This carnage has been brought to you by TIME's Person of the Year

"This carnage has been brought to you by TIME's Person of the Year" ????

According to the talented film maker Michael Moore, this same man was also responsible for the September 11th attack on the United States.

A more reasoned view might be that Iraqis who prefer a religiously exploitive dictatorship to a government of the people and by the people did these evil deeds.

But then again, according to Michael Moore (and his faith based following) the US is governed by a religious dictatorship.

Mr. Moore has been such an asset to the cause, I figure the DNC will make sure his picture also receives wide circulation...

...Look for Moore's mug on a milk carton at a store near you! His brand of dishonest absurdity (which is shared by this post) has proven itself to be ineffective.

Bob- your comment demonstrates that you are exactly the type of American voter willing to give Bush a free pass. You appear to have swallowed the propaganda wholesale. My condolences....

I viewed the propaganda offered by both sides and made an educated decision that you apparently disagree with. That's fine. How much objective material on Mr. Moore's political satire did you avail yourself to?

> According to the talented film maker Michael Moore, this same man was also responsible for the September 11th attack on the United States.

Moore never made that accusation. Moore implied that the Bush Administration may have spun the aftermath to its advantage, and Moore showed that the Bush Administration failed to take steps that might have made 9/11 less likely, but there was no accusation that the Bush Administration was directly responsible for the events of 9/11.

You're also wrong to say that the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein was a religiously exploitive one. It was a dictatorship, but it was a very secular based one -- basically, old line communist with a personality cult attached. Note Saddam's persecution of the Shiite Muslims in the south of Iraq, and the fact that Al Queda was also interested in removing Saddam from power. Don't make the mistake of lumping in all Muslim dictatorships in the same boat. At the very least, you need to know your enemy.

The point that Northstar is making, and it still stands despite your irrelevant use of Michael Moore, is that the raucous aftermath which threatens the very good work the overwhelming majority of Americans would have liked to have seen done in Iraq, was predicted long beforehand, only to be ignored by the Bush Administration. Rumsfeld received his warning that troop levels had to be significantly higher than what he'd planned in order to make the aftermath come off far better than it did. Failure to do this puts a fledgling democracy in serious risk. No Iraqi should be able to say "well, Saddam was a bad man, but at least when he was in power, you could walk the streets at night."

The Bush Administration was warned that this would happen, and failed to commit enough resources to a war that had peripheral connections, at best, to the Global War on Terror. That makes them culpable. And one is not engaging in propaganda when one says so.

You are partially correct James. While Mr. Moore did not make such accusations within Fahrenheit 911 itself, he did repeatedly make that allegation during his broadcast and public promotion of the film touted by the deceived as a documentary, but upon challenge, termed by its creator as "political satire."

Viewed objectively, with the creator's post production commentary at hand, F-911 is a shining example of liberal propaganda unquestionably swallowed by an alarming mass of voters.

Again, just in case you missed it, the talented film maker, Mr. Michael Moore, considers his work to be political satire rather than a truthful documentary or, as some seem to deem it, the word of a deity. Example: A fellow cat lover from Waco that went wacko over the mere suggestion that she might avail herself to material critical of Moore's film, and a Mr. Huh, who didn't actually take the time to see the film, but nevertheless defended its factuality and promised to encourage his friends to see it so they might feel good about voting for John Kerry. I think folks like these are more deserving of Northstar's condolences than I am.

Why shouldn't we get ahead of the crowd, and agree that the hate based, politically motivated barf that Mr. Moore spewed is just that -- Political VOMITUS, rejected by stomachs of those who care to do the math.

Point 2: Saddam may have appeared secular to you, but I hope you realize how much he exploited the religious motivation of the populations he controlled to maintain his power. Perhaps it's a stretch to say he was religiously invested in the genocidal deployment of chemical weapons, however one should not overlook the fact that such mass murders were tolerated by the Iraqi populace to some degree because the victims held differing religious beliefs.

