In Defense of Wolf Blitzer

If you haven't seen Michael Moore's latest attempt to gin up interest in Sicko—which, as Dave Weigel recently noted, is doing lackluster box office—then I urge you to not click on the video below. Moore's faux outrage, his lame attempt at creating a Jon Stewart moment, is pretty painful viewing.

Moore makes about 300 fatuous arguments in 6 minutes, like his demand that Wolf Blitzer and CNN to "apologize" for criticizing aspects of Fahrenheit 9/11 because, as he triumphantly declared, "it turned out everything I said in Fahrenheit was true." (Like the film's shocking revelation that America went to war in Afghanistan to construct a Unocal oil pipeline).

Moore says criticizing Fahrenheit and Sicko shows that CNN is "biased," yet he attacks Blitzer for not being critical enough when interviewing Dick Cheney:

You have to ask the questions. Why are we here? That's the question. Why are we here in this war? Where's (sic) the weapons of mass destruction? Why didn't you -- why did it take you so long, Wolf, to finally take on Vice President Cheney? It took you to 2007 before you made the man mad at you.

Here's the problem with this argument: Like much of what Moore says, it simply isn't true. In 2005, for instance, Blitzer started his Cheney interview with the following question: "You recently made suggesting the insurgents in Iraq were in, your words, their ‘last throes.' Do you want to revise or amend those comments?", and followed with inquires on how many insurgents were operating in Iraq, whether Iraq has become a training ground for terrorists, if he had read the Downing Street memo, and why the administration was so colossally wrong on the question of WMDs. Blitzer began his interview with Vice President Cheney's wife Lynne, who was on promoting a book, with a question on her husband's support of torture. Whatever this is, it ain't the slow pitch softball perfected by Fox and so brilliantly mocked by Stephen Colbert. ("George Bush. Great President? Or greatest President?)

But the most bizarre argument from Moore is his claim that had it not been for CNN, America would have stuck to its Lindberghian principals and never set foot in Iraq:

"We wouldn't be in this war if you had done your job. Come on. Just admit it. Just apologize to the American people."

Blitzer, the man responsible for the disaster in Iraq, will be airing part two of his Moore interview tonight. And CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanja Gupta, who Moore accuses of being a stooge of big pharma, will debate the Sicko director tonight on Larry King.

Comments

Gerry Tripwell | July 10, 2007, 5:48pm | #

Michael Moore is the only man alive who can make feel empathy towards both George W. Bush and "Big Pharma".

Gerry Tripwell | July 10, 2007, 5:49pm | #

.....oh and also to CNN!

JasonC | July 10, 2007, 5:50pm | #

Eh, while Wolf alone is not responsible, I don't think it can be denied that the media seriously dropped the ball in the lead up to the war.

Urkobold™ | July 10, 2007, 5:53pm | #

SOME SPEAK OF MEDIA CONVERGENCE, BUT THE URKOBOLD SPEAKS OF PHYSICAL CONVERGENCE. SOON, MICHAEL MOORE, ROSIE O'DONNELL, AND AL GORE WILL BECOME ONE, IN A GREAT MEETING OF FLABBY FACT-FINDING, FLABBY SHRIEKING, AND FLABBY THINKING. ALL IN ONE FLABBY PACKAGE OF FLABBINESS.

IN OTHER NEWS, BRITNEY SPEARS, PARIS HILTON, AND ANNA NICOLE SMITH WILL MERGE INTO THE ULTIMATE POWER IN SLUTTINESS, THE POOL SLUT.

Joshua C. | July 10, 2007, 5:53pm | #

Jesus... You can really sense the desperation in his voice.

jet | July 10, 2007, 5:58pm | #

I just watched Part II. Wolf is a sheep in sheep's clothing. He caved, and so did Dr. Gupta.

Pro Libertate | July 10, 2007, 6:01pm | #

With a name like Wolf Blitzer, you'd think he'd kick ass at Conan the Barbarian-like levels. How low we have sunken in our cool name-coolness correspondence!

Shelby | July 10, 2007, 6:01pm | #

Urkobold,

One simply hopes that it remains "other news" and there is no meta-convergence melding Moore-O'Donnell-Gore with Spears-Hilton-Smith. Ick. And speaking of Smith, I gather there's a necrophilia aspect here as well.

And Mr. Moynihan, can the Reason powers that be spare us any further posts on Moore?

Urkobold™ | July 10, 2007, 6:04pm | #

EVEN THE URKOBOLD SHUDDERS AT THE THOUGHT OF SUCH FLABBY SLEAZINESS OCCUPYING A SINGLE FELL CREATURE.

