ARBALA, Iraq, Sunday, May 23 — American commanders said early Sunday that insurgents loyal to a rebel cleric appeared to have given up control of central Karbala, where they had been shielding themselves at two shrines.
According to the commanders, there were several strong signs that the armed supporters of Moktada al-Sadr, the maverick Shiite cleric, have abandoned the area and ceded authority to the Americans and their allies after nearly three weeks of urban combat.
A large overnight raid met no resistance coming from a group of buildings where insurgents had been firing at American tanks with rocket-propelled grenades. Civilians were seen returning to homes in central Karbala that they had abandoned during fierce fighting. And in the afternoon on Saturday, tribal sheiks approached American commanders offering to persuade the militia, the Mahdi Army, to lay down its arms and leave the city.
"It looks like they just packed up and went home," Col. Peter Mansoor, commander of the First Brigade of the First Armored Division, said in an operations tent on the city outskirts where he monitored field reports. Referring to Mr. Sadr, Colonel Mansoor said, "I think his days are numbered."
At around 11:30 p.m. on Saturday, in the midst of the raid, three Iraqi civilians walked up to American soldiers and asked why they would attack the buildings. The civilians said the Mahdi Army had dropped their weapons on Friday night and left the area, according to a radio dispatch from an American field commander.Not a shot was fired Friday night at a large convoy of Bradley fighting vehicles driving through the city center — something unheard of since the First Armored Division began its offensive nearly three weeks ago.
At 12:45 a.m. on Sunday, soldiers at the scene of the raid saw 10 Iraqi police cars and three police pickup trucks speeding up to the outskirts of the old city with their lights flashing. The police officers told the soldiers they were doing a patrol. The fact that the police could travel around the old city, if only on the outskirts, indicated that the insurgents were no longer in control, Colonel Mansoor said.
During the raid early Sunday, Iraqis at a nearby teahouse told soldiers that busloads of fighters from Falluja who came to town last week had left Friday. The fighters fled after concluding that they could not stand up to American tanks, these Iraqis said.
An Iraqi reporter for The New York Times in Karbala said he had seen militiamen putting their weapons in bags in recent days and trying to leave the city. Some residents of the city have distributed fliers denouncing Mr. Sadr and the presence of his fighters...
You are the least believable person here, fold. That's for anything you claimed to have done or will do. Save it for some 2nd graders who MIGHT not be able to see thru you.
By Ben Connable RAMADI, Iraq — This is my third deployment with the 1st Marine Division to the Middle East. This is the third time I've heard the quavering cries of the talking heads predicting failure and calling for withdrawal.
This is the third time I find myself shaking my head in disbelief.
Setbacks and tragedy are part and parcel of war and must be accepted on the battlefield. We can and will achieve our goals in Iraq.
Waiting for war in the Saudi Arabian desert as a young corporal in 1991, I recall reading news clippings portending massive tank battles, fiery death from Saddam Hussein's "flame trenches" and bitter defeat at the hands of the fourth-largest army in the world. My platoon was told to expect 75% casualties. Being Marines and, therefore, naturally cocky, we still felt pretty good about our abilities.
The panicky predictions failed to come true. The flame trenches sputtered. Nobody from my platoon died. Strength, ingenuity and willpower won the day. Crushing the fourth-largest army in the world in four days seemed to crush the doubts back home.
Twelve years passed, during which time America was faced with frustrating actions in Somalia and the Balkans. Doubt had begun to creep back into public debate.
In the spring of last year, I was a Marine captain, back with the division for Operation Iraqi Freedom. As I waited for war in the desert, just 100 miles to the north from our stepping-off point in 1991, I was again subjected to the panicky analyses of talking heads. There weren't enough troops to do the job, the oil fields would be destroyed, we couldn't fight in urban terrain, our offensive would grind to a halt, and we should expect more than 10,000 casualties.
Remembering my experience in Desert Storm, I took these assessments with a grain of salt. As a staff officer in the division command post, I was able to follow the larger battle as we moved forward. I knew that our tempo was keeping the enemy on his heels and that our plan would lead us to victory.
