As someone who thought the war was and still is a tremendous misuse of resources I came away from Fahrenheit 9-11 with a much higher opinion of George Bush.

I believe that the war the war was fought to secure and control the crude oil in the Middle East ;unfortunately this is a very important topic that Moore neglected in his movie.

During the movie Bush made a very interesting comment "The Democrats have no energy policy".

After watching the Democrats complain endlessly about energy costs for 2 years on C-SPAN; while the Republicans attempted to get ANWAR going I realized that Bush was right; the Democrats have no energy policy.

Even though George Bush refuses to spend adequate resources developing America's own large oil shale reserves (estimated at 2 trillion barrels) or provide the International Fusion Reactor Projecthttp://www.iter.org/ with anything but a trivial level of funding (the entire budget is only 10 billion dollars for 30 years and 75% of that money will come from Japan) I have respect Bush for going to war in the Middle East.

Bush in his well intentioned yet poorly executed occupation of Iraq is attempting to secure the oil that America needs for its future energy consumption and put hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and millions of Iraqis in harms way so I can have cheap gasoline.
Sure the man has a ruthless streak and is terrible implementer but he takes energy seriously enough to kill for it. Perhaps this is Bush's true saving grace. Perhaps he can solve America's energy problems.

<g> You may have just brought sarcasm to a new level. Pete

I would not let a BS movie from Michael Moore influence me in either direction.

It's playing at the Audian tonight, I'll probably go see it. Double feature comedy night with "Ace Ventura - Pet Detective."

America doesn't have an energy problem, we have a consumption problem.

I must compliment you on your consistency. You never made any sense when you were against Bush, and you don't make any sense now. You truly live in a dream world of your own making. The total oil output profit that Iraq could possibly pump for the next ten years would be insufficient to cover the amount of money we have spent there to date. Anyone who thinks our motive is to get Iraqi oil is a fool.

Do you think it might have to do with America having some sort of military presence in the middle east?

I think it has a lot to do with two things. To place other Middle East trouble makers that they could be the next losers, and a major miscalculation by the administration.

Firstly, I think the war is taking place in an attempt to change the geopolitical atmosphere of the Middle East. If an Iraqi style democratic government could be created the pressure would be on many of our so called friends ie: Saudi Arabia & Egypt to begin to change their governmental structure.

However, as Shelly points out there have been massive miscalculations. Is it too late to apply a fix? I think not. Whoever is elected Bush or Kerry no one will "cut and run". That is not an option.

Secondly, while having a home court advantage is what we learned growing up in this case I would rather fight terrorism in some other country rather than our own. Not that I don't believe we are totally safe or that another terrorist act will not occur.

"I would rather fight terrorism in some other country rather than our own."

On behalf of those of us who live in "some other country", thanks.

Just pretend you said it and maybe you'll feel the same. :)

I hope that I would never make such a crassly arrogant remark.

I don't see the point. I would think that anyone would desire that terrorism not take place in their homeland and, if it's inevitable that it'll happen, that it is elsewhere. Doesn't seem to be arrogant but more practical unless one would want to volunteer their country for the demonstration.

Maybe I misinterpreted the remark but I don't really think so. I read it as being not about acts of terrorism as you state but about the war against terrorism. However it's not really worth arguing about, I'm sure that neither of us would really wish either thing on any population wherever it is.

Very true. :)

So what Dick Cheney said at the London Petroleum Institute in 1999 makes him a fool?

Ask yourself why Bush invaded Iraq? They did not attack the US, there has been no proven link between Iraq and Al'Qaeda, and Saddam was NOT holding any weapons of mass destruction. However as Mr. Cheney has said on so many occasions, the Middle-East holds sway over most of the worlds oil, and the ignorant viewpoint of so many who are unwilling to invest in renewable energy sources means that America must have that oil.

The US has already seized control of Afghanistan in order to implement a pipeline in the region, but there are still many sovereign nations in the middle east who want to keep their resources for themselves. If you are so naive as to think that oil has nothing to do with the occupation of Iraq, then Bush must have done something right!

Why do you keep parroting the :bs: about no proven link? There was no link regarding 9/11 but ample proof of connections other than that. Every other legitimate news source has admitted this.

Wars are created by old people and paid for by the blood of the young.
The war was brilliantly executed, in land and air, with no exit plan. Whether is was justified only future events will decide. If the new Government can bring a semblance of democracy, curb the killings and bring peace amongst the warring factions then the World will tend to look more favourably upon the US.

In "Farenheit 911" Moore is so blatantly biased that only an ardent "Bush hater' will accept the movie at face value. I am not a George Bush supporter but I began to detect a one-sided approach which then makes me question all the "facts".

