Saturday, September 25, 2004
Give Rather the boot.
I have toldWIVB TV4 Buffalo, NY that I will not watch their news again until it is no longer followed by Dan Rather.
Disgraceful
Kerry has shown what we knew was trueWhat's good for the country is bad for Kerry, and what is good for Kerry is bad for the world.
Disgraceful
Kerry has shown what we knew was trueWhat's good for the country is bad for Kerry, and what is good for Kerry is bad for the world.
Friday, September 24, 2004
I try to Answer Michael Moore's Letter to the President
Dear Michael Moron: (Please disregard any typos, as this was done on a 1972 IBM selectric typewriter with superscripts, but no spell check)
Thanks for your letter. If you are out of breath, you might consider a change in diet. I kid.... Anyway, I know you are genuinely interested in the issues, so I will attempt to explain it to you. Don't worry, I have a grasp of your acumen, so I will type s-l-o-w-l-y.
First of all, I should point out that there have been tremendous breakthroughs in understanding the human genome. One thing they have found was that conventional thinking had been correct, and the thoughts of one generation are not controlled by the previous one. That is good news for any offspring you might ever have. With that in mind, I will jump right to your 2000 paragraph. Before I do, though, let me point out that throughout history, nation states have formed alliances with other nation states only to have world events impact those alliances. Would a photo of FDR, Winston Churchill and Stalin grinning upset you as much as the one to which you refer? IF so, it is good that you are not a student of history.
I would tell Mr. Lehrer the same thing I told him in 2000. In fact, I believe it remains one of the things that differentiates me from my current opponent - "I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place". As Mr. Kerry mentioned just yesterday - Iraq is a magnet for terrorists. I believe it is better to fight them in Najaf than Newark.
As your 2001 quote of Dr. Rice and Secretary Powell suggest, our early assessment of Saddam Hussein was that he was kept in check by the UN and opponents within his country. Do you disagree? Should we have acted sooner?
I am not sure what to make of your "Late 2001" quote. It does of course include a link to that Reputable "News Program" 60 Minutes, quoting a disgruntled former employee and all, but still.... I am quoted, via these two filters, as saying "Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.'" That would seem to most to be an earnest attempt at fact finding, wouldn't you think? I know you do things differently in your "documentaries", but I prefer to act based on facts.
That brings us to 2003. I didn't change my mind about why we chose to invade. There were countless reasons for invading, and I believe if you check the record, when I spoke to the American people, I went through a long list of them. Perhaps the list was longer than your attention span, but perhaps you can re-read it.
Next, let me quote you "
2003: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Yes, everyone saw you say it -- in costume, no less!"
Michael - again, I am not sure if you are having trouble separating your fantasy "docu-life" from reality, bit I wonder who it is that "saw me say that"? Your question was asked (much more intelligently) just about a year ago. Let me refer you to the transcript
Q Mr. President, if I may take you back to May 1st when you stood on the USS Lincoln under a huge banner that said, "Mission Accomplished." At that time you declared major combat operations were over, but since that time there have been over 1,000 wounded, many of them amputees who are recovering at Walter Reed, 217 killed in action since that date. Will you acknowledge now that you were premature in making those remarks?
THE PRESIDENT: Nora, I think you ought to look at my speech. I said, Iraq is a dangerous place and we've still got hard work to do, there's still more to be done. And we had just come off a very successful military operation. I was there to thank the troops.
The "Mission Accomplished" sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished. I know it was attributed some how to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way. But my statement was a clear statement, basically recognizing that this phase of the war for Iraq was over and there was a lot of dangerous work. And it's proved to be right, it is dangerous in Iraq. It's dangerous in Iraq because there are people who can't stand the thought of a free and peaceful Iraq. It is dangerous in Iraq because there are some who believe that we're soft, that the will of the United States can be shaken by suiciders -- and suiciders who are willing to drive up to a Red Cross center, a center of international help and aid and comfort, and just kill.
It's the same mentality, by the way, that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001: we'll just destroy innocent life and watch the great United States and their friends and allies crater in the face of hardship. It's the exact same mentality. And Iraq is a part of the war on terror. I said it's a central front, a new front in the war on terror, and that's exactly what it is. And that's why it's important for us to be tough and strong and diligent.
Our strategy in Iraq is to have strike forces ready and capable to move quickly as we gather actionable intelligence. That's how you deal with terrorists. Remember, these are people that are willing to hide in societies and kill randomly. And therefore, the best way to deal with them is to harden targets, harden assets as best as you can. That means blockades and inspection spots. And, as you notice, yesterday, one fellow tried to -- was done in as a he tried to conduct a suicide mission. In other words, an Iraqi policemen did their job.