But war is never clean and simple. Mourning our losses quietly, the Marines drove to Baghdad, then to Tikrit, liberating the Iraqi people while losing fewer men than were lost in Desert Storm.
In May of last year, I was sitting with some fellow officers back in Diwaniyah, Iraq, the offensive successful and the country liberated from Saddam. I received a copy of a March 30 U.S. newspaper on Iraq in an old package that had finally made its way to the front. The stories: horror in Nasariyah, faltering supply lines and demonstrations in Cairo. The mood of the paper was impenetrably gloomy, and predictions of disaster abounded. The offensive was stalled; everyone was running out of supplies; we would be forced to withdraw.
The Arab world was about to ignite into a fireball of rage, and the Middle East was on the verge of collapse. If I had read those stories on March 30, I would have had a tough time either restraining my laughter or, conversely, falling into a funk. I was concerned about the bizarre kaleidoscope image of Iraq presented to the American people by writers viewing the world through a soda straw.
Returning to Iraq this past February, I knew that the Marines had a tremendous opportunity to follow through on our promises to the Iraqi people.
Believing in the mission, many Marines volunteered to return. I again found myself in the division headquarters.
Just weeks ago, I read that the supply lines were cut, ammunition and food were dwindling, the "Sunni Triangle" was exploding, cleric Muqtada al-Sadr was leading a widespread Shiite revolt, and the country was nearing civil war.
As I write this, the supply lines are open, there's plenty of ammunition and food, the Sunni Triangle is back to status quo, and Sadr is marginalized in Najaf. Once again, dire predictions of failure and disaster have been dismissed by American willpower and military professionalism.
War is inherently ugly and dramatic. I don't blame reporters for focusing on the burning vehicles, the mutilated bodies or the personal tragedies. The editors have little choice but to print the photos from the Abu Ghraib prison and the tales of the insurgency in Fallujah. These things sell news and remind us of the sober reality of our commitment to the Iraqi people. The actions of our armed forces are rightfully subject to scrutiny.
I am not ignorant of the political issues, either. But as a professional, I have the luxury of putting politics aside and focusing on the task at hand. Protecting people from terrorists and criminals while building schools and lasting friendships is a good mission, no matter what brush it's tarred with.
Nothing any talking head will say can deter me or my fellow Marines from caring about the people of Iraq, or take away from the sacrifices of our comrades. Fear in the face of adversity is human nature, and many people who take the counsel of their fears speak today. We are not deaf to their cries; neither do we take heed. All we ask is that Americans stand by us by supporting not just the troops, but also the mission.
We'll take care of the rest.
Maj. Ben Connable is serving as a foreign-area officer and intelligence officer with the 1st Marine Division.
There are obviously no guarantees here. But I do think tonight that the president did what he has to do in this speech and in the ones that will follow in the next weeks, which is to shore up American support, to remind the American people why we must win this battle against the terrorists and the Saddam loyalists and to remind them that he has done some of the things that his critics asked him to do, including me.
He has now gone to the United Nations. He has now increased the number of American troops there and is prepared to send more to keep the security so that democracy can take hold.
I hope that all of us in both parties who have said that we have to stay in Iraq and finish the job in pursuit of our own values and of our own security will pull together and make it happen and not be part of a chorus of doubters that will undermine the support of the American people more.
We've got to stay united here as best we can to support our troops, but to support our cause. In my opinion, this is the test of our generation. And if we don't win it in Iraq, we're going to face it much closer to home in the years ahead.
Democracy is not easy. It's sometimes messy. But the folks in Iraq, thanks to the courage and skill of the American military, have options before them that they never would have dreamed they would have today, and that's because Saddam, that brutal dictator is gone.
And we have the United Nations in there now, through ambassador Brahimi, trying to negotiate an agreement between the Shias the Sunnis and the Kurds. I believe he can do it.
