July 03, 2004

Fahrenheit 911

Fahrenheit 911. Much better than your standard Michael Moore movie--largely because he's off-camera most of the time, but also because the smarmy misrepresentation quota is down to 20% and the truth quota is up to 80%. 20% is still too large, however: I wouldn't send anyone to see it who doesn't already know enough to spot the 20%.

Brilliant ending:

George W. Bush: We have a saying in Texas--maybe you have it here in Tennessee too. It's, "Fool me once [long pause], shame on you; [longer pause] fool me [long pause]--you can't get fooled again!"

Moore was also in many places in the movie much softer on Bush and Cheney than I would have been in his shoes. When Cheney talks about how proud he is of Halliburton, I would have cut to somebody describing the Halliburton accounting fraud--the failure to disclose material changes in accounting practices that moved a big chunk of profits forward in time to the current year--that Cheney presided over, and linked that to Bush's Harken Energy trading and to Halliburton's billing practices in Iraq. I would have had a section on Cheney's claims that persons nobody can find told him of a direct threat to Air Force One on the morning of September 11.

When Bush talked about how the have-mores were his "base", I would have set out some numbers about the effects of his... tax shift... on the people then in the room. When Moore showed the picture of the Supreme Court, I would have read out the portion of the decision--"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities"--in which the Justices reveal how ashamed they are of the possibility that Bush v. Gore might ever be used as a precedent. I would have juxtaposed the investigation of PeaceFresno and of something like the "extraordinary rendition" of Maher Arar to the kid gloves used to handle the bin Laden relatives after 911: why not keep them until September 16, and send the FBI and CIA through to ask them all to "tell us everything you can about your uncle"?

I wonder if this was a deliberate decision by Moore to soften the edges of his targets: Consider Cheney: Who, after all, would believe that someone could misrepresent the earnings of his company by $150 million in a year and still go on to become Vice President? Who would believe that Cheney would make up the story of a direct threat to Air Force One on the morning of September 11 for reasons I still cannot comprehend? Much of what I know about how this crew operates still strikes me as incredible--still is incredible.

Posted by DeLong at July 3, 2004 07:59 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this post

Thanks to the "I hate Michael Moore" crowd, I've obtained an unofficial and (as of July 3) incomplete transcript of Fahrenheit 9/11.

I also obtained an incomplete (possibly with as much as 20 minutes missing) copy of the film someone recorded with a porta-cam via torrent.

The transcript can be found at:

Posted by: patrick on July 3, 2004 08:56 PM


That ending of Bush mussing up the saying was a great The Daily Show segment.

Posted by: Jess on July 3, 2004 09:06 PM


The 20% presumably is the James Bath stuff and such. Actually, there's a lot more material he could have used there, beginning with BCCI, but it would have gotten too complex and far afield. This is something that I think has not been acknowledged about the film. Moore's medium and style both lack intricacy and nuance, but this forces him to understate his case at least as often as to overstate it. Since an army is waiting to pounce on him for any misstatement, anything that might require caveats etc. will generally simply be left out.

Case in point: Ashcroft deciding two months before 9/11 not to take commercial jets because he had information that it was too dangerous. He did say this (see http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml, for example), and for the most part, followed it. Moore was going to use it, too. But it turned out that a couple of times Ashcroft decided to live dangerously and take a commercial flight. That hardly invalidates the main point, which seriously undermines the "we had no idea" story, but rather than report the story with caveats, which would probably have left the audience confused, Moore just had to drop it. I discussed these issues further recently on my own blog, linked to my name below.

Posted by: Martin Bento on July 3, 2004 09:19 PM


I think he didn't follow up with a lot of data so that smart, literate professionals like yourself can follow up with candid details via op-ed pages, daily talk shows, and the like. Or just have one of the (few but increasing) dem attack dogs go apeshit on "crossfire" or what have you. Leaving blanks to be filled in keeps the debate alive, much as the "missing gaps" in Bush/Cheney's rhetoric allowed their dark minions to spread the gospel on Iraq's WMD capabilities.

Actually, watching it a second time, I think it's a lot already, and maybe in a couple of places a little too much. He's not making an economic case so much as a social one (I know there's no wall between the two, but still...), and if "the numbers" were mixed in, my poor grandma's head might have exploded from all the information. He makes a convincing emotional case, and the story of the Democrats since Clinton left is, in my opinion, right on the facts, wrong in the gut. With his movie, Moore shores up what I think is our greatest weakness on "the left" (such as it is!)

