http://www.truthuncovered.com/

Includes interviews with over 20 ex-CIA operatives, U.N. inpsectors, military officials, and even a Senator proving how the Bush Administration lied to get us into war.

Also has footage of Bush cabinet members backpedaling and spinning like Ari Fleishcer's dreidel in order to cover their own buts when the lies about WMDs were exposed.

And unlike Bowling For Columbine, no jokes, satirical cartoons, or anything of that sort was inserted. The evidence is allowed to speak for itself. Thusly, any of you Right Wing detractors out there who will doubtless throw around such baselss accusations such as "traitor" or "pro-Saddam" or some other bald-faced lie, have the burden of proof thrust upon you. Try and prove that this documentary is wrong!

I think this should belong to PM: Politics on TV/on Radio/in Movies.

Die große Lüge (The Big Lie). A German documentary that deals with the Niger papers. Devastating.

Since it's a film, and a documentary, it belongs here. That's what this section is for. The fact that it's political doesn't change that. Just because someone else created a subcategory in PM for media whose subject matter may overlap with this category doesn't mean that the movie's inclusion here is incorrect.

That's true.

However, it seems that Brian's post is of a more political bent than any type of commentary/discussion of the film itself.

Furthermore, Brian, I would advise you to review your post. This is a perfect example of the type of post you've made before... where you antagonize people and then later innocently question, "What'd I do?"

Before anyone has uttered a word on the subject, you've already established an adversarial relationship... you claim "Right Wing detractors" will make "baseless accusations," yet that in itself is a baseless accusation (because no one has said anything yet).

I appreciate you trying to enlighten us to the film... and I am certainly more interested in checking this out than Colombine.

However, without having seen the film, I can say with some authority (based on experience) that the evidence is not allowed to speak for itself... as long as someone picks and chooses which evidence to present, the evidence can never speak for itself. Because unless all the evidence is presented (and how can that even be possible?) impartiality cannot exist... facts are taken out of context all the time.

Bill Clinton was impeached because of evidence that, while factually true, was taken out of context.

That isn't to say that the filmmakers didn't actively try to balance the different sides of the issue (though the very act of balancing also makes it non-impartial). And that isn't to say that the filmmakers weren't more thorough and less blatantly manipulative than Moore seems to be. I don't know... I haven't seen either.

But it's something to keep in mind when receiving information from any source other than your own direct observations.

Maybe it's just me, but what's up with the dreidel joke?

Luigi: Well said. When I run for Senate in 2014, I want you as my speechwriter (yes, the campaign is back on, aminly cuase my grandmother wouldn't shut up about it ). You know, polish my zingers s(no, sickos that's NOT an oral sex joke!).

Darth: Yeah, my comments were a little on the heavy side. But you can find that style of comment on just about very moive, political or otherwise.

Before anyone has uttered a word on the subject, you've already established an adversarial relationship... you claim "Right Wing detractors" will make "baseless accusations," yet that in itself is a baseless accusation (because no one has said anything yet).

Well, that's one way to see it. Another way is ocnsider history and experience. Expecting conservative ideolouges to attack either me or the film, to me anyway, is no different then expecting my cat Piper to jump on my lap while I'm trying to type, which she did a fw minutes ago. She's so predictable. Very cute, but predictable. :-)

Mike: Well, Bush's former Press Sec. is one of the "hawkish Jewsih NeoCons" that Al Franken talked about in his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. I actually swiped the joke from the book. I do that sometimes.

Well, that's one way to see it. Another way is ocnsider history and experience. Expecting conservative ideolouges to attack either me or the film, to me anyway, is no different then expecting my cat Piper to jump on my lap while I'm trying to type, which she did a fw minutes ago. She's so predictable. Very cute, but predictable. :-) - Brian

Yes, but do you chastise the cat before he jumps on your lap?

Isn't it always preferable to give people the benefit of the doubt... especially if you wish to engage them in dialogue? I mean, why post any type of commentary and invite opposition if you're going to provide your own predetermined counter-arguments, anyway. It's fine to anticipate and prepare for the eventuality, but it's not fine to expect it.

People can surprise you.

Those dang Jewsih NeoCons!

I don't mind a non-PM site for this.

All that is needed for evil to suceed is for good men to do nothing. You counciled good men doing nothing. Did you not think Saddam was evil enough? Rape, torture, genocide. I can't wait to hear yous tell me that was OK.

I'm sorry, Brian Webber asked for proof. Links are not proof since the evil right wing conspiracy controls them, but..