NP | July 10, 2007, 6:16pm | #

Oh, for Christ's sake. NO MORE MICHAEL MOORE POST PLEASE!!!

highnumber | July 10, 2007, 6:24pm | #

I stopped reading at the shameless attack on Wolf Blitzer's pandering-ness.

Pro Libertate | July 10, 2007, 6:25pm | #

Aresen,

Confess! You and thirty million other Canadians did vote in the last two presidential elections!

NP | July 10, 2007, 6:25pm | #

Also Mike, I'm no grammar policeman, but substituting "principal" for "principle" while pointing out others' lapse of grammatical person usage doesn't reflect very well on you.

Daze | July 10, 2007, 6:56pm | #

"With a name like Wolf Blitzer"

There was a Wayne's World gag about him during Gulf War I: "Cmon, you know he just made up that name for the war".

Derrick | July 10, 2007, 6:57pm | #

Um, I made it through like 60 seconds. I can't watch the rest. Sorry.

joshua corning | July 10, 2007, 7:00pm | #

Joshua C. | July 10, 2007, 5:53pm | #
Jesus... You can really sense the desperation in his voice.

That Joshua C. is not me....i might agree with Joshua C.....but i have not seen the video yet...i am at work.

tros | July 10, 2007, 7:02pm | #

Damn CNN and their coporationy corporation buildings! Apologize to my ego!

joshua corning | July 10, 2007, 7:06pm | #

SEEEE!!

Moore is pissed at CNN....they can't possibly be left wing propagandists....

oh oppps

forgot who I was for second.

Underdog | July 10, 2007, 7:11pm | #

Wolf Blitzer, the scud stud!

"There's no need to fear; Underzog is here!

joshua corning | July 10, 2007, 7:11pm | #

Although your ballots say you are voting for the presidential candidate, constitutionally you are voting for the members of the Electoral College.

sure hope you are not implying that our Electoral Collage of LIBERTY!! is a bad thing.

Just think without the electoral collage Obama can get 100 million votes from all 12 million Illinois residents

joe | July 10, 2007, 7:17pm | #

Sorry, I stopped reading after the weak-assed insult to Moore's patriotism.

jerry | July 10, 2007, 7:22pm | #

We wouldn't be in this war if you had done your job. Come on. Just admit it. Just apologize to the American people

Okay, if you think that Michael Moore is placing 100% of the blame on CNN, and you think the media did an adequate job, than I guess I have found an answer to the question:

Who is in the 26 percenters?

Congratulations. I hope you enjoy your new truth free and liberty free America.

Rick Barton | July 10, 2007, 7:23pm | #

Michael Moore is mostly right about the Iraq war but he tends to leave out the very critical neocon push for the war because they thought it would be good for the Israeli government.

He is only kinda right about what and is wrong and how wrong with American health care.

He is way, way wrong on his solution to fix American health care.

jerry | July 10, 2007, 7:24pm | #

If you read Moore's response on the sicko website, Moore validated every single one of his complaints against Gupta's report.

Rick Barton | July 10, 2007, 7:26pm | #

Shoulda been..."He is only kinda right about what is wrong and how wrong with American health care."

Sorry

ed | July 10, 2007, 7:34pm | #

I DO NOT READ ALL-CAPS POSTS!

Eric the .5b | July 10, 2007, 7:42pm | #

Eh, I've long been amused by Reds ranting about how CNN and the NYT and most other news outlets are against them and against the war....But when did the whole "CNN and the NYT and the media as a whole are for the Reds and the war" counter-meme start, anyway?

Are there any folks who don't think the mainstream media is on the side of their political enemies? :)

Underdog | July 10, 2007, 7:53pm | #

Ricky! Where have you been? I haven't seen you bashing the Jews as the cause of the world's problems for ages. I kind of missed you.

As you're always bashing the Jewish state, the best defense against anti-Semitism is a good offense; therefore, chew on this: Amendment to ban Islam

UB's newest minion | July 10, 2007, 7:54pm | #

I dont care who you are thats frikken funny

scary too

P Brooks | July 10, 2007, 8:07pm | #

"Moore['s] claim that had it not been for CNN, America would have stuck to its Lindberghian principals and never set foot in Iraq...."

I knew it! CNN is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican National Committee! And Wolf Blitzer is the heretofore unclaimed* love child of Barry Goldwater and Margaret Thatcher!

* who spent his formative years in the "left luggage" room at Victoria Station

joshua corning | July 10, 2007, 8:12pm | #

In all seriousness, I think the idea of an electoral college as originally envisioned by the framers of the constitution - a group of people who would choose a President based on his abilities - has some merit.

I don't give a fuck what the founders intended...i like it cuz today it prevents the whole sale corruption and election fraud that a popular election would allow.

And what the hell do you mean "In all seriousness"?? are you saying that Illinois is not rife with corruption and election fraud?

joshua corning | July 10, 2007, 8:16pm | #

Are there any folks who don't think the mainstream media is on the side of their political enemies? :)

Eric, you and joe can keep spewing that MSM is libertarian biased....i will still not believe you.

Michael Moore | July 10, 2007, 8:22pm | #

I don't talk in sound bites.

grumpy realist | July 10, 2007, 8:23pm | #

How about "the MSM have the reporting abilities of a concussed goldfish"?

Yet another reason why I get my news from the FT, the Economist, and the Nikkei Shimbun.

Brain Damaged Bigot | July 10, 2007, 8:25pm | #

From now on I'll get my news from Underd(z)og.

I'm an idiot.

Mo | July 10, 2007, 8:34pm | #

joe,
Which weak assed insult to his patriotism?

Aresen | July 10, 2007, 8:36pm | #

I like it cuz today it prevents the whole sale corruption and election fraud that a popular election would allow.

And just what part of "wholesale corruption and electoral fraud" present in the British Parliamentary system or the French direct Presidential election system don't you have?

Aresen | July 10, 2007, 8:39pm | #

Mo | July 10, 2007, 8:34pm | #

joe,
Which weak assed insult to his patriotism?


I believe he is referring to one about 3 "Michael Moore" posts ago.

Ignore the comment, he's harmless mostly harmless.

Crossfire | July 10, 2007, 8:42pm | #

"his lame attempt at creating a Jon Stewart moment,"

STEWART: But my point is this. If your idea of confronting me is that I don't ask hard-hitting enough news questions, we're in bad shape, fellows.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: We're here to love you, not confront you.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: We're here to be nice.

STEWART: No, no, no, but what I'm saying is this. I'm not. I'm here to confront you, because we need help from the media and they're hurting us. And it's -- the idea is...

John Stewart is somebody who wants to be, and is, taken seriously as a journalist and pundit, but then retreats behind his role as a comedian when criticized for his performance as a journalist and pundit.

Why does John Stewart hurt America?

joe | July 10, 2007, 9:15pm | #

But when did the whole "CNN and the NYT and the media as a whole are for the Reds and the war" counter-meme start, anyway?

Uh, 2002, when CNN, the New York Times, and every other major newspaper and news channel were shamelessly cheerleading for the war and repeating Dick Cheney's ravings as gospel truth. You know that the New York Times published about 5000 stories by Judith Miller, right?

Moore's absolutely right about CNN and Wolf Blitzer - they turned into stenographers and salesmen to help make the case for this war.

joe | July 10, 2007, 9:16pm | #

Mo,

That wasn't me.

I have no idea why that person keeps repeating that comment. It doesn't make any sense in this thread.

BruceM | July 10, 2007, 9:23pm | #

Moore is absolutely right, but his use of pronouns in reference to Wolf, CNN, and/or the mainstream media is less than clear. I believe when he made the claims about "you" being at fault for various things, he was referring to reporters and the media in general, not singling out Mr. Wolf Blitzer. John Stewart is the only member of the media doing an adequate job, and he never even gets an opportunity to question republican leaders (although he did question McCain somewhat recently, and did so better than any other journalist).

Yes, Blitzer may have asked Lynn Cheney about her husband and torture, but note the following: 1) he did not ask DICK CHENEY about it and Lynn is not an elected official, and 2) when Blitzer got a non-answer to his supposedly hard-hitting question, he didn't call Cheney on dodging. On the very rare occasion that a reporter asks a question that might be considered hard-hitting, ot at least non-softball, they never get a real answer, only a dodge and a non sequiter soundbite talking point, and they NEVER follow up.

If you're not going to follow up on your questions it doesn't matter what you ask, and you get NO POINTS for being a hard hitting tough no-nonsense questioner.

Axel | July 10, 2007, 9:42pm | #

Joe, how does Michael Moore's dick taste like? You seem to enjoy sucking on it.

jf | July 10, 2007, 9:46pm | #

I have no idea why that person keeps repeating that comment. It doesn't make any sense in this thread.

Agreed. Even though I seldom agree with you, you are one of the best commenters on this board.

You did bring that on yourself, though. However, it's long past being funny.

Joshua C. | July 10, 2007, 9:50pm | #

Sorry joshua corning. I didn't realize. I'll use an alias next time to avoid confusion.

Isaac Bartram | July 10, 2007, 9:52pm | #

Pro Libertate | July 10, 2007, 6:25pm | #
Aresen,

Confess! You and thirty million other Canadians did vote in the last two presidential elections!