However, one incident left an indelible mark on my mind. The seven minutes of inactivity, and vacant look, on Bush's face when informed, at the classroom, of the Sept 11th attacks. One could argue shock and disbelief, but, in my opinion, seven minutes indicates indecivenesss not a mark of a good leader.

Moore doesn't care, he served his purpose, he got your money didn't he?

>The US has already seized control of Afghanistan in order to
>implement a pipeline in the region


Can't read a map, can you?

Maybe he thinks we're going to pipeline natural gas across the world. Just because we are already not pumping our own natural gas to drive the prices up shouldn't enter into it. :rolleyes:

Al, take a look at this site (I googled Afghanistan pipeline):

http://www.rense.com/general15/historyAfghPipeline.htm

also: http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipeline_timeline.htm

I knew about the consideration, Bobbo. Also knew that a simple map reconnaissance makes it fairly obvious that there are a number of better solutions than Afghanistan for a pipeline.

I have to agree. I believe our quest for more and more oil is a dead end idea. There are better things to do with oil than burn it. I feel that we (the free world) should engage in a Manhatten Project level program to seek alternative sources of energy, beginning with affordable fuel cell technology. Let the middle east keep their oil, and let us drive non-polluting vehicles.

I totally agree bobbo. This quest for oil in the middle east is a fruitless adventure when we can research alternative forms of energy.

>Al, take a look at this site (I googled Afghanistan
>pipeline):
>
>http://www.rense.com/general15/historyAfghPipeline.htm
>
>also:
>http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipeline_timeline.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>


Al may want to do some more research before he says " Can't read a map can you?"

You might actually do some research beyond a superficial article. The oil that proposed pipeline was supposed to move? Can and is being moved more efficiently and cheaply and not through Afghanistan.

These questions are for people that doubt the war for oil prospect.

Why is wrong it so wrong to admit we attacked to secure the energy that society needs?

Most rational people understand that this war is a lost cause; every week that passes more Americans are begining to turn against the war. Generals, officers, intel analysts have all come out against this war.

Everyweek that passes some important general or intelligence analyst says something against the war.

What's your ideological agenda? Why do you really support it? What ideological ax do have to grind?

I think you're all angry ; but then again so am I. Read this book I think it will give you a better appreciation of life in general:

Power vs. Force book
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1561709336/qid=1089018669/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-9515683-9392753?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

If we were going to go to war over oil, we'd go to war with Venezuala.

More likely Russia, Al. Russia has some of the largest oil fields on the planet. It's a major reason reason Hitler attacked Russia.

see: http://power.about.com/library/weekly/aa111601a.html

Umm, don't think so. The oil is in former USSR, not in Russia proper. The political problems there make moving oil out of there very problematic. Think of the Russian problems with Chechyna and multiply them by about 30.

Al is right, Venezuela is the major oil supplier to the USA, and they have a very unstable government which is currently very left wing. For energy supplies, they are, or should be, our largest current concern.

Ray

I think you need to read post #50 El Paz.

You are just as wrong about the "pipeline" as Moore.x( :bs:

>I must compliment you on your consistency. You never made
>any sense when you were against Bush, and you don't make any
>sense now. You truly live in a dream world of your own
>making. The total oil output profit that Iraq could possibly
>pump for the next ten years would be insufficient to cover the
>amount of money we have spent there to date. Anyone who
>thinks our motive is to get Iraqi oil is a fool.




A severe oil disruption in the oil supply would probably cost far more than than a few hundred billion dollars.

Sometimes in accounting its easy to look at something and say yes this is worth so and so. But what would happen if you didn't have something: like oil. Could you even put a price on that.

The US didn't invade for profit the US invaded to maintain the oil supply. Think of what would happen if Saudi Arabia stopped exporting for even a day; you could be talking about tens of billions of dollars right there.

The cost of an oil supply disruption would be ENORMOUS; that's why the US has such an interest in the region. Its not the money we get from the oil that's important; its what would happen to our economy without it.

Lets use the peaceniks as an example. They probably put unleaded fuel in their car to go to their demonstration.

They use paint to spray some words on their sign; petroleum based product.

After the then go eat at McDonald's where to eat their food that was grown on a farm that makes extensive use of petroleum based fertillizers and machinery that consumes gas.

The energy to keep McDonald's lit at night is provided by burning some sort of petroleum product.

From a pure dollars and cents point of view yes perhaps the petroleum was only a small part of the cost in providing the peaceniks with all their goods and services. But how would our society operate without it? Imagine all the goods and services you couldn't produce if the oil were not available.
This is why the oil is worth far more than the dollar and cents value of the crude oil in the ground; it is the enabler for a much wider array of economic activity.

Without oil our society would collapse.