Posted by: Matt Waggner on July 3, 2004 09:39 PM


I know where you are coming from, but this is not a frontline documentary and it would have failed if it was.

Most bloggers have also neglected the artistic and humanist aspects of the movie. People I saw this with had tears in their eyes...these folks didn't need to know anything more about Cheney.

I think you underestimate the truth quotient. If you are talking about issues of fact (as opposed to implied connections that are not explicitly stated), I doubt you can find more than a handful of errors (if that). I discuss for example, Knight Ridder's review of the "truth" at Kautilyan.


Posted by: lerxst on July 3, 2004 10:15 PM


For me the following quote from the movie said it all

GEORGE W. BUSH: (caption 'August 1992') When you're the President's son and you've got unlimited access combined with some credentials from a prior campaign, in Washington DC people tend to respect that; I mean, access is power and, uh, I can find my dad, talk to him any time of the day.

If you look at the movie with the concept "access is influence/power" than most of the movie segements fall into place.

Was there some cast conspiracy? Well there certainly was access which is obviously an avenue for influence. Who didn't have access the soldier's mom, the potential marine recruits, the Iraqi civilians.

I have to disagree with Brad in that this film had to appeal to a wide audience to be effective. I'm afraid even the left has their own "dittoheads" who need to be satisfied. While the intellectuals do not need things rammed down their throats. Those in between need a middle ground of emotion and circumstance.

This film had to both remind us of the country we think we live in and the one we actually live. We don't need another Reagan era with stary eyed optomists ignoring all the problems and merely chanting "we live in the best of all possible countries".

Posted by: RC on July 3, 2004 11:42 PM


I love all the liberals who just blythly say things like "20% of the movie is false ... don't let anyone who doesn't already know these things see the movie, 'cause one in five sentences is a lie."

Real nice, stringent analysis.

As always, Krugman had it right.

Posted by: MattB on July 4, 2004 06:23 AM


Brad -- Which is more appalling to you? The way " this crew operates" or the fact that we continue to allow them to "operate"?

Okay, maybe you and I and a few others don't like it, and maybe there are millions of Americans spitting nails, but the fact is (and this is what our friends in Europe and elsewhere are asking us, sadly) how in hell can we have allowed this to happen and to continue happening? Seriously?

Posted by: Bean on July 4, 2004 07:00 AM


Bean makes a crucial point. The recent references to the crimes of King George in the Declaration of Independence (Ehrenreich in the Times, and Tomdispatch.com (who got it from elsewhere)) show a growing awareness among some Americans at least that the supposedly patriotic war party has lost track of what America was all about. For those of us outside, this has been evident for a while -- at least since the setup of Guantanamo as a justice-free zone.

Posted by: sm on July 4, 2004 07:13 AM


Most of the criticisms are directed at a movie that Michael Moore did not make. The examples that are left out of the movie are left out for a reason. This film is not so much about Bush and Iraq and 9/11 as it is about reality and knowlege and the complicity of the media in hiding things from the public. The movie begins by asking the question "was this a dream?" It then goes on to show us things that the so called liberals are trying to keep us from seeing. Thats why he showed a conservative democrat, old women questioning power and soldiers that don't support the war. One of the key moments was when the woman accusses Lila Libscomb of being involved in a staged event. What is more real, real people experiencing real emotions or the stage managed phot-op nature of the political show put on for the public.

Posted by: Nutthuis on July 4, 2004 08:54 AM


I saw that movie and hated it, but then again, I have never really liked Michael Moore. I consider him the Ann Coulter of the left.

Anyway, the Bush administration is clearly full of crap on a number of accounts, and to anyone who puts in a fair amount of time, the material will come. I have to wonder, then, why Moore can't present something honest.

Posted by: Brian on July 4, 2004 09:03 AM


Brian: "Anyway, the Bush administration is clearly full of crap on a number of accounts, and to anyone who puts in a fair amount of time, the material will come. I have to wonder, then, why Moore can't present something honest."

To me the amusing question about this thread is whether Prof. Delong actually liked the film. Because "much better than your standard Michael Moore movie" is not necessarily great praise, and "the smarmy misrepresentation quota is ... 20%" is definitely not great praise.

