Has anyone found any proof that Michael Moore's claims about Bush are not accurate?
542454
There's a movie and a book that someone put out called FARENHYPE911 and that is supposed to specifically address the alegations. I think most of them ended up being misconstrued, misrepresented or exaggerated.
1006681
Honey, I hate to tell you, but this "evidence" that 9/11 was an "inside job" was already disproven.  Don't you think that the news media would love to release it if it was so?  After all, they already had to admit that there was no actual "wire-tapping" and that the "leak" was actually the disclosure of declassified information.  It's like every time an allegation comes up, it's disproved, so they have to come up with something else.  They'd love to jump on the conspiracy theory bandwagon.  911truth.org is LIES.  So is Loose Change.  So is letsroll911.org.  The .org at the end of their names means nothing.\nMy proof?  A 100 year old magazine, with no political affiliation.  Go to www.popularmechanics.com, and search for the story about debunking the 9/11 myths.  They have actual testimony from witnesses, firemen, police officers, and scientists who studied exactly how and why those buildings came down.  \nPlease, please, please research this more thoroughly.  I've seen all those sites, I've seen the "evidence", I've watched their "documentaries".  I found them to be about as true as Fahrenheit 9/11, which Michael Moore himself admitted was mostly lies.  The rest was a distorted brand of truth and misquotes, and things taken out of context.
471937
You have no basis for your argument.  It's the same usual Anti-Bush rhetoric I see all the time.  If you could back your opinions with facts-remember those?-I might be inclined to give you some credit.
857986
yes\n\nhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
933055
No. Because none of those things are true. There is solid evidence behind the claims of those who do not agree with the government's conspiracy theory about 19 Arab hijackers.
1175548
I think there are lies, damn lies and statistics.\n\nIf it is accurate as you claim, what's with all the contradictions?
481426
This is a fair question to ask. If Bush bases his personal integrity around his religious beliefs, then acting in a duplicitous way casts both him and his beliefs in a very negative light. This then becomes a political issue.\n\nBut, does anyone seriously believe Bush?
387125
So many douches so little time...\n\nI have to laugh at the votes for Michael Moore - don't ya'll do *any* research at all?  If you did, you'd know that UNlike O'LIEly and Inshanity, (sorry couldn't resist) Moore has *your* best interests at heart AND his material is based in fact, not whitebread/fascist/racist fantasy...\n\nBut since you are asking about douche bags, surely you meant to include the women?  Ann Coulter and Michelle what's her name...?Malkin - try out to out-douche each other all the time.\n\nIn a way, you can't blame these HIGHLY PAID BABYSITTERS FOR THE RIGHT:  All they have to do is spout what these zealots want to hear and the networks will pay them nicely for getting the 'bots to tune in - and consume, consume, consume...
268522
Anybody have any proof....one way or the other?
171022
I don't believe anything that moron says. Best way to tell if Bush is lying is if his lips are moving.
1125982
Lies like "Bush lied about WMD" which has been told for years now?
805855
No! He had no evidence for his Ton's of saran gas, or anything else, as Hans Blix told the UN in his report, in which Bush had 8,000 pages removed! Love to see those 8,000 pages!\n\nThe Blockade and Clinton's Operation Desert Fox, plus the UN, did a number on Hussein! He would never admit to other countries he was weak!\n\nThere is plenty of proof they weren't there and proof that Bush lied at the SOU! He knew that the report given by the British regarding nuclear weapons was a forgery, yet lied to America about it!\n\nI have yet te see any proof they were there!
452968
you better turn your question to get real answers..\nDoes anyone know the amount of (true) Bush has told and the names of those telling him to tell the (truth)?