Point 3 (third paragraph) My reference to Mr. Moore's political satire is indeed relevant because it characterizes the basis of the "vote against Bush" theme of the DNC as well as TPRS. F911 was produced for the sole purpose of electing "anybody but Bush" and it was only a couple of weeks before the election when our esteemed host finally admitted that the film might be less than 100% factual. It is apparent that propagating propaganda is something that TPRS is heavily invested in doing, therefore my mention of the ludicrous ravings of the talented madman Michael Moore are indeed relevant. His fallacious conspiracy theories echo in the TPRS archives.

I'd like to pose the same question to Mr. Bow that I posed to Northstar:

How much objective material on Mr. Moore's political satire did you avail yourself to?

Be careful here James, an honest answer might be embarrassing to Northstar!

Mr. Moore is still irrelevant to this post because the fact remains that you never answered my original point:

> the raucous aftermath which threatens the very good work the overwhelming majority of Americans would have liked to have seen done in Iraq, was predicted long beforehand, only to be ignored by the Bush Administration. Rumsfeld received his warning that troop levels had to be significantly higher than what he'd planned in order to make the aftermath come off far better than it did. Failure to do this puts a fledgling democracy in serious risk. No Iraqi should be able to say "well, Saddam was a bad man, but at least when he was in power, you could walk the streets at night."

> The Bush Administration was warned that this would happen, and failed to commit enough resources to a war that had peripheral connections, at best, to the Global War on Terror. That makes them culpable. And one is not engaging in propaganda when one says so.

Northstar's point: George Bush was warned that this would happen. This happened. I hold him culpable.

Your counterpoint: Michael Moore is an idiot, and you're an idiot for liking Michael Moore.

You've done nothing to respond to Northstar's point, except bring in an irrelevant straw man. You're dodging the argument.

James, I don't think I called anyone an idiot.

I just used fewer words than you did. Or, perhaps I should have said liar? Deceitful? Libellous? Evil, perhaps? Either way, you bring him in out of nowhere to say that Northstar's post reads just like a Michael Moore documentary. You don't address Northstar's point, you instead say the equivalent of "you sound just like Michael Moore, and nobody trusts him." That's not a response. The comparison is irrelevant, and you're bringing in a straw man rather than dealing with the issues that Northstar raises.

Northstar's point: George Bush was warned that this would happen. This happened. I hold him culpable.

Your counterpoint: Michael Moore is an idiot, and you're an idiot for liking Michael Moore.

Wrong again James. Northstar did not state the point you assign to him at all, and I didn't call anyone an idiot with any number of words.

Are you feeling well?

How is it not the point that Northstar is making? Clearly the situation in Iraq is not what it should be, and warnings of the instability that would result once Saddam was toppled were relayed to the Bush Administration, which did not follow up on them. Bush himself is ultimately responsible for that decision, although he could wipe his hands of some of that responsibility if he canned Rumsfeld.

These factors are well known, and are easily communicated through the pictures. Pictures are worth a thousand words, after all.

So, what were you saying about Northstar's post when you brought Michael Moore into the discussion? That Northstar was being deceitful? Or libellous? Or hysterical? And what is the connection that makes the comparison relevant?

It's not the point Northstar made in this post simply because the post didn't include any input from Northstar. Sounds reasonable to me. It's also quite reasonable that he have might have stated the point you assumed to be there, but that's for him to decide, not you. Similarly, whom I may think to be an idiot is a determination that is mine to make, not yours.

The Moore connection is one of purposed deception that is shared by this and similar posts. Though in Moore's case, the intent to decieve his audience is obvious, in Northstar's case it's more likely a result his bias. Only bad news from Iraq is posted, especially when it suits the political ideology of the host. To my recollection, I've not seen any posting of positive news from Iraq, indeed what I do see might be termed hysterical.

It's certainly Northstar's right and privilege to post anything he wishes, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to point out its one sided nature, and the fact that many will view it as they viewed F911, with blinders on. I believe this connection does make the comaparison relevant.