PL, with due respect, if thirty million Canadians did vote in the last two presidential elections we would have been guaranteed a Democrat victor. Believe me, I know, I have lived there.

I have become convinced that this is this is the reason we do not want to take over Canada.

Mind you, in 1964 or so MacLeans magazine ran a poll that showed that nearly one-third of Canadians wanted to be part of the US. It ranged from the twenties in Ontario and Quebec to 33% in the Maritimes to 39% in Alberta (maybe that was the Mormons or something).

Nobody Important | July 10, 2007, 9:53pm | #

Michael C. Moynihan | July 10, 2007, 5:21pm
he triumphantly declared, "it turned out everything I said in Fahrenheit was true." (Like the film's shocking revelation that America went to war in Afghanistan to construct a Unocal oil pipeline).

Sweet Zombie Allah, I miss Spinsanity.

It was one of the few sites that did a good job of critiquing the blowhards, instead of just critiquing the blowhards on the other side.

joe | July 10, 2007, 9:55pm | #

How charming, Axel. Yours is clearly a rull and rich life.

Thank you, jf.

Isaac Bartram | July 10, 2007, 10:24pm | #

Eh, while Wolf alone is not responsible, I don't think it can be denied that the media seriously dropped the ball in the lead up to the war.

Of course, the "lead up to the war" started in about 1998 with Big Al and Mad Albright going on the road beating the drums to urge the invasion of Iraq.

From then on every talking head at National Pentagon Radio (which is what those dashed pinkos at Pacifica Radio came to call NPR) from Terry Gross to Scott Simon were conducting totally noncritical interviews with every neocon or fellow traveller who came in with a horror story about Saddam.

Uh, 2002, when CNN, the New York Times, and every other major newspaper and news channel were shamelessly cheerleading for the war and repeating Dick Cheney's ravings as gospel truth.

Yes, because "Dick Cheney's ravings" were totally in accordance with everything they had heard from Clinton Administration toadies and Richard Butler since about, oh, 1996 or so.

joe, it doesn't matter if the Clintonistas had changed their minds about the splendidness of invading Iraq ca 2003 (and the record shows that for the most part, they had not) they are not absolved from responsibility for having boxed up and delivering most of the ammo that Bushco needed for the glorious Mesopotamian adventure.

joe | July 10, 2007, 10:24pm | #

See, since you didn't include Gupta's piece in the video, we have no idea whether Moore's frustration was an appropriate response or not.

joe | July 10, 2007, 10:33pm | #

Isaac,

In 1996 and 1998, there were WMDs in Iraq. Gore, Clinton, and Albright were making truthful statements about them at that time. The Iraqi WMD arsenal was destroyed during the Clinton administration - most of it by the UN teams, and the remainder by the Iraqis themselves after the Operation Desert Fox bombings Clinton ordered.

There were no WMDs in Iraq in 2002. When Dick Cheney was going on CNN and raving about it, he was making untrue statements.

Can't you even recognize the difference anymore, or is your need to implicate the Democrats in this catastrophic con job left you without even that level of discernment.

BTW, thanks for the links to the speech Gore gave in 2003, where he repudiates the invasion and the PR campaign the administration waged to make it happen.

Edward | July 10, 2007, 10:44pm | #

Let's just say Moore is no Ron Paul.

Anonymous | July 10, 2007, 10:50pm | #

BTW, thanks for the links to the speech Gore gave in 2003, where he repudiates the invasion and the PR campaign the administration waged to make it happen.

Since you didn't even bother to provide a link, why should Isaac?

Since the inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq before Operation Wag the Dog in 1998, how would anybody have known whether or not there were WMDs?

Is your need to exonerate the Democrats left you without even that level of discernment?

GILMORE | July 10, 2007, 11:02pm | #

ahh... Rick Barton introducing some point about israeli govt influence on US policy unprovoked... finally, back to normalcy :)

joe | July 10, 2007, 11:11pm | #

Anonymous, you dunce, Isaac DID provide links to the Gore speech.

Do you need me to explain what those different-colored words is his post are for?

Since the inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq before Operation Wag the Dog in 1998, how would anybody have known whether or not there were WMDs?

1. Because they were back in in 2002.
2. It wasn't I who was making definitive assertions about Iraqi WMDs in 2002, and making irreversable decisions that would cause the deaths of many thousands of people based on those definitive assertions. I'd say "Score one for the Iraq WMD Skeptics," except at this point, it would just be running up the score.

Oh, look, you tried to copy my last quip there, except it didn't work because you don't have anything to back it up. That's kind of cute.

