MOOREWATCH
Hate Mail
Author: Lee
And the Dumbass Email of the Day Award goes to...
Chris Miller:

I'm writing in response to some comments I saw you post on your website MooreWatch.com. In your posting titled "Columbine Secrets" you say "And he[Moore] definitely doesn't want to see fewer school shootings, because then he wouldn't have fresh victims to prostitute for his own monetary gain." What kind of sick person are you. Moore made the movie Bowling for Columbine in order to stop violence in this country including the sad instances of school shootings. The fact that you would claim that anyone would be a proponent of violence for monetary gain is sickening. The fact of the matter is we do live in a society that is based around fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of minorities, fear of terrorists who may live next door to you so you better not trust anyone other than Big Brother who will protect you. I'm not speaking out against gun ownership either. I personally don't own a gun or ever will, but does that mean others shouldn't do it legally? No. However, you can't ignore the facts that people who have
guns in there homes are more likely to commit suicide or violence against someone they know. Anyway, I've ventured from my original point. If you really want to talk about someone using violence for capital gain then why don't you write about our own president. To this date roughly 400 troops have died in armed conflict in Iraq. They're dying off in order to protect George/Dick's oil interests. The fact is Saddam Hussein however bad he was, did not conspire with Osamma bin Laden or Al Qaida. His secular government in Iraq was against everything bin Laden believed in. In fact bin Laden spoke out against Hussein as well calling him an infidel . Or what about Bush's relation to the Saudi royal family. A connection he keeps with an extremely oppressive regime also for his own oil interests. He is more likely to these murderers and dictators more then Michael Moore is, and has done so for years. That however, is an issue I have with something else you wrote and will address that at another time. I think you need to take a moment at look at the facts that are out there before you claim someone is trying to make money off of people dying because they made a movie speaking out AGAINST gun violence.

What is so sad is that this Miller guy actually, honestly, believes this crap. Seriously, anyone with an 8th grade education and access to Google can refute every point raised here. This total lack of any critical thinking skills is what people like Michael Moore count on to sell his drivel.



Posted by: Lee on Nov 25, 03 | 1:33 pm (profile) | Permalink
COMMENTS
Posted by: moogi on Nov 25, 03 | 2:55 pm
Lee: The facts that this guy raises are the typical, cliched liberal responses to this issue. But your original comment...

"And he[Moore] definitely doesn't want to see fewer school shootings, because then he wouldn't have fresh victims to prostitute for his own monetary gain."

...was considerably more niave and as one of the founders of this site you should be posting a serious critique of Moore not just off the cuff statements like this or just posting up personal emails as above just so they get a fisking from your right wing readership.

And since you make the point, in your defence can you please refute every point this guy has made, using only Google of course and let us know your sources please. I am interested in your opinion and If you really think it's worth my time reading a post like this you should be prepared to do so.
Thanks.

Posted by: Fred Masters on Nov 25, 03 | 3:25 pm
I thought they actually found that Saddam had been donating serious cash to Osama, and that Osama had been working with Saddam for awhile after the first Iraq war (Osama spoke out against him during the Reagan administration, when Reagan was supporting Saddam). I think it was in the last New Yorker. Also, "The fact that you would claim that anyone would be a proponent of violence for monetary gain is sickening." And then, "To this date roughly 400 troops have died in armed conflict in Iraq. They're dying off in order to protect George/Dick's oil interests." Odd how that kind of thing only goes one way.... And, if 9/11 hadn't have happened, Moore might still be working towards gun control. In that context, he wouldn't want school shootings to end, both to secure his power (his voice in our society) and his money. Also, Moore made Bowling to campaign for gun control, then was too lazy to edit when 9/11 happened. If he really cared about violent crime in America, I say again, he would have looked at the common crimes that cause America's murder rate to be so high, not simply adding to the culture of fear he is supposed to hate so much.

Posted by: moogi on Nov 25, 03 | 3:42 pm
You can't speculate that someone "wouldn't want to see an end to school shootings" or is "lazy" as a critique of their views. This is just a matter of opinion and not a particuarly intelligent one.

As for Iraq, I don't think anyone still seriously believes Saddam was a threat to the USA no matter how much you guys try and talk yourselves into it. Iraqs army practically ran away in the war and nothing close to a WMD has been found. As for giving Osama cash, well the Saudis have done that to and as this so called "Moore-on" points out George has no problem with them (yet). Saying the war was purley for economic reasons is clearly stupid, but somthing along the way sure smells of oil.

