disney censorship

[open mind]

disney is blocking the distribution of farenheit 911 (a film made by michael moore)that covers the relationship between the saudi's and the bush family saying they don't want to alienate folks with controversial matieral.
it's a corporations decision to put out what they want i know,but it's not like moore's films don't make money,so the only problem disney could have with the film is that it doesn't fit with their political outlook,pretty much amounting to censorship in my view.
maybe if enough people bug disney about this they'll change their minds, here's a link with an article and the e-mail adress of the chairman at disney.
http://www.fair.org/activism/disney-moore.html
and here's an update
http://www.fair.org/activism/disney-moore-update.html

[Alex Djaferis]

i have my beef with mr moore although i do like some of what he says.
i dont like the fact that hes suddenly created this huge following of people who base all there facts and knowledge of politics on what he says. they practically worship the man now. (this being said, let me read those articles lol)

[open mind]

michael moore isn't the greatest man in the world when it comes to politics (i haven't seen any of his films yet myself), but this kind of shit bugs me.

[cal1082]

It didnt bug anyone when no company would release Mel Gibson's The Passion of The Christ? Selective bugging I guess. The only diffrence between the two is that Disney was suppose to release this through Miramax I think, and Gibson didnt find anyone who would release it.

It might not be that the movie doesnt meet Disney's politcial agenda. It could be the simple fact that they dont want the controversey and people who hate Moore possibly boycotting disney. It's not censorship it's business.

[yeat182]

Ludacris makes money, but it didn't stop pepsi from pulling his ads off of TV. i have no problem with what disney did, its their money, they have to answer to their share holders, and maybe they feel that associating themselves with Moore is a bad idea. it certainly isn't censorship, no one is stopping Moore from showing his movie, disney just doesn't want to distribute it.

[open mind]

It didnt bug anyone when no company would release Mel Gibson's The Passion of The Christ? Selective bugging I guess. The only diffrence between the two is that Disney was suppose to release this through Miramax I think, and Gibson didnt find anyone who would release it.

It might not be that the movie doesnt meet Disney's politcial agenda. It could be the simple fact that they dont want the controversey and people who hate Moore possibly boycotting disney. It's not censorship it's business.
first off the passion of christ was released to much fanfare if i remember correctly.
disney said they don't want to get involved in a political debate, that's bullshit they have all kinds of republican voices in their set of radio and tv programing,they just don't want to release something that doesn't go with their political aims,and they're afraid jeb bush would take away their tax breaks if it's released through them.
another thing is michael moores films make money so it makes buisness sense to release them.

[open mind]

Ludacris makes money, but it didn't stop pepsi from pulling his ads off of TV. i have no problem with what disney did, its their money, they have to answer to their share holders, and maybe they feel that associating themselves with Moore is a bad idea. it certainly isn't censorship, no one is stopping Moore from showing his movie, disney just doesn't want to distribute it.
ludacris isn't releasing movies on politics, another thing one of the big share holders is a saudi prince i wonder why they wouldn't wanna release this?
i think disney owns the rights to the movie so i don't think moore can go to another distributer i could be wrong on that though.

[sweetsugar]

first off the passion of christ was released to much fanfare if i remember correctly.
disney said they don't want to get involved in a political debate, that's bullshit they have all kinds of republican voices in their set of radio and tv programing,they just don't want to release something that doesn't go with their political aims,and they're afraid jeb bush would take away their tax breaks if it's released through them.
another thing is michael moores films make money so it makes buisness sense to release them.
If you ran disney would you distro a movie that was against your political beliefs? As strongly opinionated as you are on these boards I'd have a hard time seeing that. I mean, I wouldn't do it. That just doesn't make sense. Like Yeat said, it's not censorship, it's good business. If this michael moore film is worth it's salt maybe he can find someone else to release it. As for me, I'm going to try to stop arguin about politics on this board cause I'm not changing anyone's mind, and since most of it is opinionated, I'm not winning any arguments.

[open mind]

if the movie would make my corporation money i would distribute it because buisness is about making money not political beliefs.

[cal1082]

first off the passion of christ was released to much fanfare if i remember correctly.
disney said they don't want to get involved in a political debate, that's bullshit they have all kinds of republican voices in their set of radio and tv programing,they just don't want to release something that doesn't go with their political aims,and they're afraid jeb bush would take away their tax breaks if it's released through them.
another thing is michael moores films make money so it makes buisness sense to release them.

