Oliver Stone Blasts Bush

[ocelot]

Filmmaker Oliver Stone blasts Bush for having 'set America back 10 years'

28 Sep, 9:42 PM

SAN SEBASTIAN, Spain (AP) - Filmmaker Oliver Stone blasted U.S. President George W. Bush Thursday, saying he has "set America back 10 years."

Stone added that he is "ashamed for my country" over the war in Iraq and the U.S. policies in response to the attacks of Sept. 11.

"We have destroyed the world in the name of security," Stone told journalists at the San Sebastian International Film Festival prior to a screening of his latest movie, "World Trade Center." The film tells the true story of the survival and rescue of two policemen who were trapped in the rubble of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, after they went to help people escape.

"From Sept. 12 on, the incident (the attacks) was politicized and it has polarized the entire world," said Stone. "It is a shame because it is a waste of energy to see that the entire world five years later is still convulsed in the grip of 9-11."

"It's a waste of energy away from things that do matter which is poverty, death, disease, the planet itself and fixing things in our own homes rather than fighting wars with others. Mr. Bush has set America back 10 years, maybe more."

The director of blockbusters such as "Platoon," and "JFK" said the U.S. reaction to the attacks was out of proportion.

"If there had been a better sense of preparation, if we had a leadership that was more mature," he said. "We did not fight back in the same way that the British fought the IRA or the Spanish government fought the Basques here. Terrorism is a manageable action. It can be lived with," said Stone.

Stone rejected allegations that U.S. authorities may have known about the attacks in advance and said the real conspiracy came after.

"I think that conspiracy-mongering on 9-11 is a waste of time," he said. "The far greater conspiracy occurred after 9-11 when basically a neo-cabal inside our government hijacked policy and went to war. That was as broad a conspiracy as we can get and it was about 20, 30 people. That's all, they took over and all these books are coming out and they are pointing it out," said Stone.

"This war on Iraq is a disaster. I'm disgraced. I'm ashamed for my country," he said. "I'm also ashamed that America has attacked itself with its constitutional breakdowns. I'm deeply ashamed."

In the United States' favour, Stone posited that it's not responsible for all the world's problems.

"You can't see that the United States is responsible for all the evil in the world because you can see so many dictators and so many bestial acts all over the world now. . . . There is something in the human heart, the international human heart, that is evil," said Stone.

"That's the evil that turns its mind and ears on humanity and is able to say 'I can kill a person in the name of God or religion.' This is not a human being, this a fanatic. And I fear that fanaticism is the result of our overreaction to 9-11," said Stone.

[ocelot]

I think this article will be a great starter for some great discussion, because he's said some things that I agree with and on others I feel that he's gone too far.

[achebeautiful]

Okay, I agree that it would make some great discussion. I always appreciate your views even though I don't always agree. You are a very thoughtful and intelligent person, and I know you care about the world we live in and what is best for all. So let's discuss!

Let me just start by stating two things that I find interesting. One, it's great that Oliver Stone lives in the liberty of the free western world to be able to share his opinion without the threat of having his tongue cut out or being killed. We're not at all "set back ten years" in that regard.

Second, Oliver Stone has a reputation for rewriting history with his films by fictionalizing true stories. So it's interesting to me that his opinion would be regarded with much credibility.

As far as the article goes, I would like to allow others to chime in before I share my thoughts about it. I promise to respect everyone's views. I have a lot of them myself!

[ocelot]

I think that the "fear" of terrorist attacks have set back North America in the way of freedom. Soon people will need a passport to cross the border between Canada and the US. This was never even thought about before 9/11 and I don't really see the need to make people have passports if they are visiting an attraction across the border for a day. I just don't understand why all these new laws that are erasing privacy and preventing us from living free are necessary.

"It's a waste of energy away from things that do matter which is poverty, death, disease, the planet itself and fixing things in our own homes rather than fighting wars with others. Mr. Bush has set America back 10 years, maybe more."

I'm not sure I would say that everything the US is, was set back but the country is not the same free country that it used to be. To me the freedom that was sacrificed in order to prevent future terrorist attacks is too much. The thing that really saddens me is that people are ignoring the issues that have always been there (poverty, disease, environment, issues in our communities). We are always talking about the war in Iraq that there are so many victims of the war that are nowhere near Iraq.

"You can't see that the United States is responsible for all the evil in the world because you can see so many dictators and so many bestial acts all over the world now. . . . There is something in the human heart, the international human heart, that is evil," said Stone.

I absolutely agree that it starts in the heart, but it's also in the brain. We need to think and plan before we take huge actions like the war in Iraq. I believe that there was not enough planning for Iraq. We can't decide to attack someone (a country) and not fully consider what at worst could happen and what we would do if that actually happened.

