Fahrenheit 9/11

[Guest]

My sister -

and her new hubby watch Fox News. (I'm so ashamed.)

She used to be like me but since she got married she's done a serious 180 on her political views and even changed religions! (College educated, well-traveled - what the hell is wrong with her?)

Anyway, what I find most interesting is during family gatherings we'll be discussing current events and the two of them will always be lacking information on certain major issues. And often will have no knowledge at all! (And they haven't gotten the point yet????) I love her, but she really needs to be bitch-slapped.

How much of the country is this separated from reality?

 

[shereads]

Re: My sister -

and her new hubby watch Fox News. (I'm so ashamed.)

She used to be like me but since she got married she's done a serious 180 on her political views and even changed religions! (College educated, well-traveled - what the hell is wrong with her?)

Anyway, what I find most interesting is during family gatherings we'll be discussing current events and the two of them will always be lacking information on certain major issues. And often will have no knowledge at all! (And they haven't gotten the point yet????) I love her, but she really needs to be bitch-slapped.

How much of the country is this separated from reality?

It's tragic, I know. It happened to someone in my family who inherited a lot of money. Suddenly he was obsessed with two things: golf and how Hilary Clinton is Destroying America's Values. He included me on his group e-mail list until I threatened to "reply all."

He lives in a walled MacEnclave of MacMansions on the MacGolfCourse. It's like he's joined a cult.

Here's a direct quote: "George W. Bush is the most honest man to have occupied the White House in our lifetime."

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: My sister -

Here's a direct quote: "George W. Bush is the most honest man to have occupied the White House in our lifetime."

He should have that tattooed on his ass.

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: Re: My sister -

He should have that tattooed on his ass.

Don't say that too loudly. It will start a trend.

 

[Pure]

On the Fox review.

It's worth noting that occasionally CNN sounds antiBush, particularly around 'job export' and 'Mexico/US border.'

The conservative anti(Iraq)war folks are NOT scarce anymore. See www.antiwar.com

The stances seem to be libertarian and/or populist.

Further, even among the moneyed elites (outside of Hollywood), opposition to Bush is not rare, e.g., Soros.

 

[Clare Quilty]

What's amazing is that it requires a movie to get people to notice what's been revealing itself in bits and pieces, all along.

Even more amazing is the positive review from Fox's website. "A triumph of patriotism."

Wow.

Wierd.

And it wasn't even sarcastic.

It makes sense. The integrity of Newspapers and Television news has been undermined by media deregulation. The people who own these media outlets are motivated by the desire to make profits. They certainly aren't going to strongly oppose the republican controlled congress and FCC, which have the power to prevent them from acquiring more stations, fine them into oblivion or simply refuse to renew current licenses. Film is one of the few media where dissent can be voiced. Look at the lengths to which righwingers are going to try to stop Fahrenheit 9/11 from being seen! Violation of campaign finance law--Ha ha. Telling people that they can't see or read something always works--NOT!

By the by, I saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" yesterday. I was surprised to see both screens of the theatre packed at 11:45 am. In the auditorium where I was, the film received a standing ovation.

 

[shereads]

I'm seeing it tomorrow*. I was going to wait to be invited to the White House screening, but it seems like a long-shot.



*today, but after some sleep. Goodnight, pornsters.

 

[Somme]

I'm seeing it tomorrow*. I was going to wait to be invited to the White House screening, but it seems like a long-shot.



*today, but after some sleep. Goodnight, pornsters.

Give George my regards.....

 

[Pure]

FBI Employed al qaeda member

9/11 Commission Misses FBI's Embarrassing Al Qaeda Dealings

Commentary, Peter Dale Scott,

Pacific News Service, Jun 24, 2004

Editor's Note: The name "Ali Mohamed" came up briefly in 9/11 Commission hearings. Had commission members done their homework, writes PNS contributor Peter Dale Scott, they could have probed the links between Mohamed and the FBI, which likely released the terrorist years ago in a bungle that may have contributed to the loss of hundreds of lives.