Posted by: Fred Masters on Nov 25, 03 | 4:04 pm
I can critique his movie on the grounds that he is lazy. Also, my point was just that people are throwing around the blanket statement that Osama and Saddam aren't linked (that wasn't the reason for the war, and Bush is despicable for saying it was), when they were linked. Also, WMD manufacturing plants have been found. But, again, the point was that this war was to end the armistice that the UN and Iraq had spent so long making a joke. To some extent, America's involvement in the first war was about making sure that Saddam didn't get his mitts on Saudi Arabia's oil, so that's why it smells of oil.

Posted by: dwarfmonkey on Nov 25, 03 | 4:45 pm
I think to say that Saddam was not a threat to America, or Americans is being intellectually dishonest. I'll grant that the state of power that he had amassed at the time of his removal from power was not such that he could pose a threat to America directly. However, considering his past actions (the building of weaponry, and the involvement with illegal activities) the only way the world could have kept Saddam from becoming a threat in the mid-east (and thereby a threat to American interests in that location in general) would to have kept some kind of consistent force at or near his borders. Even then there is no guaranty that Saddam would not be able to amass some kind of weaponry to make a play for power.

You can say that it is an assumption to believe that Saddam would have become a serious threat over time, however I think if you look at the history of militant dictatorships you find that they generally move to be threats against their neighbors. This holds particularly true of militant dictatorships that have past records of violence against neighbors, as Iraq under Saddam Hussein had. The only method that history has provided for removing this threat is either the external removal of the ruler through war, or the internal removal of the ruler by violence or natural death. Because Saddam kept his populace entirely unarmed, except for a few Baath loyalists, and because he was not of a very advanced age, and because he had already sired two strong children to replace him, it does not seem likely that internal revolution would occur to bring an end to this.

The only option that would bring about a quick end to situation would be war with Iraq, and that is what we did. There is of course the other option: Drop all sanctions, withdraw troops from the borders, and concede to Iraq all positions asked for. I do not think many people took this as a serious option, and I do not think I need to explain why this would have been a bad idea. I hope its obvious.

On another not: Fred I have enjoyed reading your posts greatly, and moogi I have enjoyed the fact that in previous debates you have generally remained thoughtful and honest. While I do not agree with either of you 100% I felt that it was worth noting that you both have maintained at least a general level of consideration for others. I know, their my opinions, and not likely to be cared about, thanks anyways.

Posted by: Wheels on Nov 25, 03 | 5:00 pm
you say "And he[Moore] definitely doesn't want to see fewer school shootings, because then he wouldn't have fresh victims to prostitute for his own monetary gain." What kind of sick person are you. Moore made the movie Bowling for Columbine in order to stop violence in this country including the sad instances of school shootings.

Actually, I believe Moore made it to advance his political agenda and make some money. Don't listen to the Public Relations crew he's employed.

The fact that you would claim that anyone would be a proponent of violence for monetary gain is sickening.

What if we said that about Hitler? Saddam? Mussolini? Hirohito? Or anyone who has invaded another country looking for financial/territorial gain? I think your statement is a little too broad-sweeping.

The fact of the matter is we do live in a society that is based around fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of minorities, fear of terrorists who may live next door to you so you better not trust anyone other than Big Brother who will protect you.

Maybe some of do live in fear of terrorists next door. But I'm a little more worried about a terrorist attack from Willie Brigette (token terrorist next door), and I don't see any reason why I should be more scared of the Government that has created a great chance for my family to live in a first world country.
Plus I'm not scared of minorities until they give me a reason to be scared of them.

I'm not speaking out against gun ownership either. I personally don't own a gun or ever will, but does that mean others shouldn't do it legally? No.

This is the smartest thing you've said so far. I won't own a gun ever either, but I'd feel safer knowing that good-minded citizens around me had one just in case trouble happened to arise.

However, you can't ignore the facts that people who have guns in there homes are more likely to commit suicide or violence against someone they know.

I'd like to see the statistics to support this claim. It may be true, but how many of them acquired guns legally? We have already established that the gun crime rate is lower in cities where gun control is lower, so I won't go into that any further.

Anyway, I've ventured from my original point. If you really want to talk about someone using violence for capital gain then why don't you write about our own president.

