A Hippocritical Moore?

https://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39723

Hmm...Maybe Moore should follow his own advice about truth-telling.

Gotta admit though, the $1 of damages is rather funny. What's up with that?

I didn't want this thread to fall off. I am hoping Moore will respond to this, but so far all I have seen is his group pointing inquiries to articles that were similar. I remember seeing news articles about this topic. Still not good to misinform.

Well thats what happens if people blindly follow anything, Including Mr. Moore.

it should be good once these guys win the case, then they can go hang with all those other people who have successfully sued moore...

oh, s***... no one ever has...

i hate those liars, when you just know they're lying, and you know... they go and kill like 15,000 innocent people...

or, excuse me, terrorists...

So if you hate them so much why don't you go jion the terrorists instead of b****ing. I'm not saying you should go and get yourself killed I'm just suggesting that you could get off your a** and squeeze a couple rounds at a few marines.

A classicly republican move there, friend. Because I may vent my frustrations with a political administration that sends its armies to do its unlawful bidding does not necessarily entail - in fact, just the opposite - that I hold ill will toward the individuals in said Army (Navy, whathaveyou). It is possible, despite what Karl Rove etc say, to be against a military operation and not its [un]willing participants - you may go so far as to even say that opposition to a military operation where zero reasons have been given as to its necessity (weapons of mass distraction and this "Terror-Funding" BS are thrown out the window, sorry) would even be based wholly on the troops themselves being in harms way (after all, most of them are only innocents in this alongside countless Iraqi and Afgani corpses - which is where, to sidestep into another thread, Pat Tillman fits. He is a victim, not a hero.).

A very well regurgitated liberal response BMcD. Opposing a marines gov't, to a marine, is the same as hitting him in the face. Their response would be different though. As far as the weapons of mass d-e-s-t-r-u-c-t-i-o-n are concerned every nation that is (or was) a part of the "coalition" that gave an intelligence report, reported that Iraq had WMD's and had the capability of making them. Terror funding does seem like a bit of a stretch, though seeing how Hussain and Bin Laden both hate the U.S. it's not much of one. Furthermore the gassing of the Curds and the constant tension w/Iran (tension, that's an understatement) should have been reason enough to interfere. Not to mention that Hussain AND his sons have been killing Curds for decades, and that he declared war on Iran, AND invaded Kuwait (for what? say it with me now......OIL) over ten years ago. As for Pat Tillman.....sure he's a victim, a victim of people that are criticizing his decision to participate and participating in what he thought was (and IS) right. Especially since he's dead.

Terror funding... ahh yes, the grand hypocrisy one might call it.

Gassing the Kurds is the best one of the bunch, as it was done with overbearing US concent to keep-Hussein-in-power and of course keep the States' trade relationship with the oil barron alive and well.

Secondly, when did Cheney show up and start spouting these hilariously outdated reports about Weapons Programs? Didn't you know Bushy's not even clinging to that BS anymore? Iraq was a crippled and dying regiem when it was invaded, not entirely, but largely due to sanctions upheld by the (da da da duuuuuh!) the United States. Find an "intelligence report" not spawning from some right wing think tank and you might see that this has been a widely reported fact for some twenty months.

It would be nice to go on assuming that invading Iraq was some kind of good will mission, but history would go so far as to tell us otherwise. From Kissinger saying thirty years ago that the natural resources there make it a "more than profitable and very important game piece" to anyone else who's invaded the area (Ahh, the British, French, Portuguese etc etc) since the industrial revolution.

The Marine thing is off base, but I do have a tendancy to not trouble myself enough with fleshing out the differences between the people who serve in the United States Armed Forces. Are there not then Marines though who know that Rumsfeld has no exit strategy for Iraq? Or are they not worried because the Marines always go in first (with the, what was it called, the shock, and the awe...)? Painting the entire military as pro Bush and pro-this-whole-Iraq-quagmire brush is as ridiculous as saying that a Republican vote is one for Fascism.

Sure, there are military men who somehow believe that their invasion of Iraq was in some shape way or form a work on behalf of freedom. But there are just as many who know that they are working as part of a military occupation that is as good as begun with no end in sight.

"Terror funding does seem like a bit of a stretch, though seeing how Hussain and Bin Laden both hate the U.S. it's not much of one. "

oh, and great point there... is it anything like the Israelis using American tanks to demolish Palestinian houses? Because it doesn't *sound* like the same thing... but, oh, now I've gone and become distracted...

Ah yes exit stategy, though we've never really left Germany (Roosevelt's exit plan).



True, but military personel would put it all on the line for Kennedy, Carter, Clinton and Kerry, too.



Long shall the richteous labor for light.



That would be a good response if the Israelis were stapping American C4 and grenades to their torso's and blowing up cafe's and school buses and not trying to defend themselves with those tanks.