More of your bull and backpedaling. You have maintained here for many months that our only reason for going into Iraq was to take their oil. Now you are trying to put another face on it, but your reasoning was stupid then and it still is.:bs:

>More of your bull and backpedaling. You have maintained here
>for many months that our only reason for going into Iraq was
>to take their oil. Now you are trying to put another face on
>it, but your reasoning was stupid then and it still is.:bs:



Prove it Shelly. All the things I said are true about oil. I have repeatly brought up links and you yet have nothing of substance or even have a counter-point other than chucking cheap insults. Your posts are as larded as they are with wearisome put downs rather than salient points. If I am a fool, prove it with some facts.

Do I detect a "hint" of sarcasm running through your post?

From what I've seen, Bush is a business puppet, wasn't Cheney the one who had Iraq fever with his Halliburton Co. ?? Also his treaty with the pharmacutical companies, who now are raising drug prices 3x the cost of living for seniors, all with a shit-eating grin as he signed the bill ??
He's in so many pockets,(including the Saudi's) he's impotent as a President !

A treaty with the drug companies? They've got sovereign rights, now? Give me a break.

It appears so, as they can write their own ticket

It's about the oil and securing adequate supplies. All the world's government understand that any severe disruptions in the oil supply could have consequences that would make 9-11 seem trivial by comparison.

I guess the bottom line is this without a grand energy policy whoever takes office in January will find himself committing more troops to Iraq. The war isn't over; its just begun.

You can't have it both ways. It's either regulation of the companies or "free market" economics. Don't take me wrong, I don't have much positive to say about the drug bill that was signed, but I tend to agree with the AARP when it states that the important thing was to get something on the books and then work to make it right, rather than just having a lot of hot air and nothing accomplished.

>You can't have it both ways. It's either regulation of the
>companies or "free market" economics. Don't take me wrong, I
>don't have much positive to say about the drug bill that was
>signed, but I tend to agree with the AARP when it states that
>the important thing was to get something on the books and then
>work to make it right, rather than just having a lot of hot
>air and nothing accomplished.

My take is a little different. After over 15 years of membership in AARP, I severed myself from the organization for what I consider a politically motivated sellout of their membership. And we now know that any minuscule benefit that may have existed under the bill, has already been negated by the increase in drug prices in excess of the rate of inflation since it was passed. The bill as passed was nothing but a sham.

I absolutely agree with Shelly, in regards to Iraq, Bush called it "Operation Iraqi Freedom", what exactly are we freeing them from their lives or their oil ?, seems to me both would apply. I agree Sadam needed to go, but at what cost on both sides, and it's not over yet. I think this administration has done more harm than good in image around the world. I mean a super-power with a serious lack of intelligence attacking a country like Iraq, no wonder the rest of the world hates
Americans

So answer the question of why leftists hate America. It's not about anything we've done, it's all about what we have. Class envy.

>So answer the question of why leftists hate America. It's not
>about anything we've done, it's all about what we have. Class
>envy.

Michael Moore being the exception, of course.

>So answer the question of why leftists hate America. It's not
>about anything we've done, it's all about what we have. Class
>envy.
Not anything we've done, heard the news for the last 8 months ? Gimme a break. If Nader had a glimmer of a chance , I'd vote for him. (Besides the fact that George Dubya stole the election in Florida in the first place) , he's illegal from square one, and besides representing himself as a President,nevermind human being ,he's a moron and should be be hung from a yard iron,nevertheless impeached for criminal malfeasance.

>>So answer the question of why leftists hate America. It's
>not
>>about anything we've done, it's all about what we have.
>Class
>>envy.
>Not anything we've done, heard the news for the last 8 months
>? Gimme a break. If Nader had a glimmer of a chance , I'd
>vote for him. (Besides the fact that George Dubya stole the
>election in Florida in the first place) , he's illegal from
>square one, and besides representing himself as a
>President,nevermind human being ,he's a moron and should be be
>hung from a yard iron,nevertheless impeached for criminal
>malfeasance.
>


Can you backup any of your idiotic rants?

Guess you don't follow the news ?

> (Besides the fact that George Dubya stole the
>election in Florida in the first place) , he's illegal from
>square one, and besides representing himself as a
>President,nevermind human being ,he's a moron and should be be
>hung from a yard iron,nevertheless impeached for criminal
>malfeasance.


Interesting. Have you ever bothered to read the US Constitution? Do you understand what the Electoral College is and what it does? Have you bothered to read the Supreme Court decision? Are you aware of the results of all the recounts in Florida?

The moron seems to be between the chair and keyboard of your computer.

Ok,quote this , quote that, America is hated around the world ! And there will be consequenses to pay. "Quote That"

Hated around the world, huh?

How much of the world have you visited to check on that?