It is clear that important new evidence about al Qaeda has been gathered and released by the 9/11 Commission. But it is also clear that the commission did nothing when a Justice Department official, in commission testimony last week, brazenly covered up the embarrassing relationship of the FBI to a senior al Qaeda operative, Ali Mohamed. By telling the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to release Mohamed in 1993, the FBI may have contributed to the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya five years later.

The official testifying was Patrick J. Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney for Northern Illinois, who prosecuted two terrorism cases involving Mohamed. As Fitzgerald told the commission, Ali Mohamed was an important al Qaeda agent who "trained most of al Qaeda's top leadership," including "persons who would later carry out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing."

As for Ali Mohamed's long-known relationship to the FBI, Fitzgerald said only that, "From 1994 until his arrest in 1998, he lived as an American citizen in California, applying for jobs as an FBI translator and working as a security guard for a defense contractor."

Whatever the exact relationship of Mohamed to the FBI, it is clear from the public record that it was much more intimate than simply sending in job applications. Three years ago, Larry C. Johnson, a former State Department and CIA official, faulted the FBI publicly for using Mohamed as an informant, when it should have recognized that the man was a high-ranking terrorist plotting against the United States. In Johnson's words, ""It's possible that the FBI thought they had control of him and were trying to use him, but what's clear is that they did not have control." (San Francisco Chronicle, 11/04/01)

Ali Mohamed faced trial in New York in 2000 for his role in the 1998 Nairobi Embassy bombing. He pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of conspiracy and avoided a jury trial. While pleading guilty, Mohamed admitted he had trained some of the persons in New York who had been responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

In Mohamed's plea-bargain testimony, as summarized on a U.S. State Department Web site, he revealed that in late 1994 the FBI ordered him to fly from Kenya to New York, and he obeyed. "I received a call from an FBI agent who wanted to speak to me about the upcoming trial of United States v. Abdel Rahman (in connection with the 1993 WTC bombing). I flew back to the United States, spoke to the FBI, but didn't disclose everything that I knew."

One year earlier, according to the Toronto Globe and Mail, Ali Mohamed had been picked up by the RCMP in Canada in the company of an al Qaeda terrorist. Mohamed immediately told the RCMP to make a phone call to his FBI handler. The call quickly secured his release.

The Globe and Mail later concluded that Mohamed "was working with U.S. counter-terrorist agents, playing a double or triple game, when he was questioned in 1993." His companion, Essam Marzouk, is now serving 15 years of hard labor in Egypt after having been arrested in Azerbaijan, according to Canada's National Post newspaper. As of November 2001, Mohamed had still not been sentenced, and was still believed to be supplying information from his prison cell.

The RCMP's release of Mohamed may have affected history. The encounter apparently took place before Mohamed flew to Nairobi, photographed the U.S. Embassy, and took the photo or photos to bin Laden. (According to Mohamed's confession, "Bin Laden looked at the picture of the American Embassy and pointed to where a truck could go as a suicide bomber.")

The 9/11 Commission should have had a serious discussion of the U.S. intelligence agencies' relationship to Mohamed. It has been widely reported, and never denied, that after he first came to the United States from Egypt he worked first for the CIA and then the U.S. Army Special Forces.

Mohamed trained the WTC bombers at an Islamist center in Brooklyn, N.Y, where earlier he had been recruiting and training Arabs for the U.S.-supported Afghan War. A British newspaper, the London Independent, has charged that he was on the U.S. payroll at the time he was training the Arab Afghans, and that the CIA, reviewing the case five years after the 1993 WTC bombing, concluded in an internal document that it was "partly culpable" for the World Trade Center bomb.

The commission may have failed to explore these matters for the same reason it suppressed testimony from a former FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds. She said a foreign organization had penetrated the FBI's translator program. Attorney General John Ashcroft has since ordered Edmonds not to speak further about the matter, asserting "state secrets" privilege.

Sadly, the only public commission discussion of Mohamed came from commission member Timothy Roemer, who naively repeated Fitzgerald's statement and went no further: "He comes to the United States and applies for jobs as an FBI translator and as a defense contractor," Roemer said.