Lamar | July 10, 2007, 11:17pm | #

It's nice to see people still defending the W-dupe to get us into Iraq. 29% and counting...

joe | July 10, 2007, 11:27pm | #

Hey, Anonymous, do you need me to explain what they pointy thing on your screen is?

Underdog | July 10, 2007, 11:28pm | #

ahh... Rick Barton introducing some point about israeli govt influence on US policy unprovoked... finally, back to normalcy :)

Ricky is channeling David Duke in
Wolf Blitzer's interview with David Duke. Maybe he so admires the ex Ku Klux Klanner with that plastic surgery of his.

"There's no need to fear; Underzog is here!"

kl | July 10, 2007, 11:30pm | #

"There were no WMDs in Iraq in 2002. When Dick Cheney was going on CNN and raving about it, he was making untrue statements."

If somebody's waving a gun at a crowd of people and you say, "Look out!", and then it turns out the gun wasn't loaded, you're a liar.

Lamar | July 10, 2007, 11:30pm | #

Moore's head is way too big. Fahrenheit 9/11 was great despite Moore's wacky conspiracy theories. It turns out, Bush is just that much of a screw-up idiot. Homer Simpson could have made that movie and it would have been powerful.

semm | July 10, 2007, 11:49pm | #

joe | July 10, 2007, 10:33pm | #
Isaac,

In 1996 and 1998, there were WMDs in Iraq. Gore, Clinton, and Albright were making truthful statements about them at that time. The Iraqi WMD arsenal was destroyed during the Clinton administration - most of it by the UN teams, and the remainder by the Iraqis themselves after the Operation Desert Fox bombings Clinton ordered.


got proof of this claim?

Stretchy | July 10, 2007, 11:58pm | #

So far, the only rebuke to the Moore interview (the one on health care, not the one on the electoral college, or whether Saddam had sex with DC Madam prostitutes) is that Moore is fat and looks like Al Gore.

I came here (to reason.com) expecting something better than the usual duh-duh discussions in the liberalcon forums. I guess the flavor of Michael Moore's genitalia is what passes as serious debate here.

Isaac Bartram | July 11, 2007, 12:00am | #

joe | July 10, 2007, 10:33pm | #

My point was that the media blitz started long before 2003.

I know that some of the Clintonistas broke with the line but the two most important ones, viz Bill and Hillary did not.

The public memory is short. It only remembers those things which have been drummed the loudest.

And yes I provided all the links deliberately, because they provide something of a timeline.

Dick Cheney was not the only one who believed Saddam had WMD in 03. And a good part of the reason is that they had been hearing it sine 96. And the people who did believe in the presence of WMDs did not all do so because of Darth Cheney's occult power.

Yes, maybe Al and some of the Clintonistas knew that there were no WMDs in 03 but they made a piss poor case for it.

But then maybe if John Kerry had bothered to attend any of his committee hearings he'd have known the same thing that Bob Graham did.

Stop fucking pretending this is not a hug stinking pile of BIPARTISANSHIT.

e | July 11, 2007, 12:55am | #

Link to Michael Moore's rebuttal of Sanjay Gupta. Apologies if it's already been posted.

Aresen | July 11, 2007, 1:29am | #

joe

I appear to owe you an apology for my 8:39 post. You stated that the 7:17 post was not from you. Although we have disputed in the past, I have never known you to lie or wilfully misrepresent the facts as you see them. Accordingly, I must accept that you did not make the 7:17 post.

I was too eager to make a witty snark to pay heed to the question "Why does he keep posting that comment?"

I'm sorry.

[The snark still applies to faux joe, though.]

Brain Damaged Bigot | July 11, 2007, 2:39am | #

Hey, Underzog,

You are an anti-freedom bigot, evidenced by your pimping of your fucked-up amendment proposal.
Refute that, if you will.
Otherwise, I will have to ask what the hell you are doing at a libertarian website.

highnumber | July 11, 2007, 2:40am | #

Sorry, let me stand up and be counted:
I wrote that.

Rick Barton | July 11, 2007, 4:31am | #

Underdog:

I haven't seen you bashing the Jews as the cause of the world's problems for ages.

Sure, lacking meritorious arguments, just make unfounded charges of racism. It’s self-evident that criticism of the Israeli government and observations concerning the influence of its supporters on the US government's foreign interventions are not equivalent to “bashing the Jews”. To posit that it is, is indeed what's racist since it assumes that Jews in general, or most Jews could somehow be held accountable for the actions of the Israeli government and its supporters. And this isn’t the only racism that you’ve interjected into this thread.