My count is at 47 countries. Yet to visit one that hates America (although I will admit that the Parisians seem to hate everyone).

And you can sure as hell say that again. What a bunch of idiotic, spoon fed, ranting. Straight from the radical left bible. :bs:

Ed: got my reply mixed, not directed at you, Al, but should be obvious.

So, you think that America is loved around the world, or maybe you just don't care ?

You know what, right now I don't really care. All that is necessary is to be respected and if not that to be feared. Within reason, we have the responsibility to do all in our power to make sure that nothing like 9/11 ever happens again. Now, find a quote in your News articles that disproves that.

Where did it ever say that Sadam, or the Iraqi people ever attacked America,I'd like to see it !

What in the hell does that have to do with global terrorism. You've got a one track mind and it's on a spur. And a "dead-man" at the end. Go blow your bleeding heart tears somewhere else that will hold your hand and sing the damnation of that terrible America. You make me sick.

Guess you'll swallow any of the hogwash of the "bush" administration is selling , can't believe you fall for all that crap! I am a proud American citizen who wants to see his county excell,not decay.Put that in your Republican pipe , and then blow it out your Ass ! Just like "pearls before swine" , I rest my case !!

I wonder what the world would have said if FDR had attacked Hitler before he ended up as a major problem.I believe much of the "hatred is really "Envy".x( :+

I cancelled my AARP membership also, Shelly. A lot of people did. But it doesn't mean that much...I think AARP was quite aware of the
backlash they would create.

Here is what I saw on The O'Reilly Factor. I know I might get slammed for quoting Bill O'Reilly, but oh well. I think it hits the nail on the head.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123247,00.html


Striking Back



DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: What "The New York Times" did today was outrageous. They do a lot of outrageous things, but the headline, "Panel Finds No Al Qaeda-Iraq Tie," the press wants to run out and say there's a fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said. Jim Thompson, who's a member of the commission, has since been on the air. I saw him with my own eyes, and there's no conflict.


O'REILLY: Cheney has a right to be angry, and so does every American who wants a truthful media. "The Wall Street Journal" editorialized the situation this way: "The 'no Saddam link' story is getting so much play because it fits the broader anti-war, anti-Bush narrative that Iraq was a 'distraction' from the broader war on terror. So once again the 9/11 Commission is being used to tarnish the Iraqi effort and damage President Bush's credibility in fighting terror."
And that's the importance of this matter, ladies and gentlemen. Anti-Bush zealots are hurting the fight against terror by misleading Americans about what's actually happening. That puts all of our lives in danger.

Now I knew when I presented the facts linking Al Qaeda to Iraq that the far left would accuse me of shilling for the president. Viewer Jason Gambone, who lives in Palm Coast, Florida quickly echoed the far left response.

"O'Reilly, you and the Bush administration cheerleaders at Fox News are spinning the Saddam-Al Qaeda 9/11 connection like a frisbee. It's time for you to face the reality that President Bush misled the nation."

That opinion, of course, is nonsense, and here's the proof. In a CIA letter to the Select Committee on Intelligence dated October 9, 2002, then CIA Chief George Tenet writes, "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade...We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities."

Now we have posted that entire CIA letter on billoreilly.com if you want to read it. Also, just today, Russian President Putin said he himself gave the Bush administration intelligence, after 9/11, that Saddam was preparing to launch terror attacks inside the USA. That report comes from the Associated Press.

Now all of this information "Talking Points" is giving you is solid. It is fact, not opinion. President Bush was told by the CIA and foreign intelligence outfits that there was immediate danger to America. But those facts will not matter to the anti-Bush fanatics, who put partisan politics ahead of both truth and national security.

As you know, we're independent here, but I'm getting awful tired, awful tired, of the far left lying and endangering us all.

The connections have be proven time and again and verified by the press and the CIA.

The missing weapons of mass destruction have been proven to exist and quotes have come from the Clinton administration officials confirming their existence. Ask the Kurds whether or not Saddam used WMD's against them. Even that pitiful waste of time and our space in New York called the UN acknowledged chemical and biological weapons there years ago.

One major problem is our ill planned exit strategy an loss of lives from the nuts killing people daily just to keep the country in chaos. We need to keep a steady course and not let election year bullshit take over. As was said several times in previous posts we are not pulling out on Nov 5, no matter if it's Bush or Kerry.

The second major problem is that we are far too dependant on oil to leave and for that matter so is the rest of the world, whether they ever admit it or not. All of the world economy is geared to oil and we better find an alternate source soon. We didn't learn in the 70's under Carter, the 80's under Reagan, the 90's under Clinton, so Bush better get it right after this mess is cooled down. Seems to me, he's kind of stuck with the problem after all these years.