I think that the US is not doing enough to stop terrorism because they are going at it from the wrong direction. If you want to kill a tree you don't kill it by slowly taking off each of it's leaves because the tree will grow new ones before you can deprive it of all it's leaves. You kill it at its root because if the tree can't get the water and nutrients from the soil it will die. So why is the US picking the leaves off and not putting very much effort into stopping it at the root. It's not being friends with the presidents of the Middle Eastern countries that are going to solve it, but showing the common person who might be convinced to become a terrorist that the US cares about them.

I'll probably have more to say about this later.

[achebeautiful]

First of all Leona, thank you for starting such a great discussion. I think it is a very good exercise for all of us to share our opinions about such an important subject.

Let me respond to what you have stated, with the hope of getting your response to my observations as well. Hopefully others will join us in this discussion.

You say:

I think that the "fear" of terrorist attacks have set back North America in the way of freedom. Soon people will need a passport to cross the border between Canada and the US. This was never even thought about before 9/11 and I don't really see the need to make people have passports if they are visiting an attraction across the border for a day. I just don't understand why all these new laws that are erasing privacy and preventing us from living free are necessary.

I do not at all think that our freedom is set back in any way. If I want to talk to you on the phone, I can call you. If I want to visit you in Canada, I can do so. Likewise, you can do the same. Yes things are different since 9/11, as they should be. To continue to do nothing after such an act would only bring on more of it.

I do not believe that our freedom is threatened at all. Rather, it is our safety that is being threatened. Measures have to be taken to ensure that we are all safe.

I am not willing to sacrifice freedom in the face of terrorism, but I am willing to make sacrifices in order to ensure the greatest possible safety to all. Getting a passport to enter the country does not deny you of any freedom, and is not an invasion of your privacy. It is a safeguard for all of us.

Let me ask you a question: in the sports world there is an increasing concern over banned substances and illegal drug use to enhance performance. This would certainly make it unfair to compete against those who do not use these substances. To address the situation, sports organizations are more and more increasing the number of drug testing they do on athletes. Here's my question: do you think that these measures are taking freedom away from the athletes, and that it is an invasion of their privacy? Or do you believe that it is the right thing to do under the current cicumstances?

Things are certainly different since 9/11. I'm glad for that. There is a saying:

"Intellectuals solve problems
Geniuses prevent them"

I want people who are leading us to do everything in their power to prevent attacks on our safety and well-being. I do not want to wait until the enemy strikes again to find solutions to what happened.

Leona, you start off by stating:

I think that the "fear" of terrorist attacks have set back North America in the way of freedom.

There are a number of "fears" out there, but mainly two that I see as a possibility in this fight. One is the cooked up fears that media types and politicians use to scare people against their opponents.

But there is also a fear that is based on reality, and the reality of it is that there actually are people out there who are bent on our destruction. That fear must address the situation, or else we will continue to live in danger.

Now, I want to address one more comment that you made and then I will be finished for now.

"It's a waste of energy away from things that do matter which is poverty, death, disease, the planet itself and fixing things in our own homes rather than fighting wars with others. Mr. Bush has set America back 10 years, maybe more."

To that, Leona, you comment:

"I'm not sure I would say that everything the US is, was set back but the country is not the same free country that it used to be. To me the freedom that was sacrificed in order to prevent future terrorist attacks is too much. The thing that really saddens me is that people are ignoring the issues that have always been there (poverty, disease, environment, issues in our communities). We are always talking about the war in Iraq that there are so many victims of the war that are nowhere near Iraq."

This is what strikes me as interesting about this. Take an Atlas of the world and lay it out. Now take a pin and place it on all the areas of the world that are living in poverty. Look at where you have placed the pins. What do you see? It's not in the free world where poverty, disease and death are a problem. It's in countries that are ruled by those who are oppressing their own people.

Why is it that the people of Iraq didn't have running water in Baghdad, while Saddam Heussein had a pure gold toilet in his bathroom?

People who live in freedom do struggle from time to time, but people who do not live in freedom often (if not always) starve and suffer.

The devil has been crying this song for a long time. He did it through the disciples when expensive perfume was poured on Jesus' feet too. But what Jesus responded then is true even today.

I believe that in fighting this war we are not only defeating our enemies who want us dead, but also giving hope to oppressed people and a chance to thrive one day where now they are currently suffering. To me, that is a war worth fighting.

I too will have more to share about this.

[lapayin]

Here are my thoughts - again just my opinion. I do agree with a lot of what Oliver Stone says. I believe America HAS been "set back 10 years." Here is why.