If one applies the appropriate "driven nuts by Bush" discount factor (i.e. to that "20%"), I wonder if it isn't possible to see BDL's review as being even more scathing than Christopher Hitchens' Slate review.

Posted by: Joe Mealyus on July 4, 2004 10:24 AM


Brian: "Anyway, the Bush administration is clearly full of crap on a number of accounts, and to anyone who puts in a fair amount of time, the material will come. I have to wonder, then, why Moore can't present something honest."

More to the point (than my previous comment), the answer is obvious: Moore is just delivering what his audience wants.

And this isn't even really a criticism of Moore, since it's true across the political spectrum that people want to see or hear a view of reality that is comforting to them. This explains the mass appeal of Rush, for example, at least in my view. You haven't seen any good "Frontline" documentaries win the Palme d'Or lately.

Posted by: Joe Mealyus on July 4, 2004 10:46 AM


Someone help me, I'm a bit confused. I can't find all of the convservatives keeping a list of all of the errors of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, et al.

Posted by: Jon-Erik G. Storm on July 4, 2004 10:53 AM


Man, am I sick of the blanket statements of "dishonest," etc. No one can say what these things are -- just truth by assertion.

See this, for example:


2004-06-30 03:42
Subject: There's Always Gotta Be a Hitch

Until you can actually prove lies, SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!

Oh yeah -- Go Cheney yourself.

Posted by: MattB on July 4, 2004 10:55 AM


George W. Bush: "We have a saying in Texas--It's, "Fool me once [long pause], shame on you; [longer pause] fool me [long pause]--you can't get fooled again!"


There is a psychology blog, and sorry I can't find it for you but Google if interested, that this one little dyslexicon of Bush's reveals a deep underlying inability to internalize, for Bush, a concept "shame on me"; which goes more towards his rigid upbringing, not wanting to re-hear, soto voce, Barbara's or GHW's childhood scoldings, "Bushie, you idiot, I'm gonna have to take the strap to you again!" hence, perhaps, the underlying sacrarium of Bush the Younger's current mental state:

Do anything for self-aggrandizement, but never, ever, admit to yourself that you might be wrong.

(Including pushing the Big Red Button?!)

Posted by: Tuti Autarky on July 4, 2004 11:35 AM


Brad -- would you like to specify what you thought the 20% inaccurate portion was, or is this an inkblot test for us?

Posted by: Ennis on July 4, 2004 11:41 AM


Heard outside the movie theatre, before the show:

(Younger) "I sure don't want to see some movie with some fat guy talking about Bush."

(Elder) "I sure don't want to see some movie with just computer graphics fighting each other.

After the show:

(Younger and Elder) "Well, that sucked...."

Posted by: Tante Aime on July 4, 2004 11:50 AM


Moore focuses on the use of fear by the Republicans as a tool to control the levers of power, and to hold their position in the social structure. This is true in F911 and in Bowling for Columbine. He asks us to think about who benefits from the fears stoked by Ashcroft and Ridge, and Cheney and the rest of them. It is not the average person who benefits, they do the dying. It is the wealthy.

The position of the Bush family is partly upheld by its relations with the Saudis, directly and through Carlyle, and other indirect sources. This is of a piece with the desire of Bush to cement his relations with the Elite, or as he calls them, his base. I wonder how the average Kansan in Thomas Frank's new book would feel about the idea that the idle rich, not the hard-working sons of the soil, are his base.

All this is Moore's explanation for the Iraq war, and is pounded home with the unsubtle quote from 1984.

Posted by: masaccio on July 4, 2004 12:51 PM


Brad Delong wrote, "Much better than your standard Michael Moore movie..."

"Roger 'n Me" is clearly still the best Michael Moore movie. I'd rank "Bowling for Columbine" better than "Fahrenheit 9-11."

Posted by: liberal on July 4, 2004 12:53 PM


Michael Moore’s movie is quite a good one even aside from its polemic value. The sound of the planes hitting the twin towers over a dark screen, then people on the street looking up (near vertically: they are almost all near the base of the structures) with Part’s “Cantus for Britten” playing over, is easily the best cinematic treatment of the disaster so far. It will remain a fair demonstration of a free culture’s emotional expression while yet in close temporal proximity to a shared horror. No doubt soon enough we shall get fictional Hollywood computer-graphic enactments of this attack in future big-budget disasters--our crassness ever-ongoing. Perhaps space-aliens will one day attempt interference on board these airplanes! But Moore’s only fiction in this movie is that Part’s Cantus is a bit too up-tempo...

