and you wouldn't stop your spinning....
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Alistar7 - I hope you're kidding. Not about the fact that a scientist testified. But about that being 'solid proof'. He may very well be legit, and is telling the truth...but that isn't even close to being proof. I somehow doubt that this is what Bush was talking about....but if it was, he should've said "We have the word of a former Iraqi scientist", not "We have solid proof".
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
We may find that the Iraqi scientist who surrendered in the war was also right about the things he claimed, such as all the WMD were destroyed only months before the war to eliminate the evidence.

Did he tell us anything else that was found to be true? He claoimed to have worked in the WMD program, and then he led us to an open field where precursor chemicals were recently buried, ones he himself could have QUICKLY turned into WMD.

Gaard, intelligence is often "spooky" at best, those labs are a slam dunk for our intelligence. Their existence was not even KNOWN outside of Iraq, and the UN still couldn't find them after we alerted them of their existence.

Not one member of the UN security council would come out and say they believed Saddam did not have any WMD left, they all knew about the TONS unaccounted for and Iraq's ability to produce mass amounts very quickly as well as Saddam's past and his current games and non-compliance, some members even knew of modern arms that somehow slipped into Iraq from their own countries, ooohh the shame, I can't believe so many people will be apparently shocked to death to find out Iraq had WMD programs and weapons, it is like jumping in the ocean and being suprised when you get all wet....
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Alistar7
We may find that the Iraqi scientist who surrendered in the war was also right about the things he claimed, such as all the WMD were destroyed only months before the war to eliminate the evidence.
With all due respect, you keep repeating this claim, but you have yet to back it up. The one article you linked talks about a scientist who hadn't worked in the Iraqi weapons program for many years. He said the weapons were destroyed before he left, i.e., sometime before the mid-90's. That is NOT anywhere close to the "months before" claim you keep throwing up.

To corroborate this, the Iraqi defector who provided Bush's "evidence" about mass quantities of NBC materials (and about the mobile labs) also stated that he had personal knowledge that these materials were destroyed BEFORE he left Iraq. Bush, Powell, & Co. conveniently left this out when they were bullying Congress and the U.N. to go to war.

Every time I pointed this out in other threads, you disappeared. I suspect you misread the article and are too embarrassed to acknowledge it. If it's real, I would truly like to see the article; it would be interesting new information. If not, give it up already.


 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Alistar7 - I hope you're kidding. Not about the fact that a scientist testified. But about that being 'solid proof'. He may very well be legit, and is telling the truth...but that isn't even close to being proof. I somehow doubt that this is what Bush was talking about....but if it was, he should've said "We have the word of a former Iraqi scientist", not "We have solid proof".
It's semantics. What I was addressing in my post (I'm responding to your earlier question) is that people seem to be asking for a vial of nerve agent with the inscription "Made in Iraq" in the hands of US intelligence prior to taking any action whatsoever. As for what President Bush was referring to when he said "solid proof", I either don't know or can't say. People seem to critisize the US for a lack of physical evidence prior to invading. I merely wanted to point out that physical evidence is obviously not easy to obtain when someone runs a secret police force in a country and shoots at our planes flying overhead.
 
D

Deleted member 4644

Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Man I can'r wait to see if this materializes. We all know the Bush family helped fianced Hitler right? Was even convicted of it.


Bush Property Seized--Under the Trading with the Enemy Act

[/Hank Williams Jr] It's a family tradition [/Hank Williams Jr]:music:
You're sing off key there boy, but keep trying. Some day you might get the notes right and make some harmony. Right now you are sounding rather shrill.

Was President Bush's great-grandfather a Nazi?
It is actually true that the Bush family was connected - if indirectly - to Nazi banks and companies. I have seen the entries in the lib. of Congress.
 
D

Deleted member 4644

Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Man I can'r wait to see if this materializes. We all know the Bush family helped fianced Hitler right? Was even convicted of it.


Bush Property Seized--Under the Trading with the Enemy Act

[/Hank Williams Jr] It's a family tradition [/Hank Williams Jr]:music:
You're sing off key there boy, but keep trying. Some day you might get the notes right and make some harmony. Right now you are sounding rather shrill.