But what's most important is that before long, the Iraqi people are going to get to do it. They're going to get to vote. And I think if the American people don't lose -- if we don't lose our will, we're going to look back with real pride at what our troops have done and what we can do together for the Iraqis, but also to secure our values and our security.
I hope that all of us in both parties who have said that we have to stay in Iraq and finish the job in pursuit of our own values and of our own security will pull together and make it happen and not be part of a chorus of doubters that will undermine the support of the American people more.
We've got to stay united here as best we can to support our troops, but to support our cause. In my opinion, this is the test of our generation. And if we don't win it in Iraq, we're going to face it much closer to home in the years ahead.
I have alot of respect for Lieberman. He sees the bigger picture. I'd probably disagree with him on social and fiscal matters. But in the grand scheme of it, so what.
I can always work for the social and economical issues I beleive in. And at the end of the day If it came down to a choice of social or economic policy I disagreed with or winning this battle so be it, I'll take that loss anyday. We can't however go back if the war on terror is lost because without it all else is lost and how much we spend for this or that is pretty damn trivial in the bigger picture.
WASHINGTON - Comprehensive testing has confirmed the presence of the chemical weapon sarin in the remains of a roadside bomb discovered this month in Baghdad, a defense official said Tuesday.
The determination, made by a laboratory in the United States that the official would not identify, verifies what earlier, less-thorough field tests had found: the bomb was made from an artillery shell designed to disperse the deadly nerve agent on the battlefield.
The origin of the shell remains unclear, and finding that out is a priority for the U.S. military, the defense official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Some analysts worry the 155-millimeter artillery shell, found rigged as a bomb on May 15, may be part of a larger stockpile of Iraqi chemical weapons that insurgents can now use. But no more have turned up, and several military officials have said the shell may have been an older one that predated the 1991 Gulf War...
Second... Why is it that Disney has released "Kill Bill", NATIONWIDE and to GREAT APPLOMB, yet they will NOT release Moore's picture...??? DOUBLE STANDARD. One reason just MIGHT BE, that Disney's Biggest Money Machine, is in FLORIDA, brother JEB'S crib. Ya Think???????????????????????????????
Bill, Disney told his roundness over a YEAR ago that they wouldn't be distributing the movie. So because jabba moore makes a movie Jeb is suddenly going to mess with the biggest employers and tourist draws in his state because Mikey Moore made a movie that makes his brother look bad? Sure, o.k. Jeb said it was ridiculous. There's no proof of anything of the sort but then again that never mattered to the michael moron crowd.
How is it right to show all of America the BLOODIEST picture of the yeasr, filled with scenes of hacking people to death, yet a picture filled with nothing but WORDS, is BANISHED?
Well Bill. Nobody wanted to distribute the Passion of the Christ. Nobody would touch it with a ten foot poll. So Mel distributed himself and put his own money up for it. Moore can do the same if he wants. It's not banished. He simply neds to find a distributor.
This is about Politics. ABSOLUTELY. No WONDER so many people want Eisner's head, on a platter.
Disney is AFRAID of what that picture might or might not say, and WHO it may or may not effect...?
Disney didn't want to be associated with the movie. I've got news for you. There's hundreds of movies that don't get distributed every year for different reasons. Moore is famous for making up stories and using half truths not to mention things like comparing the insurgents killing our troops to the minutemen. Gee I wonder why they want no part of Moore.
That is Censorship, of the worst kind, being afraid of WORDS, in America? OH!!!!!!!!
I paged through the constitution, I couldn't find anything in there about a right to have a movie distributed. Was Mel being censored when nobody would distribute the movie? Nope and neither is Moore. He's free to make whatever he wants nobody is stopping him. This opressed bit is B.S. He'll get his movie distributed, someone like Soros will front him. Moore claims it's not about the money, funny Mr.AntiCapatalism is charging for his movie and won't spend his own to distribute it. Yea, sure it's not about the money Mike. wouldn't want to dip into the cupckake fund.
Hey I just wrote an article and I demand to published in the New York Times! What? you won't publish it? Help, Help I'm being repressed, come see the violence inherent in the system! CENSORSHIP!