PNS contributor Peter Dale Scott (pdscott@socrates.berkeley.edu) is a former Canadian diplomat and professor of English at U.C. Berkeley. His most recent book is "Drugs, Oil and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina" (Rowman and Littlefield, 2003). Ali Mohamed is treated in Scott's forthcoming book, an examination of off-the-books U.S. forces from 1950 to

 

[shereads]

I saw it tonight. It was hard to watch.

I was looking forward to this movie. I expected to feel some sense of validation. The things we've been debating here for months - the Bushes and the Bin Ladens, the conflicts of interest, the ignored warnings, the casual sacrifice of lives - all of it would finally be on film for the world to accept or not, and we could stop beating this poor dead horse. I guess I thought I'd feel relieved. I didn't realize until I started crying about an hour into the movie, that it would have felt better to be wrong.

Moore's narration is often way over the top, but it's irrelevent. No amount of debate about his cleverness as a propogandist can diminish the power of the unscripted sequences that document this betrayal. It's one thing to read about and argue about what's happened to us since 9/11. It's another thing to know it.

I'm beyond anger, tired of it. There's just sadness now.

 

[Pure]

World > Terrorism & Security
posted June 21, 2004, updated 11:21 a.m.
Christian Science Monitor

Senior intel officer: Al Qaeda will attack US to ensure Bush win

His new book, others, also highlight intelligence, administration failures in war on terror.

by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

[start]
In the past few months several books have been published that attack the US intelligence community, and the White House, for their alleged mistakes and misstatements about Iraq and the war on terror. Most of these books, the Guardian reports, have been written by "embittered" former officials.

But now, the newspaper reports, a senior US intelligence official is "about to publish a bitter condemnation of America's counter-terrorism policy, arguing that the West is losing the war against Al Qaeda and that an 'avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked' war in Iraq has played into Osama bin Laden's hands."

This senior intelligence official, who writes as "Anonymous," also says that "Osama bin Laden may attack the US before the November election to ensure the re-election of President George Bush."

Anonymous, who published an analysis of Al Qaeda last year, called Through Our Enemies' Eyes, thinks it quite possible that another devastating strike against the US could come during the election campaign, not with the intention of changing the administration, as was the case in the Madrid bombing, but of keeping the same one in place.

"I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now," he said. "One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the president."

"Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror" will be released in July. The Guardian notes that the fact that this author has been allowed to publish this work, and yet still remain a senior member of the US intelligence community, may "reflect the increasing frustration of senior intelligence officials at the course the administration has taken." [end excerpt]

 

[rgraham666]

Senior intel officer: Al Qaeda will attack US to ensure Bush win

As they say up here in Canuckistan, "quelle surprise!"

 

[Pure]

Finally, a list of the falsehoods of F 9-11


This site below is devoted to countering Moore. It has this pamphlet pointing out all the falsehoods of F 9-11:

http://www.moorewatch.com/f911flyer.pdf

 

[Pure]

Excellent review of 9-11 by a conservative, Justin Raimondo. Hey I'm getting to admire this guy's writings!

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2891

June 28, 2004
A Tale of Two Movies:

Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11

by Justin Raimondo


Michael Moore's new film embodies all the virtues, and vices, of the American left at the present moment: it is trenchant and wrongheaded, serious and superficial, startlingly original and horribly clichéd. There is humor, sophomoric as well as dark; emotion, spontaneous and staged. Fahrenheit 9/11 is, in short, the best of films, and the worst of films. It is, in effect, two entirely different movies.

Oddly, all the bad stuff occurs in the first 20 minutes or so, as if Moore just had to get the leftie clichés, the partisan Democratic tirades, and the cheap shots out of his system before he could get down to the serious business of telling how and why George W. Bush and his minions capitalized on 9/11 and lied us into war.

The movie starts out on election night, 2000, and reiterates the mythology of a "stolen" election the way a Catholic might recite the Stations of the Cross. The Supreme Court. Blah blah blah. Jeb Bush. Blah blah blah. Gore really took Florida, but the racist Republicans threw out the black vote and the rest is history. In light of how Moore later shows his admiration for the courage and innocence of the people who serve in our armed forces, it's odd that he doesn't mention the organized efforts by the Democrats to disqualify as many military ballots as possible.