1) Our relationship with most of the world is at its lowest point in over ten years. We are a global world now especially in economy, tourism and communications. We should be working together to solve the "global" problems that Leona mentioned as "poverty, disease, environment, issues in our communities". I know the work is still going on but our recent actions just make it harder. There was such a beautiful outpouring of support from most of the world in the days after 9/11. It touched my heart so much to watch how different countries paid their respect to the fallen people (and please remember how many people from countries other than the U.S. were killed that day). I work for a global high tech company and the letters we received from our international employees after 9/11 literally made me cry. They were so beautiful, supportive and encouraging. I will never ever forget the feeling I felt then. What happened? Five years later, all that has broken down because of our arrogance. I do not buy the argument, that I hear a lot around here, about how other countries are jealous of America. I believe we couldn’t get Bin Laden so we diverted our failure to Iraq to save a little face and for personal political gain.

2) I believe our freedoms are slowly being infringed upon in the name of security. Now our phones can be tapped - in the name of terrorist security. Mark I agree with you “it's great that Oliver Stone lives in the liberty of the free western world to be able to share his opinion without the threat of having his tongue cut out or being killed”. But because of The Patriot Act, it is easier to "detain" anyone without reason - in the name of terrorist security. The absolutely horrific news coming out of our military prisons makes me sick. I wonder if any of the people convicted of those terrible acts would have gone to jail if their behavior wasn’t leaked to the public. All this in the name of terrorist security. And not related to the war but maybe a result of losing our freedoms are the recent issues with internet companies handing over our internet activity to the government (and others). There is a pattern here. And I do not buy the argument that "I have nothing to hide. Let them do what needs to be done – in the name of national security". Yes we need to take steps to protect ourselves, but in my opinion, not at the expense of our freedoms. They are mutually exclusive. It’s not “this” or “that”, there is a big area in between.

3) America is split in two. This administration has not only set our relationships with the world back ten years but has also set back the American people back ten years. If you do not agree with the war you are unpatriotic. - shades of McCarthyism. If you don’t agree with everything the administration does “you should leave the country” - shades of the Viet Nam war “America love it or leave it”. My theory is, if there is something wrong with America don’t abandon it, you rally together to fix it – that’s patriotism. I am saddened by the American reaction to people/countries who disagree with the administration. The boycott of France, to me, was an embarrassment. The reaction to famous people speaking out against the war, to me, went too far. They do have the “freedom” to say what they feel. And yes people who don’t agree have the “freedom” not to buy their records or go to their movies. To me it sounds silly to boycott everyone you disagree with – shades of the McCoys and Hatfields.
Mark I have to respectfully comment on this statement “Oliver Stone has a reputation for rewriting history with his films by fictionalizing true stories”. To me and this is just my opinion, I appreciate people like Michael Moore and Oliver Stone for having the guts to bring this information to the American people in this current atmosphere. Yes I understand these are Hollywood films and as “many” Hollywood films they may be based on fact but are dramatized to make a point or more money. I may or may not agree with them, but they are a “starter for some great discussion” as Leona stated. There is a dangerous apathy in the U.S. today and a very low tolerance level for being different. And respectful discussion “is” good, as is difference of opinions. To me, that’s how we learn. I believe the American people are smart enough to extract the truth from fiction. Unfortunately we live in a “PR” world.

I believe the U.S. is a great country and is just being taken down the wrong road. We were lied to and the excuses and blame have not stopped yet. Instead of making our leaders, on both sides of the aisle, responsible for their actions we just split and took sides. With time we will hopefully get back to being a respected, tolerant and compassionate people.

Leona I absolutely love your analogy about the tree. Awesome!!

Mark I really respect your views. I know we disagree on some things, but I want you to know that I have learned from our discussions and appreciate them greatly.

I wrote this before some of the posts. I too will have more responses. This post is way too long.

[achebeautiful]

Paula, I have to compliment you, along with Leona, on a very thoughtful and well written posting of your views regarding this topic. While I disagree, I do think the world of both of you. Your observations have been well illustrated and clearly understandable. Both of you have a good mind and heart, and have a great appreciation for the well being of our world.

I fully expected disagreement on this subject from both Paula and Leona. However, it is an important subject and I know that we all have opinions and feelings about it. It's much more important to me to create an atmosphere where we can share our ideas with one another and still remain friends while disagreeing.

No matter how much I disagree I still learn from you.

With all that said, I will post my response to Paula in a little while. I have much to say about this.

Again, thanks to Leona for starting a great discussion!

[achebeautiful]

In order to respond to Paula's post, I will have to break her points down one at a time due to length.