Was President Bush's great-grandfather a Nazi?
It is actually true that the Bush family was connected - if indirectly - to Nazi banks and companies. I have seen the entries in the lib. of Congress.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Alistar7
We may find that the Iraqi scientist who surrendered in the war was also right about the things he claimed, such as all the WMD were destroyed only months before the war to eliminate the evidence.
With all due respect, you keep repeating this claim, but you have yet to back it up. The one article you linked talks about a scientist who hadn't worked in the Iraqi weapons program for many years. He said the weapons were destroyed before he left, i.e., sometime before the mid-90's. That is NOT anywhere close to the "months before" claim you keep throwing up.

To corroborate this, the Iraqi defector who provided Bush's "evidence" about mass quantities of NBC materials (and about the mobile labs) also stated that he had personal knowledge that these materials were destroyed BEFORE he left Iraq. Bush, Powell, & Co. conveniently left this out when they were bullying Congress and the U.N. to go to war.

Every time I pointed this out in other threads, you disappeared. I suspect you misread the article and are too embarrassed to acknowledge it. If it's real, I would truly like to see the article; it would be interesting new information. If not, give it up already.
Again
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: LordSegan
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Man I can'r wait to see if this materializes. We all know the Bush family helped fianced Hitler right? Was even convicted of it.


Bush Property Seized--Under the Trading with the Enemy Act

[/Hank Williams Jr] It's a family tradition [/Hank Williams Jr]:music:
You're sing off key there boy, but keep trying. Some day you might get the notes right and make some harmony. Right now you are sounding rather shrill.

Was President Bush's great-grandfather a Nazi?
It is actually true that the Bush family was connected - if indirectly - to Nazi banks and companies. I have seen the entries in the lib. of Congress.
Lots of people were connected indirectly. IBM solds the German punchcard machines which were used to track and process jews to their camps. It took an act of congress to shutdown trade once the war started.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: LordSegan
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Man I can'r wait to see if this materializes. We all know the Bush family helped fianced Hitler right? Was even convicted of it.


Bush Property Seized--Under the Trading with the Enemy Act

[/Hank Williams Jr] It's a family tradition [/Hank Williams Jr]:music:
You're sing off key there boy, but keep trying. Some day you might get the notes right and make some harmony. Right now you are sounding rather shrill.

Was President Bush's great-grandfather a Nazi?
It is actually true that the Bush family was connected - if indirectly - to Nazi banks and companies. I have seen the entries in the lib. of Congress.
So? If you look around just a little you will find that almost every major company in the US had dealings with Germany and therefore the Nazi's in the thirties. Ford and IBM are some good ones to start with if you want more information. Do you think that the idiot Moore will bring that little fact up in his bashing laughingly so-called documentary?

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Alistar7
We may find that the Iraqi scientist who surrendered in the war was also right about the things he claimed, such as all the WMD were destroyed only months before the war to eliminate the evidence.
With all due respect, you keep repeating this claim, but you have yet to back it up. The one article you linked talks about a scientist who hadn't worked in the Iraqi weapons program for many years. He said the weapons were destroyed before he left, i.e., sometime before the mid-90's. That is NOT anywhere close to the "months before" claim you keep throwing up.

To corroborate this, the Iraqi defector who provided Bush's "evidence" about mass quantities of NBC materials (and about the mobile labs) also stated that he had personal knowledge that these materials were destroyed BEFORE he left Iraq. Bush, Powell, & Co. conveniently left this out when they were bullying Congress and the U.N. to go to war.

Every time I pointed this out in other threads, you disappeared. I suspect you misread the article and are too embarrassed to acknowledge it. If it's real, I would truly like to see the article; it would be interesting new information. If not, give it up already.
you are confusing two people, perhaps that is the problem. The one who surrendered DURING the war led us to buried precursor chemicals. He is the one who claimed they were destroyed only months before the war. He is not the one who was out of the "scientific wing" of the program since 1991, but still involved in the program until the mid 90's, I know who you are speaking about.

I guess the one who gave the testimony about the labs was wrong about their destruction, since we have one we can assume they were not all destroyed. Iraqi programs were higly compartmentalized, nobody knew what the others were doing or the scope and extent of the work, this is consistent in almost all interviews.