It doesnt matter if The Passion was released to much fanfare or not. The point is Gibson could not find a distributer for his movie. So what's the diffrence between this and Moore's movie situation?

Moore is the dumbass who first brought up the point about the tax breaks and disney. A saw on the news where a paper looked at Disney and said they are not recieving any tax breaks. What tax breaks are they recieving that Jeb Bush could take away from them? Since you know this could happen?

Also if they release the film disney then releases a partisan movie. By not releasing it they can stay neutral on the political subject. It'd be diffrent if disney were releasing a pro-bush movie.

[yeat182]

if the movie would make my corporation money i would distribute it because buisness is about making money not political beliefs.

the movie may make money, but it may alientate their core audience, and then end up losing business in the long run. I mean its disney, they have a certain image they want to project and i doubt a movie that is so controversial is what they are hoping for.

[Safetyin#]

if the movie would make my corporation money i would distribute it because buisness is about making money not political beliefs.

First off your statement is untrue...."Beliefs" play a big part in the business world, of course not to everyone and maybe not Disney, but most Americans I would say it does...

Perfect examples would be companies not doing business with target because it was a big funder of "Planned Parenthood", or ending contracts with "progressive insurance" because it funds moveon.org..….most people are very careful to watch where their money and the money of their company goes…


And with this movie, unlike you or me, Disney as seen it and have probably realized what a "Nazi-ess" propaganda piece it is and don't want such "questionable" and blatantly fails (based off BC) material associated with their name....because it will be them, not Moore, who will suffer when the public is outraged.….

[oreo_emokid89]

First off your statement is untrue...."Beliefs" play a big part in the business world, of course not to everyone and maybe not Disney, but most Americans I would say it does...

Perfect examples would be companies not doing business with target because it was a big funder of "Planned Parenthood", or ending contracts with "progressive insurance" because it funds moveon.org..….most people are very careful to watch where their money and the money of their company goes…


And with this movie, unlike you or me, Disney as seen it and have probably realized what a "Nazi-ess" propaganda piece it is and don't want such "questionable" and blatantly fails (based off BC) material associated with their name....because it will be them, not Moore, who will suffer when the public is outraged.….

what he said

[UndefinedBoy]

the movie may make money, but it may alientate their core audience, and then end up losing business in the long run. I mean its disney, they have a certain image they want to project and i doubt a movie that is so controversial is what they are hoping for.

It's a Michael Moore movie...what the hell did they expect when they agreed to do it in the first place?

[UndefinedBoy]

It doesnt matter if The Passion was released to much fanfare or not. The point is Gibson could not find a distributer for his movie. So what's the diffrence between this and Moore's movie situation?

Moore is the dumbass who first brought up the point about the tax breaks and disney. A saw on the news where a paper looked at Disney and said they are not recieving any tax breaks. What tax breaks are they recieving that Jeb Bush could take away from them? Since you know this could happen?

Also if they release the film disney then releases a partisan movie. By not releasing it they can stay neutral on the political subject. It'd be diffrent if disney were releasing a pro-bush movie.

I'm pretty positive Mel Gibson couldn't find a distributer for different reasons than Michael Moore.

Disney being non-partisan? They've already released a movie by Michael Moore called The Big One in 1988. Disney also owns the radio that airs Rush Limbaugh.

[yeat182]

It's a Michael Moore movie...what the hell did they expect when they agreed to do it in the first place?

i don't know when they signed the agreement...

also, none of us have seen the film, and i assume that Disney has, so who knows, maybe they saw things they didn't like?

[Safetyin#]

It's a Michael Moore movie...what the hell did they expect when they agreed to do it in the first place?

good point...but it was Miramax that funded this "movie," not disney, and i'm not real sure what their agrement is outside of distribution...disney might not have a say in what projects Miramax signs on to...


and it will still get released.....
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/13/93107.shtml

[open mind]

disney owns miramax so i'm pretty sure they have plenty of control over the company.
i like how they called it a "bush-hate film" probably without ever seeing it.

[open mind]

the movie may make money, but it may alientate their core audience, and then end up losing business in the long run. I mean its disney, they have a certain image they want to project and i doubt a movie that is so controversial is what they are hoping for.
really it was miramax a company owned by disney that was going to release it, it's not like miramax is always a family friendly non alienating movie making company, but since the movie is gonna see release now i don't really give a damn.