It's a remarkable film--and probably the first and last to make precisely this impact, because you do realize, don’t you, that you are going to be inundated with this stuff until the end of time.

So far I have seen no Moore facts refuted except on quibbles of date or quantity, and the critics' displeasures seem to be about his inductive inferences. But Moore's method is the most effective one to question Bush's emotional perception, and therefore his personal judgment, and therefore his qualifications for president.

Because surely Bush’s intellectual qualifications--reduced by his critics to an argument between whether he’s a bald-faced liar, or he’s just really this stupid--are SECONDARY to his real qualifications: whether or not he’s a man who can perceive and judge the aspirations and intents of others, and having deep emotional perception, can follow-through to the full consequences of a course of action. Moore speaks to this in the most direct way possible.

Professors don't like emotional arguments or using facts to make them, but of course most people go through life powered largely by their emotional engines. It is how we trust other people, not by their intellects. We might cite Cicero or Quintilian. But a more recent successful student of this view was Ronald Reagan, who knew that politics is largely emotional--he cared less for a broader range of facts than nearly anyone of consequence in America, or at least until the present Administration.

Emotion is so important that now Bin Laden has adopted the same rhetorical "jeremiad" structure that was used by Reagan for thousands of speeches: (1) A people of God (2) in danger of losing their inheritance (3) must struggle to reclaim what was theirs.

Moore has posited a version of the proper response: (1) Hoping to put things right, (2) their pride made more rash mistakes, (3) causing more evil.

Posted by: Lee A. on July 4, 2004 06:34 PM


I heartily agree with most of what Lee A. just posted, although I do think some professors do just fine with emotion. I also want to disagree with the 80% comment, simply because (as several of the posts have implied) putting the situation in honest vs. dishonest terms is not a very honest way of doing it. While I disagree with several of Moore's reductionist explanations for Bushco actions, I think that he's grown quite a bit in terms of offering interviews and information and then asking a leading question. I saw the film as a prosecutorial case, with a lot of selective evidence, but not evidence I would call dishonest. Because it was offered as part of what plainly was a partisan argument, I had no trouble with this presentation -- I mean, you would have to have been comatose for the last couple of years not to be able to recite the other side of the case from memory.

And there's a basic issue that cannot escape a viewer of Lila Lipscomb's soliloquy -- that patriotism and criticsm of the war are not mutually exclusive. That they were has been one of the unspoken assumptions guiding the imbalance in coverage of and comment on the war. And the footage of her, and of George, was 100% accurate -- and that's the footage that is having the impact.

Posted by: MarkC on July 4, 2004 07:12 PM


I notice that no one in the comments, or in the original post, has posted any things from the movie that are untrue, misleading or otherwise dishonest.

Well? Don't just SAY 20% is false, tell us what.

Posted by: Dave Johnson on July 4, 2004 08:59 PM


They can't point at any fact that's false in the movie, because they can't find one, that's why they never do. I went into the movie with a list of Republican "talking points" in my hand of falsehoods in the movie. I left the movie wondering what movie the Republicans had attended, because I'd spotted none of the "falsehoods" that they'd listed.

Now, I disagree with some of the conclusions that Michael Moore draws (and states) from the facts he presents. Some of the stunts he engages in (like the ambush stunt with the congressmen and the recruitment brochures) are just plain juvenile and way over the top. And undeniably he is making no attempt to be "fair and balanced". He's an entertainer, for cryin' out loud, not a newsman. But outright lies? I could find differences of opinion, sure. But lies? People who say there are lies in the movies are people who can't tell the difference between fact and opinion. Which is the majority of America, granted...

As for the movie itself... I laughed. I cried. I watched in horror, I watched in anger. This was a powerful emotional experience as well as one that was full of facts and images that the American media will not let you see. The movie was disjointed at times. There were decisions that I would have done differently. There were conclusions I wouldn't have drawn from the same facts that Michael Moore saw. etc. But the movie worked. If Michael Moore doesn't win an Oscar for Best Documentary this year, you know it's because George W. Bush has been re-selected as President.