Isn't the US spending $87 billion on this war? And where's the capital gain? Is Halliburton going to make a couple of million? My economics is a little sketchy, but I don't see where the profit is.

To this date roughly 400 troops have died in armed conflict in Iraq.

Think of all the Iraqi lives that have been saved. They're protected from a dictator who would use chemical and biological weapons on his own people, not to mention rape and murder others... for his own enjoyment? I'd call the war a net gain in saving people. Or don't you care at all about Iraqi citizens?

They're dying off in order to protect George/Dick's oil interests.

No, they're dying off to protect George/Dick's people interests.

The fact is Saddam Hussein however bad he was, did not conspire with Osamma bin Laden or Al Qaida. His secular government in Iraq was against everything bin Laden believed in.

Then why did both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration believe the two had regular contact, after strong information from a variety of sources?

In fact bin Laden spoke out against Hussein as well calling him an infidel.

But he says that about every Muslim who refuses to disobey the Qu'ran by killing Muslims in random terrorist attacks. Does that make all Muslims who aren't extremists with no respect for their kind infidels?

Or what about Bush's relation to the Saudi royal family. A connection he keeps with an extremely oppressive regime also for his own oil interests.

If the Saudi royal family is an "extremely oppressive regime", I'd hate to see how you describe Iraq.

He is more likely to these murderers and dictators more then Michael Moore is, and has done so for years.

This sentence makes zero grammatical sense. I knew you'd slip up eventually, misguided teenagers regularly do.

That however, is an issue I have with something else you wrote and will address that at another time.

When you choose to address it, come post it in the comments here at Moorewatch, and we'll tear you apart again.

I think you need to take a moment at look at the facts that are out there before you claim someone is trying to make money off of people dying because they made a movie speaking out AGAINST gun violence.

See the first couple of points.


I think that covers everything.

Posted by: ZZip on Nov 25, 03 | 7:35 pm
Didn't this guy ever hear of paragraphs?


The fact of the matter is we do live in a society that is based around fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of minorities, fear of terrorists who may live next door to you


I was afraid he'd say that...

so you better not trust anyone other than Big Brother who will protect you.

Huh? Isn't the point of having a gun to protect yourself? How does "Big Brother" enter into this?

To this date roughly 400 troops have died in armed conflict in Iraq.

I don't want to trivialize this, but at the risk of appearing caulous, I'd point out that more people than that died every single day in previous wars, that is still a remarkably low casulalty figure.

They're dying off in order to protect George/Dick's oil interests.

If the purpose behind all this was that we wanted Iraq's oil, all we'd have to do is allow the sanctions to be lifted that prevented him from selling it.

The fact is Saddam Hussein however bad he was, did not conspire with Osamma bin Laden or Al Qaida.

Fact? I assume that means you can prove this statement.

His secular government in Iraq was against everything bin Laden believed in.

Actually no, Saddam wasn't above working with anybody who could further his interest. Bin Laden considered Saddam to be a "Bad Muslim", because he ran a secular government.
But there's quite a bit of evidence that Iraq assisted Al Qaeda at some point. But there's no "Smoking Gun" type proof either way. Check this out http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

Actually this is an extremely frustrating area. It seems people who didn't support the war still claim there is zero evidence, while those who support the war see a "slam-dunk".

In fact bin Laden spoke out against Hussein as well calling him an infidel


So that's your proof? With the timing of that statement just before the Iraq war, you don't think that maybe he said that to embarass the US.


Or what about Bush's relation to the Saudi royal family. A connection he keeps with an extremely oppressive regime also for his own oil interests.

Well you can't throw them all out at once. Anyway, it's not HIS oil interests, it's all of our oil interests, We need to keep Michael Moore's private jet fueled, remember?

Presidents and Congresses long before George W have supported these regimes also.

Posted by: alfredo stroessner on Nov 25, 03 | 8:31 pm
Now, isn't this special. An argument with all the finesse of DU(H). Too bad Mr./Ms. Miller you believe the lies of the left. Why don't you think for yourself or better yet, get a job and buy yourself a clue.

Posted by: The welldigger on Nov 26, 03 | 2:07 am
"What if we said that about Hitler? Saddam? Mussolini? Hirohito? "

That's the real point about this site, all the people who made this site do believe that Moore is the new Hitler, Saddam, etc... huhuhuhu
No, seriously, just try to imagine him leading an army, in a well-dressed uniform,....
huhuhuhu, "a danger for America"... Oh my!...