Yes poor Twinky Moore being censored, must be why his assinine comments are all over the news, it's all that repression by the man. Still can't find anything in the constitution about a right to have a movie distributed. Since Moore claims the movie isn't about money and about the message why doesn't he release it for free on the internet? Why doesn't he spend his own money like Mel had to? Could it be that Michael Moore is a hypocrite? Nah, impossible.
OH...then there's that JEB BUSH, and the tax-shelters he has lavished on Disney's ventures in FL. !!!
actually, that's not the case...back when they first built Disneyworld, they got the State to grant it the status of a city unto itself, complete with all the tax benefits such a deal might provide.
Isn't censorship basically something only a government can do?
I don't think it's censorship when a corporation decides not to distribute something. There are other avenues for distribution and obviously Moore has found one, and that was inevitable. I fully expected it.
This is America, not the Soviet Union. If people want to see something, someone will make it possible. It happened to Mel Gibson and it happened to Michael Moore. Good for us.
You're coming unhinged Fold. More and more bitterness as time goes by. Your constant references to a time gone by (60's and 70's) doesn't cut it. It's a new century. Try and catch up.
JT, if they support and broadcast all those right-wing radio shows, BUT they deny Moore a right to have HIS say? I call that censorship
Who is THEY?
One company deciding not to distribute a film, which they announced a year ago, simply isn't censorship. Moore's film will be distributed. Nobody will be denied the chance to see it.
Mel Gibson had a much harder time getting his film to theatres than Moore ever will. Is that censorship too?
"The movie itself isn't going to capture much attention, so he created a controversy."
You might be giving him more credit than he deserves. If he did as you say, I'd say it's a smart move.
Maybe you have some idea how much attention it's going capture. I don't know how. The right-wingers have been crying bloody murder, and they haven't even seen it.
But I can say this, I think the tapa-equivalent of the right wing is on Bush's ass right now. The Strib wrote about is awhile ago in one of its editorials.
They want to get some satisfaction out of the Iraq war. If this provisional government doesn't have it together and the violence is still going by the end of the summer, look for people to say: We have these tactical nuclear weapons in the arsenal. Why not use them? Why are we pussyfooting around. We're at war.
And if the election heats up they'll say, What are we going to do about the seditionists on our own shore and in the newsrooms? You get re-elected, Mr. President, you better clamp down on this kind of talk. We're at war.
The Pentagon has undertaken a Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that broadens the role of nuclear weapons beyond their cold war function of deterring a Soviet attack. According to the NPR, U.S. nuclear weapons will now target seven countries. Russia, China, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Situations in which the weapons could be used include a war in the Middle East between Israel and Iraq; military conflict between China and Taiwan; North Korean invasion of South Korea; or responding to what are vaguely referred to as "surprising military developments."
You let crabs off too easy last night, Rich.
Torpedo-8 5/23/04 12:55pm
He was starting to bore me. So I decided to ignore his little tirades for the evening. ;)
U.S. Military Says Shiite Rebels Seem to Have Ceded Karbala
By EDWARD WONG
Published: May 23, 2004
ARBALA, Iraq, Sunday, May 23 — American commanders said early Sunday that insurgents loyal to a rebel cleric appeared to have given up control of central Karbala, where they had been shielding themselves at two shrines.
According to the commanders, there were several strong signs that the armed supporters of Moktada al-Sadr, the maverick Shiite cleric, have abandoned the area and ceded authority to the Americans and their allies after nearly three weeks of urban combat.
A large overnight raid met no resistance coming from a group of buildings where insurgents had been firing at American tanks with rocket-propelled grenades. Civilians were seen returning to homes in central Karbala that they had abandoned during fierce fighting. And in the afternoon on Saturday, tribal sheiks approached American commanders offering to persuade the militia, the Mahdi Army, to lay down its arms and leave the city.
"It looks like they just packed up and went home," Col. Peter Mansoor, commander of the First Brigade of the First Armored Division, said in an operations tent on the city outskirts where he monitored field reports. Referring to Mr. Sadr, Colonel Mansoor said, "I think his days are numbered."