I cant believe how much I rule | July 11, 2007, 8:02am | #

Michael Moore Looked dumb..
Wolf Blitzer looked even worse.
Urkogold is the winner.

Underzog | July 11, 2007, 8:05am | #

Refute that, if you will.

Refute what? Your vitriolic name calling? You haven't established anything, except to call me names. What are you doing on a website with the first word reason on it?

"There's no need to fear; Underzog is here!"

Underzog | July 11, 2007, 8:20am | #

In constantly bashing Israel, Ricky is just using classic anti-Semitic techniques. Anti-Semites through the ages have always attacked the Jews at their most prominent yet vulnerable point. It used to be the attacks on Jewish advisors to the king, then, rich Jewish bankers and merchants (such as Rothschild), and, now, the pride and joy of the Jews -- a state of their own. Ricky's updated Protocols of the Elders of Zion, wheras the Jews led America into war has been heard before by David Duke and his admirer Hitler who blamed the Jews for bringing war upon us.

Mary McCarthy once said that anti-Semitism is the intellectualism of stupid people; therefore, to show what a nice guy I am giving a link to an audio visual so the intellectually challenged among us can follow the issue more easily: Anti-Semites? Who, us?
Political Islam driven by Islam

P.S. please don't make fools of yourselves by saying that X is not an anti-Semite because Arabs and Carthigians are anti-Semites. You guys are supposed to be the (cough) intellectual elite (cough cough).

Underzog | July 11, 2007, 8:24am | #

Correction: that ps should read please don't make fools of yourselves by saying that X n not an anti-Semite because Arabs and Carthigians are semites. It's early in the morning for me.

Anonymous | July 11, 2007, 8:35am | #

Of course, the "lead up to the war" started in about 1998 with Big Al and Mad Albright going on the road beating the drums to urge the invasion of Iraq.

Isaac's link is to a Google search for al gore, iraq, allbright

The first ten hits are

Urban Legends Reference Pages: Politics (Words of Mass Destruction)
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has .... Albright said the United States had expressed its concerns in all of the ...
www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source ... Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source. "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction ...
www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

Deadly silence - George W. Bush and Al Gore's policy on Iraq ...
Meanwhile, Al Gore and George W. Bush concentrate on winning support from ... Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked: "We have heard that a half ...
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_29_117/ai_66809979

Foreign Affairs - Bridges, Bombs, or Bluster? - Madeleine K. Albright
Moreover, I remain convinced that had Al Gore been elected president, .... President Bush proclaimed last March that the war in Iraq would prove a decisive ...
www.foreignaffairs.org/20030901faessay82501/madeleine-k-albright/bridges-bombs-or-bluster.html

Digg - Video: Sen. Al Gore Blasts GHW Bush for Ignoring Saddam ...
Al Gore > September 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has .... Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002 Iraq is a long way from (here), ...
digg.com/politics/Video_Sen_Al_Gore_Blasts_GHW_Bush_for_Ignoring_Saddam_Terror_Threat

Daily Kos: Al Gore: Iraq War about OIL THEFT
Tags: al gore, iraq, oil, hydrocarbon law, cheney energy task force (all tags) ... albright said the death of thousands of children (0 / 0) ...
www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/8/141944/1841

Embargoes and Economic Sanctions - News - Times Topics - The New ...
Vice Pres Al Gore says White House is willing to consider ways to loosen restrictions on Iraq's ability to buy food and medicine; emphasizes that Clinton ...
topics.nytimes.com/.../index.html?query=GORE,%20AL&field=per&match=exact

Bush lied about weapons in Iraq? What about the Democrats-Truth!
This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University .... Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has ...
www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm

MAJOR POLICY SPEECH BY SENATOR AL GORE (D-TN)CONCERNING BUSH ...
MAJOR POLICY SPEECH BY SENATOR AL GORE. (D-TN)CONCERNING BUSH ADMINISTRATION ...... ALBRIGHT: Israeli governments have obviously been concerned about Iraqi ...
www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/al-gore_9-29-1992.pdf

Texas Rainmaker » Al Gore Blasts President Bush for Ignoring Iraq ...
Al Gore Blasts President Bush for Ignoring Iraq’s Ties to Terrorism ..... Madeleine Albright also stated that “Saddam Hussein had enough VX to destroy every ...
www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/06/12/al-gore-blasts-president-bush-for-ignoring-iraqs-ties-to-terrorism/


Which of these are "the links to the speech Gore gave in 2003, where he repudiates the invasion and the PR campaign the administration waged to make it happen"?

