internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
List archive
Re: [internetworkers] stretching definitions doesn't help
- From: matusiak <dave AT matusiak.org>
- To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [internetworkers] stretching definitions doesn't help
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:06:28 -0400
I think it would be awesome if everyone could see the following films.
Uncovered: The War on Iraq
http://www.truthuncovered.com/
http://www.truthuncovered.com/film_trailerlrg.html
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0420286/
Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire
described as The Thinking Person's "Fahrenheit 9/11"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419806/
http://www.movieminder.com/movlist/?movieID=2850&tab=times
I have seen both and have found them to be extremely thought provoking and thoroughly upsetting. What is nice about these documentaries is that they are almost entirely told from the mouths and perspectives of lifelong CIA agents, military intelligence personnel, and global diplomacy, political science and security experts.
These are the people who were along for the ride over the past 20-30 years and have had a much better eye on intelligence data than either you or I. These are also the people who are more capable of assessing "the situation" than perhaps anyone I have ever read, watched or talked to. For more on "the situation" see: http://ibiblio.org/matusiak/
I have an innate sense to trust these people more than Hannity & Colmes, or Bill O'Reilly or any of the spinners for that matter. (Including Michael Moore -- but I digress by pointing out that no one has successfully refuted any of the "facts" in F9/11). I certainly trust these extremely loyal patriots more than the bumblers who have been fucking up "the situation" for the past 4 years. I mentioned "extremely loyal patriots" because they not only served their country honorably, but they also understand the sense of gravitas involved by potentially putting themselves on the outs with the security community. That is a big ledge to drop off, as we saw with the diplomat whom had his wife (a CIA operative) "outed" by The Company in retaliation for his opposition to The Bush/Wolfowitz Doctrine.
Essentially, the tiny, rabid group that surrounded Reagan and GHWB spent The Clinton Years trying to remove him from office so that they could hijack the United States (military, government, tax payers, you-name-it) and begin their Project for the New American Century plan to cower the rest of the world into fear and submission. So far, the only ones in fear and being submissive are the US populace (or about 42% thereof).
So we've given billions in tax relief to the richest Americans, granted untold financial gains to corporations and oil companies, and bankrupted our future and all generations of Americans to come. This was all done so that the Muslims (and the rest of the world) would fear us and not stand in our way of resource management. And, now get this, the kicker of the whole deal is...
It didn't work. This brilliant group of intellectual chickenhawks thought that their plan of American Imperialism would work. They thought it was a lock. A done deal.
And surely, with their overwhelming collective genius any bumps in the road could be covered up or quickly resolved. Heh. Isn't that what this is all about? The strong, determined RESOLVE of George W. Bush -- The only Bush who speaks in a Texas drawl. Isn't his being RESOLUTE the most important, infallible element of his presidency?
George Bush's resolve and Karl Rove's brains combined with the thickly disgusting hubris of Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz and others was still not enough to take over the world. They screwed up their big board game of Axis & Allies and now we've got to spend the rest of our lives paying for it -- both in financial terms and diplomatic terms. We are to be the histrionic whipping boy for the rest of the world -- "but we can still kick your ass, if need be."
One of the best characters featured in the films is USAF veteran and former Pentagon employee Karen Kwiatkowski. She is truly amazing -- sharp as a tack and unflinching when describing the tough stuff. I would hate to have to match wits with her (on all accounts). Regardless, her input was invaluable and was definitely from the vantage point of someone who has spent a lot of time inside the machine. She has some writings on the Internet and one of particular interest is:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski89.html
I have seen Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and have tried very hard to find FahrenHYPE 9/11, but none of the video stores in my area carry it. I doubt I will purchase that movie just to critique it, mostly because they (like many before them) didn't even take the time to create something of their own (artistically). Moore had made his film and many disagreed with him, but instead of coming up with an original idea and making a legitimate contribution, these "filmmakers" were content with just watching Moore's film and trying to cast stones.
Weak. Super weak, as Cartman would say. It is decadently easy to find flaws in someone else's work without creating anything valuable on your own. There are plenty of websites and lunatics devoted to debunking anything and everything Michael Moore does or says, including whatever he ate for breakfast today. These people need to get a life. If their story is so important, then they should go out and make their own damn movie with their own damn idea and try to make that a success. Simply attacking Moore because he is a big, fat, rich, white male filmmaker doesn't create something useful. And like I mentioned above, no one has come close to refuting his facts. They can only bitch about tidbits he deleted (which, in the grand context of things are insignificant).
Find something else to say. Try to tell your own story.
Trying to rip apart F9/11 scene-by-scene (or anyone/anything) will only make you look like a sore sport. Well, now Tony and Don and others will say "Well, that's all you do about Bush." Au contraire, I have a vested interest in the future of this country as well as my own personal well-being, so I am not attempting to rip Bush Co. apart just for the heck of it (or to make a buck), but because they are endangering all of our lives and also preventing The Truth from making it out to The People whom are ultimately in charge of making The Decisions.
Instead I would proffer that my words/actions (and those of many others) are quite patriotic in terms of spirited defense of the American people and our livelihoods. I'm tired of hearing patriots branded as "Anti-American" or worse for exercising our Democratic rights to speak out and question the functions of government. Especially when times are so dire and any future mistakes could be the straw that takes the country down with it. Please don't be so petty as to assume I don't love my country.
I would be overjoyed if anyone could point to hard evidence that any of the above is either "wrong" or "incorrect." Well, I'm off to another film screening. Au revoir.
dave m.
On Oct 19, 2004, at 2:43 PM, zman wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 rua AT mindspring.com wrote:
In the invasion of Iraq, he went with as much public knowledge as there has
ever been in a war. This isn't a kidnapping or murder, it's war. He said for months what his intentions were, and he followed through on a huge stage. All Saddam had to do was to turn on the tv and he would see the type of tanks and armor that was approaching.
Ok if you even believe this the rest of your supposed arguement doesn't even deserve a rebuttle. There is no way he did not know the truth about the WMDs before invading. If you even believe that he did there is nothing to say. I can't talk to someone who is stupid enough to buy that.
-
RE: [internetworkers] stretching definitions doesn't help
, (continued)
-
RE: [internetworkers] stretching definitions doesn't help,
Tony Spencer, 10/20/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] stretching definitions doesn't help, Evan Zimmerman, 10/20/2004
- RE: [internetworkers] stretching definitions doesn't help, Tony Spencer, 10/20/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] stretching definitions doesn't help, David Minton, 10/20/2004
- RE: [internetworkers] stretching definitions doesn't help, Tony Spencer, 10/20/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] stretching definitions doesn't help, Ian Meyer, 10/20/2004
-
RE: [internetworkers] stretching definitions doesn't help,
Tony Spencer, 10/20/2004
- Message not available
- Re: [internetworkers] stretching definitions doesn't help, Evan Zimmerman, 10/20/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] stretching definitions doesn't help, David Minton, 10/20/2004
- RE: [internetworkers] stretching definitions doesn't help, Shea Tisdale, 10/20/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.