Claims of Saddam's Genocide Far from Proven Read between the lines and decide for yourself if Human Rights Watch or Robin Miller is the more trust worthy source.

Oh, and the mass graves were empty too.

DS: Yes, but do you chastise the cat before he jumps on your lap?

SHE. Geez, you and my upstairs neighbors. Piper is a girl already!

Isn't it always preferable to give people the benefit of the doubt... especially if you wish to engage them in dialogue?

Yeah, I guess it is. I'd just gotten back froma particulary nasty bout with Ausssie Conservo Kaleb777 over at Survey Central, and was just in a particulary Conservo-bashing kind of mood. But can you really blame me? The guy dedicated three paragraphs to calling me a racist, sexit, anti-Semite. As I'm sure everyone who's posted on this particular board here knows (even Berry, ;)), I am none of these things.

Mike: Those dang Jewsih NeoCons!

Whoops. Man, I wish we hadn't lost Spell Check.

Berry: Careful duded, your entering troll territory there. Why do you think that people who opposed the war are evil pro-Saddam people? That's the kind of narrow minded, myopic, baseless generalization that someone like Ann Coulter would make. BTW, I don't know who RObinMIller is. But, the HRW, in case you forgot, considers s everal countries to be WORSE than Iraq. Saudi Arabia for instance. But then again, the Suads actually SELL us their oil, so we won't be bombing them anytime soon.

Plus, Berry, several questions need to be asked about the various Bush justifications.

Why cliam it's about WMDs, when 90-95% of them had been destoryed, as determined by the most intrusive U.N. Weapon inspection team EVER?

Why claim it's about the Kurds when they were being slaughtered 12 years ago and Bush I didn't care?

Why claim it's about them violation U.N. reesolution 1441, when we ourselves violated one or two U.N. resolutions to invade? I know I've said this before, but, does it make sense that we tried to send Saddam the admittedly noble message that the U.N. needs to be taken seriously and not undermined, by not taking the U.N. seriously and undermining them with veto threats? We can't bring human rights into this, beucase the U.S. and Iraq BOTH voted aginst the U.N. Convention of the RIghts of the Child, which included provisions agaisnt forced child marriages, execution of criminals under the age of 18, and (if I remember) female circumscision. Iran, Vatican City (whoa, since when do Catholics hate kids?), and several other Islamic thugocracys voted with us on that. We can't claim it's ben about the iraqi people, because althoguh they've managed to round up a few people to make the pro-America crowds look nice and large, an independent poll shows that, while glad Saddam is gone, most Iraqis STILL feel that we aren';t there as liberators, but as occupiers. And so far we haven't taken many steps to prove them wrong. Like Right Wing media hacks calling the crying child who lost both his arms to a U.S. missle attack an "ungrateful welp." That was a real statement, by a real wing Republican apartchik, on a real right wing radio talk show, right here in Colorado. The formerly Liberal until KNRC found his price, Greg Dobbs.


There, got all that out of the way. Now back to the film. There was one part in particular that I found compelling. It was when a former CIA analyst who's name I forgot, but had been in loyal service to his country (America, Blue. Despite what you may think, anti-War people generally don't serve the Iraqi Inteligence Agency) for over 20 years, proved that the document that proved Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger was a frogery, adn a badly drawn up one at that. Several French language words were mispelled, the dates didn't match the days (crude example. If this post were to say I posted Friday, December 20, 2003, that would be incorrect, just like these dates on the papers. Once I get the DVD I'll look againsince I can't remember the exact wrong dates), and there were signatures on the document, belonging to Nigerian officlas that had been out of office for YEARS. IIRC, one of them had even been dead before he signed the thing. Remember the Maine anyone?

Brian,

Figure it out. For evil to succeed good men must do nothing. If you or anyone else counsels doing nothing the you must think the evil is not there or the counselors are not good men or they should admit to their mistake. Pick one. We have proof of the counsel. Crying fowl at the question does not preclude you answering it.

Brian you are too a racist. The race you hate is Ursus Majoris (Bad joke, no one tell me that isn't really a species, I know)

I'll answer your questions after you try to answer mine. Was Saddam Hussein evil? Was leaving him in power the right thing to do?

Yes Bush Jr. is a donkey brain, your point? (You've allegedly have read my posts. You don't think I'm a Republicrat do you?)

I forget who said saying my country right or wrong is like saying my mother drunk or sober. (Yes, she's my mother.) I'd agree with you. If my mother said leave him alone to kill and rape and ignore the UN then she is drunk. (Yes, I'm putting the quote in Brian's mouth, but I need it for the joke.)

