You just don forget shot like that! lol

None have them have stopped the rise of fascism in this country. If someone were to write a book describing America today and bring it back to the 80s presenting it as fiction, they'd say it was an even more thinly veiled allegory for WWII than V was. Right down to the burning of the Reichstag and the enabling act. I love Cygnus' examples though since they carefully point out that we use to defend people who were invaded. Too bad that he seems to miss the irony that we're the ones doing the invading this time over ... hmmm, what was it again? The reason use to change every month. Life is far, far worse there now then it ever was under Sadaam. But I do strongly agree that any country that allows torture is evil. This time it was Cotton who was totally clueless on the irony of his statement. And god know our politicians don't do anything to deprive us while they live in their tiny little shacks.

That being said, I loved V as a kid. They would need to grow it up a bit. But as much as I loved it back then, I'm just sick to death of Hollywood, stuck in recycle mode. Where's the free market? Where are the upstarts taking advantage of Hollywood's creative malaise? I mean, my god, I'd pay really good money for something new and innovative. Is it just that Hollywood has become so institutionalized and weighed down by nepotism, or has America as a whole lost it's ability to invent? Whatever, I guess I'll give it a shot, realize it sucks and then move on. If I'm lucky I'll hear how much it sucks before I even give it a shot, ala Flash Gordon.

Jane Badler in her tight red jumpsuit was teh hot back in the day!

No remakes! Just turn it into a sequel, please.

WAG THE DOG

yeah, i know, not a very popular film but it did do just what was suggested. it took clinton to task for bombing a country, seemingly to distract people from his getting a hummer on the job. only, like i said, it didn't bother with allegory or analogy, it just cut right to the point.

personally, i find that to be the rule of thumb with politicaly motivated entertainment. when they want to attack the republicants they use allegory. because they figure if they are "clever" enough with the allegory they might change some hearts and minds with the story. (yeah, i know, fat chance.)

but on the flip side when they want to attack democrats they don't bother with the analogy because......well, i'm not really sure..... i would guess it has something to do with not wanting anyone to miss the point when the democrats actually ARE taken to task. ah the irony, since it appears "wag the dog" is all but forgotten but the (rumored) remake of the mini-series "V" (of all things) deserves peoples ire. even though no one really knows if it will actually BE an allegory for the war in iraq. lol

and before anyone gets their american flag panties in a twist, i only make the point to be "fair and balanced". because, in the end, i really don't think either political party is any better than the other. and the thing is, when *I* say that, *I* actually MEAN it.

Even moron Bush admits that now.

The rest of the bleating in defense of the worst foreign policy debacle in US history is not worth response.

The real reasons are right in front of your face, free of smokescreen. Read the Project For A New American Century papers, as authored by the NeoCons and signed by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush and a slew of senior White House staffers. And watch the documentary CRUDE AWAKENING.

We went into Iraq:

- To secure future oil supplies from the world's 2nd largest reserve

- To occupy Iraq and act as a buffer for Israel from a nuclear Iran

- To establish the U.S. as the predominent military force in the world to ensure our economic might

Iraq and Afghanistan were just two of several intended enterprises to establish the "American Century". Another was the failed coup in Venezuela to secure yet another friendly oil source. Unfortunately, these were severe miscalculations on the NeoCons' part.

Israel would have been better served by a Liberal government willing to talk to the Palestinians, with strong American backing. A truce/peace with Palestine would sideline Iran in the region as it relies most heavily on the conflict to sustain its relevance in foreign policy in the Middle East.

If Gore were President, he would have likely shifted our national energy strategy towards renewable sources and away from fossil fuels. 7 years into the 21st century, and Bush has done a lot of damage by having us depend ever more on foreign oil for our economy. 7 years of potential R&D gone down the toilet. He and the oil industry thought they could control Iraq's oil and profit from the impending and inevitable shortage like no one has ever banked on oil in human history.

So if anyone thinks George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had gone into Iraq because of some benevolent moral compass, kindly wake the fuck up.

There was a frigging UN mandate that the UK led. I assure you we (the UK) wernt bombing Milosovitch to get Clinton of the hook, lol. Oh, and they managed to blow-up the Chinese embassy so your aim hasnt improved much. The imgornace and naivety of some of you when discussing party politics is frightening. BSB and Modlight, if you cant disciminate between what you want your politiacl opponants to have done, and what ACTUALLY did do, then you are the worse kind of dumb sheep - the kind that blindly accepts everything your leaders do, becuase he's on your side. (see Germany 1930's).

Dumb fucks, lol!

I noticed you imbeciles didn't even bother to address my points about the impending oil crisis. I suppose ignorance can be a warm, comforting blanket.

And I really don't care to debate any of you on how much you hate Al Gore. The man has done nothing but try to better our nation and world, done the complete opposite that Bush did, and that's how he's earned the ire of the retarded Right. Sweet. But I'll say this about him and 9/11. I don't know if he could have prevented 9/11 completely, I'm not a fucking soothsayer, Redshirt. But I know that in a Gore Administration, he would not have deliberately shut out the warnings about an air-based attack, and he was not in league with NeoCons whose grand scheme to reshape the world required an event like 9/11 - in their own words: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor".

I doubt any of you would ever download and read the PNAC papers. I also doubt any of you would research peak oil production and its impact on our global politics and the strategy we need to survive a near future oil crisis. You'd rather dwell on how much you hate the Left and make Gore your bogeyman. So pathetic.

And that's a reason to invade another country and sacrifice 3,000 American lives? When did global politics take on schoolyard mentality?

Despite your regurgitation of the tired right-wing talking points, it was oil, Israel and NeoCon hegemony that were the real reasons for invading Iraq. You don't have to believe me now, just wait until gas hits $20 a gallon.

How is this the case?

A humble suggestion -- Why not just have a weekly "Anti-BUSH tirade TB vol MCMLXXVI" and keep the other articles clean of the political bullshit? At least for the most part as some articles are inherently political (ex: Syriana, Why We Fight, Loose Change, Not Another Liberal Psycho Bullshit Movie, etc). This way, the folks that want to discuss what should be the intent of your article can do so without being drowned out by the masses that took your unnecessary bait.

Effectiveness, on the other hand, is questionable. I respectfully disagree with you that the political bent of this site's talkbackers is evenly distributed... I'm one of what I consider to be the minority here, and I feel that my political opinions would have about the effectiveness of a flea fart in a wind tunnel. I just don't see much use in arguing over it.

And yet, what makes you so certain that we are suspended in fear by the administration exclusively and not the mainstream media's need for ever increasing ratings and circulation? Or at least some combination betwixt the two, or perhaps even inclusive of other elements to lengthy to mention in this space? It all boils down to what is in our wallets.

Ultimately, it's silly to accuse others of maintaining a narrow view by countering with an equally narrow view.