[open mind]

It doesnt matter if The Passion was released to much fanfare or not. The point is Gibson could not find a distributer for his movie. So what's the diffrence between this and Moore's movie situation?

Moore is the dumbass who first brought up the point about the tax breaks and disney. A saw on the news where a paper looked at Disney and said they are not recieving any tax breaks. What tax breaks are they recieving that Jeb Bush could take away from them? Since you know this could happen?

Also if they release the film disney then releases a partisan movie. By not releasing it they can stay neutral on the political subject. It'd be diffrent if disney were releasing a pro-bush movie.
disney is not exactly non partisan when i t comes to their programming they have shows like the 700 club, rush limbaugh, and bill o'reily so it's not like the company is really neutral about politics.

[open mind]

First off your statement is untrue...."Beliefs" play a big part in the business world, of course not to everyone and maybe not Disney, but most Americans I would say it does...

Perfect examples would be companies not doing business with target because it was a big funder of "Planned Parenthood", or ending contracts with "progressive insurance" because it funds moveon.org..….most people are very careful to watch where their money and the money of their company goes…


And with this movie, unlike you or me, Disney as seen it and have probably realized what a "Nazi-ess" propaganda piece it is and don't want such "questionable" and blatantly fails (based off BC) material associated with their name....because it will be them, not Moore, who will suffer when the public is outraged.….
companies refused to work with progressive and target?don't you mean consumers?
what i find to be nazi-esque is a company only providing one type of viewpoint and not the other.

[yeat182]

disney owns miramax so i'm pretty sure they have plenty of control over the company.
i like how they called it a "bush-hate film" probably without ever seeing it.

i'm sure disney has seen the movie.

[yeat182]

disney is not exactly non partisan when i t comes to their programming they have shows like the 700 club, rush limbaugh, and bill o'reily so it's not like the company is really neutral about politics.

o'reilly is on fox

[open mind]

o'reilly is on fox
his radio show is run on stations owned by disney.

[yeat182]

companies refused to work with progressive and target?don't you mean consumers?
what i find to be nazi-esque is a company only providing one type of viewpoint and not the other.

a company is in no way obligated to show different viewpoints, it has only one responsibility and that is to their shareholders. if showing multiple viewpoints is good for buissness, then they will show multiple viewpoints, if its not, then they won't.

[yeat182]

his radio show is run on stations owned by disney.


ah, i see. if forgot about his radio show. my bad.

[open mind]

i'm sure disney has seen the movie.
how was i saying they didn't? i was pointing out that disney has plenty of oppritunity to decide what movies miramax puts into production.

[open mind]

a company is in no way obligated to show different viewpoints, it has only one responsibility and that is to their shareholders. if showing multiple viewpoints is good for buissness, then they will show multiple viewpoints, if its not, then they won't.
see from a buisness standpoint releaseing the movie would be wise as there is a wide base of people willing to pay to see it so it would be profitable, and i don't buy that disney wants to stay away from controversy, there's plenty of movies miramax has released that have been controversial and offensive to many.

[yeat182]

how was i saying they didn't? i was pointing out that disney has plenty of oppritunity to decide what movies miramax puts into production.

you wrote: i like how they called it a "bush-hate film" probably without ever seeing it.

were you not refering to disney? maybe i got it wrong...

[yeat182]

see from a buisness standpoint releaseing the movie would be wise as there is a wide base of people willing to pay to see it so it would be profitable, and i don't buy that disney wants to stay away from controversy, there's plenty of movies miramax has released that have been controversial and offensive to many.

just curious, but do you know any of the controvesial films they've released?

[open mind]

you wrote: i like how they called it a "bush-hate film" probably without ever seeing it.

were you not refering to disney? maybe i got it wrong...
i was talking about the article that was a link in the post i was replying to.

[yeat182]

i was talking about the article that was a link in the post i was replying to.

my mistake

[open mind]

just curious, but do you know any of the controvesial films they've released?
miramax has released plenty of violent films and films with nudity (many find violence and nudity in films offensive), there are to many to name.

[venus/bacchus]

i'm sure disney has seen the movie.
according to Michael Moore, Eisner hasn't seen it yet...and he's the one doing the most naysaying...but I'm sure a lot of people under him have seen it, so he has all the information he needs

[open mind]

it's a non issue to me now anyways cause the film will see release in the end, but disney has offended me enough wtih their actions surrounding the release of this film that i will make a concious effort not to watch any films or other media they release.