Legate Damar | July 11, 2007, 9:01am | #

Does anybody else think we'll see the end of Moore soon? Not as in "he'll blow so hard that people will get tired of him" but as in "dude's like three bills, easy." As much as I think he's vile and his work is comically one-sided, I couldn't help but feel a little worried for him when he was on the Daily Show. He's a heart attack waiting to happen.

mike | July 11, 2007, 9:23am | #

Guys, I think there are some people talking about anti-semitism here. I'm not sure if they're aware that the rest of us are in here. There's one guy accusing another guy of being anti-semitic, and the other guy is countering with the classic argument, "nuh-uh."

Pro Libertate | July 11, 2007, 9:29am | #

PL, with due respect, if thirty million Canadians did vote in the last two presidential elections we would have been guaranteed a Democrat victor. Believe me, I know, I have lived there.

Isaac,

You underrate the cunning of the Canadian menace. They wanted us to have Bush. It makes their government look statesman-like.

P Brooks | July 11, 2007, 9:30am | #

"He's a heart attack waiting to happen."

Perhaps the Ministry of Health will put him on a diet and issue him a Stairmaster. And take away his limo.

wayaway | July 11, 2007, 9:35am | #

joe | July 10, 2007, 9:55pm | #

How charming, Axel. Yours is clearly a rull and rich life.

Umm, joe, why the Scooby Doo impression?

highnumber | July 11, 2007, 9:42am | #

Hey, Underzog,

You are an anti-freedom bigot. Your proposed anti Muslim amendment is clear evidence of that. That is not vitriolic name calling.

This is vitriolic name calling:
You are a pussy, a bitch, a dickhead, a motherf*cker, and a c*nt.

Do you see the difference?

Bernie Bernbaum | July 11, 2007, 10:26am | #

Look in your heart!

He knows I defend limited government, so he tried to explain why I was wrong. He began in a revealing way:

"I gotta believe that, even though I know you're very much for the individual determining his own destiny, you also have a heart."

Notice his smuggled premise in the words "even though." In Moore's mind, someone who favors individual freedom doesn't care about his fellow human beings. If I have a heart, it's in spite of my belief in freedom and autonomy for everyone.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/freedom_and_benevolence_go_tog.html

Rick Barton | July 11, 2007, 10:41am | #

Underzog:

Ricky's updated Protocols of the Elders of Zion, wheras the Jews led America into war has been heard before

You didn't even try to refute my comment at 4:31 AM! I'm thinking it's cuz you can't.

I have never, and never will cux it would be racist thinking and I despise racism, contended that "the Jews" led America into the Iraq war. Ascribing any distinct motivation to "The Jews" assumes a commonality that is the essence of racism.

The evidence is manifest that the chief motivators of the Iraq war (and now they're pushing for our government to stay there, as well as attack Iran) are neocons who have the interests of the Israeli government and the Likudnik agenda at heart.

BTW, Underzog's lack of intellectual sophistication serves as no excuse for his anti-Islamic bigotry.

VM | July 11, 2007, 10:53am | #

"Underzog's lack of intellectual sophistication serves as no excuse for his anti-Islamic bigotry."

quoted for truth! thanks, Rick!

edit: you never contended

uncle sam | July 11, 2007, 12:06pm | #

No Moore!

e | July 11, 2007, 12:10pm | #

Good thing no one's talking about the actual claims that Sanjay Gupta made and Moore's responses. A thread about anti-semitism is so much more interesting, or something.

highnumber | July 11, 2007, 12:51pm | #

Yes, and comments about threads about anti-Semitism are even more interesting.

Keep up the good work, e!

Xanthippas | July 11, 2007, 1:45pm | #

"Here at Reason we leap to the defense of fatuous media personalities...but only when that fat-ass Moore attacks them!"

Rick Barton | July 11, 2007, 2:13pm | #

Thanks VM!

joe | July 11, 2007, 2:37pm | #

kl wrote If somebody's waving a gun at a crowd of people and you say, "Look out!", and then it turns out the gun wasn't loaded, you're a liar.

Saddam wasn't "waving a gun at a crowd of people." He was, in fact, denying that he had any WMDs. That's why Commander Guy told us that he wasn't going to "trust the word of a dictator."

semm asks got proof of this claim?

The proof you're looking for can be found in the final report of the Blix group, and in the reports issued by the Iraq Survey Group after the war. I believe they're both online; their conclusions were widely reported in the media.

Isaac B,

My point was that the media blitz started long before 2003.

Setting aside the problem of lumping the statements about the threat made by the administration in that late 90s with the march to war that categorized 2002 and early 2003, MY point is that there is a difference between saying there are WMDs in Iraq when your intelligence agencies are telling you that they know there are said weapons, and doing the same thing when your intelligence agencies keep telling you that they don't know.

