www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Farenheit 9/11

A new book will be out documenting Michael Moore's pathetic lies. It will be called "Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man." There are just as many lies in his books and documentaries as in The Da Vinci Code.

Though the Passion of the Christ has not caused synagogue burning or Jew-bashing by Christians, Michael Moore's movie has already started to rack up some incidents of fights. Be careful that you don't criticize the movie out loud. Only Michael Moore and his dolts prefer freedom of speech ... for themselves.

Joe

but the Byzantine tradition does...

Seems like Moore has engaged in a little usurpation of his own:

Bradbury Demands Apology from Moore [apnews.myway.com]

Yea, like FDR didn't know about the Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor, and help his buddy, W. Churchill, and get us involved in WWII.

You may not agree on how President Bush is acting in Iraq but he doesn't make excuses for what he believes in. I respect him for that. I don't believe that any president could come out of the past three years that Bush has had smelling like a rose. Clinton knew about terrorism and what Bin Laden and Saddam were capable of and did nothing.
Clinton is held in high esteem by a lot of Americans. The man has no moral values at all!! We could go on and on. We need to stop bashing each other and start standing together as Americans. So many are pointing fingers at the United States and spitting in our faces but we are there when we get the call and some one needs our help. We have a great nation and thousands pour in here every day. We need to come together as a great nation and as Christians. Pray! Pray! Pray! and thank God that we can.
As for our Scandinavian Brother, I do not call liberating Iraq from the grip of a sadistic tyrant trying to dominate the world.
Sorry for offending anyone here!
I will be praying for you all.
Glory be to Jesus Christ!!!!! Tari

Because George W. Bush was not elected by even a plurality of the American electorate. The American tradition does not approve of usurpations.

What usurpation? The U.S. Supreme Court merely told the Florida Supreme Court to stop interfering in the election process where it had no legal authority to do so. Bush wasn't the first president who didn't win the popular vote, and he won't be the last. While I think our presidents should be elected by popular vote, there are too many powerful interests involved who don't want the process changed. The way we elect our presidents is screwy and archaic. But no elections were stolen, and there were no usurpations. It's the process that is flawed and needs to be changed.

We will never have a CLUE about who the majority of Americans do or do not want, for the sole reason that the majority never bother to vote. In the meantime, Bush won according to the rules we have in place, and a VERY GOOD THING, TOO!

Dear Tari,

I just saw Pres. Clinton on 'Larry King Live' and actually he was pretty supportive of our President.

He also supported our move to go to war in Iraq on another interview I remember w/Larry King.

So, fans of Clinton have nothing to complain about with President Bush.

In Christ,
Alice

FDR's government believed that it was a matter of time before the Empire of Japan declared war (or vice versa) on the United States. As a precaution, the American navy 'hid' the Pacific fleet in Pear Harbour believing that should war be declared, the vessels would be safe there from enemy attack. The expectation was that Japan would abide by it's treaty and declare war prior to attacks on the United States.

When Japan attacked the Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbour, there was no official declaration of war between the United States and the Empire of the Sun (it came the next day). Therefore, the attack came as a surprise to FDR's administration.

This surprise attack did give FDR's administration a reason to enter the war. It would however be dishonest to state that FDR permitted the attack to happen jus so the USA could enter the war (BIG DIFFERENCE !).

Hritzko

And why did FDR's administration allow 400+ ships to sink off the Atlantic coast due to German U-Boats before we did anything about it?

Joe Thur

The USA was not prepared for war and could not go after the German U-boats until such time that it could defend it's own 'homeland' territory. At the time that the said merchant ships were being destroyed, the USA did not have the militairy might needed to go on the offensive. A large number of Americans were passive, and did not to want to get involved in the war. It took an attack on American soil (Pearl Harbour) to wake Amercians up to the dire geopolitical situation of the day.

The same analogy can be made with 9/11. Most Americans did not understand the threat of radical Muslim extremism. It took an attack on American soil (New York) to galvanize support for an all out effort to combat the enemy.

To blame Bush, Clinton, or even FDR for having known about the attacks prior to their occuring is dishonest. They all had intelligence reports about the potential dangers of not being pro-active and were attempting to govern in an America dominated by isolationists (just read some of the posts on this web site) and 'all or none' civil libertarians.

The 9/11 attacks were ruthless and targeted civilians. We as a society were not prepared for the loss of civil liberties, changes in lifestyles, and delays associated with measures needed to assure that such an event did not occur. Just ask anyone today if they would have tolerated prior to 9/11 the current security measures in place at all airports (BTW, the answer is NO WAY !).

I would agree that Bush is not the brightest student in the classroom, but that does not mean he is not able to govern.

There were two reasons for attacking Iraq:

(1) The government was not democracy friendly and and ongoing threat to stability in the region and a potential haven for the radical muslim terrorists.

(2) The USA government needed to show how serious they were with the Saudi royals, who after all had tolerated, cultured, and indirectly permitted the financing of the 9/11 terrorists' activities.

On September 11, 2001 less than 20 terrorists were able to cripple the world's largest economy and create havoc around the globe. This means that the rich countries had less money to donate for food, medicine, and shelter to the poorer countries. There is a real negative chain reaction around the world.

Just as some countries (ie: Sweeden) watched the NAZIs destroy democracy, freedom, and plurality in Europe, there are now nations (ie: Sweeden, Finland, and Norway) who are just as selfish. It took a strong, brave, and intelligent peoples liberate the peoples of Europe, and now attempt to bring democracy to the middle east.

Hritzko

Somehow, I thought that that would be your answer - an appeal to the realm of possibility, and to your own opinion that Bush is capable of such a thing.

You admit that you have no proof that Bush did in fact know ahead of time, and you admit that you can't be certain he did - just "not in the least surprised." Yet you've thrown your complete, unqualified support behind a movie which has as an underlying premise the "fact" that Bush did know? My question, again, is: where do you gain the moral authority to make, or even to support, such an accusation when the best evidence you have is your own subjective opinion of him?

Notice that I am not saying that he did not know ahead of time. I do think it's unlikely - but yeah, it's possible, and if proof comes along I'll assent to it.

It's also possible, however, that I was scheduled as the 20th hijacker, and Moussouai (sp?) was my fall guy. In fact, it's possible that this is bin Laden typing, and not an American college gal. (Worse yet, it's possible that I framed Roger Rabbit!) All of which is, of course, completely ridiculous, and one would need something far better than "I think she could be" to make the claim.

Again: it is utterly against our Faith and our duty as Christians to accuse a man of complicity in the murder of 3,000 people unless we have some solid evidence. Not liking his politics and not liking him doesn't cut it.

Neither was Abraham Lincoln in 1860, America's first "minority president".

Lincoln was not a very popular president even in the North and he was sure that he'd lose his bid at re-election in 1864. It was his asassination that made him "belong to the Ages."

Actually, a person winning the popular vote but losing the election has happened three other times in American history: John Quincy Adams [in a true voting scandal], Rutherford Hayes, and Benjamin Harrison. We don't consider any of these Presidents illegitimate, because our constitution clearly states that the winner of the Electoral College - not the popular vote - wins the presidency. But interestingly (and somewhat supporting your view), in the case of Adams and Harrison, the person who did receive the most votes did win the Presidency in the next election. Maybe Gore should have run for re-election after all.

Ultimately, the founding fathers set up the Electoral College for a reason; we would do well to learn what it was. And if someone doesn't like it - get a Constitutional Amendment passed to overturn it!