At around 11:30 p.m. on Saturday, in the midst of the raid, three Iraqi civilians walked up to American soldiers and asked why they would attack the buildings. The civilians said the Mahdi Army had dropped their weapons on Friday night and left the area, according to a radio dispatch from an American field commander.Not a shot was fired Friday night at a large convoy of Bradley fighting vehicles driving through the city center — something unheard of since the First Armored Division began its offensive nearly three weeks ago.
At 12:45 a.m. on Sunday, soldiers at the scene of the raid saw 10 Iraqi police cars and three police pickup trucks speeding up to the outskirts of the old city with their lights flashing. The police officers told the soldiers they were doing a patrol. The fact that the police could travel around the old city, if only on the outskirts, indicated that the insurgents were no longer in control, Colonel Mansoor said.
During the raid early Sunday, Iraqis at a nearby teahouse told soldiers that busloads of fighters from Falluja who came to town last week had left Friday. The fighters fled after concluding that they could not stand up to American tanks, these Iraqis said.
An Iraqi reporter for The New York Times in Karbala said he had seen militiamen putting their weapons in bags in recent days and trying to leave the city. Some residents of the city have distributed fliers denouncing Mr. Sadr and the presence of his fighters...
Don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back, AGAIN!
You are the least believable person here, fold. That's for anything you claimed to have done or will do. Save it for some 2nd graders who MIGHT not be able to see thru you.
A Marine sees what defeatists don't
By Ben Connable
RAMADI, Iraq — This is my third deployment with the 1st Marine Division to the Middle East.
This is the third time I've heard the quavering cries of the talking heads predicting failure and calling for withdrawal.
This is the third time I find myself shaking my head in disbelief.
Setbacks and tragedy are part and parcel of war and must be accepted on the battlefield. We can and will achieve our goals in Iraq.
Waiting for war in the Saudi Arabian desert as a young corporal in 1991, I recall reading news clippings portending massive tank battles, fiery death from Saddam Hussein's "flame trenches" and bitter defeat at the hands of the fourth-largest army in the world. My platoon was told to expect 75% casualties. Being Marines and, therefore, naturally cocky, we still felt pretty good about our abilities.
The panicky predictions failed to come true. The flame trenches sputtered. Nobody from my platoon died. Strength, ingenuity and willpower won the day. Crushing the fourth-largest army in the world in four days seemed to crush the doubts back home.
Twelve years passed, during which time America was faced with frustrating actions in Somalia and the Balkans. Doubt had begun to creep back into public debate.
In the spring of last year, I was a Marine captain, back with the division for Operation Iraqi Freedom. As I waited for war in the desert, just 100 miles to the north from our stepping-off point in 1991, I was again subjected to the panicky analyses of talking heads. There weren't enough troops to do the job, the oil fields would be destroyed, we couldn't fight in urban terrain, our offensive would grind to a halt, and we should expect more than 10,000 casualties.
Remembering my experience in Desert Storm, I took these assessments with a grain of salt. As a staff officer in the division command post, I was able to follow the larger battle as we moved forward. I knew that our tempo was keeping the enemy on his heels and that our plan would lead us to victory.
But war is never clean and simple. Mourning our losses quietly, the Marines drove to Baghdad, then to Tikrit, liberating the Iraqi people while losing fewer men than were lost in Desert Storm.
In May of last year, I was sitting with some fellow officers back in Diwaniyah, Iraq, the offensive successful and the country liberated from Saddam. I received a copy of a March 30 U.S. newspaper on Iraq in an old package that had finally made its way to the front. The stories: horror in Nasariyah, faltering supply lines and demonstrations in Cairo. The mood of the paper was impenetrably gloomy, and predictions of disaster abounded. The offensive was stalled; everyone was running out of supplies; we would be forced to withdraw.
The Arab world was about to ignite into a fireball of rage, and the Middle East was on the verge of collapse. If I had read those stories on March 30, I would have had a tough time either restraining my laughter or, conversely, falling into a funk. I was concerned about the bizarre kaleidoscope image of Iraq presented to the American people by writers viewing the world through a soda straw.