Now was Saddam Hussien evil? That is not a rhetorical question. Funny how questions that can't be answered must be by a troll. Anyone else find the dehumanizing in that telling while the question goes unanswered?

Now check your facts. We (The United States and Great Britton since the US is obviously the root of all evil) justified our invasion based on a resolution from something like 1998. Besides, if the UN is ignorable by Hussein it is ignorable by all. Do you favor everybody ignoring the UN?

Now will the moderator let this discussion go on. Already one other bogus board has sprouted. I suggest keeping PM topics on PM whether a documentary was made or not. (BTW, I won't waste my time with that film. What theaters was it released in? If it is just on the net I can probably get a film showing how the moon landing was faked. I don't think a board on that subject is movie related.)

Then again I do enjoy Brian not answering my question.

Blue, stop flag waving for a second and look at this little thing called reality. Reality Check 1: 90 to 95% of the WMDs were destroyed, or way past the epiration date in the case of the chemical weapons. The wepaons inspections worked, Bush lied, Ameircan soldiers died, Bush is evil. Reality Check 2: The bUsh white house leaked the ID of a CiA operative out of spite, putting her and her family at risk. This also makes Bush evil. Reality Check 3: Bushies and zombies like you decry people for "not supporting the troops." Well Berry, how do you feel about Bush slashing benefits paid to families of soliders who've died? About him slashing funds that provides education to children of soldiers fighting overseas? About him reducing their alrady paltry Imminent Danger pay? Who really supports the troops Blue? Us who want them home, or Bush who won't do squat about the fact that the military is being given substandard lubricants for thier guns beucase the company that makes the shitty oil has ties to the Pentagon? BTW, that lousy lube is the reason Jessica Lynch's gun jammed.

Besides, if the UN is ignorable by Hussein it is ignorable by all. Do you favor everybody ignoring the UN?

Do you think I'm an idiot Blue? The U.S. and Israel have violated plenty of U.N. resoplutions. Does that mean we can be invaded too, or do you hold on to the wholly Right Wing ideal of the double standard (in case you forogt, both Clinton and Bush pushed for the War Crimes Tribunal to essentially make Americans above the law)? So, in order to send the emssage to iraq that the U.N. can't be undermined, we undermine the U.N. Great plan Blue. Catch-22 in practice.

And in the name of everythignt hat is good and decetn, stop slandering people who are against the war you nasty, nasty person! >:-(

Check 1: 90 to 95% of the WMDs were destroyed, or way past the epiration date in the case of the chemical weapons.

Document this claim please.

Ameircan soldiers died, Bush is evil.

Non-sequiter.

Brian,

Instead of wasting your and my time arguing against statements I never made, try answering the question. It is a simple question.

Was Saddam Hussein a genocidal maniac who was routinely on list of worst dictators whenever somebody like Amnesty International compiled a "top ten" list?

I'll help you. Cut and paste one of the following.

No he wasn't, because...

Yes he was but...

Yes he was and I should apologize to every family that had loved ones disappear while I counseled doing nothing.

In your other notes Bush Jr. is a donkey. Agreed. Stop saying I like Bush. (Is repeatedly calling me a Republican an ad hominem.)

Oh, I forgot Israel and the US ignored every resolution sponsored by people who do not recognize Israel's right to exist. I forgot that in 1947 a Baby Hussein was thinking he'd violate Un resolutions on a pre-emptive basis.

You can answer the question, but instead you accuse me of thinking your an idiot? What's the matter? Is being insulted isn't working as a tactic to deflect the question and to make it stronger you have to put words in my mouth.

(Off topic advice from Uncle Blue the politician: Avoid the word "thinking". A good laugh line is "I don't have to think through what your words prove." If your opponent ever says "I don't think. I know," then use your vast Three Stooges knowledge to hit him hard. )

Oh, in case this post was too long I'll repeat the question (again): Was Saddam Hussein evil?

BTW, can anyone provide a list of theaters this film was in? It never came around here. Of course I'm a lying Republican. (Or is it's non-general release proof of a vast right wing conspiracy [of which I'm a part, of course] designed to hide the TRUTH from people.)

BrianW ebber, getting peeved at Berry adn his stubborn rewfusal to see the picture, and also peeved that the Roving Mods let him get away with his ad homienms against anyone who opposed the War in Iraq.
Luigi Novi: Where did Berry slander or use ad hominems against anyone who opposed the War? Or exhibited “flag waving”? And isn’t your referring to “bushies and zombies like you” an ad hominem statement?

