Moore scared for life, flees RNC

What are you talking about? I haven't taken offense to anything.

Moore wasn't mocking anything. Because you either don't understand or refuse to understand what a metaphor is, and how it's used, doesn't mean that Moore was mocking something.

I will do my best to explain to you. Moore knows that by walking into the RNC it isn't as serious or deadly as Christians being thrown to the lions. The purpose is to compare it to something far greater or exaggerated than his particular situation. That is how a metaphor is used. I'm sorry if you won't or don't understand that. It might help you not to feel so upset as you seem to be.

As for Kerry's testimony to the senate. That doesn't change the fact that Kerry is a war hero. Kerry saved the life of a soldier of the special forces while risking his life to do so. That makes him a war hero. Those are the facts, and nothing Kerry has done since that time changes those facts.

If you want to look at Kerry's testimony and be upset about it, you have that right. But Kerry never accused all soldiers of those war crimes. Kerry only spoke about what other soldiers told him they witnessed. Kerry spoke about free fire zones which were oredered at the time and no at all uncommon.

War crimes were committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. That is a fact. They weren't committed by every American soldier, but they did happen. The fact that they happened for a war that I believe, Kerry believes, and many many others believe was an unjust war makes that a difficult thing to grasp. Kerry was there and killed other men and saw his fellow soldiers die for something that certainly wasn't necessary, was entered into dishonestly(see Gulf of Tonkin resolution), and was in his opinion unjust.

It ruins no party of mine that Kerry spoke out against the war. It ruins no party of mine that Kerry was also a war hero who volunteered to serve, volunteered to be sent into the action, and didn't like what he saw, or what he heard about from other vets.

For the record, I'm not a Democrat so I don't know what party standard you are accusing me of being hypocritcal of.

But like I said I don't take offense. I'm sorry if you took offense. I honestly think if you think a minute about metaphors and their use, you wouldn't have to be offended and upset by Moore's remark.

Also for the record I haven't seen his latest film. I found Bowling for Columbine to be partly propaganda, partly entertaining, partly imformative, and partly annoying.

I have no trouble saying that Moore's editing, is slanted, and his presentation less than an honest potrayal. He's quick to jump to conclusions that may not be accurate if it will help sensationalize the point he's trying to make.

That doesn't mean every word that comes out of his mouth is an insult. The man is not a demon or a monster.

 

This comment was directed at right wing Christian conservatives... obviously. I took offense to it because:

1) He used "Christians" in it, instead of the more common "I was thrown to the lions" or "They threw me to the lions" approach.

2) He knew he was going to be read by people that would be offended at the comparison of the (once killed by lions for sport to the amusement of an emporer) Christians directly to lions... an ultimate disrespect... nearly as offensive as calling an Israel supporting president Hitler..

If you didn't take offense to it... I cannot see why not.

Also, if you'd try and realize that just because you were not offended does not mean someone else couldn't be, intead of trying to give literary skill and writing conventions lessons, you'd stay on the point I was making to you.

Self-proclaimed Christians should be offended when someone makes smug remarks about historically tragic times for the church.

The issue I brought up, in the first post here, was that in NO WAY is this "metaphor" innocent and devoid of animosity.

Smug leftist satire? Sure... it's on par with that, as well as atheism, but not a simply innocent metaphor.

Just because you don't offend that easily, doesn't mean it's not offensive... besides, my wife is the one who pointed out the offensive speech. And I agreed.

btw- Moore's livelihood is all about mockery. His columns, movie mockumentaries, etc. Why wouldn't this follow suit given the setting?

Think about it.

Why not say he felt "like a bull being led to the slaughterhouse" or "like a snowflake at a bonfire" or "like a frog at a cajun restaurant" or "like a nail at a hammer factory" or "like a hair on Cheney's head" or "like a fact in my editing room?"

He could have made the point of the hostility he felt, or the out of place, or outnumbered feelings he was having without insulting many of the folks he's there to "report" about.

Come on. Think about it. THAT was a dig.

 

Dude--chill the hell out. I can almost see the spittle droplets of apoplectic rage and hysteria dripping down your screen. You're really reaching for something to be angry about and the result is you look like an imbecile. Let it go.