Returning to Iraq this past February, I knew that the Marines had a tremendous opportunity to follow through on our promises to the Iraqi people.
Believing in the mission, many Marines volunteered to return. I again found myself in the division headquarters.
Just weeks ago, I read that the supply lines were cut, ammunition and food were dwindling, the "Sunni Triangle" was exploding, cleric Muqtada al-Sadr was leading a widespread Shiite revolt, and the country was nearing civil war.
As I write this, the supply lines are open, there's plenty of ammunition and food, the Sunni Triangle is back to status quo, and Sadr is marginalized in Najaf. Once again, dire predictions of failure and disaster have been dismissed by American willpower and military professionalism.
War is inherently ugly and dramatic. I don't blame reporters for focusing on the burning vehicles, the mutilated bodies or the personal tragedies. The editors have little choice but to print the photos from the Abu Ghraib prison and the tales of the insurgency in Fallujah. These things sell news and remind us of the sober reality of our commitment to the Iraqi people. The actions of our armed forces are rightfully subject to scrutiny.
I am not ignorant of the political issues, either. But as a professional, I have the luxury of putting politics aside and focusing on the task at hand. Protecting people from terrorists and criminals while building schools and lasting friendships is a good mission, no matter what brush it's tarred with.
Nothing any talking head will say can deter me or my fellow Marines from caring about the people of Iraq, or take away from the sacrifices of our comrades. Fear in the face of adversity is human nature, and many people who take the counsel of their fears speak today. We are not deaf to their cries; neither do we take heed. All we ask is that Americans stand by us by supporting not just the troops, but also the mission.
We'll take care of the rest.
Maj. Ben Connable is serving as a foreign-area officer and intelligence officer with the 1st Marine Division.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-05-18-connable_x.htm
Insight Mag, Counterpunch.org. And Touting Michael Moore. Say hi to Dennis for me Bill.
There are obviously no guarantees here. But I do think tonight that the president did what he has to do in this speech and in the ones that will follow in the next weeks, which is to shore up American support, to remind the American people why we must win this battle against the terrorists and the Saddam loyalists and to remind them that he has done some of the things that his critics asked him to do, including me.
He has now gone to the United Nations. He has now increased the number of American troops there and is prepared to send more to keep the security so that democracy can take hold.
I hope that all of us in both parties who have said that we have to stay in Iraq and finish the job in pursuit of our own values and of our own security will pull together and make it happen and not be part of a chorus of doubters that will undermine the support of the American people more.
We've got to stay united here as best we can to support our troops, but to support our cause. In my opinion, this is the test of our generation. And if we don't win it in Iraq, we're going to face it much closer to home in the years ahead.
Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democrat from Connecticut.
Democracy is not easy. It's sometimes messy. But the folks in Iraq, thanks to the courage and skill of the American military, have options before them that they never would have dreamed they would have today, and that's because Saddam, that brutal dictator is gone.
And we have the United Nations in there now, through ambassador Brahimi, trying to negotiate an agreement between the Shias the Sunnis and the Kurds. I believe he can do it.
But what's most important is that before long, the Iraqi people are going to get to do it. They're going to get to vote. And I think if the American people don't lose -- if we don't lose our will, we're going to look back with real pride at what our troops have done and what we can do together for the Iraqis, but also to secure our values and our security.
I have alot of respect for Lieberman. He sees the bigger picture. I'd probably disagree with him on social and fiscal matters. But in the grand scheme of it, so what.
I can always work for the social and economical issues I beleive in. And at the end of the day If it came down to a choice of social or economic policy I disagreed with or winning this battle so be it, I'll take that loss anyday.
We can't however go back if the war on terror is lost because without it all else is lost and how much we spend for this or that is pretty damn trivial in the bigger picture.