Starting with her first point. I do agree with Paula that our relationship with most of the world is at its lowest point in over ten years. That said, I also believe it is difficult to better relationships with countries that choose to side with our enemies for their own gain. I'm talking about Russia and France, who not only opposed engaging Iraq, but later was found to be selling them military equipment such as night vision goggles. I'm talking about Syria and Iran, who fund and support Hezbollah, an oraganiztion hell bent on wiping Israel off the map. China has us in their sights, and has for some time. President Bush openly stated that he would like to see the people of China more free and less oppressed. If China doesn't like us for it, so be it. If the rest of the world doesn't have the courage to say to these leaders that what they are doing to their people is wrong, then I doubt they are going to have the courage to like Bush very much. Name one other leader of a country besides the now leaving Tony Blair who ever said anything critical of any oppressive regime in the last five to ten years. The United Nations has been useless and ineffective, causing countries to solve their issues alone.

I believe we should be working on 'global' issues as well, such as poverty, disease, environment, and issues in our communities, but not at the expense of defending ourselves against those who attack us. Paula, you say that our recent actions make it harder. I agree with you that it does.

The problem of poverty, disease, environment, and issues within our communities are not being sacrificed. Much work continues to be done in that regard. The United States is not to blame for all the ills of the world. And just how can we work together to solve these isues with those who want to see our destruction? Are you suggesting that if we improve our image with these countries that they will come to like us? Besides, in order to solve the problem of much of the world's poverty and disease, oppressive reigimes will have to be removed.

I agree with you that other countries are not jealous of us. Rather, like yourself, I believe they see us as arrogant. I disagree. For the views that I myself hold, I do not at all feel as if I am arrogant. I feel mostly alone and misunderstood. I feel as if people think of me as a war-monger, when in truth I am only sensitive to the well being of others and would be willing to fight to keep people safe. I do think there are things in this world worth fighting for. Life is precious.

Finally, I believe we went into Iraq because we fully believed them to be a threat and a part of what happened on 9/11. The world agreed in thinking that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction at the time. The United Nations allowed Iraq over seventeen refusals for inspections spanning a good deal of time. Now the door is forever open to the imagination.

More later.

[achebeautiful]

Commenting on your second point Paula, I would absolutely agree with you that "our freedoms are slowly being infringed upon in the name of security" if I really believed that to be true. I, however, do not. I believe that the United States Of America has enough work on their hands in trying to track down terrorists and do not have time to be playing games with innocent civilians such as you and me. Why is it that the Republicans are always the ones accused of spreading 'fear' when things such as this come from not only the very, very liberal New York Times, but also very, very liberal Democrats such as Senator Harry Reid?

As far as the abuses at prison camps, they were wrong. I cannot agree with wrongdoing, and so I concede that point. I also think that it has happened occassionally and not as a common practice. We make it sound as if all we do is abuse detainees. Far from true, and if you believe it to be true then you also have to believe everything you hear from the media. Everyone here has admitted to having skepticism regarding the media. If you show one abuse over and over time and time again, it's naturally going to seem as if that is all that is happening. Where are the stories of the actual privelidges given to these detainees with respect to their religion and culture? Oops, what am I thinking. The media does not cover what would be considered 'good news' very often. Respect given for holy days of the year and food that is acceptable to their culture.....and all we hear about is 'dirty laundry'.

I agree with you Paula that steps to protect ourselves should not come at the expense of our freedoms. I also do not think that you are any less free in these United States of America than you have ever been. Those who threaten our safety by seeking to destroy and kill us are our enemy, not a government that is trying to protect us by all possible means.

Again, more later.

[achebeautiful]

I disagree with you about your third and final point most of all, Paula.

While I agree that America is split in two, I do not agree with your statement:

" This administration has not only set our relationships with the world back ten years but has also set back the American people back ten years. If you do not agree with the war you are unpatriotic. - shades of McCarthyism. If you don’t agree with everything the administration does “you should leave the country” - shades of the Viet Nam war “America love it or leave it”.

President Bush has not made any claims of any American not being patriotic. Those sentiments are coming from radio and television talk show hosts. Radio and television talk show hosts are not in Bush's administration.

Joe McCarthy was a Senator. Sean Hannity is a radio and television talk show host. There is a huge difference. Joe McCarthy was not offering an opinion. He was investigating the serious matter of communists within our government. It has been found (1994) that every single name on McCarthy's list was in fact tied to the Communist Party. I don't even know what to say about the Hollywood Blacklist that has become legendary with "McCarthyism". Joe McCarthy was not interested in Hollywood. He was concerned about Communism with our government. He was also right.

But what you are referring to about the Bush administration splitting the country in two by calling opponents unpatriotic is not at all true. Those remarks are unfortunate, sad, and I believe very wrong. But they are not coming from the administration.