As an aside, I'd love to see Osama brought in on the day of the Democratic primary opening in Boston. That would tighten a few ---holes in the Democratic party. Funny how you haven't heard much from that jerk in the last 30 days. Maybe better if he's taken on the first day of the Republican convention.

Paul

I have to agree that the war was not over oil, although if Iraq did NOT have oil no would have given a damm about the Country.

Saddam Hussein was not well liked by Al Quaeda and they did not operate in Iraq until now. he might have had contacts but it ended there.

Mr Hussein was all bluster and his main failing was he managed to convince the CIA and, indirectly, the US Adminstration that he posed an immediate threat to the US and Israel.

I am still trying to fathom WHY in the hell Iraq was invaded. Besides costing hundreds of US casualties, costing the US taxpayers billions of dollars, making the lives of regular Iraqis miserable, uniting the entire World against the US and proving a haven for terrorists of every stripe WHY, in heavens name, was such a foolhardy venture undertaken.

I can't believe the noble sentiment of freeing the Iraqi people. Do you think the ordinary person in Alabama, Texas, give a goddam about the Iraqis?

Its just bogged the US down in an unwinnable situation.

Somebody earlier posted about fighting terrorism in a different country.
Saddam was a threat, doesn't matter how big of one.
My granny used to say, "better to be safe than sorry"
And we had to do something.
Fighting terrorism there is better than in America, correct?

And I think we did what we did 'cause of 9/11 ( rest their souls )

Anyway, the tyrrant is gone and hopefully we will be soon too.
Although doesn't look like it.

More criticism of the war effort, by some members of the Bush adminstration

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20040706/ts_latimes/usresponsetoinsurgencycalledafailure&e=4



WASHINGTON — Almost a year after acknowledging they were facing a well-armed guerrilla war in Iraq (news - web sites), the Pentagon (news - web sites) and commanders in the Middle East are being criticized by some top Bush administration officials, military officers and defense experts who accuse the military of failing to develop a coherent, winning strategy against the insurgency.

Inadequate intelligence, poor assessments of enemy strength, testy relations with U.S. civilian authorities in Baghdad and an inconsistent application of force remain key problems many observers say the military must address before U.S. and Iraqi forces can quell the insurgents.


"It's disappointing that we haven't been able to have better insight into the command and control of the insurgents," said one senior official of the now-dissolved Coalition Provisional Authority, recently returned from Baghdad and speaking on condition of anonymity. "And you've got to have that if you're going to have effective military operations."


It was July 16, 2003, when Army Gen. John Abizaid stood at a Pentagon podium during his first news conference as head of U.S. Central Command and declared — after weeks of Pentagon denials — that U.S. troops were fighting a "classic guerrilla-type war" in Iraq.


Now, after a year of violence and hundreds of U.S. combat deaths, some officials and experts are frustrated that a more effective counterinsurgency plan has not materialized and that the hand-over of power to an interim Iraqi government last week was unlikely to significantly improve the security situation.


"We're going to have the same cast of characters in Washington and the same commander in the field," said Andrew Krepinevich of the Center of Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, an expert on counterinsurgency warfare. "What gives you a sense of confidence we're going to become a lot more competent at something we haven't shown a great deal of competence at doing for a year?"


Some top American officials bristle at the criticism and say the U.S.-led coalition's plan has been consistent from the beginning: to bring security to Iraq in preparation for an eventual hand-over to Iraqi forces.


"Our strategy is not complicated. It is to train Iraqis as quickly as we possibly can and as efficiently as we possibly can, and to set the conditions so they can take charge of their own security," said a senior official, speaking on condition of anonymity.


And, the administration argues, U.S. forces handed a strategic defeat in April to both Shiite and Sunni Muslim insurgents, forcing them to lower their sights. Rather than confronting U.S. forces, those insurgents have turned to bombing Iraqi infrastructure and attempting to assassinate leaders of the new Iraqi government.


"They now cannot defeat us on the battlefield, so they are changing their tactics," the official said.


Yet one of the biggest problems for U.S. military and intelligence officials remains the paucity of hard intelligence about the structure of the insurgency.


For example, when Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked recently during Senate testimony whether the Iraqi insurgency was being coordinated from a central hub, he responded: "The intelligence community, as far as I know, will not … give you an answer, because they can't give me an answer."


Military experts point out that a counterinsurgency is the most difficult type of war to wage. With the exception of the successful British effort in Malaya in the 1950s, history is littered with examples of unsuccessful counterinsurgency strategies carried out by great powers. As the French learned in Algeria in the 1950s, the United States in Vietnam a decade later and the British in Northern Ireland, the most difficult part of any such operation is to separate the insurgents from the civilians from whom they draw strength. This, some top Pentagon officials say, has been one of the U.S. military's difficulties in Iraq.