Tests Confirm Sarin Gas in Baghdad Bomb
Tue May 25, 7:43 PM ET
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Comprehensive testing has confirmed the presence of the chemical weapon sarin in the remains of a roadside bomb discovered this month in Baghdad, a defense official said Tuesday.
The determination, made by a laboratory in the United States that the official would not identify, verifies what earlier, less-thorough field tests had found: the bomb was made from an artillery shell designed to disperse the deadly nerve agent on the battlefield.
The origin of the shell remains unclear, and finding that out is a priority for the U.S. military, the defense official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Some analysts worry the 155-millimeter artillery shell, found rigged as a bomb on May 15, may be part of a larger stockpile of Iraqi chemical weapons that insurgents can now use. But no more have turned up, and several military officials have said the shell may have been an older one that predated the 1991 Gulf War...
Bill, Disney told his roundness over a YEAR ago that they wouldn't be distributing the movie. So because jabba moore makes a movie Jeb is suddenly going to mess with the biggest employers and tourist draws in his state because Mikey Moore made a movie that makes his brother look bad? Sure, o.k. Jeb said it was ridiculous. There's no proof of anything of the sort but then again that never mattered to the michael moron crowd.
Well Bill. Nobody wanted to distribute the Passion of the Christ. Nobody would touch it with a ten foot poll. So Mel distributed himself and put his own money up for it. Moore can do the same if he wants.
It's not banished. He simply neds to find a distributor.
Disney didn't want to be associated with the movie. I've got news for you. There's hundreds of movies that don't get distributed every year for different reasons. Moore is famous for making up stories and using half truths not to mention things like comparing the insurgents killing our troops to the minutemen. Gee I wonder why they want no part of Moore.
I paged through the constitution, I couldn't find anything in there about a right to have a movie distributed. Was Mel being censored when nobody would distribute the movie? Nope and neither is Moore. He's free to make whatever he wants nobody is stopping him. This opressed bit is B.S. He'll get his movie distributed, someone like Soros will front him. Moore claims it's not about the money, funny Mr.AntiCapatalism is charging for his movie and won't spend his own to distribute it. Yea, sure it's not about the money Mike. wouldn't want to dip into the cupckake fund.
That is Censorship, of the worst kind, being afraid of WORDS, in America? OH!!!!!!!!
You don't know what censorship is!
Moore's just looking for publicity.
Hey I just wrote an article and I demand to published in the New York Times! What? you won't publish it? Help, Help I'm being repressed, come see the violence inherent in the system! CENSORSHIP!
Yes poor Twinky Moore being censored, must be why his assinine comments are all over the news, it's all that repression by the man. Still can't find anything in the constitution about a right to have a movie distributed. Since Moore claims the movie isn't about money and about the message why doesn't he release it for free on the internet? Why doesn't he spend his own money like Mel had to? Could it be that Michael Moore is a hypocrite? Nah, impossible.
Moore could post it on the internet for free.
Of course he cares more about money than free speech.
actually, that's not the case...back when they first built Disneyworld, they got the State to grant it the status of a city unto itself, complete with all the tax benefits such a deal might provide.
Isn't censorship basically something only a government can do?
I don't think it's censorship when a corporation decides not to distribute something. There are other avenues for distribution and obviously Moore has found one, and that was inevitable. I fully expected it.
This is America, not the Soviet Union. If people want to see something, someone will make it possible. It happened to Mel Gibson and it happened to Michael Moore. Good for us.
They are banning his movie
One private company doesn't want to distribute his movie.
That's not censorship, that a business decision.
You're coming unhinged Fold. More and more bitterness as time goes by. Your constant references to a time gone by (60's and 70's) doesn't cut it. It's a new century. Try and catch up.
Do you want to tell me what on God's Green earth you're talking about ?
JT, if they support and broadcast all those right-wing radio shows, BUT they deny Moore a right to have HIS say? I call that censorship
Who is THEY?
One company deciding not to distribute a film, which they announced a year ago, simply isn't censorship. Moore's film will be distributed. Nobody will be denied the chance to see it.
Mel Gibson had a much harder time getting his film to theatres than Moore ever will. Is that censorship too?