The comments made about France also did not come from the administration. The "Boycott France" and "Freedom Fries" (instead of French Fries) were all made again by radio and television talk show hosts and their guests. I never agreed with any of those thoughts.

I agree with you that boycotting everyone who disagrees with you is silly, but please do not blame those ideas on this administration. Those ideas came from regular civilian Americans.

The one thing that I absolutely agree with you on in this whole discussion is:

" Leona I absolutely love your analogy about the tree. Awesome!!"

Very wise! Let's keep hoping!

[ocelot]

I know the work is still going on but our recent actions just make it harder. There was such a beautiful outpouring of support from most of the world in the days after 9/11. It touched my heart so much to watch how different countries paid their respect to the fallen people (and please remember how many people from countries other than the U.S. were killed that day).

I agree with Paula here. Many Canadians have lost total respect for the Bush Administration and many don't care anymore if we have good relations with the US. And many Canadians are fed up with the way that the Bush Administration has treated Canada since we refused to join them in the war in Iraq. I know that in many countries there is much more dislike for the US since what the Bush Administration did post 9/11. The whole world felt for America on 9/11 but now most of the world feels that the Bush administration has gone too far.

I

believe our freedoms are slowly being infringed upon in the name of security. Now our phones can be tapped - in the name of terrorist security. But because of The Patriot Act, it is easier to "detain" anyone without reason - in the name of terrorist security. The absolutely horrific news coming out of our military prisons makes me sick. I wonder if any of the people convicted of those terrible acts would have gone to jail if their behavior wasn’t leaked to the public. All this in the name of terrorist security. And not related to the war but maybe a result of losing our freedoms are the recent issues with internet companies handing over our internet activity to the government (and others). There is a pattern here. And I do not buy the argument that "I have nothing to hide. Let them do what needs to be done – in the name of national security". Yes we need to take steps to protect ourselves, but in my opinion, not at the expense of our freedoms. They are mutually exclusive. It’s not “this” or “that”, there is a big area in between.

I absolutely agree with Paula on this one. I told my brother about how Oliver Stone thought the US went back 10 years under the Bush Administration but as far as freedom he disagreed he thought they went back farther, back to the days of the Cold War with Russia. To me freedom and national security are separate. They may affect each other but on isn't the other. George Orwell's novel "1984" pictured a world with great security but there was no freedom. There needs to be a balance between the two. For me there is no need for the spying techniques that are allowed through the patriot act. Canada has caught alot of terrorist plots recently add they go nowhere near as far as the patriot act because they understand the need to feel free and have the feeling that you aren't being watched.

America is split in two. This administration has not only set our relationships with the world back ten years but has also set back the American people back ten years. If you do not agree with the war you are unpatriotic. - shades of McCarthyism. If you don’t agree with everything the administration does “you should leave the country” - shades of the Viet Nam war “America love it or leave it”. My theory is, if there is something wrong with America don’t abandon it, you rally together to fix it – that’s patriotism. I am saddened by the American reaction to people/countries who disagree with the administration. The boycott of France, to me, was an embarrassment. The reaction to famous people speaking out against the war, to me, went too far. They do have the “freedom” to say what they feel. And yes people who don’t agree have the “freedom” not to buy their records or go to their movies. To me it sounds silly to boycott everyone you disagree with – shades of the McCoys and Hatfields.
Mark I have to respectfully comment on this statement “Oliver Stone has a reputation for rewriting history with his films by fictionalizing true stories”. To me and this is just my opinion, I appreciate people like Michael Moore and Oliver Stone for having the guts to bring this information to the American people in this current atmosphere. Yes I understand these are Hollywood films and as “many” Hollywood films they may be based on fact but are dramatized to make a point or more money. I may or may not agree with them, but they are a “starter for some great discussion” as Leona stated. There is a dangerous apathy in the U.S. today and a very low tolerance level for being different. And respectful discussion “is” good, as is difference of opinions. To me, that’s how we learn. I believe the American people are smart enough to extract the truth from fiction. Unfortunately we live in a “PR” world.

I believe that America is split in two.

There was recently a story in Canada about an American soldier who fought in Iraq and couldn't face going back there because he nearly shot a young boy and he couldn't face it that next time his gun wouldn't jam and he would do something he would forever regret. He did the paper work to say that he couldn't go back with the army and came to Canada for refuge. (Yes, a refugee from the US.) The Army was going to charge him for desertation because he wouldn't go back. The people back home called him a traitor and a coward, because he couldn't bear the thought that he might kill a child. Who is the coward that's afraid he might kill a child? I'd call him courageous for standing up and telling his story (and he did fight in Iraq and received a purple heart and everyone who didn't should not cast a stone). There are many soldiers who did not agree to fight in Iraq and had to flee to Canada in order to be free. The other freedom would be an army prison. No one should have to fight a war they don't agree with.