But worse is yet to come. Moore spends a good 15 minutes constructing a conspiracy theory that is not only incomprehensible, illogical, and shamelessly demagogic: it is presented in a manner that is no doubt extremely offensive to any Arabs who might be in the audience, and might even be perceived by them as borderline racist as well.

We are told that, in the hours immediately after 9/11, "142 Saudis were allowed to leave the country," and that among them were – gasp! – members of the bin Laden family. What, then, would Moore have preferred? Should the president have ordered the rounding up of all Saudis on American soil? He drags some "former" FBI official on screen to complain that we should have at least asked them a few perfectly innocent questions – and, yes, detained them – because, heck, even the most fervent "civil libertarian" couldn't object to that, at least not under the circumstances.

Keeping them in the U.S. is supposed to be justified because, well, they're all members of the same family as bin Laden, aren't they? As Jane Mayer points out, however, we're talking about a large clan that "may number as many as six hundred, when one counts all the relatives." Are all these people automatically terrorists – and didn't they have much to fear from unreasoning hatred and a desire to exact revenge?

Moore's conception of al-Qaeda is pure Hollywood: it's The Godfather, only with Saudi headdresses. Terrorism, in Moore's view, is simply the bin Laden family business. Oh, they're a bad lot, those bin Ladens. When they aren't spawning terrorist offspring, like Osama, they're investing in global conglomerates, like the Carlyle Group, along with the president's father. Like the Israelis, who bulldoze the houses of suspected terrorists, and arrest entire families for the actions of a single sibling, Moore wants to hit the whole clan – and, it often seems, the whole Saudi nation.

As Moore reminds us that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, the camera focuses on their dark, Semitic features, as we see shot after shot of unctuously smiling princes paraded before our eyes. Men in Saudi garb are greeted by the president's father, who commits the horrible sin of treating them warmly. From time to time, author Craig Unger is dragged onstage, uttering vague libels against the Bush family. The smoking gun supposedly linking the Bush crime family to the bin Laden Mafia is … George W. Bush's National Guard discharge papers!

It seems Bush had been in some trouble, along with one James R. Bath – who, it turns out, later became the manager of the bin Laden family's Texas holdings. Bath's name had been on the original document, but was mysteriously expunged. And that, of course, proves … nothing. Yet it is uttered in the tone of a revelation that is supposed to be self-evidently shocking.

Moore goes to such extremes in his orgy of Saudi-bashing that one has to wonder if he would have bombed Riyadh instead of Baghdad. He drags out the redacted 28 pages from that Congressional report on 9/11 – as if the absence of evidence constitutes irrefutable proof. We are told that the Saudis own "7 percent of the U.S. economy" – but why is this supposed to be so sinister? Either all foreign investment is inherently subversive, or there is something about Saudi money that is particularly evil. In any case, Moore doesn't elaborate, which is why this entire first segment is totally unconvincing.

Just when I had given up all hope, and resigned myself to enduring this farrago of crude innuendo and guilt-by-association to the bitter end, the movie did a 180-degree turnaround.

Moore does a masterful job of covering the run-up to war. Sound-bites from administration figures that clearly expose them as serial liars are juxtaposed with horrific footage of Iraqi civilian casualties and wounded. The narrative clearly and succinctly shows how American anger over 9/11 was diverted away from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and redirected at Iraq.

Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, is utilized to good effect, and testimony from the 9/11 Commission demonstrating the administration's disinterest in bin Laden, both prior to and after the terrorist attacks, is presented with a minimum of editorial comment, and to great effect: the facts are damning in themselves.

The movie takes off like a shot, at this point, as Moore documents and disdains the vital role played by the "mainstream" media in the orchestrated campaign of deception that preceded the invasion. We are treated to Dan Rather solemnly proclaiming that he wants us to "win" in Iraq, and a female newscaster getting all hot-and-bothered as she describes the adrenaline rush of being with the troops, so hopped up by her own pro-war fervor that she is fairly swooning.

He also doesn't shy away from indicting the complicity of the Democrats: Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle's speech endorsing the attack on Iraq is shown, along with the laziness and cynicism that permitted the "PATRIOT" Act to be pass without even being read by the members of Congress, with one Democrat in effect saying "You don't really think we read this stuff, do you?"