But, as well, that we've got to make sure that not only do we harden targets, but that we get actionable intelligence to intercept the missions before they begin. That means more Iraqis involved in the intelligence-gathering systems in their country so that they are active participants in securing the country from further harm.
Remember, the action in Iraq was -- to get rid of Saddam Hussein was widely supported by the Iraqi people. And the action -- the actions that we're taking to improve their country are supported by the Iraqi people. And it's going to be very important for the Iraqi people to play an active role in fighting off the few who are trying to destroy the hopes of the many. You've heard me say that before. That's just kind of the motto of the terrorists. It's the way they operate.
So Michael, you see, if you are interested in a conversation based in reality, I am sure you can find it. Your simple ad hominem attacks and your straw man arguments make me believe otherwise, however. Please keep up the good work though, as every time you or Whoopi, Carrot Top or Ben Affleck open your mouths I feel a little more wind at my back (Kerry wind surfing metaphor, get it?).
Sincerely,
DR for GWB
===============================================================================
9/22/04
Dear Mr. Bush,
I am so confused. Where exactly do you stand on the issue of Iraq? You, your Dad, Rummy, Condi, Colin, and Wolfie -- you have all changed your minds so many times, I am out of breath just trying to keep up with you!
Which of these 10 positions that you, your family and your cabinet have taken over the years represents your CURRENT thinking:
1983-88: WE LOVE SADDAM. On December 19, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was sent by your dad and Mr. Reagan to go and have a friendly meeting with Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq. Rummy looked so happy in the picture. Just twelve days after this visit, Saddam gassed thousands of Iranian troops. Your dad and Rummy seemed pretty happy with the results because The Donald R. went back to have another chummy hang-out with Saddams right-hand man, Tariq Aziz, just four months later. All of this resulted in the U.S. providing credits and loans to Iraq that enabled Saddam to buy billions of dollars worth of weapons and chemical agents. The Washington Post reported that your dad and Reagan let it be known to their Arab allies that the Reagan/Bush administration wanted Iraq to win its war with Iran and anyone who helped Saddam accomplish this was a friend of ours.
1990: WE HATE SADDAM. In 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, your dad and his defense secretary, Dick Cheney, decided they didn't like Saddam anymore so they attacked Iraq and returned Kuwait to its rightful dictators.
1991: WE WANT SADDAM TO LIVE. After the war, your dad and Cheney and Colin Powell told the Shiites to rise up against Saddam and we would support them. So they rose up. But then we changed our minds. When the Shiites rose up against Saddam, the Bush inner circle changed its mind and decided NOT to help the Shiites. Thus, they were massacred by Saddam.
1998: WE WANT SADDAM TO DIE. In 1998, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, as part of the Project for the New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Clinton insisting he invade and topple Saddam Hussein.
2000: WE DON'T BELIEVE IN WAR AND NATION BUILDING. Just three years later, during your debate with Al Gore in the 2000 election, when asked by the moderator Jim Lehrer where you stood when it came to using force for regime change, you turned out to be a downright pacifist:
I--I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president [Al Gore] and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I--I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. And so I take my--I take my--my responsibility seriously. --October 3, 2000
2001 (early): WE DON'T BELIEVE SADDAM IS A THREAT. When you took office in 2001, you sent your Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, in front of the cameras to assure the American people they need not worry about Saddam Hussein. Here is what they said:
Powell: We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they have directed that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began it. And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. --February 24, 2001
Rice: But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt. --July 29, 2001
2001 (late): WE BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US! Just a few months later, in the hours and days after the 9/11 tragedy, you had no interest in going after Osama bin Laden. You wanted only to bomb Iraq and kill Saddam and you then told all of America we were under imminent threat because weapons of mass destruction were coming our way. You led the American people to believe that Saddam had something to do with Osama and 9/11. Without the UN's sanction, you broke international law and invaded Iraq.
2003: WE DONT BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US. After no WMDs were found, you changed your mind about why you said we needed to invade, coming up with a brand new after-the-fact reason -- we started this war so we could have regime change, liberate Iraq and give the Iraqis democracy!
2003: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Yes, everyone saw you say it -- in costume, no less!
2004: OOPS. MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED! Now you call the Iraq invasion a "catastrophic success." That's what you called it this month. Over a thousand U.S. soldiers have died, Iraq is in a state of total chaos where no one is safe, and you have no clue how to get us out of there.