"The hope that the Iraqi people, upon having Saddam deposed, would step forward enthusiastically and embrace this new opportunity, turned out to be more optimistic than it should have been," Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently told Congress.


"That, I think, has led to the opportunity for the terrorists then to be able to operate without fear of being exposed by the population."


The three-week desert war during the spring of 2003, ending in the collapse of Hussein's regime, vindicated the idea that a small U.S. ground force, combined with billions of dollars worth of military technology, could make quick work of a larger, yet hollow, enemy army. It was a conventional war that the U.S. military had trained and been equipped for since emerging from the jungles of Vietnam three decades ago; a strategy executed with success during Operation Desert Storm in 1991.


What came afterward was far more difficult, and U.S. commanders over the last year have used what critics call a trial-and-error strategy against the insurgency, with varying degrees of success.





Immediately after the fall of Baghdad, U.S. commanders set their sights on capturing the biggest stars in the Baath Party constellation, creating the notorious deck of cards depicting the most wanted people from Hussein's regime. Brigades of the Army's 4th Infantry Division carried out raids throughout the so-called Sunni Triangle in search of Hussein loyalists such as Izzat Ibrahim, vice chairman of the Baath Party's Revolutionary Command Council.

The raids netted some important figures. Yet U.S. officials now concede that focusing too much on the top regime members did not have the expected impact on the insurgency.

"I think there was probably too great a willingness to believe that once we got the 55 people on the blacklist, the rest of those killers would stop fighting," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz told Congress recently.

Defenders of American counterinsurgency efforts argue that the violence in Iraq over the last year is part of a calculated plan by members of Hussein's former regime, not the result of missteps by the U.S.-led occupation authority.

"It is the military and intelligence and secret police that never surrendered. And they are continuing the fight," said the senior administration official.

After a string of bombings last summer — most significantly, the destruction of the United Nations (news - web sites) compound in August — U.S. commanders adopted a get-tough approach in central Iraq. Troops used barbed wire to encircle entire villages, including Al Auja, where Hussein was born. In November, the U.S. launched bombing raids on suspected insurgent hide-outs in Baghdad.

Ground troops scored successes during the period, developing better intelligence about the Baathist insurgents. The 4th Infantry Division drew up complex family trees of suspected party loyalists, ultimately leading to Hussein's capture in December.

With the new year, the Marines began developing a "velvet glove" strategy for their imminent deployment to the Sunni Triangle — in contrast to the more confrontational approach of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, which had responsibility for that area until March. Relying on the Marine Corps "Small Wars Manual," the 1st Marine Division planned to carry out more foot patrols in cities such as Fallouja and send Marine platoons into villages to live for extended periods. They also planned to shun the use of aerial bombardment or artillery.

But that strategy went by the boards with the killing and mutilation of four American contractors, which precipitated a Marine assault on Fallouja in April. That offensive was cut short after U.S. officials in Baghdad and Washington decided the bloody campaign was having a negative impact on the larger American effort in Iraq. The Marines pulled back, marking another swerve in the counterinsurgency effort.

"We were winning, but we didn't get a win. It's a hard pill to swallow," complained one Marine operations officer who recently returned from Iraq, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Now, nobody knows what's going on inside the city."

In many cases, U.S. troops have been able to adapt on the ground over the past year. The Army's 101st Airborne, which fought to Baghdad, then assumed responsibility for Kurdish territories after the war, is praised by Pentagon officials for bringing Kurdish leaders into the U.S. fold and keeping the level of violence in northern Iraq to a minimum.

More recently, the Army's 1st Armored Division is credited with successfully putting down revolts by Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr's militia in Najaf and other southern towns with a comparatively limited use of force.

"It was a strategic defeat for Sadr," said the senior administration official. The commander of the 1st Armored, Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey, "put that mob action down quickly and decisively," the official said.

Some top U.S. commanders express optimism that as the U.S. military continues to adjust to the difficult warfare conditions in Iraq, the counterinsurgency efforts will produce more positive results.

"I think we're in good shape going forward," said Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., commander of the 82nd Airborne Division. "It will all come out well if we stay the course."

At the same time, many experts point out that counterinsurgency work is as much a political mission as it is a military one, requiring a comprehensive strategy involving civilian officials planning reconstruction projects and elections and military officers gathering intelligence and carrying out raids against suspected insurgents.

In Iraq, some top military officials say, the relationship between the U.S. military and the Coalition Provisional Authority was often tense, making such close coordination difficult.

"CPA representatives would not get out in the field to get on-the-spot input for assessment," Swannack said.