Because of things like this and other actions that are threatening US relations with each other. The Bush Administration isn't doing anything to bring the country together, they may not be making people do stupid things like the boycotts but they also aren't dsiscouraging it. The way that the Bush Administration makes the world with us or against us is damaging their international relations and relations with in their country.

There is very little encouragement for people to make their own decisions and make up their own opinions. I love film-makers like Oliver Stone and Michael Moore for challenging us. They might not always be right but they make you think. Very little is totally true now so why are we criticizing filmmakers for making films the way they see it. The news is the way the producer sees it.

I'll reply to some of the other statements soon.

[achebeautiful]

Many Canadians have lost total respect for the Bush Administration and many don't care anymore if we have good relations with the US. And many Canadians are fed up with the way that the Bush Administration has treated Canada since we refused to join them in the war in Iraq. I know that in many countries there is much more dislike for the US since what the Bush Administration did post 9/11. The whole world felt for America on 9/11 but now most of the world feels that the Bush administration has gone too far.

It saddens me to learn that many Canadians feel as they do about the USA. Leona, I have a series of questions for you regarding this statement:

1. Are you among the many Canadians who have lost total respect for the Bush administration and no longer care if Canada and the USA have good relations?

2. How has the Bush administration treated Canada since they refused to join in the war in Iraq?

3. You state that the whole world felt for us on 9/11, but now feels that the Bush administration has gone too far. In what way have they gone too far?

4. How does Canada and the whole world feel that the Bush administration and the USA should be handling this whole affair? What would make everyone like us and respect us more?

Let me just say that I cannot expect you to search and find statements made by Bush that reveal his dismay with Canada for not joining in the effort in Iraq. I will simply take you at your word. But in the speeches I have heard of Bush, he has always been extremely complimentary of "our great friend and neighbor to the North."

This war is being waged in two different ways. One is to take out the enemy, and the other is to rebuild the country. If all we had in mind was all out war, we would blow Afghanistan and Iraq to smithereens. But we are trying to defeat the enemy while rebuilding the lives of those who live there. Keep in mind that of all the troops that the USA has in those two countries, there are just as many of them there that have a mission of relief and aid as there are warriors. So the effort and contribution of Canada in Afghanistan is not only immense, but greatly appreciated. Also, Canadian soldiers are getting killed in their efforts too, so the sacrifice is great. I have heard President Bush and Secretary of State Condi Rice say very complimentary things of Canada's contribution to this effort, but I have never heard either of them say anything disparaging of them. I'm very interested in exactly what the Bush administration is saying and doing to treat Canada with such disregard.

To me freedom and national security are separate. They may affect each other but on isn't the other. George Orwell's novel "1984" pictured a world with great security but there was no freedom. There needs to be a balance between the two. For me there is no need for the spying techniques that are allowed through the patriot act. Canada has caught alot of terrorist plots recently add they go nowhere near as far as the patriot act because they understand the need to feel free and have the feeling that you aren't being watched.

On this issue I simply disagree with both Paula and Leona on the grounds that much more of it is being made than there actually is. George Orwell's "1984" is among my favorite books, and is a good look at what can become of any government if not careful. But I think that the Patriot Act is a far cry from "1984." In "1984" there was newspeak, which is something that is actually going on in Iran, as they are removing any words from their language that originated from the West. That isn't happening here. Also, there were "Thought Police", people who did not judge you based on your actions or behaviors, but simply judged you based on your thoughts! We're very far from that here, although there are those who would like to do just that with regard to issues of race and sex.

All that said, I will say this to both Paula and Leona. If there is one thing in my opinion worth arguing about in this whole thing, I think it is this issue. I really believe that it is a very healthy debate, and a necessary one for this country to be engaged in. There are two very intelligent arguments, two very good points of view regarding this matter, and I think that it must be discussed. Both sides offer very good cases in my opinion. If there is one thing that we should always be concerned about, it is in giving our government too much power. That can never lead to a good thing. Mankind does not have a good history in possessing power. Not anywhere. Not ever.

I think that this argument needs to take place to ensure that the government never oversteps its bounds with regard to the power it has been given. Cheers to those who raise a flag of caution, whether I agree or not.

There was recently a story in Canada about an American soldier who fought in Iraq and couldn't face going back there because he nearly shot a young boy and he couldn't face it that next time his gun wouldn't jam and he would do something he would forever regret. He did the paper work to say that he couldn't go back with the army and came to Canada for refuge. (Yes, a refugee from the US.) The Army was going to charge him for desertation because he wouldn't go back. The people back home called him a traitor and a coward, because he couldn't bear the thought that he might kill a child. Who is the coward that's afraid he might kill a child? I'd call him courageous for standing up and telling his story (and he did fight in Iraq and received a purple heart and everyone who didn't should not cast a stone). There are many soldiers who did not agree to fight in Iraq and had to flee to Canada in order to be free. The other freedom would be an army prison. No one should have to fight a war they don't agree with.