Reading the PATRIOT Act aloud as he circles Capitol Hill in a sound truck, Moore effectively dramatizes the utter powerlessness (and cluelessness) of our esteemed Solons. In another effective stunt aimed at our elected representatives, he approaches members of Congress outside the Capitol building, earnestly explaining that he is trying to recruit their children into the military. Instead of lecturing us, he entertains us – and gets his point across all the more pointedly and effectively.

What really comes across in this film is Moore's feeling for American soldiers in the field, rooted, I believe, in his empathy for ordinary people, and – dare I say it? – his unambiguous patriotism. He goes inside Walter Reed Army Hospital, in Washington, and interviews the wounded: amputees, laying in their beds, full of pain and determination to get on with their lives. He interviews soldiers in the field, who wonder what we're doing over there. "It's not that easy to conquer a country," says one, his voice full of wonder.

In a scene that, for me, symbolizes the tragedy of American foreign policy, a fresh-faced U.S. Army officer solemnly intones that we're in Iraq to enlighten the people with "the ideals of American freedom and democracy." In the next scene we are shown the invasion of an Iraqi home by their American "liberators," who kick down doors, treat everyone with contempt, and play the part of swaggering conquerors to the hilt. It is Christmas Eve, and the occupiers are out on a mission, singing:

"You better watch out, you better not shout, you better not pout, I'm telling you why….

"San-ta Claus is coooom-ing to town!"

Things get darker when we are shown the treatment of Iraqi prisoners. In a presentiment of the Abu Ghraib horror show, Moore has footage of American GIs cruelly abusing their captives. It's strange that in an army where homosexuals are officially verboten, we see a U.S. soldier touching the genitalia of an Iraqi prisoner who is wrapped up, it appears, in a blanket, and bound. The soldiers snicker. "Oh, look, he's got a hard-on!" We see prisoners being hooded, a procedure that seems almost ceremonial: what's clearly going on here is the ritual humiliation of a nation.

During the course of this nearly two-hour documentary, the entire panoply of left-wing conceptions about this war, and this president, are put on display and imprinted on every frame, from the ridiculous to the sublime. The end result is more positive than negative, but, as much as I enjoyed the final two-thirds, I couldn't help feeling a bit disgruntled.

Okay, so they lied us into war – but why? The film fails to provide an answer beyond the usual leftist shibboleths: the president is a dunce, the Saudis own the world, the rich are evil, and the poor are inherently good. The closest Moore comes to an overall explanation is his Saudi conspiracy stuff, which is utter and complete nonsense: there is no evidence of Saudi government involvement in 9/11, as the 9/11 Commission concluded. The irrationality of this Saudi conspiracy theme is further evidenced by the terrorist attacks on the Kingdom and its authority. If bin Laden is Riyadh's creature, then why is al-Qaeda attacking the monarchy?

When it comes to identifying the enemy, Moore (like so many of his ideological brethren) misses the point almost entirely. Throughout an entire movie about the rise of George W. Bush and the origins of the Iraq war, the word "neoconservative" never once passes anyone's lips. The leftist insistence on abstract "forces," instead of the actions of specific individuals, overrides everything: in the end, Osama bin Laden is just another rich guy, like Bush and his cronies.

Of Michael Moore, one might say: when he is bad, he is very very bad – and when he's good, he's memorably effective. That this is also true of the left-liberal analysis in general is what makes this film interesting, especially for those of us who identify as libertarians. As a barometer of the times, the popularity of Fahrenheit 9/11 speaks volumes about the hunger of the American people for a level of discussion the philistines among us have routinely derided as virtually nonexistent.

The audience was filled with young people, and this is a good sign. Rebellion is in the air. The events of the past three years have empowered our rulers, and given the War Party unprecedented impetus; but they have also provoked a countervailing reaction, a sea change in the intellectual atmosphere bright with promise, and yet fraught with error.

On balance, however, the new upsurge of dissent on the Left is a very good thing. Because when it comes to exposing injustice, the Michael Moores of this world have no trouble understanding the stakes: in the eternal battle of Liberty versus Power, they are on the right side of the barricades.

– Justin Raimondo

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Also a good piece by Newsweek pointing out falsehoods of F 9-11.