I am not disappearing. I undertand they have right now ONE team in there searching sites. They have checked just over 100 out of 2,000+. I also know how much Iraq admittedto having and how much of that is unaccounted for. I also know they will never satsify requirements of the resolutions, the retrun of the Kuwaiti POW"S was also a requirement, not going to happen now. Whether the US ever finds what is unaccounted for is irrelevant, Saddam was the only one who the burden of proof rested on, and he failed miserably.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Alistar7
We may find that the Iraqi scientist who surrendered in the war was also right about the things he claimed, such as all the WMD were destroyed only months before the war to eliminate the evidence.
With all due respect, you keep repeating this claim, but you have yet to back it up. The one article you linked talks about a scientist who hadn't worked in the Iraqi weapons program for many years. He said the weapons were destroyed before he left, i.e., sometime before the mid-90's. That is NOT anywhere close to the "months before" claim you keep throwing up.

To corroborate this, the Iraqi defector who provided Bush's "evidence" about mass quantities of NBC materials (and about the mobile labs) also stated that he had personal knowledge that these materials were destroyed BEFORE he left Iraq. Bush, Powell, & Co. conveniently left this out when they were bullying Congress and the U.N. to go to war.

Every time I pointed this out in other threads, you disappeared. I suspect you misread the article and are too embarrassed to acknowledge it. If it's real, I would truly like to see the article; it would be interesting new information. If not, give it up already.
Again
again, people have lives.

did you get my response? Seems to me YOU can't keep things straight, that must be the problem here.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,420
5,485
126
Originally posted by: Gaard
Erroneous assumptions do not = solid proof.

When talking about war are assumptions a good thing? Erroneous or not.
the only reason wars are ever fought is erroneous assumptions.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Alistar7
you are confusing two people, perhaps that is the problem. The one who surrendered DURING the war led us to buried precursor chemicals. He is the one who claimed they were destroyed only months before the war. He is not the one who was out of the "scientific wing" of the program since 1991, but still involved in the program until the mid 90's, I know who you are speaking about.
You are probably right, but I've never seen a link to this other scientist you keep mentioning. When I raised this question before, you responded twice with a link to the guy who dropped out years before. I heard TV rumors about someone who claimed weapons had been destroyed just before the war, but as far as I could tell, these rumors disappeared without ever being substantiated. I've never seen a published story with any details re. this other scientist; appreciate your help.

I guess the one who gave the testimony about the labs was wrong about their destruction, since we have one we can assume they were not all destroyed. Iraqi programs were higly compartmentalized, nobody knew what the others were doing or the scope and extent of the work, this is consistent in almost all interviews.
As far as I know, he never claimed the labs were destroyed, just the chemical and biological agents. Specifically, the Iraqi defector Bush & Co. quoted so much said he had personal knowledge that those NBC agents were destroyed.


 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Gaard
Erroneous assumptions do not = solid proof.

When talking about war are assumptions a good thing? Erroneous or not.
the only reason wars are ever fought is erroneous assumptions.

I'm not following you.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: JudistPriest
wtf

i hate mike moore
didn't Disney also fund a film starring a convicted child molester? I think the movie was called Powder. Just gotta love the high standards Disney has for itself. And they wonder why their company is suffering.
 

Ilmater

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2002
7,516
0
0
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Man I can'r wait to see if this materializes. We all know the Bush family helped fianced Hitler right? Was even convicted of it.


Bush Property Seized--Under the Trading with the Enemy Act

[/Hank Williams Jr] It's a family tradition [/Hank Williams Jr]:music:
You... don't... read much... do you...
`` E. Roland Harriman--3991 shares ''
[chairman and director of Union Banking Corp. (UBC); this is `` Bunny '' Harriman, described by Prescott Bush as a place holder who didn't get much into banking affairs; Prescott managed his personal investments]

`` Prescott S. Bush--1 share ''
[director of UBC, which was co-founded and sponsored by his father-in-law George Walker; senior managing partner for E. Roland Harriman and Averell Harriman]
I couldn't even call this an endictment of Prescott Bush, much less G. W. Bush. You're saying that a guy that owned one share of a bank that he was a director in (which doesn't mean squat) and apparently didn't touch the banking side of is a Nazi? If I have to waste my time telling you how flawed that reasoning is, then you won't understand it anyway.

I'm no great Bush-lover, I surely wouldn't use something this flawed in an effort to bash someone I did dislike (say, Hillary Clinton; the most unqualified candidate ever to win a national office... ever).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY