human5892 said:
It's disturbing that you apply this incredibly oversimplified, glib summation to something so shockingly scandalous.
It's only shockingly scandalous if you take what Moore says at face value. The whole half-baked Carlisle Group stuff was laughable considering one of Bush's opponents is George Soros who is a large investor in the company.
Bizarro Sun Yat-sen said:
er... #2 and #4 are China and India.
You're using the PPP method while I was using CER.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_Domestic_Product
#2, #4, #6 are Japan, UK, Italy via CER, this isn't really the thread to argue the merits of the two methods so I will not.
demon said:
The entire Bush administration came off as nothing short of evil in this movie.
As above, only if you take what was said at face value, I was skeptical going in knowing what to expect from Moore. I tried not to be pre-judgemental but also looking for flaws that were sometimes easy to see if you were looking, e.g. statistically the amount of congressmen with sons or daughters in Iraq was about right, the blanking out of names was obviously an individual privacy issue but made out to be a sinister conspiracy, that when you had a zoom in of Bush near the end saying we know he's used them before... well Saddam had used chemical weapons before and this was meant to be some knockout blow by Moore's, didn't work.
It was only after watching the film and doing the briefest of research to show up holes that discredits the whole movie. The guy who looked at Moore as if he was crazy when asked to sign up his kids in the armed forces looked that way because he has no kids, that the comments from Rice were taken ridiculously out of context as was most of the footage, Blair was edited out of screen when Bush was "on holiday", etcetra ad infinitum.
hitokage said:
Considering we failed to capture Bin Laden and Afghanistan itself is now once again ruled by warlords...
According to Moore its run by Bush's good buddy Harmid Khazi.

Yeah, parts are being loosely run by warlords but they're still technically under the thumb of those in Kabul.
The military had to get rid of the Taliban before they could concentrate on bin-Laden, to go after bin-Laden when the Taliban were still in control of the country would have been ridiculously foolhardy and surely cost many more lives. Moore seems to be saying they let bin Laden have a two month start on purpose when most liberal commentators were saying the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan could be another Vietnam, surprise, and Moore himself was wanting proof of bin Laden's involvement and was against the whole campaign.