It's too bad you're no longer at CNN. The network could use a guy like you, fighting to keep it balanced.

I don't think you understand the role of the media in a democracy. It is to scrutinize, not to support.

Well that is what this film is, the pretending, the acting out of a discussion the filmmakers dream of having and winning

when a review starts off with a list of suggested reading, it's too easy to dismiss it as something written by some sophomoric poli-sci major. unfortunately, the rest of the review didn't do anything to shake this first impression.

This is no way to have a discussion. It's a way to start a food fight.

To the person who said there are no Neocons saying Saddam was behind 9/11, maybe not anymore, but there sure were before the curtain fell exposing the lies. It's all on video and in print. But now they're saying, Gotta finish the job, have to defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq (even though they weren't there until we invaded), Support the Troops (by marching them back for a fifth tour), blah blah blah.

The only proper way to start solving our problems is regime change--in the USA. Impeach Bush, Cheney, Rice, and prosecute them and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and others for treason and war crimes. But since the new Congress is full of cowards, we're stuck with the leadership we have. And since most of the citizens of this country only become outraged when someone cuts off their cable TV, you can forget about a popular uprising or people power righting our floundering country.

And THAT is where we are, in a fascist country that tortures, disappears people, and spies illegally on its own citizens.

So, since this is no longer a country of laws, what is it that those soldiers are dying for? Profits. Not liberty, not democracy. Profits. Share holders. It's not just power; money is a huge part of this war on terror. Ask Halliburton and Blackwater. Privately contracted soldiers? I thought we had an all-volunteer military? So if there are ten of thousands of mercenaries fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, how does our leadership get away with saying we have an all-volunteer military? There are goon squads paid for by US taxpayers running amok and yet we still have a volunteer military, and no need for a draft. It's s scam. And the Constitution has been shredded in the process.

Free country? Not his one.

need your help

As for world of warcraft players, the South Park episode on WoW pretty accurately portrayed them. I've tried using the internet during travels in internet cafes surrounded by WoW players, and it was like Eric Cartman from that episode had been cloned.

This contempt for the masses doesn't surprise me at all from a former "journalist" but it has nothing to do with a review, it would be like Old Fart Ebert laughing at us cause we actually PAY our movie tickets...

Blasting Crash (which I never saw) or Warcaft (to which I never played) or Bush (never voted for this POS) is really a cheap shot, poor provocation destined to raise hell with gamers or neocons or Haggis fans, but doesn't add anything remotely relevant to - unless further notice - what is supposed to be a MOVIE REVIEW. Give me a Moriarty or Merrick review anytime. Not a jaded insider's cheap sarcasm.

Also, I couldn't find "The Money Masters" on IMDb... Are you sure of the title?

Why the Bush administration scrapped this report is beyond me.

You'll wake up one day, after we attacked Iran, and the govt declares martial law, and realize, Oh shit, this is fucked up. And you know what? That's when the ability to go to places like AICN to bitch about movies will be shut down.

You can ridicule the left all you want, but the facts are simple and in front of you. Denial is powerful.

Reminds me of all the right-wing douche bags militias running for the woods when Bill Clinton was President. Clinton was going to take our rights aways, send in the ATF to take our guns aways, turn the country over to the UN and China. Ruby Ridge and Waco is just the start. Wait and see, if you don't believe it your in denial and refuse to see the facts. Blah, Blah, Blah..

At least the right wing extremists would go and hide in the woods waiting for end times so I didn't to hear their crack pot shit. The Lefty loons seem to control the internet so I can't seem to escape their ranting.

If it were 1/10th as bad as the myopic idiots in Hollywood believe it was, the dumpster of films trashing Bush/Chaney and their campaign against Islamic terrorists would never have been made in the first place. The very fact that such films ARE made freely and without government intervention simply prove how far up their respective anuses the heads of the "Hollywood elite" truly are. As a Democrat, even I'm sick of their crap.

Our occupation of Iraq fit squarely in the NeoCon Zionist design to position the U.S. as a buffer between Iran and Israel. Look at the map. That - and oil - are why we're there. Democracy? In your dreams.

As to DocWho - Ahmedinejad does not control Iran and certainly not its military. The mullahs ultimately have the final say, and Iran is NOT going to attack Israel. The country is in an economic doldrum, its citizenry are more interested in inflation than a jihad. Think a little, and research the facts, before you fall prey to the Zionist talking points.

Israel recently, for the second time in two years, attacked another country - Syria (the other being Lebanon). Israel is acting like a paranoid, and that's fucking dangerous. What needs to happen is a two-state solution needs to be implemented, with guarantees of security for BOTH Israel and Palestine granted by UN resolution, with ONLY the UN allowed to enforce it. The US needs to establish equal and fair diplomatic relations with the entire Middle East in order to secure oil trade and peace.