Just use your imagination, can you really believe this ??? Isnt that being naive ???

Posted by: Balynar on Nov 26, 03 | 4:55 am
The only thing Moore could lead an army to is an all-you-can-eat joint.

Posted by: moogi on Nov 26, 03 | 5:44 am
Dwarfmonkey, yep all your points in respect to History hold water and make perfect sense.

To tell you the truth I don't know if I was ever opposed to "war" as an option, it should allways be the last one, but sometimes it has to be one.

I was allways opposed to Bushes handling of it as a policy, the complete disrespect he and Tony Blair held for other countries, the UN, and democracy as an ideal they claim to stand for. America is in the shit now because of it and this was needless.

As a citizen i did not feel as if i was given any choice. So once you boiled it down I decided to be on the side of the Anti War brigade as it was closest to my opinion...

Out of Interest did US media ever conduct any Iraqi only polls to asses their opinion on the war. There are thousands of them living in other countires and I'm sure given a bit of TV and internet publicity they would all place a vote. I'm sure most of them also have contact with family inside their country too. To me this would have been an intelligent use of our media in the west and helped many people understand the issue with more clarity.

Thanks for respecting my posts, just tryin to keep it civil..not allways easy tho ha ha!

Posted by: ZZip on Nov 26, 03 | 6:08 am
Moogi,

Out of Interest did US media ever conduct any Iraqi only polls to asses their opinion on the war. There are thousands of them living in other countires and I'm sure given a bit of TV and internet publicity they would all place a vote. I'm sure most of them also have contact with family inside their country too. To me this would have been an intelligent use of our media in the west and helped many people understand the issue with more clarity.

There was recent Gallup poll of Iraqis in Iraq. It showed most of them support the current occupation. Of course, living under Saddam, Iraq's may have learned that it's best to tell whoever is in power what they want to hear.

Before the war, I can't recall anything apart from some individual stories of Iraqs with family over there. Intelligent use of the media is a lot to ask for. Before the war, most of what I remember was worst-case-scenerio reporting of how horrible the war was going to go. The troops were going to be bogged down in door to door combat, they were going to be attacked with chemical weapons, there weren't enough troops. Just wait until they encountered the Elite Republican Guard. etc. Many in the media appeared genuinely stunned that Saddam was out of power in 3 weeks.

Posted by: GoGoPowerrangers on Nov 26, 03 | 7:36 am
I just thought of something...

While US agents were able to bribe Iraqi commanders so that they wouldn't resist the invasion -couldn't they also have tried to get their hand on ANY evidence of WMD?

Well, maybe they were all destoyed at the beginning of the war, but shouldn't someone at least know something?


Posted by: GoGoPowerrangers on Nov 26, 03 | 7:41 am
On a lighter note...

I heard that Mr Moore wanted to kick Denmark out of Scandinavia because of their support of the war in Iraq. That would be the equivalent of saying that Canada couldn't be a part of North America.

Well, Moore was probably making a point about the geography skills of average Americans...

Posted by: Exp on Nov 26, 03 | 9:01 am
ZZip"There was recent Gallup poll of Iraqis in Iraq. It showed most of them support the current occupation. Of course, living under Saddam, Iraq's may have learned that it's best to tell whoever is in power what they want to hear."

I read a poll by EFE and it said 73% of Irak population was against American invasion. So, it is quite difficult to know what the truth is.

It is the problem in this site. You give all this articles, polls, numbers and you think you have proved all your points. However, I am sure anyone can find another poll, article, whatever that can demonstrate the opposite.

So, I prefer to be guided by my principles and values. Analize the facts ( although many times it is difficult to tell what a fact is) and decide and build up my own opinion.


Posted by: moogi on Nov 26, 03 | 9:28 am
GoGoPowerrangers, they probably do know things, I'm in no way suggesting conspiracy here, but the US government is hardly gonna rush to get it published if it concludes there weren't WMD's. This is probably their right under the official secrets act anyway, or whatever you have in America. I'm sure they would have thought of it, if we've never heard anything it probably means there wasn't much to tell.

Posted by: BrockStar on Nov 26, 03 | 10:37 am
I find it interesting Lee dismisses this guy entirely without actually saying anything...he says a couple of dumb things but he raises some good points.