Yes, there were some people who should have known better that uncritically accepted Bush and Cheney's assertions (Al Gore not being among them, however) such as Hillary Clinton. Shame on them, but I still blame the liar more than those who believed him. The sin of trusting the President when, in the aftermath of a massive terror attack, he warns of another threat is one that I can forgive.

Umm, joe, why the Scooby Doo impression?

Hrruuuggghhhhh??

Underzog | July 11, 2007, 2:40pm | #

The evidence is manifest that the chief motivators of the Iraq war (and now they're pushing for our government to stay there, as well as attack Iran) are neocons who have the interests of the Israeli government and the Likudnik agenda at heart.


Neocon is shorthand for dirty Jew or the "k word" (I'll leave it to you to say that word as you're probably very familiar with it).

Neither the Nazis who said the gas chambers were shower baths or you who claim you're not anti-Semitic while throwing around the dirty-Jew-spying-for-Israel antiword (neocon) are to be believed in you denials. Your Arab terrorist allies are fond of lying, too.

"There's no need to fear; Underzog is here!"

joe | July 11, 2007, 2:43pm | #

Anonymous,

In the very first link Isaac provides, the snopes.com page, you will find a link to here:

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

If you follow that link, you find the text of Al Gore's speech from 2002 (sorry for getting the date wrong), in which he repudiates the invasion and the PR campaign the administration waged to make it happen.

joe | July 11, 2007, 2:46pm | #

I think it's pretty clear that Underzog's attacks on the Nazi government are really just cover for his anti-Germanism.

And while I've never seen any evidence that Rick Barton's hard-on for Israel comes from anti-semitism, and have in fact seen quite a bit of evidence that it does not, including his shouting down of actual anti-semites when they post, I'm pretty sure his constant carping about the Soviet Union is actually just cover for a deep-seated anti-Russianism.

Rick Barton | July 11, 2007, 6:45pm | #

Underzog:

Neocon is shorthand for dirty Jew or the "k word"

So I guess that makes the Jews who self-describe as neocons, self-haters?

There's no need to be furious.
Poor Underzog is to be pitied
When he writes his nonsense
He's actually serious!

Rick Barton | July 11, 2007, 6:48pm | #

joe,

Quite clever and funny! And Thanks!

Anonymous | July 11, 2007, 7:35pm | #

Joe,

Thanks for the clarification.

Since it was buried in there, I thought you were just being snarky when you said "Thanks for the links..."

kl | July 11, 2007, 10:54pm | #

Saddam wasn't "waving a gun at a crowd of people." He was, in fact, denying that he had any WMDs.

So Saddam went from lying about not having WMDs to telling the truth about not having them. And Cheney was lying when he said he still thought Saddam was lying about not having WMDs. Cheney secretly believed Saddam, who had established a good track record for truthfulness, but Cheney just went ahead because he wanted to and he likes war and so forth. I think that's what you're saying?

Underzog | July 12, 2007, 8:00am | #

Hey Ricky,

I heard that a major PLO terrorist figure admitted that Yassir Arafat died of AIDs. What did you and Joe do to him? A condom or two would've been in order.

Arafat died of AIDs, eh? Hey! They caught the filthy bum who killed Arafat. It's a joke you Rhoemites, get it? Get it? They caught the filthy bum who killed Arafat.

"There's no need to fear; Underzog is here!"

Anonymous | July 16, 2007, 8:51pm | #

BTW, thanks for the links to the speech Gore gave in 2003, where he repudiates the invasion and the PR campaign the administration waged to make it happen.

*

Anonymous, you dunce, Isaac DID provide links to the Gore speech.

*

Hey, Anonymous, do you need me to explain what they pointy thing on your screen is?

*

If you follow that link, you find the text of Al Gore's speech from 2002 (sorry for getting the date wrong),


If you're going to insult somebody, at least get your facts straight first.

Frothing Canuck | July 19, 2007, 3:53am | #

First thread I've read here. Interesting. Overall tone of self-satisfied mockery: smart boys (and a few girls, presumably) competing to make the most smart-alecky remarks. An assumption, apparent in the tone of most posters, of ideological or rational Überragendheit, quite unfounded of course since it takes a degree of blindness or twittiness to think, for example, that support of one mass political party brand (e.g. Democrat) is a reliable indicator of intellectual or moral inferiority or confusion. But maybe y'all understand that, really; maybe it's all just an act, a passe-temps, a feigned arrogance, a game. Maybe you all understand the limitations and downsides of hewing to prefab ideologies, regardless of their particular discourse. Maybe I'm going on far too long in my effort to parody this behavior by indulging in it...