1145500
i heard about this\n\na couple of days ago it was weird like 3 or 4 post came in just like this one "why won't liberals believe the truth about WMD's" and the like.\n\nApparently on fox Sen. R. Santorum went on and made these funny yet completely wrong claims that they found WMD's.\nWhat gets funnier is that Fox made a big deal about it, like a exclusive or special report.\n\nUnfortnatley, it was all not only misleading but desprate and sad.\n\nFor example the person posting this claims "500 WMD's" \nWTF right?   But they are not Nuclear or atomic or but canasters of musturd gas aquired before  1991. These are what would be and are considered convential weapons, note by the way they weren't used because they didn't work.\n\nWhat is also sad is the way the person phrased his statement "recently declassified"\nTo the average bumkin or tourist he could get away with lying like that.  but  March 2005 is more than a year ago.\n\nThe weapons we not usable. Deulfer had reported on these and still concluded in his final report that there were no WMD's\n\n\nThe dishonesty of the poster is pathetic because clearly these cansiter are not the reason our brave men and women in uniform have died.\n\nSecondly the presdient wasn't referring to cansiters of convenital weapons when making his case.\n\nThird the white house would have gloted had they found legitimate WMD.\n\nFourth Colin Powell is on record saying the UN speech was a sham.\n\nFifth, other than fox news, no legitmate news source will say this. \n\nhttp://mediamatters.org/items/200606230008\n\n Most uniformed, and gulible people,  "continue to ignore conclusive assertions of intelligence officials that the degraded chemical munitions found were not, in fact, in the category of "weapons of mass destruction" that the U.S. was looking for at the time of the invasion. They also ignore the Iraq Survey Group's (ISG) September 2004 final report (also known as the Duelfer report), which noted that degraded chemical munitions had already been found in Iraq, and that they were not proof of an existing chemical weapons stockpile or of a renewed Iraqi chemical weapons program. Indeed, former ISG head Charles Duelfer stated that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra do not qualify as weapons of mass destruction, though they may still pose a local threat.\n\n\nMaybe next time right..\n\nPS Democrats were decieved into voting for the war, the white house present information contested by the CIA as fact...\ngo here truth seekers..\nhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/
19381
here is a site with some of bush's lies http://bushwatch.org/bushlies.htm
519211
That's what Michael Moore told me.. So, it must be true, right? \n\nRight...?\n\nGuys...?
275297
For those who still say Bushy is not lying:\n\nIn the Bush administration "the negation of truth is so systematic. Dishonest accounting, willful scientific illiteracy, bowdlerized federal fact sheets, payola paid to putative journalists, 'news' networks run by right-wing apparatchiks, think tanks devoted to propaganda rather than thought, the purging of intelligence gatherers and experts throughout the bureaucracy whose findings might refute the party line -- this is the machinery of mendacity...The point here is not the hypocrisy involved, though that is egregious. The point is the downgrading of truth and honesty from principles with universal meaning to partisan weapons to be sheathed or drawn as necessary. No wonder the Bush administration feels no compunction to honor the truth or seek it; it conceives truth as a tactic, valuable only insofar as it is useful against one's enemies.\n\nBush Lies In State Of The Union Speech\n\nBush: "By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt."\n\nIn what the BBC calls "highly unusual," a State of the Union Speech was interrupted by a chorus of "No's," booing, and heckles from some of the members of Congress in attendance. This happened immediately after the above Bush lie. As Shields mentioned on the PBS wrap-up, and as Brooks concurred, if adjustments are not made, by 2042, as they have been made before, 3/4 of the funds promised would still be available. The entire system would neither be exhausted nor bankrupt. -- Politex, 02.03.05\n\n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n29 Bush Lies About Iraqi WMD\n\nbush lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... not lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... \nBush Lied About Lots Of Things\n\nSure Did. Here's Even More\n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\nToday's Bush Lie\n"[Castro] welcomes sex tourism," Bush told a room of law enforcement officials in Florida, according to the Los Angeles Times. "Here's how he bragged about the industry," Bush said. "This is his quote: 'Cuba has the cleanest and most educated prostitutes in the world.'"\n\n"As it turns out, Bush had lifted that quotation not from an actual Castro speech but rather from a 2001 essay written by then Dartmouth University undergraduate Charles Trumbull. In the essay, Trumbull did appear to quote a Castro speech about prostitution. Sadly, the student made the quotation up.\n\n"According to officials, the actual quotation from Castro's 1992 speech reads as follows: 'There are hookers, but prostitution is not allowed in our country. There are no women forced to sell themselves to a man, to a foreigner, to a tourist. Those who do so do it on their own, voluntarily. We can say that they are highly educated hookers and quite healthy, because we are the country with the lowest number of AIDS cases.'"\n\n"...And this isn't the first time the Internet has baffled Bush. Back in 2003, the President cited another student's thesis when making a case to go to war. The student's [plagiarized and "sexed up"] work ended up in a government document describing Iraq's weapons capability. Not exactly the kind of hard intelligence needed to justify an attack on another country." The Register, 07.28.04\n\n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n10 Minute Rice: Three Lies And No Apology\n\nCondi Rice, Bush's National Security Adviser, appeared on 60 Minutes Sunday evening, but, unlike Bush anti-terrorism adviser Dick Clarke at the 9/11 Probe, she did not swear on the Bible that what she would say would be the truth. While Clarke on 60 M