Newsweek/MSNBC

 

[Pure]

Actually, the newsweek authors refer to 'distortion
and question 'fairness.' They, afaic, do not talk of either lies or falsehoods.

Mostly it's pretty old stuff. For instance, Suppose most Saudis actually got spirited out of the US, ON the day, Sept 14, that commercial flights resumed. NOT the day before. There were of course, domestic 'gathering' flights before that.

Clark, who authorized the departures says he 'doesn't remember' where the order came from.

Considering that the folk in Guantanamo were questioned for 2 years, it's harldly reassuring to know the FBI did question some of the folk for a few minutes each, and didn't think the others were 'of interest' (well, we may not ever know, will we?, how interested the FBI should have been.)

Much of the article is about the tangle of commercial connections of Saudis, Bushes, and various companies and entities. Perhaps Unger did NOT get it 100% right, only 80%. Of course, if you're Republican like Scalia, business connections, time together on hunting trips, marriage links, etc. NEVER mean anything. It's just the pinko loonies who think otherwise.

 

[shereads]

Also a good piece by Newsweek pointing out falsehoods of F 9-11.

Newsweek/MSNBC

I read it. I don't see any "falsehoods" being exposed, although they are critical of his view of events. As Pure said, what difference does it make if the bin Ladens were allowed to leave within a day or two of the date Moore specifies, when the point the film makes is that people with Arab names including U.S. citizens were rounded up and held for questioning after 9/11, sometimes for weeks, without access to attorneys, while the hundred or more people in the U.S. who had family ties and financial ties to Bin Laden were allowed to leave the country with no formal interviews.

More telling is that the Bush administration lied about the existence of these flights, until someone turned up documentation. Why do you hold your president to a lower standard of truth than a filmmaker, whose point is entirely valid.

 

[shereads]

It's a little senseless to be debating the merits of a film you haven't seen. If you don't want to benefit Moore financially, I'll be happy to buy your ticket and deduct the seven or eight bucks from one of my other liberal causes. You can't lose.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

It's a little senseless to be debating the merits of a film you haven't seen. If you don't want to benefit Moore financially, I'll be happy to buy your ticket and deduct the seven or eight bucks from one of my other liberal causes. You can't lose.

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?

 

[Wildcard Ky]

I read it. I don't see any "falsehoods" being exposed, although they are critical of his view of events. As Pure said, what difference does it make if the bin Ladens were allowed to leave within a day or two of the date Moore specifies, when the point the film makes is that people with Arab names including U.S. citizens were rounded up and held for questioning after 9/11, sometimes for weeks, without access to attorneys, while the hundred or more people in the U.S. who had family ties and financial ties to Bin Laden were allowed to leave the country with no formal interviews.

More telling is that the Bush administration lied about the existence of these flights, until someone turned up documentation. Why do you hold your president to a lower standard of truth than a filmmaker, whose point is entirely valid.

No falsehoods?

But unmentioned in “Fahrenheit/911,” or in the Lehane responses, is a considerable body of evidence that cuts the other way. The idea that the Carlyle Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of some loosely defined “Bush Inc.” concern seems hard to defend. Like many similar entities, Carlyle boasts a roster of bipartisan Washington power figures. Its founding and still managing partner is David Rubenstein, a former top domestic policy advisor to Jimmy Carter. Among the firm’s senior advisors is Thomas “Mack” McLarty, Bill Clinton’s former White House chief of staff, and Arthur Levitt, Clinton’s former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. One of its other managing partners is William Kennard, Clinton’s chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Spokesman Ullman was the Clinton-era spokesman for the SEC.

As for the president’s own Carlyle link, his service on the Caterair board ended when he quit to run for Texas governor—a few months before the first of the Saudi contracts to the unrelated BDM firm was awarded. Moreover, says Ullman, Bush “didn’t invest in the [Caterair] deal and he didn’t profit from it.” (The firm was a big money loser and was even cited by the campaign of Ann Richards, Bush’s 1994 gubernatorial opponent, as evidence of what a lousy businessman he was.)