If you want to discuss something disrespectful to Christians, just take a gander at the hypocrisy of Bush and Ashcroft calling themselves devout Christians while acting in ways completely opposite to the teachings of Christ. Their actions, like, say... (and here is comparison, not a metaphor, lest the definition be again lost on you) the abuses of the Catholic Church, the Inquisition, or those who used Biblical references to justify slavery, are more appalling than any little comment from a liberal filmaker.

How anyone who calls themselves a Christian can vote for Bush is beyond me.

Blackfish

 

Would you say "chill" if it were a reference to Jews? African Americans? Hispanics? Asians? So it doesn't push your buttons. Does that mean I am not allowed to say it pushed my buttons? Or are you saying you have the right to shut me up because TRUE Christianity might make you uncomfortable? Why can you say what you want to about Christians and not feel the least bit wrong for it, and when I make my first post on this... aimed at MOORE, I get jumped by leftist hitmen and written off as illiterate? I have a college degree. Does it not count to you because it came from a private Christian university? Sadly, it probably doesn't mean anything to you.

Since you took the bait, blackfish... how is murdering the unborn a Christian thing? How is gay rights a Christian thing? How is voting for military action, then underfunding the troops a Christian thing? How is shooting people in the back a Christian thing? Which is worse? Going to war and killing folks? or flying stateside in the guard? Which is more Christian by your definition?

And how do these topics you invoke even remotely get placed on Bush's shoulders? What abuses of the Catholic church have Bush and Ashcroft committed? Links? What Inquisition of whom or what is Bush's doing? Links? When has Bush or Ashcroft used Biblical references to justify slavery? Links?

I think the drool is on your pillow. Go back to sleep.

The question is this. "How can anyone vote for a party that backs partial birth abortion, gay civil unions and/or marriages, and leaving troops underfunded while in battle to defend us, and call themselves a TRUE Christian? How Christ-like (the meaning of Christian - striving to be like Christ -understanding that He is in full agreement with the entire Word of God - as He is the Word made flesh)... how Christ-like is that?"

Democrats voting for Kerry are not voting for what I believe a died-in-the-wool Democrat believes in are they? If so, you are condoning murder of the unborn (playing God with who gets to have life), and voting to place troops in harm's way then underfunding them (playing God with who gets to remain alive), and breaking the basic rules of creation of man and woman (playing God by rewriting what God said about marriage from day one).

You can't play God, rewriting and misinterpreting scripture, then expect TRUE believers to support you.

FOR the RECORD. God does not hate homosexuals (as I saw in another thread)... he hates homosexuality - a learned trait NOT established by God. You've heard it before, He created Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve.

So, likewise. I cannot see how anyone who calls themselves a Christian can vote for Kerry.

Define Christian in your own words however, and I may see why you would.

 

if he hates it so much then why doesn't he do something to stop it like he supposedly did at Sodom.

AIDS? good try why didn't he make straight people immmune.

Face it IROC, homosexuality has always and will always be around.

If a disaster happened Jerimiah-style and everyone over the age of 5 on the planet died, homosexuality would survive while Christianity likely would not.

And Michael Moore is a Catholic so I think he's allowed to make Christian-Lion jokes (like that Seinfeld episode). Should Muslims get all bent out of shape about Bush calling the WOT a "crusade"?

 

i don't care where you went to school or if you have a degree. I know many morons with degrees and many wise people without. I care more about the content of your arguments, which is lacking. My issue with what you call "true" Christianity is actually just that--the fact that you seem to believe you have a handle on what being a true Christian is. How nice! Can I get certified just like you? Is there a degree at a local community college, or does the big guy upstairs have to send me a memo first?

I'm going to deal with your other points out of order, if I may.

This is absolutely false. You see contradiction because you want to but not because it is there. You are saying that Kerry contradicted his vote to grant the President war powers because he subsequently voted against the budget proposals.

That is just wrong. There is no contradiction. One is a vote for powers, one is a vote for a budget proposal. They are not linked.

But besides that, the President violated his word to Congress by engaging in a war that would weigh entirely on US citizens, and also that allowed special interests, namely the Vice Presidents company, to reap the benefits of reconstruction.

The President wants to rebuild Iraq by giving no-bid contracts to his vice president's company, that also supports his candidacy and interests, money that will be paid by Americans with no debt incurred by Iraqis, BUT AT THE SAME TIME the President wants to do this while giving a tax break to Halliburton and millionaires in this country. So effectively the President wants to put the costs of all this more on the middle class.

Not only do poor and middle class Americans go to war as soldiers, but they also have to pay for all this.I can totally see why John Kerry stated that he was proud of voting against this slanted appropriations bill Look at the DATES OF THE VOTE!!!

The first vote occurred ONE MONTH of 9/11.

The second occurred months after the President had sent the troops into Iraq WITHOUT BODY ARMOUR.

So now all of the sudden John Kerry doesn't want to give them body armour because he wont vote yes to authorize the President to give money to Halliburton. Truth is those troops were sent to Iraq without body armour. It wasn't John Kerry's fault they didn't have it, and the budget proposal of the President wasn't about body armour, it was about Halliburton. The President could have provided body armour at any time. Truth is he is more interested in giving tax cuts to millionaires

There are plenty of people who will decide this election on one issue and one issue alone, and that's abortion. There are Republicans who are dissatisfied with Bush, but because he's pro-life, they'll vote with him anyway. And they conveniently choose to ignore the fact that if a woman didn't have the option of having an abortion, our already overtaxed system of Welfare and public assistance would be overwhelmed by unwanted children. (Is that very Christian to refuse a woman the right to limit the size of her family, but also to refuse her assistance if she has more children than she can handle because no other options were available? And please, don't talk to me about abstinance. That's about as effective a means of preventing birth among the poorly-educated as waving a magic wand. And don't talk to me about adoption, either: Millions upon millions of unwanted American children go unclaimed by both adoption AND the foster care system. It is not the great saving grace that Republicans would have us believe it is.)


ONE THING TO NOTE, Hebrews did not believe abortion was murder. There is no indication of murder in the scriptures related to abortion. Hebrews, and Christians it seems, believed that an individual became such at the moment of birth as the "breath of life" entered the lungs. Those that argue to the contrary are just lying.

Many use the scripture that says that the fetus that would then become John the Baptist jumped in his mother's womb when pregnant Mary came to Elizabeth, but that doesn't qualify him as a soul in Hebrew eyes. That is an interpretation applied by us to the scenario that would not have held theologically in those days. Just to specify it.

In terms of candidates, since this is ahot issue for you, John Kerry voted to restrict late-term abortions but only where there was a clear exception for life or health of women.

We could open up that topic, but I doubt it would make a big difference to you. If you're going to get Biblical about it, I prefer to refer to the original Hebrew and Greek. I interpret these passages as condemning:

Homosexual rape (Genesis 19; Judges 19:14).
Homosexual ritual sex in Pagan temples -- a religious taboo (Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13).
Homosexual prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7).
Heterosexual men and women going against their basic nature and engaging in homosexual Pagan orgies (Romans 1:26).
Men who sexually molest boys -- and the boys that they abuse (1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:9).
Bestiality: Men engaging in sex with males of another species -- angels in this case (Jude 7).

But on the topic of sexual activity within a loving, committed, monogamous homosexual relationship, many religious liberals view the Bible as being completely silent. One of the very few beliefs on which conservative and liberal Christians agree is that there are no definitive statements in the Bible which deal directly with same-sex marriages (aka domestic partnerships, civil unions, holy unions, etc.)

But if you must be literal about the Bible, why not tackle with as muchvehemence the TRUE PLAGUE on society....DIVORCE!!!! Also condemned by the Bible but conveniently ignored as a hot button issue.

Conservative pastors such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson would have us believe that morality is all about where you stand on abortion, how you treat homosexuals. I think that is simply wrong. As I read the Scriptures and as I understand faith, God's side is the group that's feeding the poor, caring about children, making sure that people have enough food to eat — not killing others, etc.

In this sense Democrats are more similar to Christ, they do not impose their religious convictions on others. You can be against abortion, but at the same time against government choosing for individuals. Jesus made a differentiation between individual choice and government imposition. So did Paul with his submission to government instructions.

Jesus was for changing individuals independent of the course of government.

In our world, a democratic world, that would not work as easily as it did for Jesus and his followers.


THE ONLY government according to Hebrew views that can be seen as imposing God's will morally would be a theocratic government. We don't have that, and so Jesus would be non-partisan by definition.

I wasn't there with Kerry in Vietnam and I'm not going to judge him on what he may have done, in a battle, when someone was trying to kill him. I am opposed to killing, but not self defense.
And as another poster said above, coming back and reporting on atrocites commited by your own troops is not betrayal--it's courage. Blind loyalty to a cause is no loyalty at all--I find it immoral.

you miss my point. I was saying that many religious people who claim to be devout commit atrocities in under the banner of faith. I think Bush and Ashcroft fall under this category--though not to the same scale as the Inquisition. The Devil, too, can quote Scripture for his purpose.

I literally cannot find an end to the list of Biblical laws and precepts that the Bush administration violates, ignores, or adapts to suit their needs. My argument is that anyone who hypothesizes that Bush is the "right" candidate for Christians doesn't know a whole lot about Jesus' teachings and the Bible. And by saying this, I'm not suggesting that John Kerry is somehow a more "Christian" candidate... the thing I like about Kerry is that he doesn't put on the cloak of religion so cynically in order to appeal to the great unwashed. But if you want to split hairs, I'd say that Democrats are closer to doing God's work than Republicans, inasmuch as they actually give a damn about what happens to the poor.

The only instance in the Bible where Jesus acted in violence was where he saw the money changers in the temple, and He threw the tables over in anger. So it sounds like Jesus was also a prototypical activist against corporate greed.

The religious right is consumed with talk of "morality" and assume it is firmly in their territory, except where it comes to corporate greed. Consider Ken Lay: Thousands upon thousands of his employees were literally stripped of everything they owned, while Ken Lay and all his Enron high-up cronies gained hundreds of millions of dollars at the employees' expense. George Bush used Ken Lay's private jet to campaign in 2000. And Ken Lay has slept in the Lincoln Bedroom. Does that make any Republican proud to be an American? To the contrary I see this administration managing rather than helping the poor, keeping them happy of the social divide by giving them the illusion that extending more and more power to the rich will benefit them. They also associate themselves with Christian morals obfuscating the issue of power and attracting voters through religion. They buy people without money by using religion.

So in my mind, it gets down to the question of how can a human being simultaneously call him or herself a Christian and vote for Bush. The contradictions are so vast and so many and so grave that it truly boggles my imagination.



Blackfish

 

Like I said. Define Christian in your own words however, and I may see why you would.

True Christianity takes the Bible and words of Christ in full contextual setting. Why he said it, to whom he said it, then and there. It's called Exogetical vs. Eisogetical.

One cannot apply simply what they think a scripture says without depth of study into word origins, taking into account the original texts... not the latin used to derive the KJV.

NIV, CEV and similar newer translation give clearer direct translations directly from original texts and scrolls.

Research the Wycliffe Bible Translators to be certain of what I speak here.

Again... you can define words in the Bible, add modern application before actual contemporary context, and come up on the wrong side of the coin.

You've helped answer my question. And by your response you must not understand what the personal relationship side of Christianity is to mock it by saying things like "Can I get certified just like you? Is there a degree at a local community college, or does the big guy upstairs have to send me a memo first?" These phrases are borderline silly, seeing that the MEMO is already written. It's called the Bible, dude. I'm not sure if your local community college teaches a course on how to study the Bible, or how to accept Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour, but it might. The cc I went to before my university didn't offer such classes. Niether did my university.

You might try the local church for that one. Or, possibly if you find the time... sit down and study the Gospel of John with an open mind, start to finish.

I double dog dare you to say a brief prayer asking the Lord to "Help me understand what I'm reading, in context, and if you're real... prove it."

I doubt you will from this point, do that. But I still challenge you.

I cast no stone your way for dogging me. But it further proves my point that until I mentioned Jesus, or defended Christianity, I wasn't as disliked in here.

Sad. In a country that was established precisely to get away from the tyranny of a forced belief system... I am being super suggestively forced to stop saying I'm a Christian, in "spirit and in truth" as scripture says.

Jesus, btw, said "Be angry and sin not..." It is not sin for me to be angry that True Christianity is under attack. Sin would be to act out in violence.

I am merely talking, and posting about my concerns against my faith.

How no one can see the direct hit on Christians in Moore's timely choice of words is truley beyond my comprehension. It is right there, in print.

I would not even make the claim he did, and I am being persecuted for stating my beliefs here. What next? Government is led by an anti-church leader and I get told "shut up" by the system? Maybe so. France has now made any evangelical attempts by Christians part of their hotlist of cult groups and banned public pastors, preaching in their own (once protected) pulpits from giving alter calls... well I wouldn't put it past this nation's capabilities.

As long as seeds of hate toward Christianity are allowed to remain unchecked, worldwide, or stateside... without at least a post about it being unbashed and jumped... well the future is ineveitable.

Rome all over again.

I am not paranoid. Just informed. The false Christianity is a "designer" one that edits the parts of the Bible to make them agreeable to the masses, yet I read that the way to God is "narrow" and the road "straight" and that the way to destruction is "broad" and "many" go that way.

Well, you tell me. Are more people following the "narrow & straight way" or "going with the larger crowd?"

Throughout history people have mocked what they don't understand. What they need to realize is that Jesus said that if they hated Him, they will hate us (Christians). And I, too, forget that point.

I cannot change your mind. Only God has that right or authority based on one's own willingness and desire to be changed. You are a free moral agent. Support what you like.... but God still recorded His Word through several writers that all agreed.

Your issue is in yourself, not with me. My issue is to interpret the Word for what it was written to say, not how I think it applies without knowing the History of it.

This is the same issue attacking the Constitution of the U.S. Understanding Context will always reveal the true intent of a document.

We see this in media, in this forum, every day. So then, how is it so impossible to take the Bible out of context? It's not.

But simply saying that there are no direct verses about some loving relationships doesn't negate that facts about homosexuality being an abomination in other scripture. And ALL scripture is to be taught, for correction, reproof and rebuke... and ALL scripture agrees with itself. A basic knowledge of what a TRUE Christian believes will present this fact. If you can't get past "In the beginning God..." then you can't handle the rest. If you can handle the first 4 words, you have to accept the rest. It's that simple.

No you may not understand it all, and I'm not claiming to in the least, but I know better than to think that if God said something in one verse that He would contradict Himself elsewhere.

No. My degree is not in religion, nor did I want it to be. But I know enough about the basics. Take my challenge to read the Gospel of John, in context, saying the prayer to see if the "Big Guy" is up there to reveal Himself to you.

I trust He will.

Goodness. All I said was that I don't think Moore knows how the Christians felt entering the coliseum... and that I personally take offense to it. I didn't know I would be jumped for it.

But that's okay.

When will it be said, "Oh IROC it? Yeah, he's a Christian... no that there's anything wrong with that." Huh? When?

It won't. If I say I don't believe being gay is Christian, I'm jumped... but prove me wrong. If I say anything about Christianity at all in defense of it, I'm jumped.

But I'm not alone in my thinking. And it would be just fine with me if I was.

 

I like how homosexuals dress.


And they cheered McCain not booed Moore you revisionists. Unreal.

 

You are not the one who judges TRUE christianity, from false Christianity. At least according to the Christian Bible, only God judges the soul.

As for Moore's comparison, you mentioned yourself the 'being thrown to the lions' saying. That saying makes the same comparison and it's been common place for decades, and nobody that I know of was offended at it.

I think Moore didn't say that because the emphasis of Moore's comparison was a person walking into a hostile envrionment, and the reaction of the crowd, more than the lions themselves.

I wasn't offended because I understood he wasn't making light of the plight of early Christians, or comparing himself to a Christian Martyr or anything like that.

 

Unbelievable, that was one of the oldest metaphors in the book. And it made perfect sense to use it since Moore was at a modern day collesium. IROC, you are just looking for something to be outraged about. If we still had search, I'm sure I'd find plenty of instances where things were reversed and you were telling people they were wrong for being upset or offended by something.


blackfish, post more often, that was an excellent post.

 

I didn't see it live, the clips they show on the news networks seems to show at least some booing. I mean, it looks like the people in the crowd all looked up at him. I don't see why they'd cheer McCain and look at Moore. I also wonder how they all found him. I know Moore is fat, but c'mon, in all seriousness, how would everybody know where to spot one particular person?

I'd have to watch a recording of it as it happened. It's possible that the clip I saw was just edited. They use footage of the people looking at a giant screen or something, then footage of Moore, and it looks like the people are starring up at him and booing.

 

Blackfish....excellent post!

 

Same here. Nice to see some new posters in D&D giving their own view of things, and not just regurgitating stuff that's been flying around here. Really nice.