- Badtux the Just-saw-the-movie Penguin

Posted by: BadTux on July 4, 2004 10:22 PM


During my second viewing of the movie, that part that got to me emotionally was right at the beginning, with the scene of the black caucus attempting to contest Bush's usurpation and being told to shut up and sit down (I fought back the tears). It was a disgraceful epsidode to see the white Senate take a powder, and very moving to me to see a group that had fought so hard for its voting rights to be the only one that cared about those rights in the end.

Posted by: Bob H on July 5, 2004 05:56 AM


There were a number of things about the film that I thought were misleading. The Bush family - Saudi Arabia link is overblown. The interviews with Congressmen were cheap shots (if one of the 535 plus Senators and Congressmen has a child serving in Iraq, that just about corresponds to the national average). The most affecting parts of the film were the interviews of ordinary people - the lady from Flint whose son was killed; the Marine who said that he would never return to Iraq to kill other poor people; the soldiers recovering from war wounds; the Iraqi woman who lost family members to US bombs.

At bottom what this film had which I loved was a sense of genuine anger about this Iraqi adventure, so deserving of condemnation. Our political leaders (including Kerry) and the national media are unable to get angry about Iraq because of their role in putting us there. Michael Moore has articulated my anger at at them. For that I'm grateful, even if the film isn't perfect.

Posted by: No Preference on July 5, 2004 10:00 AM


The "Bush family - Saudi Arabia link" is an excellent example, one I think also mentioned by Hitchens. But the critics have jumped to conclusions. The question is, whether Moore hopes to imply a conspiracy, or whether he's simply pointing out that the Bushies, after decades of dealing with petrodollars, politics, and intelligence, should be expected to know a little more about this part of the world, and where things have been heading.

Again, it calls into question their foresight and brains, and moral laxity on another scale. At the least, they've been fooled by some of the people they've been in very lucrative business with: hardly a recommendation to leadership!

To another issue, I think we could take it that Moore is not studied in economics--a bone of contention with economists since "Roger and Me". Economists have rather missed the point however that Moore's real issue is the financialization of America, and the ass-reaming of the working poor and middle-class by Wall Street quickbuckers turning to international trade and tax-dodging.

This issue throws up a bit of the populist odor to our sniffier apologists. They hope to heap disdain even upon Paul Kennedy and Kevin Phillips. But I'll bet Moore, being a biological organism himself, would not dispute the gains from real trade, nor, even if he cared to follow the math, the principle of comparative advantage.

Posted by: Lee A. on July 5, 2004 11:40 AM


What I want to know is, why was Clinton investigated for Whitewater, a deal that involved, like maybe, $200,000 of his own money? And why isn't there a similar outcry by the Press for an independent ivestigation of Cheney's connection to the mishandling of contracts in Iraq and Halliburton? Contracts that involve public money on a much, much, hundred times larger scale than Whitewater?

I remember the headlines during the Clinton administration absolutely demanding an investigation, insisting that the public had the right to know. Well, I for one, would like an investigation of Cheney. And his wife. If anyone works for a newspaper, please take note that I, as a member of the incensed public, is demanding an investigation of Cheney. And his wife.

As for the movie, I'm just glad Michael Moore made it and put all his contratrian will into getting it out on the screens. Irrespective of what's actually in the film, at this point, I'm just glad it's out there. ("Out there" not in the "it's availble" way that 'Frontline' is, but in that "it's an item on 'Entertainment Tonight'" kind of way.) This is perhaps the first aggressive non-Right-wing POV aimed at the general public. The only time, up until this movie, I feel like I hear the liberal side expressed is through the mouth of a Republican telling America what the liberal side thinks. Is this the fault of the liberal community, or of the press? That's an interesting debate also, I think.

Posted by: Jackie on July 5, 2004 11:58 AM


"Professors don't like emotional arguments or using facts to make them, but of course most people go through life powered largely by their emotional engines. It is how we trust other people, not by their intellects. "

It is important to reference your emotions in your decision-making. That is their primary discovered evolutionary purpose. To ignore, or worse deliberate rebel against, your emotional responses is to cut off the part of yor mind that is there for the purpose of enabling you to make decisions in the face of uncertainty. Yes, you need to be critical and suspicious, but emotions are not he bad guy. Nothing great was ever achieved without them.

I've yet to see an actual argument, rather than assertion, that the Saudi connections were overblown (well, one that stands up), and, in fact, a deeper argument could be made. Even the assertion that Saudi flights took off during the grounding, which overstates what Moore claimed in the movie, was also stated by Richard Clarke in his sworn testimony. Point blank. He said the flights took off during the shutdown, and that, in fact, that was the only reason there was a question - it was only because the flights out happened during the shutdown that approval had to be sought. He has since claimed responsiblity for that approval himself, but appears to be trying primarily to defuse the issue.