Maj. Gen. James N. Mattis, who commands the 1st Marine Division in Al Anbar province in western Iraq, has argued for months with U.S. civilians in Baghdad over the pace of reconstruction and the status of U.S. forces after the hand-over of power, Marine sources say. "He did not pull any punches in his communications" to Baghdad, said one Marine operations officer, speaking on condition of anonymity.

U.S. military officials hope dissolution of the CPA and creation of an embassy in Baghdad will help mend fences and engender the cooperation that, experts say, is critical for the counterinsurgency effort.

Although the Army recently has been incorporating counterinsurgency work into its training of young soldiers, experts say that for decades after Vietnam, the Army focused almost entirely on fighting large tank battles in the desert, not armed militias in Third World cities.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, however, when the doctrine of overwhelming force against an enemy became less relevant, the Army found it needed to change course, and quickly. Back it went into the counterinsurgency business.

Said analyst Krepinevich: "It's like telling General Motors to stop building cars, and then 25 years later telling them you want them to build a car."

Sunday, July 4th, 2004
My First Wild Week with "Fahrenheit 9/11"... By Michael Moore


Friends,

Where do I begin? This past week has knocked me for a loop. "Fahrenheit 9/11," the #1 movie in the country, the largest grossing documentary ever. My head is spinning. Didn't we just lose our distributor 8 weeks ago? Did Karl Rove really fail to stop this? Is Bush packing?

Each day this week I was given a new piece of information from the press that covers Hollywood, and I barely had time to recover from the last tidbit before the next one smacked me upside the head:

** More people saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" in one weekend than all the people who saw "Bowling for Columbine" in 9 months.

** "Fahrenheit 9/11" broke "Rocky III’s" record for the biggest box office opening weekend ever for any film that opened in less than a thousand theaters.

** "Fahrenheit 9/11" beat the opening weekend of "Return of the Jedi."

** "Fahrenheit 9/11" instantly went to #2 on the all-time list for largest per-theater average ever for a film that opened in wide-release.

How can I ever thank all of you who went to see it? These records are mind-blowing. They have sent shock waves through Hollywood – and, more importantly, through the White House.

But it didn't just stop there. The response to the movie then went into the Twilight Zone. Surfing through the dial I landed on the Fox broadcasting network which was airing the NASCAR race live last Sunday to an audience of millions of Americans -- and suddenly the announcers were talking about how NASCAR champ Dale Earnhardt, Jr. took his crew to see “Fahrenheit 9/11” the night before. FOX sportscaster Chris Myers delivered Earnhardt’s review straight out of his mouth and into the heartland of America: “He said hey, it'll be a good bonding experience no matter what your political belief. It's a good thing as an American to go see.” Whoa! NASCAR fans – you can’t go deeper into George Bush territory than that! White House moving vans – START YOUR ENGINES!

Then there was Roger Friedman from the Fox News Channel giving our film an absolutely glowing review, calling it “a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.” Richard Goldstein of the Village Voice surmised that Bush is already considered a goner so Rupert Murdoch might be starting to curry favor with the new administration. I don't know about that, but I’ve never heard a decent word toward me from Fox. So, after I was revived, I wondered if a love note to me from Sean Hannity was next.

How about Letterman’s Top Ten List: “Top Ten George W. Bush Complaints About 'Fahrenheit 9/11'":

10. That actor who played the President was totally unconvincing

9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election

8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words

7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported

6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger

5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97% are true

4. Not sure - - I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe

3. Where the hell was Spider-man?

2. Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth

1. I thought this was supposed to be about dodgeball

But it was the reactions and reports we received from theaters around the country that really sent me over the edge. One theatre manager after another phoned in to say that the movie was getting standing ovations as the credits rolled – in places like Greensboro, NC and Oklahoma City -- and that they were having a hard time clearing the theater afterwards because people were either too stunned or they wanted to sit and talk to their neighbors about what they had just seen. In Trumbull, CT, one woman got up on her seat after the movie and shouted "Let's go have a meeting!" A man in San Francisco took his shoe off and threw it at the screen when Bush appeared at the end. Ladies’ church groups in Tulsa were going to see it, and weeping afterwards.

It was this last group that gave lie to all the yakking pundits who, before the movie opened, declared that only the hard-core "choir" would go to see "Fahrenheit 9/11." They couldn't have been more wrong. Theaters in the Deep South and the Midwest set house records for any film they’d ever shown. Yes, it even sold out in Peoria. And Lubbock, Texas. And Anchorage, Alaska!