Luigi: Not neccesarily in that post speciifclaly, but he's doen it a lot since just beofre the war started. And I really am getting tired of his "beign anti-war makes you pro-Saddam" bullcrap!

Berry: Was Saddam Hussein a genocidal maniac who was routinely on list of worst dictators whenever somebody like Amnesty International compiled a "top ten" list? Here's some better questions. Did Bush lie? Did Bush flip-flop on his reasons for the war? Are there dictators worse than Saddam (ones that sell us oil included)? Did the U.N. weapons inspectors do their jobs well? Are shiite fundamnetalists moving into power thus only REMOVING what little freedom the iraqi people had under Saddam? Have you been a jerk to anyone whose opposed the war by lyign and saying their in favor of brutal dictators? Andswer these questions for me, will ya?

Scott: Ameircan soldiers died, Bush is evil.

Non-sequiter.

MNo, you just left out a rather significant portion of the statement. Like when Sean hannity deliberately cuts down statements to fit his narrow-minded view of things. What I said in the post was this. "The wepaons inspections worked, Bush lied, Ameircan soldiers died, Bush is evil."
As for the claims being documented, haven't several NC regulars posted links to articles and websites? The documentary also has evidencem adn testimony from EXPERTS on the subject. Experts who's loyality to the U.S. is not in question, despite what Berry thinks.

The wepaons inspections worked,

Document please.

Bush lied

Perhaps. If the CIA lied to Bush, and Bush repeated that, does that mean he deliberately lied?

Ameircan soldiers died, Bush is evil."

Still non-sequiter from the above.

Not neccesarily in that post speciifclaly, but he's doen it a lot since just beofre the war started... - Brian Webber

Correct me if I'm wrong... the first post on this board was made on December 17, 2003... so how could he possibly have made posts "before the war started"? Unless, of course, a moderator has deleted all the previous posts on the matter or you are the one bringing outside material into the discussion. I warned you from your very first post that it looked like you were deliberately trying to antagonize people. I guess you reap what you sow.

I don't see how much of this has anything to do with the film, and agree with Electron that it should be moved to PM.

Darth: Check out PM some time. Assuming Sax didn't send all of them to the Dump, you'll see what I'm talking about.

Brian: I should have to check PM out. I avoid the PM and RM boards as much as possible to avoid having to view nonsense like this. Very little of this discussion has anything to do with the film.

Brian Webber,

Lets get this straight.

Your Post #1 you say everyone who does not agree with you is bad (Flag waving, right wing, etc.)

My post #1 asks you a question. Yes amid slanting and humor. (The slanting and humor would look awful silly if you could answer the question, BTW.)

Your post #2: You do not answer the question. Instead you call me a flag waving Bushite, etc.

My post #2: I ask you if you want to answer my question and agree with you on Bush.

Your post #3: You still ignore the question (making your hole deeper.) Then you tell me I'm a Bushite and catalog Bush evils.

My post #4: I ask you the question you are taking great pains (great noticeable pains, BTW) to avoid. and agree with you that Bush is horrible

Your post #5: You ignore the obvious question and again accuse me of being a flag waving, right wing, yadda yadda yadda, Bushite. You ignore my agreeing that Bush is a horrible President and catalog why he is so bad again.

Now I'm going to let you off the hook, kid. If you have nothing new you can slink away without answering the obvious question. I make no promises you won't introspectively ask yourself why you cannot answer it.

Darth Sarcasm,

If you check them out keep an open mind. If they still exist. Oh, and keep in mind that Sax the PM moderator has no problem putting words in people's mouth.

Luigi,

Thanks for pointing that out. It is nice to know I'm not the only one who saw it.

ScottN,

Should I thank you or would have been pointing that out anyway?

All,

I did not use exact quotes from Brian Webber because it is late (for me). My counting of posts may be off too. (Hey if your all nitpickers I better confess to that now.)

JD,

Do you really want a PM board here?

Upon review, I realize I didn't review my post carefully enough... I shouldn't have to look at the PM postings to make sense of the drama going on here!

Your Post #1 you say everyone who does not agree with you is bad (Flag waving, right wing, etc.)

A lie. I said no such thing. That's more the way you've acted to anyone who's been against the war. Granted you aren't the worst of the flag-waving ying-yangs I;ve had to deal with (compared to them you're downright saintly), but still.

Now I'm going to let you off the hook, kid. If you have nothing new you can slink away without answering the obvious question. I make no promises you won't introspectively ask yourself why you cannot answer it.