Posted by: Martin Bento on July 5, 2004 12:52 PM


Another thing: why is it unfair to ask Congressman whether they would send their own kids off to war? Dave Winer has suggested that no parent would do such a thing? Really? So our entire volunteer army is there against their parents' will? Doesn't look that way to me. Parent do give up their children for war all the time, and it seem quite fair to ask those who have called upon parents to make this ultimate sacrifice whether they would be willing to make the same sacrifice and, if not, why not. And if you want an answer, rather than a polished and rehearsed soundbite, from a politician, you better ambush him.

Posted by: Martin Bento on July 5, 2004 01:00 PM


I agree it is a remarkable movie - I have seen it 3 times, and its impact remains powerful - The criticisms appear extremely petty. Watch the faces of the audience as they walk out of the theatre.
If you see the movie, and are unmoved, you have died.

Posted by: Dorothy M. Ligon on July 5, 2004 02:15 PM


"I've yet to see an actual argument, rather than assertion, that the Saudi connections were overblown"

The issue is, what was the point? This was a film about September 11. Was Moore trying to imply that Saudi Arabia was behind it somehow? That is nonsensical, since Osama bin Laden's primary target is the Saudi regime. If Moore was not implying that, then why so much time devoted to it? Wasn't that the kind of tactic that the Bush administration relied on to connect Saddam and Al Qaeda in the public mind? Furthermore, I thought the film's dwelling on unflattering images of Saudi leaders pandered to anti-Arab racism.

"Why is it unfair to ask Congressman whether they would send their own kids off to war"

Again, if my arithmetic is correct Congressmen do send their kids to war at roughly the same rate as the general population. The ambush tactic was pre-designed to give a different impression. That's cheap.

All in all I do agree with you that is a film that the country very much needs. Despite its flaws it was a tonic to me personally.

Posted by: No Preference on July 5, 2004 03:52 PM


I don't see how people fail to understand the point of the Saudi connection in the movie.

Here is an islamic country which uses many of the same methods we condemn other middle eastern countries for, yet they are our friends. They are not a democracy. They also, along with bin Laden, created the mindset of 2/3 of the 911 terrorists and yet we hold them accountable for nothing.

And just yesterday a story about the release of suspected saudi terrorists from Guantanimo while many innocent afgans languish there.

So why are they so deserving of the presidents time? He hasn't been to california as many times as he appeared with the saudis in the movie.

Posted by: RC on July 5, 2004 04:26 PM


I feel just witnessing the Iraqi woman's RAGE and DISPAIR over the "dumb bombs" that destroyed her world made an otherwise TEDIOUS movie memorable.

Posted by: greg on July 5, 2004 06:44 PM


"They are not a democracy."


Posted by: No Preference on July 5, 2004 08:16 PM


No preference: pretty obvious I admit but my point is that what makes them so different from the other middle eastern countries that they are afforded so much access?

My point is that everyone paints moore's association of bush and the saudis as a conspiracy but I think it is more along the line of a bush statement I previously quoted:

"I mean, access is power..." George Bush

He didn't say influence but power. The saudis by this influence/access have merely escaped scrutiny for any culpability in the actions of terrorists.

Posted by: RC on July 5, 2004 09:17 PM


DeLong is a short and ugly dick.

Posted by: derwish on July 7, 2004 12:45 AM


i think that michael moore is a terrible person and that he should spend more time loosing weight instead of dissing on the president of the united states. if Michael Moore thinks that he could have done better than bush than that pansy should run for president, i know he will lose but that is non the less than he deserves. stop dissing and writing crap on the president. michael moore is a fat asshole that should shut the hell up!!!!!!!

Posted by: bob tyler on July 27, 2004 10:28 AM


3007 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

Posted by: Viagra on August 7, 2004 10:29 PM


4143 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?


Posted by: texas holdem on August 9, 2004 05:35 PM


7008 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

Posted by: online poker on August 10, 2004 08:53 AM


7794 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

Posted by: online poker on August 15, 2004 01:53 PM


4450 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com

Posted by: blackjack on August 16, 2004 06:22 PM


Post a comment