I wanted to comment on something Fred said about the sadaam/al qaeda link

you read that or heard about it from a friend who read it in the weekly standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
Now, I had some problems with this when I read it. The first being, wouldn't it be illegal to post a "secret," confidential memo? The second being that their post was pretty full of holes. I'm not gonna both refuting it point by point since spinsantiy already did such a superb job.
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_11_23_archive.html

I was willing to take this article seriously despite where it came from. Most of the right-wing pundits hailed this article as final devastating proof the sadaam/al qaeda, and took it as justification for the iraq war. Wolf Blitzer of CNN hailed it as a "slam dunk."

Until, uh-oh, the department of defense comes to say the weekly standard was talking out of it's ass.
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2003/nr20031115-0642.html
The Standard continues to speculate....
http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/396hflxy.asp

The evidence is still up in the air. Most of it shows there was no link between Sadaam and Al Qaeda due to ideological differences. You could argue it either way, (especially if you use anecdotal evidence and speculate) but to hail this memo as a "slam dunk" is pretty ridiculous. I just wanted to point this out since I assume a lot of "regulars" on this site might take that memo as a "slam dunk" as well.

Posted by: BrockStar on Nov 26, 03 | 10:48 am
discard the first comment I made, I see Lee's next post. I also see he posted that weekly standard article as "evidence" of the Sadaam/Al Qaeda link. (No, I didn't see where he said that before making my last post, it's entirely coincidental; but I find it pretty funny)

Posted by: Drake on Nov 26, 03 | 8:34 pm
400 people have died or something like that, eh? I don't mean to downplay the death because it's all bad but, after talking to a friend of mine currently on military leave, the point came up that there are more accidental deaths over the time period for the same population than there have been casualties in Iraq. So Would it almost be safer to say that the soldiors are safer there than here?

Posted by: Wheels on Nov 26, 03 | 9:07 pm
Heh... They're not safer over there. Although I'm sure if Michael Moore reads this, he'll pick up on the idea and make a movie called "Nuking for America", or something like that.

The fact is that millions of Iraqi's and Kuwaiti's have died under Saddam's oppressively subjugative reign. I'd rather have 400 American soldiers, a few more Iraqi soldiers and a fair few less Iraqi civilians die than live in fear of being raped, tortured or murdered by the soldiers of a man who is more vicious than Michael Moore in a candy factory.

Posted by: DButcher on Nov 27, 03 | 5:38 am
Too bad he didn't add the Trilateral Commission, Council On Foreign Relations aor The Bilderbergers. Could have gone from typical dumbass to raving jackass in 5.3 seconds.

Posted by: Vicelove on Nov 29, 03 | 5:13 pm
"I find it interesting Lee dismisses this guy entirely without actually saying anything...he says a couple of dumb things but he raises some good points."

What the heck are you talking about? What was interesting, new, intelligent, or even oh I don't know RIGHT about what the guy said? I'm completely on Lee's side on this one, the guy deserved NO response to his assinine e-mail that was full of lame, wrong, incorrect, and tired liberal complaints.

Posted by: Craig on Dec 02, 03 | 9:46 am
"What if Saddam Hussein fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild and arsenal of devastating destruction.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his foosteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher.
Some day, some way, I guarantee, he'll use the arsenal."

-President Bill Clinton (Feb 18, 1998)


Well, here's just more proof that the current liberal apoplexy is merely knee-jerk Bush-hatred rather than any truely moral opposition to armed conflict or concern or innocent life.

Posted by: Fred Masters on Dec 05, 03 | 9:35 pm
Moogi: I really doubt that America wouldn't be in shit if a handful of other countries had sent some troops (indeed, the UN was planning to send fewer troops than were ultimately sent). And while I agree that America's handling (labelling it about terrorism and WMD) was bad, to be against the war because politicians lie is frankly pathetic. I'm sorry to say that, I usually respect your opinions, but that is weak to the point of being immoral.

Posted by: Fred Masters on Dec 05, 03 | 9:37 pm
Oh, and WMD manufacturing facilities were found, and those are illegal. Also, many had no purpose but to create weapons to terrorize and slaughter people. The administration would prefer weapons themselves, but that seems like evidence to me.



Add your comments

Click to format text (requires Javascript): Bold | Italic | Link


Characters remaining: Notify you when someone replies to this post?