Sure, there are Arab fanatics who would try to derail this. But they're there now, and there are equally fanatical Zionists who want and desire an endless war. But the US needs to pull the fuck out and if that's what they want, let them do it on their own.

or in tinyurl ...

http://tinyurl.com/22jdbz

I agree with you that a moderate Iran is in everyone's best interest, including the Iranians. No one wants a war, especially the Persians. During Ahmedinejad's visit, I posted about how he, in fact, is very liberal. He pushed through several measures (since vetoed by the mullahs) that supported women's rights. And that's one point I'm making. The Zionists have attempted to paint Ahmedinejad with the "demon' brush but that didn't hold water. Now they're looking for any reason, no matter how baseless, to incite Bush to attack Iran. I have no doubt that the recent incusion by Israel in Syria was a signal to the US that a surgical strike was possible. Syria hasn't responded yet. But any strike by the US in Iran will be devastating. Our soldiers will be targeted like never before in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Make no mistake: our future will be determined by what Bush does before he leaves office. And what he will do is highly influenced by the Zionists. With regard to the Seymour Hersh article I cited, I leave you with this quote: "Many of those who support the President’s policy argue that Iran poses an imminent threat. In a recent essay in Commentary, Norman Podhoretz depicted President Ahmadinejad as a revolutionary, “like Hitler . . . whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it . . . with a new order dominated by Iran. . . . [T]he plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force.” Podhoretz concluded, “I pray with all my heart” that President Bush “will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel.” Podhoretz recently told politico.com that he had met with the President for about forty-five minutes to urge him to take military action against Iran, and believed that “Bush is going to hit” Iran before leaving office. (Podhoretz, one of the founders of neoconservatism, is a strong backer of Rudolph Giuliani’s Presidential campaign, and his son-in-law, Elliott Abrams, is a senior adviser to President Bush on national security.) "

I oftentimes find it funny how some of the rightwing talkbackers (not you) claim to be NeoCons themselves, when they have no fucking clue what it means. They're the perfect sheep to lead to the slaughter, because all they do is follow Fox. Useful idiots.

;^)

You, on the other hand, are an embarrassment to Humanity. I don't know what cess pool you crawled out of or what amoeba you ate to become a two-celled piece of shit but...please...STOP.

Stop speaking on behalf of the US or, for that matter, the rest of mankind in general.

Thanks.

I think you need to understand the distinction between Zionism and Judaism. To be Anti-Zionist is not to be "Anti-Semitic" or, in the case of Jews, to be "Self-Hating". And that's where I'm coming from. Ahmedinejad is not Hitler, no matter what that idiot AnimalStructure says. Persians do not want to destroy Jews nor do they even care to take over the country next door, let alone attack Israel. They just want their economy restored. They want jobs and an end to their rampant inflation.

Once you understand Zionism, and how destructive it is for Jews at large, and Israel in particular, you'll understand what I'm saying. DocWho and I have had our past differences over Middle East issues, but even he understands me in this regard.

And to AnimalStructure: I don't support Ahmedinejad en total. But I have to say two important things about him:

He is not Hitler and Iran is not Nazi Germany. The rhetoric painting them as such is designed by the Zionists to stoke anti-Iranian hatred and beat the drums for an unwarranted attack on that country.

I recognize that, despite some egregious actions by the Iranian government, they are not nearly as bad as the Taliban, or even Pakistan. Ahmedinejad, in the midst of a rising tide of Islamism, is indeed an educated moderate who has supported women's rights. We have to support moderation in the Islamic world anywhere we find it, and you are too blind to recognize it in Ahmedinejad because you're so brainwashed by the NeoCon talking points. Your arguments are embarassingly thin and baseless. To call Liberals sexist and homophobic when the Republicans have done everything they can to curb the rights of women and homosexuals is laughably inane. But I can't even blame you. You're just uninformed and ignorant, and don't even have the capacity to inject logic in your arguments. Maybe your mother didn't give you enough vitamins when you're a baby. Who knows.

Seriously, though. Some Islamist can post a link to a profile about Chester Arthur Stiles and say that all Americans are child molestors. Doesn't make it true. And how does Ahmedinejad have anything to do with the dress code? That's something the mullahs devised, not him. He supports more freedoms, especially ACADEMIC (which is extremely rare among the more radical factions of Islam) freedoms and opportunities for women. Again, you're totally spellbound by the Zionist-created persona they've assigned to Ahmedinejad.

And does Iran having a dress code mean the U.S. should bomb the country? I don't get your argument at all.

In Iran, women comprise 65% of the university population. Women are elected to and are active in Parliament. Women have the right to vote. Try finding these rights in the majority of other Muslim nations.

Iran still has a long way to progress in human rights, but so does every other country on the planet. No country is nearly perfect in that regard, except perhaps Monaco. But that's a monarchy, not even a democracy. And look at what happened in Pakistan yesterday. Talk about a country going backwards. Pervez Musharraf, though not evidently responsible for the attempted assassination of Bhutto, is far more of the dictatorial ruler than the Zionists make Ahmedinejad to be, and he has nuclear capability. The only reason no one is beating the drums for war against Pakistan is because Israel doesn't deem them to be an enemy, so neither do her lapdogs in Washington. There is no possibly legitimate basis to support an unwarranted attack on Iran. Period.

But I think you guessed that already.

There is a difference between "supporting" Ahmedinejad, and acknowledging the fact that he is not Hitler. Not even close, not by a long shot.

Beyond that, I suggest you re-read my last few posts and come back to me with an intelligent rebuttal instead of your standard insult-laden talking points post. Your inability to debate point-by-point doesn't entitle you to a decent response.