Newspaper after newspaper wrote stories in tones of breathless disbelief about people who called themselves “Independents” and “Republicans” walking out of the movie theater shaken and in tears, proclaiming that they could not, in good conscience, vote for George W. Bush. The New York Times wrote of a conservative Republican woman in her 20s in Pensacola, Florida who cried through the film, and told the reporter: “It really makes me question what I feel about the president... it makes me question his motives…”

Newsday reported on a self-described “ardent Bush/Cheney supporter” who went to see the film on Long Island, and his quiet reaction afterwards. He said, "It's really given me pause to think about what's really going on. There was just too much - too much to discount." The man then bought three more tickets for another showing of the film.

The Los Angeles Times found a mother who had “supported fiercely” at a theater in Des Peres, Missouri: “Emerging from Michael Moore's ‘Fahrenheit 9/11,’ her eyes wet, Leslie Hanser said she at last understood…. ‘My emotions are just....’ She trailed off, waving her hands to show confusion. ‘I feel like we haven't seen the whole truth before.’"

All of this had to be the absolute worst news for the White House to wake up to on Monday morning. I guess they were in such a stupor, they "gave" Iraq back to, um, Iraq two days early!

News editors told us that they were being "bombarded" with e-mails and calls from the White House (read: Karl Rove), trying to spin their way out of this mess by attacking it and attacking me. Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett had told the White House press corps that the movie was "outrageously false" -- even though he said he hadn't seen the movie. He later told CNN that "This is a film that doesn't require us to actually view it to know that it's filled with factual inaccuracies." At least they're consistent. They never needed to see a single weapon of mass destruction before sending our kids off to die.

Many news shows were more than eager to buy the White House spin. After all, that is a big part of what "Fahrenheit" is about -- how the lazy, compliant media bought all the lies from the Bush administration about the need to invade Iraq. They took the Kool-Aid offered by the White House and rarely, if ever, did our media ask the hard questions that needed to be asked before the war started.

Because the movie "outs" the mainstream media for their failures and their complicity with the Bush administration -- who can ever forget their incessant, embarrassing cheerleading as the troops went off to war, as though it was all just a game -- the media was not about to let me get away with anything now resembling a cultural phenomenon. On show after show, they went after me with the kind of viciousness you would have hoped they had had for those who were lying about the necessity for invading a sovereign nation that was no threat to us. I don't blame our well-paid celebrity journalists -- they look like a bunch of ass-kissing dopes in my movie, and I guess I'd be pretty mad at me, too. After all, once the NASCAR fans see "Fahrenheit 9/11," will they ever believe a single thing they see on ABC/NBC/CBS news again?

In the next week or so, I will recount my adventures through the media this past month (I will also be posting a full FAQ on my website soon so that you can have all the necessary backup and evidence from the film when you find yourself in heated debate with your conservative brother-in-law!). For now, please know the following: Every single fact I state in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the absolute and irrefutable truth. This movie is perhaps the most thoroughly researched and vetted documentary of our time. No fewer than a dozen people, including three teams of lawyers and the venerable one-time fact-checkers from The New Yorker went through this movie with a fine-tooth comb so that we can make this guarantee to you. Do not let anyone say this or that isn't true. If they say that, they are lying. Let them know that the OPINIONS in the film are mine, and anyone certainly has a right to disagree with them. And the questions I pose in the movie, based on these irrefutable facts, are also mine. And I have a right to ask them. And I will continue to ask them until they are answered.

In closing, let me say that the most heartening response to the film has come from our soldiers and their families. Theaters in military towns across the country reported packed houses. Our troops know the truth. They have seen it first-hand. And many of them could not believe that here was a movie that was TRULY on their side -- the side of bringing them home alive and never sending them into harms way again unless it's the absolute last resort. Please take a moment to read this wonderful story from the daily paper in Fayetteville, NC, where Fort Bragg is located. It broke my heart to read this, the reactions of military families and the comments of an infantryman’s wife publicly backing my movie -- and it gave me the resolve to make sure as many Americans as possible see this film in the coming weeks.

Thank you again, all of you, for your support. Together we did something for the history books. My apologies to "Return of the Jedi." We'll make it up by producing "Return of the Texan to Crawford" in November.

May the farce be with you, but not for long,

Michael Moore www.michaelmoore.com
mmflint@aol.com

P.S. You can read letters from people around the country recounting their own experiences at the theater, and their reactions to the film by going.

(there are a couple of hypertexts that didn't copy)

It looks as though his wild weekends are over. He sold out theaters to as many people as were ready to waste their money. Spiderman and the TV anchor movie have taken over. Soon he will be forgotten until all of Hollywood gets together to honor each other again.

Got to give Moore credit, he continues to give himself his 15 minutes of fame over and over. Who's his next target? Certainly not any liberal.

I'm sure Osama will send him a nice Christmas card. Just like the swell Happy Hanakah card to Streisand that will be coming.

Paul

Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 By Dave Kopel

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm