Fahrenheit 9/11

[shereads]

Wild, my point was not to diminish the importance of the truths in Moore's film, but to point out that there is evidence galore about all of his main themes.

You say you would be open to changing your mind about Bush/Cheney if you believed what is asserted in the film. But you're ignoring the mass of evidence from inside the Bush White House that supports the same conclusion (read any of those books by O'Neill, Clark, Wilson, et al?) It's easy to dismiss allegations that these people are every bit as evil as Moore believes them to be, if you pretend that Moore is the only one saying these things - and if you take it for granted that anyone who disputes Moore's facts is himself a credible information source.

Here's the conumdrum for conservatives this year: No incumbent president iin history has inspired so many books, published during his term of office, by people who were inside the administration. And all of these books, taken together, tell essentially the same story.

You can focus on your dislike of Michael Moore all you like, but that doesn't negate the fact that he's one of many voices saying the same thing about Bush/Cheney. If Michael Moore were committed to a mental hospital tomorrow and announced that he was a habitual liar, it wouldn't make Clarke or Wilson or O'Neill or Dean's books go away.

What do you hope to accomplish by NOT reading the exposes written by people on your side of the political spectrium? The avoidance of a crisis of conscience?

 

[shereads]

RED ALERT! And I mean COMMUNISTS! This is big, people.

An alert Literotica pornster has notified me that not only did a top NASCAR driver announce that he had taken his entire crew to see Farenheit 9/11 (for you folks across the pond, NASCAR is sort of like Wimbledon, except that it's with race cars instead of tennis, and it's hugely popular with working-class Americans who used to be steadfast Bush Republicans. For one of their own to promote this movie is like the Pope ordering Catholics to see it.

NASCAR drivers recommending a Michael Moore film? It's like Nixon embracing Lenin and Reagan dancing the Blue Danube with Karl Marx. That's how likely this is.

If you are the White House right now, you need a change of underwear. This is even bigger than getting a positive review on Fox Network.

The same pornster provided me with David Letterman's Top Ten George W. Bush Complaints about Farenheit 9/11:


10. That actor who played the President was totally unconvincing

9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election

8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words

7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported

6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger

5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97% are true

4. Not sure - - I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe

3. Where the hell was Spider-man?

2. Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth

1. I thought this was supposed to be about dodgeball

 

[Guest]

If you are the White House right now, you need a change of underwear.

Sher, you always lift my spirits. My immediate thought: that's a fucking big pair of soiled boxers. Wish I'd heard Letterman. Thanks. P.

 

[shereads]

Sher, you always lift my spirits. My immediate thought: that's a fucking big pair of soiled boxers.

Thank you, Perdita. My spirits were lifted by the thought of Middle America embracing this film. This is an excerpt from Michael Moore's response to the enormous and surprisingly bipartisan response to this film.

In the next week or so, I will recount my adventures through the media this past month (I will also be posting a full FAQ on my website soon so that you can have all the necessary backup and evidence from the film when you find yourself in heated debate with your conservative brother-in-law!). For now, please know the following: Every single fact I state in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the absolute and irrefutable truth. This movie is perhaps the most thoroughly researched and vetted documentary of our time. No fewer than a dozen people, including three teams of lawyers and the venerable one-time fact-checkers from The New Yorker went through this movie with a fine-tooth comb so that we can make this guarantee to you. Do not let anyone say this or that isn't true. If they say that, they are lying. Let them know that the OPINIONS in the film are mine, and anyone certainly has a right to disagree with them. And the questions I pose in the movie, based on these irrefutable facts, are also mine. And I have a right to ask them. And I will continue to ask them until they are answered.

In closing, let me say that the most heartening response to the film has come from our soldiers and their families. Theaters in military towns across the country reported packed houses. Our troops know the truth. They have seen it first-hand. And many of them could not believe that here was a movie that was TRULY on their side -- the side of bringing them home alive and never sending them into harms way again unless it's the absolute last resort. Please take a moment to read this wonderful story from the daily paper in Fayetteville, NC, where Fort Bragg is located. It broke my heart to read this, the reactions of military families and the comments of an infantrymanÕs wife publicly backing my movie -- and it gave me the resolve to make sure as many Americans as possible see this film in the coming weeks.

http://fayettevillenc.com/story.php?Template=local&Story=6429101

Thank you again, all of you, for your support. Together we did something for the history books. My apologies to "Return of the Jedi." We'll make it up by producing "Return of the Texan to Crawford" in November.

~ Michael Moore

 

[Guest]

That's even better news, Sher. Of course the news isn't reporting how well the film's being received in military towns or other middle-American places. Fucking hell.

Perdita

 

[Pure]

Moores reply, Carlyle group. Newsweek's embarrassing error.
www.michaelmoore.com

July 1st, 2004 5:02 pm
Newsweek: Howard Rubenstein or David Rubenstein?
YOU MAKE THE CALL

In a June 30th piece on FAHRENHEIT 9/11, Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball focused on the movie's coverage of the Carlyle Group. In the story, which contends that the film was too tough on the Carlyle Group, the magazine identified high profile, well-known New York Public Relations executive Howard Rubenstein as the founder of the Carlyle Group.

In fact, the founder of the Carlyle Group is David Rubenstein, a close confidante of the Bush family (David likes to go on safari trips with former First Lady Barbara Bush). Given the similar biographies of the two Rubensteins and how much they look like each other (see photos and stories below), we can understand how easy it must have been for a news magazine like Newsweek to get fooled - just like they were fooled when President Bush said that America needed to go into Iraq because of the WMD and the ties to Al Qaeda.

We invite you to weigh in and vote for whichever Rubenstein you believe is the managing partner of the Carlyle Group - feel free to analyze the info below, which is readily available and accessible after even a cursory search on the Internet, or call Newsweek's Messrs. Isikoff and Hosenball in Washington, DC to inquire about their research capabilities. 202 626-2000.

"Its [Carlyle] founding and still managing partner is Howard Rubenstein, a former top domestic policy advisor to Jimmy Carter."
-- Newsweek 6/30/04 in a story on FAHRENHEIT 9/11

[{Note: this is a 'sarcastic' poll, in the article; pure}]

Which Rubenstein is the real Rubenstein?
Howard Rubenstein
David Rubenstein


Ironically, the Newsweek piece had an additional glaring factual mistake, involving, appropriately enough, the word "cannard" (Newsweek's spelling):

It refers to former Chairman of the Federal Communication Commission, William Kennard, as William Cannard. Maybe, using "Cannard" was merely a conscious effort to convey that their story was a "canard" - "a false or unfounded story or report." (Webster's Tenth Edition)

"One of its other managing partners is William Cannard, Clinton's chairman of the Federal Communications Commission." -- Newsweek, 6/30/04


[picture]
Howard Rubenstein, founder of Rubenstein & Associates, a New York-based Public Relations firm.

[picture]
David Rubenstein, in the Carlyle Group's Washington office. (Susan Biddle - The Washington Post)

{[Moore's point is that they do NOT look alike]}


Connections and Then Some
David Rubenstein Has Made Millions Pairing the Powerful With the Rich

By Greg Schneider
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 16, 2003; Page F01

David M. Rubenstein is exasperated, and he blurts something that a quick look around the room proves is outrageous: "We're not," he nearly shouts, "that well connected!"

Behind him is a picture of Rubenstein on a plane with then-Gov. George W. Bush. Across the room, a photo of Rubenstein with the president's father and mother. Next to that, Rubenstein and Mikhail Gorbachev. Elsewhere: Rubenstein and Jimmy Carter. On a bookshelf: Rubenstein and the pope.

This is not some honor wall in Rubenstein's office on Pennsylvania Avenue, this is his wood-paneled den at home in Bethesda. The snapshots are nearly hidden among books and trinkets and family photos -- the decorating restraint of the truly, deeply connected.

Rubenstein, after all, is co-founder of the Carlyle Group, an investment house famous as one of the most well-connected companies anywhere. Former president George H.W. Bush is a Carlyle adviser. Former British prime minister John Major heads its European arm. Former secretary of state James Baker is senior counselor, former White House budget chief Richard Darman is a partner, former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt is senior adviser -- the list goes on.

Those associations have brought Carlyle enormous success. Founded in 1987 with $5 million, the Washington-based merchant bank controls nearly $14 billion in investments, making it the largest private equity manager in the world. It buys and sells whole companies the way some firms trade shares of stock.

But the connections also have cost Carlyle, in ways that are hard to measure. It has developed a reputation as the CIA of the business world -- omnipresent, powerful, a little sinister. Media outlets from the Village Voice to BusinessWeek have depicted Carlyle as manipulating the levers of government from shadowy back rooms. "The Iron Triangle," a book about the company due out next month, promises to take readers into "a world that few of us can even imagine, full of clandestine meetings [and] quid pro quo deals."

Last year, then-congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) even suggested that Carlyle's and Bush's ties to the Middle East made them somehow complicitous in the Sept. 11 terror attacks. While her comments were widely dismissed as irresponsible, the publicity highlighted Carlyle's increasingly notorious reputation. Internet sites with headlines such as "The Axis of Corporate Evil" purport to link Carlyle to everything from Enron to al Qaeda.

"We've actually replaced the Trilateral Commission" as the darling of conspiracy theorists, says Rubenstein -- who, truth be told, happens to be a member of the Trilateral Commission.

It didn't help that as the World Trade Center burned on Sept. 11, 2001, the news interrupted a Carlyle business conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel here attended by a brother of Osama bin Laden. Former president Bush, a fellow investor, had been with him at the conference the previous day. [end excerpts]

 

[Pure]

Those pesky exit flights

June 23rd, 2004 11:32 pm
Michael Isikoff and Newsweek Magazine Deceive the Public About Fahrenheit 9/11

[Moore is writing]

In the June 28, 2004 issue of Newsweek Magazine, Newsweek writer Michael Isikoff makes completely false and misleading statements about facts and issues contained in Fahrenheit 9/11. Isikoff has also gone on television shows repeating the charges.

Here are some of the falsehoods he is telling, and the truth:

Saudi Flights: Isikoff writes that "The movie claims that in the days after 9/11, when airspace was shut down, the White House approved special charter flights so that prominent Saudis - including members of the bin Laden family - could leave the country. Author Craig Unger appears, claiming that bin Laden family members were never interviewed by the FBI. Not true, according to a recent report from the 9/11 panel."

Isikoff's account of the movie is flatly untrue.

What the movie says is this: "It turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis. At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the bin Ladens out of the U.S. after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country."

These facts are based entirely on the findings contained in the 9/11 commission draft report, which states, "After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin." National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12;

Isikoff claims that Fahrenheit 9/11 says that these flights out of the country took place when commercial airplanes were still grounded. The film does not say this anywhere. The film states clearly that these flights left after September 13 (the day the FAA began to slowly lift the ban on air traffic).

Moreover, in an interview with author Craig Unger, the film makes reference to the fact that these individuals were briefly interviewed before they were allowed to leave. Here is how Unger put it in a Letter to the Editor to Newsweek today (June 22, 2004):

To the Editors:
[Unger's letter to Newsweek]

In "Under the Hot Lights," Michael Isikoff attacks Fahrenheit 9/11 by asserting that "Craig Unger appears, claiming that bin Laden family members were never interviewed by the FBI." The article then goes on to say that this assertion is false.

Unfortunately for Isikoff, I make no such statement in the movie. I do argue -- accurately -- that the bin Ladens and other Saudis were whisked out of the country without being subjected to a serious investigation. But the sequence to which Isikoff refers ends with director Michael Moore summing up my account of the bin Laden evacuation by saying, "So a little interview, check the passport, what else?" "Nothing," I respond.

It would be one thing if Isikoff had simply made an honest error; but that clearly is not the case. When he called me, I specifically told Isikoff that the evacuation process involved brief interviews of the bin Ladens which fell far short of the kind of intense criminal investigation that should have gotten underway after the murder of nearly 3,000 people. The worst crime in American history had just taken place two days earlier, and the FBI did not even bother to check the terror watch lists. Isikoff omitted all that. Instead, he put words in my mouth that are simply not in the movie.

Isikoff also wrongly asserts that the Saudi "flights didn't begin until September 14 -- after airspace reopened." In fact, as I reported in House of Bush, House of Saud, the first flight took place on September 13, when restrictions on private planes were still in place. According to the St. Petersburg Times, that flight has since been corroborated by authorities at Tampa International Airport. Isikoff knew all this. I told him. I even gave him the names of two men who were on that flight and told him how to get in touch with them. But Isikoff left all that out as well -- as he did other information that did not suit his agenda. In dismissing the Bush-Saudi ties, Isikoff even omits the fact that more than $1.4 billion in investments and contracts went from the House of Saud to companies in which the Bushes and Cheney have been key figures -- all of which is itemized in my book. Isikoff begins his article by asking, "Can Michael Moore be believed?" The real question should be whether Michael Isikoff can be believed. Clearly, the answer is no.

Craig Unger
New York City, NY

[Moore continues-- ]
(Note: The St. Petersberg Times article to which Unger refers also states, "The 9/11 Commission, which has said the flights out of the United States were handled appropriately by the FBI, appears concerned with the handling of the Tampa flight... Most of the aircraft allowed to fly in U.S. airspace on Sept. 13 were empty airliners being ferried from the airports where they made quick landings on Sept. 11. The reopening of the airspace included paid charter flights, but not private, nonrevenue flights." Jean Heller, TIA now verifies flight of Saudis; The government has long denied that two days after the 9/11 attacks, the three were allowed to fly.
St. Petersburg Times, June 9, 2004.)[end Moore excerpts)

 

[Pure]

amusing
(which michael moore is michael moore?)

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/faq/

 

[Svenskaflicka]

RED ALERT! And I mean COMMUNISTS! This is big, people.

An alert Literotica pornster has notified me that not only did a top NASCAR driver announce that he had taken his entire crew to see Farenheit 9/11 (for you folks across the pond, NASCAR is sort of like Wimbledon, except that it's with race cars instead of tennis, and it's hugely popular with working-class Americans who used to be steadfast Bush Republicans. For one of their own to promote this movie is like the Pope ordering Catholics to see it.

NASCAR drivers recommending a Michael Moore film? It's like Nixon embracing Marx and Reagan dancing the Blue Danube with Karl Marx. That's how likely this is.

If you are the White House right now, you need a change of underwear. This is even bigger than getting a positive review on Fox Network.

The same pornster provided me with David Letterman's Top Ten George W. Bush Complaints about Farenheit 9/11:


10. That actor who played the President was totally unconvincing

9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election

8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words

7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported

6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger

5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97% are true

4. Not sure - - I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe

3. Where the hell was Spider-man?

2. Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth

1. I thought this was supposed to be about dodgeball

LOL

Triumph! We're winning ground! This calls for a nana-dance.

 

[shereads]

Enjoy your dance, Svenska. My experience as a fan of the University of South Carolina Fighting Gamecocks has taught me not to celebrate until both teams have left the field and boarded their buses. Being a fan of the Cocks is the closest analogy to the experience of being a liberal Democrat. There is no lead so dramatic that the Cocks can't lose.

 

[Pure]

I always preferred the North Carolina Fighting Postgamepussies.
They never blow a lead.

 

[shereads]

They suck.

 

[shereads]

Sher, I'm too lazy to go through and find out the answer if you already answered this but....Did you see the film yet?

Yes, I did, Ab. Sorry I missed this post before.

I cried all the way through it. Even the funny parts. A bit of pent-up tension on the topic, I suppose.

I'm going to see it again, dry-eyed.

There was an armed guard in the theater. That was a little disconcerting, to see that we've reached a point where theater-owners expect violence over a movie.

There was a standing ovation at the end. I would have expected that over in Miami Beach, but over on our side of the bay it's heavily Republican and I was surprised that there was a packed theater.

 

[Guest]

just for fun

This is from a weekly questions to the movie critic column in the SF Chronicle:
-------------
Dear Mick: Why would anyone remake "The Manchurian Candidate"? How can it possibly be dissociated from the Kennedy assassinations, not to mention the superb satire of McCarthyism and its understanding of how both contributed to 1960s political paranoia?
RG, San Francisco

Dear Ron: It's true the original "Manchurian Candidate" benefited from a mid-century atmosphere of paranoia, distrust of government and an underlying sense of powerful, malevolent forces using their influence to destroy the Constitution, undermine the democratic process and enslave and degrade a gullible, willing populace. But aw, heck, I bet if we concentrate really hard, we can still find a basis for understanding the forthcoming remake.
Mick LaSalle

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Enjoy your dance, Svenska. My experience as a fan of the University of South Carolina Fighting Gamecocks has taught me not to celebrate until both teams have left the field and boarded their buses. Being a fan of the Cocks is the closest analogy to the experience of being a liberal Democrat. There is no lead so dramatic that the Cocks can't lose.

LOL, it sounds an awful lot like being a University of Kentucky football fan. I think they lead the NCAA in come from ahead losses. Fortunately for me, I'm a Louisville fan.

 

[shereads]

LOL, it sounds an awful lot like being a University of Kentucky football fan. I think they lead the NCAA in come from ahead losses. Fortunately for me, I'm a Louisville fan.

On the upside, there's nothing more fun for a college freshman from a Southern Baptist family, living away from home for the first time, than to sit in a stadium chanting, "COCKS! COCKS! COCKS!"

We had the best bumper stickers, too.

 

[shereads]

The Cocks may be the only team in college football other than Stanford to have lost a game after it was over.

True.

We had ended a miserable season with a dramatic come-from-behind victory over our hated arch-rivals, in their stadium. The enemy had the ball, and all they needed was to get within field goal range, but our undersize defensive squad gave those last few plays everything they had, and when the clock showed double zeros, tens of thousands of college kids thought we were experiencing Perfect Justice, and perhaps even proof of the existence of God.

What a giddy moment that was. We were hugging and crying and screaming and hundreds of kids had run out onto the field. You can imagine how difficult it was for the officials to clear the field and get the teams back into position when 4 seconds suddenly appeared on the clock where the zeros had been.

I never did find out where the Mystery Seconds came from, and I don't think I have to tell you what happened during those four seconds. At the time, it really didn't feel like an experience that would be useful in the future, but I think that game helped put sports in perspective for me. It also helped prepare me for Election 2000.

Damn Tim Russert and his stupid chart.

Damn ACC refs.

Go Cocks.

 

[shereads]

Re: just for fun

This is from a weekly questions to the movie critic column in the SF Chronicle:
-------------
Dear Mick: Why would anyone remake "The Manchurian Candidate"? How can it possibly be dissociated from the Kennedy assassinations, not to mention the superb satire of McCarthyism and its understanding of how both contributed to 1960s political paranoia?
RG, San Francisco

Dear Ron: It's true the original "Manchurian Candidate" benefited from a mid-century atmosphere of paranoia, distrust of government and an underlying sense of powerful, malevolent forces using their influence to destroy the Constitution, undermine the democratic process and enslave and degrade a gullible, willing populace. But aw, heck, I bet if we concentrate really hard, we can still find a basis for understanding the forthcoming remake.
Mick LaSalle

 

[shereads]

With status quo, I'm voting for Bush unless something comes out about him.

Something?

Something?

 

[shereads]

Moores reply, Carlyle group. Newsweek's embarrassing error.
www.michaelmoore.com

July 1st, 2004 5:02 pm
Newsweek: Howard Rubenstein or David Rubenstein?
YOU MAKE THE CALL

In a June 30th piece on FAHRENHEIT 9/11, Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball focused on the movie's coverage of the Carlyle Group. In the story, which contends that the film was too tough on the Carlyle Group, the magazine identified high profile, well-known New York Public Relations executive Howard Rubenstein as the founder of the Carlyle Group.

In fact, the founder of the Carlyle Group is David Rubenstein, a close confidante of the Bush family (David likes to go on safari trips with former First Lady Barbara Bush). Given the similar biographies of the two Rubensteins and how much they look like each other (see photos and stories below), we can understand how easy it must have been for a news magazine like Newsweek to get fooled - just like they were fooled when President Bush said that America needed to go into Iraq because of the WMD and the ties to Al Qaeda.

We invite you to weigh in and vote for whichever Rubenstein you believe is the managing partner of the Carlyle Group - feel free to analyze the info below, which is readily available and accessible after even a cursory search on the Internet, or call Newsweek's Messrs. Isikoff and Hosenball in Washington, DC to inquire about their research capabilities. 202 626-2000.

"Its [Carlyle] founding and still managing partner is Howard Rubenstein, a former top domestic policy advisor to Jimmy Carter."
-- Newsweek 6/30/04 in a story on FAHRENHEIT 9/11

[{Note: this is a 'sarcastic' poll, in the article; pure}]

Which Rubenstein is the real Rubenstein?
Howard Rubenstein
David Rubenstein


Ironically, the Newsweek piece had an additional glaring factual mistake, involving, appropriately enough, the word "cannard" (Newsweek's spelling):

It refers to former Chairman of the Federal Communication Commission, William Kennard, as William Cannard. Maybe, using "Cannard" was merely a conscious effort to convey that their story was a "canard" - "a false or unfounded story or report." (Webster's Tenth Edition)

"One of its other managing partners is William Cannard, Clinton's chairman of the Federal Communications Commission." -- Newsweek, 6/30/04


[picture]
Howard Rubenstein, founder of Rubenstein & Associates, a New York-based Public Relations firm.

[picture]
David Rubenstein, in the Carlyle Group's Washington office. (Susan Biddle - The Washington Post)

{[Moore's point is that they do NOT look alike]}


Connections and Then Some
David Rubenstein Has Made Millions Pairing the Powerful With the Rich

By Greg Schneider
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 16, 2003; Page F01

David M. Rubenstein is exasperated, and he blurts something that a quick look around the room proves is outrageous: "We're not," he nearly shouts, "that well connected!"

Behind him is a picture of Rubenstein on a plane with then-Gov. George W. Bush. Across the room, a photo of Rubenstein with the president's father and mother. Next to that, Rubenstein and Mikhail Gorbachev. Elsewhere: Rubenstein and Jimmy Carter. On a bookshelf: Rubenstein and the pope.

This is not some honor wall in Rubenstein's office on Pennsylvania Avenue, this is his wood-paneled den at home in Bethesda. The snapshots are nearly hidden among books and trinkets and family photos -- the decorating restraint of the truly, deeply connected.

Rubenstein, after all, is co-founder of the Carlyle Group, an investment house famous as one of the most well-connected companies anywhere. Former president George H.W. Bush is a Carlyle adviser. Former British prime minister John Major heads its European arm. Former secretary of state James Baker is senior counselor, former White House budget chief Richard Darman is a partner, former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt is senior adviser -- the list goes on.

Those associations have brought Carlyle enormous success. Founded in 1987 with $5 million, the Washington-based merchant bank controls nearly $14 billion in investments, making it the largest private equity manager in the world. It buys and sells whole companies the way some firms trade shares of stock.

But the connections also have cost Carlyle, in ways that are hard to measure. It has developed a reputation as the CIA of the business world -- omnipresent, powerful, a little sinister. Media outlets from the Village Voice to BusinessWeek have depicted Carlyle as manipulating the levers of government from shadowy back rooms. "The Iron Triangle," a book about the company due out next month, promises to take readers into "a world that few of us can even imagine, full of clandestine meetings [and] quid pro quo deals."

Last year, then-congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) even suggested that Carlyle's and Bush's ties to the Middle East made them somehow complicitous in the Sept. 11 terror attacks. While her comments were widely dismissed as irresponsible, the publicity highlighted Carlyle's increasingly notorious reputation. Internet sites with headlines such as "The Axis of Corporate Evil" purport to link Carlyle to everything from Enron to al Qaeda.

"We've actually replaced the Trilateral Commission" as the darling of conspiracy theorists, says Rubenstein -- who, truth be told, happens to be a member of the Trilateral Commission.

It didn't help that as the World Trade Center burned on Sept. 11, 2001, the news interrupted a Carlyle business conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel here attended by a brother of Osama bin Laden. Former president Bush, a fellow investor, had been with him at the conference the previous day. [end excerpts]

Until something comes out about the president, Pure, you should stop picking on him.

 

[shereads]

Those pesky exit flights

June 23rd, 2004 11:32 pm
Michael Isikoff and Newsweek Magazine Deceive the Public About Fahrenheit 9/11

[Moore is writing]

In the June 28, 2004 issue of Newsweek Magazine, Newsweek writer Michael Isikoff makes completely false and misleading statements about facts and issues contained in Fahrenheit 9/11. Isikoff has also gone on television shows repeating the charges.

Here are some of the falsehoods he is telling, and the truth:

Saudi Flights: Isikoff writes that "The movie claims that in the days after 9/11, when airspace was shut down, the White House approved special charter flights so that prominent Saudis - including members of the bin Laden family - could leave the country. Author Craig Unger appears, claiming that bin Laden family members were never interviewed by the FBI. Not true, according to a recent report from the 9/11 panel."