Mr. Bush, please tell us -- when will you change your mind again?
I know you hate the words "flip" and "flop," so I won't use them both on you. In fact, I'll use just one: Flop. That is what you are. A huge, colossal flop. The war is a flop, your advisors and the "intelligence" they gave you is a flop, and now we are all a flop to the rest of the world. Flop. Flop. Flop.
And you have the audacity to criticize John Kerry with what you call the "many positions" he has taken on Iraq. By my count, he has taken only one: He believed you. That was his position. You told him and the rest of congress that Saddam had WMDs. So he -- and the vast majority of Americans, even those who didn't vote for you -- believed you. You see, Americans, like John Kerry, want to live in a country where they can believe their president.
That was the one, single position John Kerry took. He didn't support the war, he supported YOU. And YOU let him and this great country down. And that is why tens of millions can't wait to get to the polls on Election Day -- to remove a major, catastrophic flop from our dear, beloved White House -- to stop all the flipping you and your men have done, flipping us and the rest of the world off.
We can't take another minute of it.
Yours,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com
Thanks for your letter. If you are out of breath, you might consider a change in diet. I kid.... Anyway, I know you are genuinely interested in the issues, so I will attempt to explain it to you. Don't worry, I have a grasp of your acumen, so I will type s-l-o-w-l-y.
First of all, I should point out that there have been tremendous breakthroughs in understanding the human genome. One thing they have found was that conventional thinking had been correct, and the thoughts of one generation are not controlled by the previous one. That is good news for any offspring you might ever have. With that in mind, I will jump right to your 2000 paragraph. Before I do, though, let me point out that throughout history, nation states have formed alliances with other nation states only to have world events impact those alliances. Would a photo of FDR, Winston Churchill and Stalin grinning upset you as much as the one to which you refer? IF so, it is good that you are not a student of history.
I would tell Mr. Lehrer the same thing I told him in 2000. In fact, I believe it remains one of the things that differentiates me from my current opponent - "I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place". As Mr. Kerry mentioned just yesterday - Iraq is a magnet for terrorists. I believe it is better to fight them in Najaf than Newark.
As your 2001 quote of Dr. Rice and Secretary Powell suggest, our early assessment of Saddam Hussein was that he was kept in check by the UN and opponents within his country. Do you disagree? Should we have acted sooner?
I am not sure what to make of your "Late 2001" quote. It does of course include a link to that Reputable "News Program" 60 Minutes, quoting a disgruntled former employee and all, but still.... I am quoted, via these two filters, as saying "Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.'" That would seem to most to be an earnest attempt at fact finding, wouldn't you think? I know you do things differently in your "documentaries", but I prefer to act based on facts.
That brings us to 2003. I didn't change my mind about why we chose to invade. There were countless reasons for invading, and I believe if you check the record, when I spoke to the American people, I went through a long list of them. Perhaps the list was longer than your attention span, but perhaps you can re-read it.
Next, let me quote you "
2003: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Yes, everyone saw you say it -- in costume, no less!"
Michael - again, I am not sure if you are having trouble separating your fantasy "docu-life" from reality, bit I wonder who it is that "saw me say that"? Your question was asked (much more intelligently) just about a year ago. Let me refer you to the transcript
Q Mr. President, if I may take you back to May 1st when you stood on the USS Lincoln under a huge banner that said, "Mission Accomplished." At that time you declared major combat operations were over, but since that time there have been over 1,000 wounded, many of them amputees who are recovering at Walter Reed, 217 killed in action since that date. Will you acknowledge now that you were premature in making those remarks?
THE PRESIDENT: Nora, I think you ought to look at my speech. I said, Iraq is a dangerous place and we've still got hard work to do, there's still more to be done. And we had just come off a very successful military operation. I was there to thank the troops.
The "Mission Accomplished" sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished. I know it was attributed some how to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way. But my statement was a clear statement, basically recognizing that this phase of the war for Iraq was over and there was a lot of dangerous work. And it's proved to be right, it is dangerous in Iraq. It's dangerous in Iraq because there are people who can't stand the thought of a free and peaceful Iraq. It is dangerous in Iraq because there are some who believe that we're soft, that the will of the United States can be shaken by suiciders -- and suiciders who are willing to drive up to a Red Cross center, a center of international help and aid and comfort, and just kill.
It's the same mentality, by the way, that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001: we'll just destroy innocent life and watch the great United States and their friends and allies crater in the face of hardship. It's the exact same mentality. And Iraq is a part of the war on terror. I said it's a central front, a new front in the war on terror, and that's exactly what it is. And that's why it's important for us to be tough and strong and diligent.
Our strategy in Iraq is to have strike forces ready and capable to move quickly as we gather actionable intelligence. That's how you deal with terrorists. Remember, these are people that are willing to hide in societies and kill randomly. And therefore, the best way to deal with them is to harden targets, harden assets as best as you can. That means blockades and inspection spots. And, as you notice, yesterday, one fellow tried to -- was done in as a he tried to conduct a suicide mission. In other words, an Iraqi policemen did their job.
But, as well, that we've got to make sure that not only do we harden targets, but that we get actionable intelligence to intercept the missions before they begin. That means more Iraqis involved in the intelligence-gathering systems in their country so that they are active participants in securing the country from further harm.
Remember, the action in Iraq was -- to get rid of Saddam Hussein was widely supported by the Iraqi people. And the action -- the actions that we're taking to improve their country are supported by the Iraqi people. And it's going to be very important for the Iraqi people to play an active role in fighting off the few who are trying to destroy the hopes of the many. You've heard me say that before. That's just kind of the motto of the terrorists. It's the way they operate.
So Michael, you see, if you are interested in a conversation based in reality, I am sure you can find it. Your simple ad hominem attacks and your straw man arguments make me believe otherwise, however. Please keep up the good work though, as every time you or Whoopi, Carrot Top or Ben Affleck open your mouths I feel a little more wind at my back (Kerry wind surfing metaphor, get it?).
Sincerely,
DR for GWB
===============================================================================
9/22/04
Dear Mr. Bush,
I am so confused. Where exactly do you stand on the issue of Iraq? You, your Dad, Rummy, Condi, Colin, and Wolfie -- you have all changed your minds so many times, I am out of breath just trying to keep up with you!
Which of these 10 positions that you, your family and your cabinet have taken over the years represents your CURRENT thinking:
1983-88: WE LOVE SADDAM. On December 19, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was sent by your dad and Mr. Reagan to go and have a friendly meeting with Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq. Rummy looked so happy in the picture. Just twelve days after this visit, Saddam gassed thousands of Iranian troops. Your dad and Rummy seemed pretty happy with the results because The Donald R. went back to have another chummy hang-out with Saddams right-hand man, Tariq Aziz, just four months later. All of this resulted in the U.S. providing credits and loans to Iraq that enabled Saddam to buy billions of dollars worth of weapons and chemical agents. The Washington Post reported that your dad and Reagan let it be known to their Arab allies that the Reagan/Bush administration wanted Iraq to win its war with Iran and anyone who helped Saddam accomplish this was a friend of ours.
1990: WE HATE SADDAM. In 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, your dad and his defense secretary, Dick Cheney, decided they didn't like Saddam anymore so they attacked Iraq and returned Kuwait to its rightful dictators.
1991: WE WANT SADDAM TO LIVE. After the war, your dad and Cheney and Colin Powell told the Shiites to rise up against Saddam and we would support them. So they rose up. But then we changed our minds. When the Shiites rose up against Saddam, the Bush inner circle changed its mind and decided NOT to help the Shiites. Thus, they were massacred by Saddam.
1998: WE WANT SADDAM TO DIE. In 1998, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, as part of the Project for the New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Clinton insisting he invade and topple Saddam Hussein.
2000: WE DON'T BELIEVE IN WAR AND NATION BUILDING. Just three years later, during your debate with Al Gore in the 2000 election, when asked by the moderator Jim Lehrer where you stood when it came to using force for regime change, you turned out to be a downright pacifist:
I--I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president [Al Gore] and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I--I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. And so I take my--I take my--my responsibility seriously. --October 3, 2000
2001 (early): WE DON'T BELIEVE SADDAM IS A THREAT. When you took office in 2001, you sent your Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, in front of the cameras to assure the American people they need not worry about Saddam Hussein. Here is what they said:
Powell: We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they have directed that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began it. And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. --February 24, 2001
Rice: But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt. --July 29, 2001
2001 (late): WE BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US! Just a few months later, in the hours and days after the 9/11 tragedy, you had no interest in going after Osama bin Laden. You wanted only to bomb Iraq and kill Saddam and you then told all of America we were under imminent threat because weapons of mass destruction were coming our way. You led the American people to believe that Saddam had something to do with Osama and 9/11. Without the UN's sanction, you broke international law and invaded Iraq.
2003: WE DONT BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US. After no WMDs were found, you changed your mind about why you said we needed to invade, coming up with a brand new after-the-fact reason -- we started this war so we could have regime change, liberate Iraq and give the Iraqis democracy!
2003: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Yes, everyone saw you say it -- in costume, no less!
2004: OOPS. MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED! Now you call the Iraq invasion a "catastrophic success." That's what you called it this month. Over a thousand U.S. soldiers have died, Iraq is in a state of total chaos where no one is safe, and you have no clue how to get us out of there.
Mr. Bush, please tell us -- when will you change your mind again?
I know you hate the words "flip" and "flop," so I won't use them both on you. In fact, I'll use just one: Flop. That is what you are. A huge, colossal flop. The war is a flop, your advisors and the "intelligence" they gave you is a flop, and now we are all a flop to the rest of the world. Flop. Flop. Flop.
And you have the audacity to criticize John Kerry with what you call the "many positions" he has taken on Iraq. By my count, he has taken only one: He believed you. That was his position. You told him and the rest of congress that Saddam had WMDs. So he -- and the vast majority of Americans, even those who didn't vote for you -- believed you. You see, Americans, like John Kerry, want to live in a country where they can believe their president.
That was the one, single position John Kerry took. He didn't support the war, he supported YOU. And YOU let him and this great country down. And that is why tens of millions can't wait to get to the polls on Election Day -- to remove a major, catastrophic flop from our dear, beloved White House -- to stop all the flipping you and your men have done, flipping us and the rest of the world off.
We can't take another minute of it.
Yours,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com
Ani's Insight, and "Olmsted's Vision"
I think (at least hope) we may see the beginning of the end of the ceult of celebrity in this country Buffalo and Ani DiFranco may help us get there. Not exactly Churchil . . . by the way, scroll down a bit and see if you aren't wondering to yourself how the guest list at that party typically talk about Mr. Snowden when they are in the "right company"...
Desparate for some sign of Leadership from Hoyt
It has been pretyy obvious for a while that Donn Esmonde and the Off Main Street gang have been enamored with Sam Hoyt. The trouble is, even they are getting a little tired Buffaloof his preference for form over substance. That doesn't mean that they won't grasp at straws to bolster him - he opposed closing Childrens Hospital - you're kidding me!! Who in their right mind wanted to close it? What politician would even consider joining that chorus?
Where Higgins and Smith had the cajones to stand up to Sheldon Silver, Sam put his tail between his legs.
Prediction - if it is a 3 way race for Mayor in the Dem Primary - Byron wins. If it is a 2 way - Byron wins. If it is Masiello, Brown, Hoyt and Griffin, welcome back Jimmy!
Where Higgins and Smith had the cajones to stand up to Sheldon Silver, Sam put his tail between his legs.
Prediction - if it is a 3 way race for Mayor in the Dem Primary - Byron wins. If it is a 2 way - Byron wins. If it is Masiello, Brown, Hoyt and Griffin, welcome back Jimmy!
Clark is a Symptom
This is what we get when the Dems and GOP fail to field two qualified canddiates - laziness. First he doesn't want to prosecute gun legislation because it disproportinately affects minorities. Now he can't see the difference betweenPolitics and legislative duties. Well, maybe he has given us an opening. If that line is in fact blurred, then how about if we remove all of those "blurred" jobs from the public payroll, and instead allow elected officials to have staffs only if they are paid for by their political campaign funds?
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
What if?
It would be interesting to see what the election would look like if Ralph Nader was the Dem candidate . . .
Not Hypocrisy
I don't take issue with teachers from governement schools for doing what's best for their children. I do take issue with the leaders of their union, however, that work to deny people of lesser means from having the ability to make the same choice that these teachers have made.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Another picture of Iraq
You wonder if the mainstream media will ever show us this picture of Iraqi life. Don't hold your breath...
Neo - Riefenstahl
I have long held that Michael Moore is the Leni Riefenstahl of his generation and I think this is evidence. This is exactly what Leni or Tokyo Rose would have wanted had the opportunity presented itself in WWII or if the media had been as in bed with the enemy.
Viacom trying to impact the Election?
Clearly Mel Karamazin had it in for President Bush and his FCC appointee Michael Powell. THen we had the Dan Rather embarrasment to the Viacom empire. The question now is, How High does the conspiracy go at CBS Viacom?
Espionage?
Perhaps this is what Kerry meant when he was talking about those mysterious "world leaders" that support his candidacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
