OK, Red. When I get the time I'm going to dig up the old "Farenheit 911" thread and I hope to find a similar post from you disparaging that piece of lying filth.
red, wouldn't you agree that if what you say is so it would be kind of like the cbs movie about reagan a couple of years ago?
Funny you should mention that. Both films had the same screenwriter! He takes liberties with historical facts yet passes off his films as "based on true events".
9/11 Commission Report. It said that Jamie Gorelick, hired and approved by Clinton, put up a wall between the agencies which absolutely was the cause of those agencies not being able to share intelligence. That's just of about 100 ways the Clinton Administration hamstrung the American intelligence system. By the way, I watched last night and man, it was good. Pretty much right on in my view. Madame Albright and Sandy Burgler were sharp as tacks at getting us behind the 8-ball in every way possible.
Were you whining then about the liberties he took with the Reagan movie? I thought he was a conservative screenwriter? 1st of all, the terms screenwriter and conservative cannot appear in the same sentence to ever describe any human being. Both presidencies share the blame in the movie but the Clinton's are crying about it because it hits too close to home here with the 1st WTC bombing, African embassy bombings, the Saudi embassy bombing, the USS Cole all happening under his watch. The screen writer didn't take liberties with Clinton getting hummers in the Oval Office nor with all of the above terrorists acts against us. Facts is facts and yes, sometimes they hurt people who are trying way too hard to change a legacy that is nothing but lying under oath.
1. Allow me: :grin: 2. Be honest, amigo. You are smart enough to know that Moore's film was a political documentary that was never purported to be anything else. This 9/11 film is fiction purporting to be the historical truth! Dishonesty at its worst. 3. I'm willing to bet that you have never actually watched the Moore film. You know, I never did either when we had all of those discussions in 2004. I wasn't going to pay $$ to see somebody's political statement. My comments were based upon press reviews as were yours. But when it came out on the cable last year I watched it and guess what? It wasn't as bad as had been suggested. Sure it was a negative political piece on Bush, but it was a valid documentary and there were no staged scenes by actors. It was mostly cleverly spliced bits of film footage of Bush's own statements and other real footage that made Bush look like a fool. It is hard to make Moore out as "lying filth" when he mostly let Bush and other principles do their own talking. Controversial, direct, rude, and hard-hitting--yes. Contrived, fictional, and historically inaccurate--no. The best part was the footage of Bush landing on the aircraft carrier and strutting under the "Mission Accomplished" banner while the accompanying music was the theme from "The Greatest American Hero", with no commentary from Michael Moore at all. It just wasn't neccessary. Believe it or not, I'm walking on air. I never thought I could feel so free-. Flying away on a wing and a prayer. Who could it be? Believe it or not it's just me.
Sure. I'm a big fan of Ronald Reagan and I voted for him. The current administration is NOT Ronald Reagan's Republican party. Perhaps Hollywood doesn't lean left or right so much as it leans toward the dollar.
I read the 9/11 report and there are not "100 ways". It blasts the Bush administration much harder than the Clinton Administration. Uhhhh, those were actors reading a script you know. :lol: :lol: :lol: The real Albright and Berger are on the record as having done nothing of the kind . . . and they have documents to back it up.
Just as I'm about to credit you for consistency in your Moderate stance, you blow it by actually defending the Michael Moore deceit-u-mentary.