[Safetyin#]

disney owns miramax so i'm pretty sure they have plenty of control over the company.
i like how they called it a "bush-hate film" probably without ever seeing it.

Moore admits that Miramax signed him without Disney’s knowledge....and admits that Disney was furious when they found out....

Also "Bush-hate film" is just an educated guess, guessed by looking at the man and his previous work and speaches.….

[open mind]

oh well.
bush hate film? that's funny i thought the topic of the film is not hating bush, but the relationship between the bush family and the saudi royal family and 9/11.

[Safetyin#]

companies refused to work with progressive and target?don't you mean consumers?
what i find to be nazi-esque is a company only providing one type of viewpoint and not the other.

"Progressive" does both, although I can not tell you what percentage of business comes from which group, although anyone with a remote sense of the “business world” knows that companies make the most money, per customer, off other businesses.....and with target if we were having this conversation a few years ago I could give you a hole list, but target ended their affiliation with PP about 5 years ago...

and "nazi-esque" is playing something off as the truth when in reality it is knowingly fiction....and BC fit that definition to the "t" so it is only reasonable that F911 will do the same....

[open mind]

"Progressive" does both, although I can not tell you what percentage of business comes from which group, although anyone with a remote sense of the “business world” knows that companies make the most money, per customer, off other businesses.....and with target if we were having this conversation a few years ago I could give you a hole list, but target ended their affiliation with PP about 5 years ago...

and "nazi-esque" is playing something off as the truth when in reality it is knowingly fiction....and BC fit that definition to the "t" so it is only reasonable that F911 will do the same....
i didn't ask if they took money or supported those groups you mentioned i asked if companies have refused to do buisness with progressive and target because of the money they took from a group or for supporting any other group.
i'm sure consumers may not have done buisness with target or progressive because of it but i doubt if other companies have refused to do buisness with them because of their affiliations to a group of people like you said.
nazi-esque in my view is supressing one view and only showing another.

[Safetyin#]

oh well.
but the relationship between the bush family and the saudi royal family and 9/11.
No its about the ties with the Bush family and the Bin Laden family, who unlike their son are not terrorist nor extremist...but are a very "westernized" family, who have disowned their son and cut all the financial ties they could with him......of course Moore will probably play them off as terrorist and bin laden supporters, to get his "point" across, just like he played the NRA as former KKK members to get his "point" across in BC......

[open mind]

No its about the ties with the Bush family and the Bin Laden family, who unlike their son are not terrorist nor extremist...but are a very "westernized" family, who have disowned their son and cut all the financial ties they could with him......of course Moore will probably play them off as terrorist and bin laden supporters, to get his "point" across, just like he played the NRA as former KKK members to get his "point" across in BC......
the film also talks about 9/11 and how bush allowed royal family members to fly out that day so it does cover 9/11,and even if your assumptions are true how does that make it a "bush-hate film"?and have you seen it? how do you know that's how it goes?

[Safetyin#]

i didn't ask if they took money or supported those groups you mentioned i asked if companies have refused to do buisness with progressive and target because of the money they took from a group or for supporting any other group.i'm sure consumers may not have done buisness with target or progressive because of it but i doubt if other companies have refused to do buisness with them because of their affiliations to a group of people like you said..

Believe what you want, you should know by now that it matters not to me, but in the 90's target lost all kinds of business, from both customers and supplier because of their unwavering support of Planned Parenthood....and since the news of Peter Lewis's banking rolling of Moveon.org, a very controversial group, companies and people have begin taking their business else where.......see i think your problem is you think all companies are huge corporations, like sprint or twa etc...but the majority of American businesses are small, one owner businesses, who individually have a greater stake in the business and a more personally knowledge of where their money goes and a greater leeway in changing it…….

nazi-esque in my view is supressing one view and only allowing another.

Just from your definition above Disney is not "nazi-esque" because they are not suppressing F911, they are allowing it to be published by another and are asking for no money in return except what it cost to make.....They could have easily shelved the film and stopped it from being released totally, and then in a way they would be 'nazi-esque" by your definition...