That is a very sad story.

Unfortunately, whether I like it or not, an enlisted soldier does not live by the same rules as an ordinary civilian. This is all part of the commitment he agreed to when he signed up for the military.

I do not want to say more about this because my heart truly goes out to him and others like him. I am completely against people calling him a traitor and a coward. Pardon my language here, but that is just bullshit! If I could, I would walk up to him and salute him.

The Bush Administration isn't doing anything to bring the country together, they may not be making people do stupid things like the boycotts but they also aren't discouraging it.

You are right in saying that Bush is doing nothing to discourage it, but he also isn't encouraging it either. Those are just free people expressing themselves freely. For the President of the United States to interfere with that in any way would be much closer to Orwell's "1984" than anything else we have discussed!

There is very little encouragement for people to make their own decisions and make up their own opinions. I love film-makers like Oliver Stone and Michael Moore for challenging us. They might not always be right but they make you think. Very little is totally true now so why are we criticizing filmmakers for making films the way they see it. The news is the way the producer sees it.

Here I very much disagree with Leona. I have no problem with a producer showing the news the way he sees it. Michael Moore is completely entitled to that. But I don't find anything at all challenging in his work, especially when it is downright false and rude toward those he is using as his subjects.

In "Bowling For Columbine" he walked into a bank and showed that by signing up for an account there you would walk out with a free rifle as a promotion. Truth: nobody was handed a rifle at the bank. You did in fact get a free rifle, but you only signed up to register for one when signing an account with the bank. Huge difference!

And the way that he treated Dick Clark with complete disrespect for not taking an on the spot interview with him was terrible. Nobody should be treated that way. Call him in advance, and ask permission to interview him, but don't put a camera and mic to his face as he is walking to his car and ask him questions unannounced.

In "Fahrenheit 911" Michael Moore pounced on Congress as they walked out of the Capital to ask them how they would feel about sending kids off to war if it was their own sons and daughters who were going. At the release of the film, only those who refused to answer the question and walked by him made it to film. Strangely missing were those who gave thoughtful answers that disagreed with Michael Moore's point of view. That's flat out deceitful. Nothing at all challenging about that.

I'm not at all entertained, challenged or even made to think by this garbage on either side of the issue. What challenges me is a good healthy discussion such as we are having here. What makes me think are songs that Bruce Springsteen (Devils And Dust) and Lara Fabian (Bridge Of Hope) write. What gives strength to the issue are songs that Leona writes about world affairs, where the heart of the message is coming from one who has love and compassion for those involved, and asks penetrating questions in between to people like myself who are not as sure as I was before having read her song.

I can disagree with Bruce Springsteen, Lara Fabian and Leona about the issues, but I hold each of them with higher regard than I do myself because they do what they do with integrity and class, and with great respect for other people.

[S.C.]

Gee, where do I begin...lol Everyone has such great opinions. I suppose what really amazes me is how so many people have so many negative things to say about Bush when they have never broken bread with him. Everyone thinks he must the devil himself, and yet there's no proof to back that up.

Do I believe any politician, absolutely not. I can sit here and make up thousands of things to say about people and yet I have no proof to back up my claims. Do I think Bush has made the USA safer, in some ways yes, but nobody is safe anywhere. Do I think Bush has made us more vulnerable because of his decisions. No. No matter what he chooses to do or not do the terrorists will make up any excuse to attack.

To insinuate that Bush has created more terrorists is laughable. That's like saying every time we raise a serial killing rapist to celebrity status because of news coverage that's suddenly going to create more serial killing rapists out there. Either you have that mind set already or you don't. Terrorists don't need an excuse to kill. Dealing with killers such as terrorists like pacifists isn't going to make the terrorists all of a sudden give up the fight. We played that game already in 1993, and they still attacked us on 9-11.

When the towers were first hit in 1993, I don't recall Clinton coming onto the American airwaves and explaining to us why it happened, who was behind it, and why we need to know who our enemies are. Perhaps, had then President Clinton explained to us in detail who our enemies were, we could have started fighting the war on terrorism back then.

Now, let's speed things up a bit. During the 2000 campaign, people decided to dislike G. W. Bush just on the basis of who's son he was. He didn't have the respect from the Democrats and Liberals in the very beginning, so anything he said or did wasn't going to sway them to like him anyway. I don't remember either candidates' platforms being 'Terrorism'. That's because it wasn't the issue at hand. No American was thinking about terrorism during 2000, and If you say you were, you're lying. It was not an important issue to any of us at that time.

