Which facts in Farenheit 9/11 do you dispute?

And what is the meaning of the quote as used? The remainder of the quote is garbage. It is a ridiculous collection of hyperbole intended the excuse the main fact that INDEED, NO substantiated link between Al Qaeda and Saddam existed and thus the assertion used to justify an outright war of aggression was a lie.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that clearly, only willful ideological sycophantry to continue trying to make an issue of it. Moore used the only part of that sentence that pertained to the issue. the rest is further example of the Bush cabal's delusional demogoguery and rhetorical self justification in the face of exposed fraud.

Deal with reality!

 

Right, so following

with

is merely adding on "a ridiculous collection of hyperbole". and leaving only the first section would be more accurate?

No matter how shrill your tone, you cannot make that make sense. This is pure bullshit.

Also

Is totally irrevant. This thread is about Michael Moore's film, Farenheit 9/11 and the distortions it contains. While you may be using it for your own personal vendettas, I'm going to stick to the topic.

And for f**k's sake take a pill and calm down.

 

you can believe or disbelieve the quote as fully stated. the point is that deliberate manipulation of a quote is dishonest. i don't believe it either, not completely, but to deliberately misquote someone by cutting out the part you dont' want to hear is plain lying.

 

No it is not lying if the remainder of the quote is itself a lie (or if you will a further dodge) and the only pertinent fact it actually raises is that this admin continues to insist that there was a link even in the face of investigated and confirmed fact that THERE WAS NO ACTUAL LINK. My god, it is amazing how that simple fact can escape people who claim to be rational thinking individuals.

 

so what? give the other guy enough rope to hang himself. let them babble on with nonsense then come back and refute it. you can't compromise the rules of honesty just to make a point. it's indefensible.

 

This is EXACTLY, 100% the OPPOSITE of what the remainder of the quote said.

The second part of the quote is the part where SHE SAYS THERE IS NO ACTUAL LINK!

THAT'S WHY MOORE CUT IT OUT, to make it seem like she was saying there was a link when she EXPLICITLY, SPECIFICALLY SAID THERE IS NO LINK!

Your apologist gymnastics get more absurd with every post. It's not about what you think she should have said, or might have said, or what someone else said, or what you claim everybody is thinking. Its about what she actually said, and what she actually said was that Iraq was not behind 9/11, which is why Moore edited the tape to deliberately distort her words.

 

What a completely pointless and asinine thing to say. What is the tie?...that there is hatred in both instances? Uh oh, all you other countries better not hate us or we'll bomb the hell out of you! What a dumb bitch. The rest of the statement adds no verity to the first sentence. Tie implys link, the two aren't linked. Rice is brain-damaged. As are all you fools fussing over silly points like this. I love it. That's the best you can do. Ha! Sweet.
!
If you can read this, you're not the president.

 

You know what? I give up. I'm tired of the jihad against anyone who dares criticise Moore.

 

What fatuous drivel ... if you had read and understood the rest of the post you edited and quoted above you would have learned that I was criticising both Moore's film and the anti-Moore website you posted. By making a statement implying that people who watch the film with open and critical minds - as I suggested doing - are happy to be deliberately mislead by so-called "comic-polemic technique" you are making precisely the mistake I pointed out was being made by the author of that anti-Moore site.

Understanding the nature of partisan polemic and of Moore's comedy is not the same as being 'happily misled' by it. You seem to enjoy suffering under the illusion that while Moore's film is partisan and manipulative, the article you posted is not. The point I made was that both have axes to grind, and use sophistries and simplifications to get their politically partisan point across. You have entirely misunderstood the subtlety of this notion, and presented an edited quote in order to make a vaguely related anti-Moore jibe, relying uncritically upon a clearly biased source simply because the author shares your entrenched ideological position.

Who is the biased fool around here?

 

which is exactly the point of letting people hang themselves. leave the whole quote, then people can't take the easy way out and just call it misleading. leave them no room to argue. i don't see why this is a hard concept to understand. take the high road, let other people make asses of themselves, instead of becoming as ass yourself.

 

I agree, I dislike selective quoting in order to misconstrue statements. However this example is very weak, that was my point. Including the entire quote really doesn't change what Rice stated. This thread is about disputing Moore's facts and I've seen nothing notable yet.
Pointbreak, criticise all you want...but be able to back up your claims, that's all. The only criticism I have for Moore is that he's a fat slob, which I find repulsive, but I respect his work and find it fairly truthful.