Now that didn't hurt a bit, did it?
I call that censorship, And I call it FEAR.
I call that wacko.
Censorship is when government thugs break into you offices, smash your presses, beat you up and throw you in jail.
Not getting a studio to back your film is an inconvenience.
Rick 5/30/04 3:21pm
I concur.
'Bill - Fold' 5/29/04 4:14am
Bill, you want to explain what the hell you are talking about ?
Gibson's film opened in over 3000 theaters in the USA alone.
by comparison, Bowling For Columbine opened in 8.
Gibson made sure he got his film out, and did so without whining.
Moore should do the same. Of course, that doesn't make for publicity.
The movie itself isn't going to capture much attention, so he created a controversy.
"The movie itself isn't going to capture much attention, so he created a controversy."
You might be giving him more credit than he deserves. If he did as you say, I'd say it's a smart move.
Maybe you have some idea how much attention it's going capture. I don't know how. The right-wingers have been crying bloody murder, and they haven't even seen it.
you spell Eisner "M-o-o-r-e"?
Wow man... you are truly dreaming.
Yeah, I'm the one dreaming.
You might be giving him more credit than he deserves. If he did as you say, I'd say it's a smart move.
He knew a year ago, but waits until now to cause a fuss. It doesn't take a genius....
Maybe you have some idea how much attention it's going capture.
About as much as his previous movies, which were by no means blockbusters.
I don't know how.
Simple logic.
The right-wingers have been crying bloody murder, and they haven't even seen it.
Because Mike Moore is a big fat lying pig. He would have served the Nazi's well as a propaganda minister.
you spell Eisner "M-o-o-r-e"?
Huh?
It's not even 9.a.m. and someone is already called a Nazi, and a fat one at that.
He is a big fat lying pig.
FWIW, I liked Roger & Me.
He would have made a good Nazi propaganda minister.
He's good at making shit up.
I stand by my statements.
A good propaganda minister is hard to come by. Moore can compete with the best the other side is bringing out to the field.
you said that Moore created the controversy of Disney witholding distribution.
Eisner did that.
Who specifically are you talking about, Rick?
I'd say Rush Limbaugh would have been a good one.
Eisner did that.
Bullshit.
Moore has known for a year.
He's had a full year to get off his fat ass and get his movie out....
It's a crock and people are stupid enough to fall for it.
"Who specifically are you talking about, Rick?"
I don't even know where to start.
Now you're asking me to name names
Yeah.
Who's the "Mike Moore" of the Conservatives?
I don't know. None of them have his bent sense of humor. And there's no filmmakers.
known what?
about Eisner?
or about Moore?
But I can say this, I think the tapa-equivalent of the right wing is on Bush's ass right now. The Strib wrote about is awhile ago in one of its editorials.
They want to get some satisfaction out of the Iraq war. If this provisional government doesn't have it together and the violence is still going by the end of the summer, look for people to say: We have these tactical nuclear weapons in the arsenal. Why not use them? Why are we pussyfooting around. We're at war.
And if the election heats up they'll say, What are we going to do about the seditionists on our own shore and in the newsrooms? You get re-elected, Mr. President, you better clamp down on this kind of talk. We're at war.
We have these tactical nuclear weapons in the arsenal. Why not use them?
If Dubya starts talking like that, I'll vote for Kerry.
known what?
That they wouldn't carry his movie.
"If Dubya starts talking like that, I'll vote for Kerry."
Might be too late by then. And they won't re-run the election for you.
Do you really think that could happen, Rick?
I don't.
And I'm not going to vote based on a big what if.
So Bill, you don't want to explain your fuck you comments to me ? Interesting. And yet typical I guess it should be no suprise.
Hey Luv
Happy Friday
You doing "Grand old days" this weekend?
Bush Nuclear Posture Review
crabgrass 6/4/04 7:15am
I don't read that as a plan for a nuclear attack, I consider that smart policy.
It clearly says the it could indeed happen...a change in our long-standing policy that makess it's possibility morelikely, not less.