You'd think from watching the movie that Saddam's Iraq was a peaceful pastoral place filled with shiny happy kite-flying people, with no mention of the torture chambers and rape rooms and mass graves, or of his penchant for invading his neighbors. You'd also think that Bin Laden's relatives were prime suspects in 9/11 and were flown out of the FBI's reach at Bush' behest, when in actuality they renounced the guy long ago, the FBI interviewed everyone they wanted to prior to the flight, and the flight itself was approved by Richard Clarke, and Bush was never asked. When a congressman was asked if he had sons in the military, his answer that he had two nephews in Iraq was cut from the piece. There are so many more cheap shots and deceptions in the movie that it has taken people a lot of time to list them, but I did post such a list, in:
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=60;action=display;threadid=30623
[Blunderov] Hey there Joe! Haven’t seen the movie – does it mention how Saddam became such a strongman in the region because the USA deliberately set him up to be just that? And supplied him with ‘WMD’ to use against Iran? And looked the other way when he did just that? The rank hypocrisy of it all…the way I see it, no shot is too cheap to take under the circumstances.
He actually got those chemical precursors from Germany, not the US, but the US did want him to provide a counterbalance to possible expansion by Khomeini's Iran - and he did that. Cheap shots are cheap shots, regardless of their source or destination. Now you hate the man so much you think it is fair to lie about him? Hardly evenhanded and objective, that.
On a more general note ‘Show me someone who is not an immigrant and I’ll go out and say a prayer for him’. What I mean is that any movie is a personal view and can never claim to be objective. The act of putting a frame around something is simultaneously the act of excluding everything else. The camera ALWAYS lies
But he does so repeatedly and intentionally, with focused and malicious motive. It is not only anti-Bush propaganda, it was INTENDED to be. For instance, the whole thing about the supposed natural gas pipeline to run through Afghanistan being a reason to go to war with them stinks on dry ice; that Unocal idea was declared dead by Unocal themselves in 1998, during the Clinton administration, three years before 9/11, because its security could not be guaranteed regardless of who was in power in Afghanistan.
I tend to agree that Moore makes too much (I’ve read his books) of the Saudi connection. Realistically, it seems to me that it is only natural that there should be high level connections and business interests between the USA and the Saudis. I don’t really see what the fuss is all about in this regard.
If the US were doing the Saudis' bidding, why would they take out 1) Iraq, their buffer between themselves and Shiite Iran, and 2) the Afghani Taliban, whom the Saudis themselves had helped to bring to power and whom they considered allies?
Toodle Pip
Blunderov