[open mind]

[QUOTE=Safetyin#]Believe what you want, you should know by now that it matters not to me, but in the 90's target lost all kinds of business, from both customers and supplier because of their unwavering support of Planned Parenthood....and since the news of Peter Lewis's banking rolling of Moveon.org, a very controversial group, companies and people have begin taking their business else where.......see i think your problem is you think all companies are huge corporations, like sprint or twa etc...but the majority of American businesses are small, one owner businesses, who individually have a greater stake in the business and a more personally knowledge of where their money goes and a greater leeway in changing it…….



Just from your definition above Disney is not "nazi-esque" because they are not suppressing F911, they are allowing it to be published by another and are asking for no money in return except what it cost to make.....They could have easily shelved the film and stopped it from being released totally, and then in a way they would be 'nazi-esque" by your definition...[/QUOTE

have any links on that first part talking about buisnesses refusing to do buisness with target or progressive?
got me there, but michael moore films aren't nazi-esque either.
if being misleading at times makes you nazi-esque every media outlet and our leadership is nazi-esque also.

[Safetyin#]

the film also talks about 9/11 and how bush allowed royal family members to fly out that day so it does cover 9/11,?

That plane was charted by the Saudi government and carried about two dozen people, mostly members of bin ladens extended family who asked on 9/13 for clearance to leave the country and it wasn't until 9/15 or 9/16, after the FBI had cleared each one of them, that they were allowed to leave for their own safety....this stuff isn't hard to find....and the part about Bush knowing directly about this is called a "conspiracy theory" with absolutely no proof except hearsay.....Which is fine if Moore wants to talk about it in his movie, but it does help prove that this isn't a documentary, but propaganda piece....

[Safetyin#]

got me there, but michael moore films aren't nazi-esque either.
if being misleading at times makes you nazi-esque every media outlet and our leadership is nazi-esque also.

Moore is purposely "misleading" or out right lying to the viewer to trick them into thinking like he does or believing what he is telling them....this is exactly what the Nazis did in their "documentaries" for the same purpose.......see I would have no problem with moore's films if he would admit they are works of fiction....but because he continues to pretend they are "documentaries," then we have to label them as the type of “documentaries” they are.….

[open mind]

That plane was charted by the Saudi government and carried about two dozen people, mostly members of bin ladens extended family who asked on 9/13 for clearance to leave the country and it wasn't until 9/15 or 9/16, after the FBI had cleared each one of them, that they were allowed to leave for their own safety....this stuff isn't hard to find....and the part about Bush knowing directly about this is called a "conspiracy theory" with absolutely no proof except hearsay.....Which is fine if Moore wants to talk about it in his movie, but it does help prove that this isn't a documentary, but propaganda piece....
i haven't seen the film and neither have you i just know what it's supposed to cover, at the least reserve judgement until you see it, if you ever do.

[Safetyin#]

i haven't seen the film and neither have you i just know what it's supposed to cover, at the least reserve judgement until you see it, if you ever do.

Oh I know what its about too, and I shall see it (much like I’ve read one of his books and seen three of his "movies"), but it will be many months, because I don't go to theaters (because I bought a 55'' TV, but that’s another story).....As for passing judgement I think its justified, know what this man is about and what he's done in the past...it would be similar to if Ann Coulter released a new book, you would know in advance that it wouldn't look good upon liberals and you would probably be able to say you wouldn't like it in advance...

[open mind]

Oh I know what its about too, and I shall see it (much like I’ve read one of his books and seen three of his "movies"), but it will be many months, because I don't go to theaters (because I bought a 55'' TV, but that’s another story).....As for passing judgement I think its justified, know what this man is about and what he's done in the past...it would be similar to if Ann Coulter released a new book, you would know in advance that it wouldn't look good upon liberals and you would probably be able to say you wouldn't like it in advance...
i've never read any of ann coulter's books or seen any of michael moore's films, i just don't like it when a company is only willing to show one side of things despite the fact that it would profit them to show both sides.

[open mind]

Moore is purposely "misleading" or out right lying to the viewer to trick them into thinking like he does or believing what he is telling them....this is exactly what the Nazis did in their "documentaries" for the same purpose.......see I would have no problem with moore's films if he would admit they are works of fiction....but because he continues to pretend they are "documentaries," then we have to label them as the type of “documentaries” they are.….
bush said we found evidence of uranium iraq purchased from africa, and i know the leadership said they found mobile chemical labs in iraq, both false statements that intelligence didn't back up but were given the administrations spin.
is that nazi-esque to or simply jumping to conclusions?