 

I thought Moore was always easy to see. He has Boba Fett beside him and a nearly naked Leigh chained up beside him and he's eating live crap from a fish bowl placed right beside him.

Oh never mind I think I have Moore confused with another guy whom he resembles

 

A quote from Moore today...

 

Wow, that sure is a lot of money for someone who claims to be Joe Common Man. I thought he didn't care about money.

 

That's just another way of saying "thanks for the free advertisement".

The point never is, nor ever was money, for Moore.

He wants to reach as many people as possible.

 

Why do I get the feeling that if the Bible said that it was an abomination for males to have a penis past the age of 30, you'd cut yours off on your birthday? Or if black people were an abomination you'd be first in line at the gun store?

Homosexuals exist - get over yourself.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-31-moore_x.htm

September 1st, 2004 10:14 am
The Ebert and McCain show - by Michael Moore

By Michael Moore / USA Today

NEW YORK — Poor John McCain.

Here's a guy I've always sort of liked, a courageous war hero reduced to carrying water for the Bush campaign. (Related stories: Moore index page)

So it was Monday night, as I sat in the press section — unbeknownst to Sen. McCain — when he switched from pro-war convention speaker to film critic. Out of nowhere, he began to attack my movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, calling me a "disingenuous filmmaker." The problem is, he hasn't seen the movie, a fact he later admitted to Chris Matthews on MSNBC.

I know Republicans are mad that my film may have convinced just enough people to tip the balance in this election. Yet with all the serious issues facing our country, and right smack in the middle of an important speech about the need to catch the terrorists and continue the war in Iraq, McCain decided to turn the convention into the Ebert and McCain Show. He claimed that I portrayed Saddam's Iraq as an "oasis of peace."

Some of the 20 million who have seen the film must have wondered, "Did I miss that scene? I knew I shouldn't have gone out for those Goobers." All I can imagine McCain was referring to was a brief cutaway just as President Bush announces the commencement of the bombing of Baghdad on March 19, 2003.

Human-rights groups say thousands of civilians were killed because of our bombing. I thought it would be worthwhile to show some of the faces of Iraqi people who might soon meet their death.

I felt really bad for McCain standing there on the stage. The man wanted to be president. That dream was snuffed out during the 2000 primaries, when George W. Bush's supporters spread nasty rumors about what five and a half years in a North Vietnamese POW camp might have done to McCain's sanity.

Then there were the calls to potential white voters in South Carolina to inform them that McCain had a "black baby." (He and his wife adopted a child from Bangladesh.) The Bush supporters also spread other rumors that questioned McCain's patriotism, even though the man was a decorated war hero while W. chose to oh, let's not get into that again.

Still, McCain has offered to soldier on for Bush. So how does Bush's campaign treat him? It doesn't tell him I might be in the press section, officially credentialed.

It has him say some gibberish about my movie. Everyone then sees me, I start laughing my ball cap off, the crowd goes bananas, and poor McCain must think he said something funny or cool, so he says, "That line was so good, I'll use it again."

Agghh!

Thousands of Republicans turned to me chanting "Four more years." I thought, "That's strange, Republicans are usually good at math, but they're off by a few dozen months. Bush only has two months left." So I held up two fingers to correct their miscalculation. But that just drove them into more of a frenzy.

If you have never had this happen to you, I insist you try it at least once in your life. It is better than an angry mosh pit at a Slayer concert. As a quiet salute to Beavis and Butthead, I held up my index finger and thumb in an "L" — the international sign for loser — which is what I hope their candidate is about to become.

As for McCain, he had to beg the mob to be silent and listen to the rest of his speech. He must have wondered why a party that promises to protect us from terrorists booed my name more loudly than Saddam's or Osama's. Actually, no one mentioned the "O" name Monday night because, well, that would acknowledge that they have failed to find him.

Perhaps that is why Bush told Today anchor Matt Lauer that we can't win the war against terrorism. Perhaps that is why they were more mad at me than the bad guys. I'm much easier to remove.

Maybe I'll call up McCain and treat him to a movie down the block, one I know he will enjoy, considering he agreed that I was right when Chris Matthews said a main point of my movie is that "war is often fought by people without power."

If he will join me at the movies, he'll see brave soldiers like himself face the camera and tell the truth to the American people about what is going on in a place called Iraq.