You're one to talk. You never answered my questions either. BTW, if you go the White House website you can find a transcript where Bush admits there is no provable link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, which blows another hole in the pro-War argument. But I digress.

A lie. I said no such thing. - Brian Webber

You did suggest that anyone who may question the integrity of the film as "Right Wing detractors." And you pre-accused them of making "baselss[sic] accusations such as 'traitor' or 'pro-Saddam' or some other bald-faced lie" without anyone having said a word on the matter.

So, yeah, as I stated in my first post, you established the adversarial nature of this discussion from the get-go (little of which has had anything to do with the film itself).

I think a Moderator needs to step in and at least address the issue...

Happy Holidays to everyone!

Moderator

Brian Webber,

I hate to point this out. I agreed with you and you insisted I did not and refused to answer the question as instead you asked the questions i agreed to again.

As for me being a liar let me cut and paste from your first post before anyone responded to you:

Thusly, any of you Right Wing detractorsout there who will doubtless throw around such baselss accusations such as "traitor" or "pro-Saddam" or some other bald-faced lie, have the burden of proof thrust upon you. Try and prove that this documentary is wrong! - Brian Webber emphasis mine

Brian,

I just noticed you ignore one of Luigi's questions too. Maybe there is a physical cause.

Trying to get attention,

I agree. Moderator, over here please.

Anyone find evidence this movie was in theaters? Sometimes for the Oscars they release a movie in New York or L.A. late in the year. That may be the case. (Released only in Denver, never mind that thought.) Besides, I'm a Right Wing Bush loving Zombie, so what ever I say is suspect.

I assume the movie boards are for stuff like Return of the King that I can find in a theater near me.

Hey Blue, why's that? You can't find many art films in a theater near you but they are still theatrical motion pictures.

http://64.33.77.146/discus/messages/8/11078.html?1071996567

Brian Fitzgerald,

I mentioned one possible reason for it or are you asking why theater sometimes release movies in NY or LA for Oscar consideration? Perhaps you are asking why Return of the King is in a theater near me.

Posting a link to here is not easy. Did you want me to get the list of movie done here? For TV movies and miniseries? Honestly that is a guess. Guesing at what someone means since they don't come out and say anything is haphazard at best If I'm right let me restate my question. Was this a movie in theatrical release or a miniseries?

Now Brian Fitzgerald, in case you did not notice the "?" I asked a simple question. Can you answer with a simple answer? What theaters was it in? If you want to tell me it was a miniseries, you can just say so. (If for some reason you want to prove it ran, link to TV guide or something.)

I'm waiting for evidence, any evifence, that this is more than an Internet film. If it isn't, moderator, do you want to open this board up links of "movies" showing how the moon landing was faked and the Earth is really flat?

First of all, I'm not sure you realize there are two different Brians (then again, maybe you do and simply have an adversarial relationship with both of them outsde of this board).

Second, Brian F... I think Blue's, though admittedly unclear, contention is that this documentary isn't (and has never been) a theatrical "silver screen" documentary. And he's trying to establish the rules over what constitutes a film that should be discussed in these boards.

For my part, I have no issue with the documentary being discussed in this forum if there's no other place for it. I think that limiting the "movies" discussed here to theatrical or "silver screen" releases is too limiting (again, assuming that there isn't already a place for it somewhere else).

My only contention is that very little of the discussion here has had anything to do with the documentary and everything to do with people trying to pollute the boards with their irrelevant PM flames.

Agreed. Getting back to THIS FILM...

The moon landing is a question of fact, and arguments that it was faked can be argued on that basis. The issue of the Iraq war is a socio-political matter, and while the statements in this documentary may be opinion, they are given by numerous CIA analysts, diplomats, and other experts on the subject at hand. Whether it is being popularized on the Internet has no bearing on anything.

Happy Holidays, everyone.

Alright, I'm here.

Sarcasm has made some very valid points. Webber, your first post was, if not inflammatory, improperly biased to begin with. To put it simply, you opened the door for this mild flamewar and I don't really appreciate it.

Also, this board should only be for discussion of the documentary (which I am going to allow to remain). If you want to delve into any further political discussion than what the documentary contains and how it goes about presenting this information, go directly to PM. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. To put it plainly, I don't want this political discussion to continue.

And if I may add a personal comment...everyone who participated in this discussion should look up something called the Straw Man Fallacy, and keep it in mind in further debates. :-) That is all, everyone have a lovely end of the year.