I am now going to take you all to Election Day 2000. It was perhaps the most important election in USA history. And how soon some forget that it was also the most hotly contested election in history. When G. W. Bush was named the "winner" in the very beginning, the shit hit the fan. There was the infamous re-counting of votes, charges of voter fraud, court dates and political venom being spewed back and forth. In the end, after everything was said and done Bush was finally announced the winner of the 2000 Presidential Election.

That really started the ball rolling on the hatred for Bush. You had people saying he was selected and not elected. If people didn't already hate him before, this was sure to add more to the club. During this time Bush was still getting his cabinet together. After the election fiasco, he was unable to get his cabinet together. He was still doing this months after he finally was able to get into office.

Time progresses, we are now a couple of months into his Presidency. Some Americans and Europe still hate the fact that he is now President. During this time, it's reported that he gets briefed about Osama is determined to attack in the USA. (Well, he already did that in 1993. That should have been reported, Osama determined to attack AGAIN inside the USA.) No one except for those were worked in Washington knew who he was and what he was capable of. With the information that Bush had, there is positively no way he could have prevented 9-11.

So, the first thing a President does is start on a war on terrorism? The country wouldn't have supported that. We were never told in full detail from previous admins who are enemies were and why they want to attack us. The country was already pissed off that he won in the first place. For anyone to say that they would have supported Bush in capturing Osama or going after Al Qaida in the first 8 months of his already questionable Presidency is lying. He did not have the respect or trust of the USA nor the rest of the world then. Had he started the war on terrorism back then, everyone would have said, "See, see he's just like his father".

Bush is damned If he does, damned If he doesn't. He was the first USA President to get hit with something like 9-11. Terrorism was not his platform. However, it is now. His Presidency and agenda changed when 9-11 happened. The reason for going to Iraq was for WMD, but I also believe that Bush chose to go into Iraq to deal with a loose cannon that the UN just couldn't seem to reign in. How many times did the UN ask Iraq to disarm?

How many resolutions did they ignore? What's the goddamn point of making resolutions If you are not going to back up what you created? The UN treated Saadam like a child, begging him to disarm, we'll put sanctions on you, we really mean it this time, we'll do it, we really mean it this time. Newsflash folks, sanctions only hurt the people, Saadam was still living the good life, while his people lived in squalor. That and being raped from sun up to sun down.

I clearly remember Bush's speech when he addressed Congress for the first time after 9-11, he specifically told the world and the USA that the war on terrorism was going to be fought on many different fronts. This is a Guerilla Terrorism War. This is not your grandfathers war. This is something we have never seen before. This is going to be a generational war. It's not going to suddenly end when Osama is captured or dies. There will be plenty of terrorists to take his place.

It was like that before Bush took office. And it will be like that when he leaves. In the wake of everything that has happened, Bush is trying. I don't recall any programs that were implemented by Clinton in 1993 after the first attack. What did he do to better prepare New York and the Port Authority for another attack? What aviation security programs did he implement to better prepare those who work in that field? Not a goddamn thing. The status quo was left intact and the terrorists used our own technology against us to kill us. I am not blaming Clinton for 9-11. I am however outlining the fact that he too had the power to get this country better prepared for future attacks.

We will never be 100% safe, but for heaven's sake the man is TRYING. He's implemented programs, he's trying to "protect" the citizens of this country. I would not want to be in his shoes for one second. If he is as evil as people think and he went into Iraq for jollies then he will get his in the next life. I am not a religious person, I happen to be more spiritual. In my belief system I believe heavily in karma and basically treat others how you would like to be treated. If his intentions have been good, then he should reap the benefits of a great afterlife. If his intentions have not been good then he will not reap the benefits of a great afterlife.

In conclusion,I do not support him blindly. I have a mind of my own. I draw my own conclusions. I see Bush as a man who was thrust into the war on terrorism , who is now trying his hardest to "protect" the country. We have not been attacked since 9-11, but the terrorists are very patient. We are not. The question is, when another spectacular attack happens, what will be our response? To pacify or to fight?

[achebeautiful]

Very well written Shavon! It's great to have you join the discussion. I agree with your commentary.

[S.C.]

I just commented from my heart. I do not know the President. I do not know what's in his heart or what his soul is like. I will not sit here and be his judge, jury, and executioner when I do not know him and or all the facts. People base their opinions mainly on what's being reported. One is very naive to think that what gets reported is actually factual. I get my news from various outlets. There's a saying, "Believe none of what you read and half of what you see". That should be applied to what gets reported on television and what gets reported in the newspapers.