[Safetyin#]

i've never read any of ann coulter's books or seen any of michael moore's films, i just don't like it when a company is only willing to show one side of things despite the fact that it would profit them to show both sides.

If you haven't seen one of his films then you don't know how blatantly deceptive they are, and it is the company, not Moore who will have to answer for this and face the consequences for this, not Moore....Businesses have to do what is in their best interest and what will make them the most, while hurting them the least, and they have figured that the return on Moore's film will cost them more then it will make them and so they won’t release it.....But I would agree with you to a point if Disney had sign Moore or knew that Moore was being signed, because then they would have known what they were getting into, but they didn't, and so they were forcible put in this predicament.....


And just on a personal note Moore is a very good film maker and very funny, I will not lie, and I’ll admit I enjoyed BC and roger and me...but you have to take them for what they are...

[open mind]

If you haven't seen one of his films then you don't know how blatantly deceptive they are, and it is the company, not Moore who will have to answer for this and face the consequences for this, not Moore....Businesses have to do what is in their best interest and what will make them the most, while hurting them the least, and they have figured that the return on Moore's film will cost them more then it will make them and so they won’t release it.....But I would agree with you to a point if Disney had sign Moore or knew that Moore was being signed, because then they would have known what they were getting into, but they didn't, and so they were forcible put in this predicament.....


And just on a personal note Moore is a very good film maker and very funny, I will not lie, and I’ll admit I enjoyed BC and roger and me...but you have to take them for what they are...
the film will make alot more money then it cost to produce, and really no one is going to boycott disney for releasing a film through a subsidiary i just don't buy it, i think it's just that one of the big shareholders of disney is a prominent member of the saudi royal family.

[open mind]

anyway this is a pointless topic now because the film will end up getting released, so unless you wanna add something i'm gonna close it.

[Safetyin#]

bush said we found evidence of uranium iraq purchased from africa, and i know the leadership said they found mobile chemical labs in iraq, both false statements that intelligence didn't back up but were given the administrations spin.
is that nazi-esque to?

The difference is, is that you can not prove that Bush or anyone else went into their office, wrote something down (and therefore making it up) and then tried to pass it off as fact...both of what you said were found by intelligence agencies (one British and one American) and both were thought to be true to the best of our knowledge....now you could hold Bush is at fault for saying that these were fact as opposed to "highly suspected,"......but there is still a difference there and that is, that Bush didn't make either stories up on his own but were hand them by American intelligence......

[Safetyin#]

anyway this is a pointless topic now because the film will end up getting released, so unless you wanna add something i'm gonna close it.
do what you want, but i still think you should rent one of his movies sometime, to help you understand him a little more...

[open mind]

isn't it misleading to state as fact something that is merely suspected?

[Safetyin#]

i think it's just that one of the big shareholders of disney is a prominent member of the saudi royal family.
and now i thought it was because of special tax breaks....

[open mind]

[QUOTE=Safetyin#]do what you want, but i still think you should rent one of his movies sometime, to help you understand him a little more...[/QUOTE
i will one of these days.

[open mind]

and now i thought it was because of special tax breaks....
that to in my view.

[Safetyin#]

isn't it misleading to state as fact something that is merely suspected?

you can hold bush accountable all you want, i don't like him anymore then you, and i won't defend what he said....but what he "did" is still different, because you can not prove he purposely lied, and i'm not even saying he didn't, but the point is you, nor anyone eles, can't prove it...

[open mind]

auctually the agent they got the bit of "intelligence" from on the africa thing said it was bullshit but the administration went ahead and gave it the spin anyways, when her husband told people that someone in the bush administration revealed she was a undercover cia spy (illegal),although it's still under investigation who exactly it was.

[Safetyin#]

auctually the agent they got the bit of "intelligence" from on the africa thing said it was bullshit but the administration went ahead and gave it the spin anyways, when her husband told people that someone in the bush administration revealed she was a undercover cia spy (illegal),although it's still under investigation who exactly it was.

I think I might have heard that, but I also heard that the Brits had cleared the "intelligence" as fact prior to Bush commenting on it....but if you are right and it happened prior to bush's speech and Bush knew it...then your accusations about him might be right...

[open mind]

alright we're getting off topic here and i think the issue of disney not releasing the movie has been resolved, so i'm closing this thread now, if you wanna talk about intelligence on iraq (although it's really been covered alot here) you can make a new thread.