Isikoff's account of the movie is flatly untrue.

What the movie says is this: "It turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis. At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the bin Ladens out of the U.S. after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country."

These facts are based entirely on the findings contained in the 9/11 commission draft report, which states, "After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin." National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12;

Isikoff claims that Fahrenheit 9/11 says that these flights out of the country took place when commercial airplanes were still grounded. The film does not say this anywhere. The film states clearly that these flights left after September 13 (the day the FAA began to slowly lift the ban on air traffic).

Moreover, in an interview with author Craig Unger, the film makes reference to the fact that these individuals were briefly interviewed before they were allowed to leave. Here is how Unger put it in a Letter to the Editor to Newsweek today (June 22, 2004):

To the Editors:
[Unger's letter to Newsweek]

In "Under the Hot Lights," Michael Isikoff attacks Fahrenheit 9/11 by asserting that "Craig Unger appears, claiming that bin Laden family members were never interviewed by the FBI." The article then goes on to say that this assertion is false.

Unfortunately for Isikoff, I make no such statement in the movie. I do argue -- accurately -- that the bin Ladens and other Saudis were whisked out of the country without being subjected to a serious investigation. But the sequence to which Isikoff refers ends with director Michael Moore summing up my account of the bin Laden evacuation by saying, "So a little interview, check the passport, what else?" "Nothing," I respond.

It would be one thing if Isikoff had simply made an honest error; but that clearly is not the case. When he called me, I specifically told Isikoff that the evacuation process involved brief interviews of the bin Ladens which fell far short of the kind of intense criminal investigation that should have gotten underway after the murder of nearly 3,000 people. The worst crime in American history had just taken place two days earlier, and the FBI did not even bother to check the terror watch lists. Isikoff omitted all that. Instead, he put words in my mouth that are simply not in the movie.

Isikoff also wrongly asserts that the Saudi "flights didn't begin until September 14 -- after airspace reopened." In fact, as I reported in House of Bush, House of Saud, the first flight took place on September 13, when restrictions on private planes were still in place. According to the St. Petersburg Times, that flight has since been corroborated by authorities at Tampa International Airport. Isikoff knew all this. I told him. I even gave him the names of two men who were on that flight and told him how to get in touch with them. But Isikoff left all that out as well -- as he did other information that did not suit his agenda. In dismissing the Bush-Saudi ties, Isikoff even omits the fact that more than $1.4 billion in investments and contracts went from the House of Saud to companies in which the Bushes and Cheney have been key figures -- all of which is itemized in my book. Isikoff begins his article by asking, "Can Michael Moore be believed?" The real question should be whether Michael Isikoff can be believed. Clearly, the answer is no.

Craig Unger
New York City, NY

[Moore continues-- ]
(Note: The St. Petersberg Times article to which Unger refers also states, "The 9/11 Commission, which has said the flights out of the United States were handled appropriately by the FBI, appears concerned with the handling of the Tampa flight... Most of the aircraft allowed to fly in U.S. airspace on Sept. 13 were empty airliners being ferried from the airports where they made quick landings on Sept. 11. The reopening of the airspace included paid charter flights, but not private, nonrevenue flights." Jean Heller, TIA now verifies flight of Saudis; The government has long denied that two days after the 9/11 attacks, the three were allowed to fly.
St. Petersburg Times, June 9, 2004.)[end Moore excerpts)

People are lying about Michael Moore? Is nothing sacred?

 

[Pure]

Anybody have the details on

1) Saudi's framing westerners for planting bombs.

2) Saudi's 'springing' their own from Guantanamo? Something most other countries have failed to accomplish.

3) How the Saudis dealt for the latter with the former as consideration.

 

[Somme]

!

http://www.truthout.org/fahrenheit911.htm

 

[Somme]

bumpity bump

 

[shereads]

Thank you for this Somme. Some snippets from the review for which you provided the link:

Rattled one Republican
ÊÊÊÊReviewer: angeredux

ÊÊÊÊFriday 25 June 2004

"...Bush Administration damns itself through its own actions, its own words, its own lies...all documented for prosperity. Is the film biased? Hell, yes.

"...But there it is on the screen. Fact. It can't be explained away.

"...Every Republican should see it before he casts his vote this November. It changed my vote."