Most importantly, the movie fails to show any evidence that Bush White House actually has intervened in any way to promote the interests of the Carlyle Group. In fact, the one major Bush administration decision that most directly affected the company’s interest was the cancellation of a $11 billion program for the Crusader rocket artillery system that had been developed for the U.S. Army (during the Clinton administration)—a move that had been foreshadowed by Bush’s own statements during the 2000 campaign saying he wanted a lighter and more mobile military. The Crusader was manufactured by United Defense, which had been wholly owned by Carlyle until it spun the company off in a public offering in October, 2001 (and profited to the tune of $237 million). Carlyle still owned 47 percent of the shares in the defense company at the time that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld—in the face of stiff congressional resistance—canceled the Crusader program the following year. These developments, like much else relevant to Carlyle, goes unmentioned in Moore’s movie.


Sounds like falsehood to me. Apparently Moore is trying to make this grandiose tie between Carlyle Group and GWB that Newsweek says isn't there, but the movie won't address the facts that point in that direction.

Deception and misleading both count as falsehoods in my book.

 

[Guest]

... what difference does it make if the bin Ladens were allowed to leave within a day or two of the date Moore specifies, when the point the film makes is that people with Arab names including U.S. citizens were rounded up and held for questioning after 9/11, sometimes for weeks, without access to attorneys, while the hundred or more people in the U.S. who had family ties and financial ties to Bin Laden were allowed to leave the country with no formal interviews.

More telling is that the Bush administration lied about the existence of these flights, until someone turned up documentation. Why do you hold your president to a lower standard of truth than a filmmaker, whose point is entirely valid.

After Sher's points I see no point in dissecting Moore's film for lies, falsehoods, whatever. It's a "film" with a point, not a historical document.

Perdita

 

[shereads]

No falsehoods?

No falsehoods. Saying that something is "loosely defined and hard to defend" is not the same as proving a falsehood.

Yes, there are Bush/Saudi relationships that include the Carlisle Group and go far, far deeper. The Saudi royal family have invested more than $140 BILLION with Bush companies. Bush II's habit of bankrupting businesses was supported with a continuous influx of Saudi cash, right up until he ran for Governor of Texas. Do you think the Saudis kept pumping money into one failed GWB company after another because they thought he would suddenly become an effective businessman? And if Moore's film is so full of invented information, why were so many of us already aware of the string of evidence that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, before we even knew Moore was planning a movie about it?

You're scrutinizing a movie, but you refuse to scrutinize the government you elected and plan to relect. Would it make a difference to you if you saw absolute, indisputable proof that everything in Moore's film is true?

No?

Then why bother looking for reasons not to believe?


There's some fascinating reading here, if you want to know why Moore hates these people to such an extent. And none of these people qualify as leftists.

Remember,

"If ya'll had read my first book, I wouldn't have had to write the second one." ~ Molly Ivans, author of "Shrub" and "Bushwhacked."

Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror, by Richard Clarke

The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity, A Diplomat's Memoir, by Joseph Wilson

House of Bush, House of Saud, by Craig Unger

American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush, by Kevin Phillips

The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill, by Ron Suskind

Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, by John W. Dean

Bushwhacked by Molly Ivins.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Re: Re: My sister -

Here's a direct quote: "George W. Bush is the most honest man to have occupied the White House in our lifetime."

That is the saddest thing I've ever heard...


(And the scariest!!!)

 

[Wildcard Ky]

No falsehoods. Saying that something is "loosely defined and hard to defend" is not the same as proving a falsehood.


You're scrutinizing a movie, but you refuse to scrutinize the government you elected and plan to relect. Would it make a difference to you if you saw absolute, indisputable proof that everything in Moore's film is true?

No?

Moore's "Loosely defined and hard to defend" assertions on the Carlyle group don't count as a falsehood? That's your opinion, mine is different. As I said earlier, deception and misleading both count as falsehoods in my eyes.

Would it make a difference to me if I saw absolute, indisputable proof that Moores' film is true? Absolutely. It would make a huge difference to me. If anyone has the real undisputable and verifiable truth, I would welcome it and completely build my vote in November around it. I wouldn't care who the truth is from as long as it was the absolute, indisputable truth. Even if that someone is Moore. Given Moore's feelings towards the right, if he had such truth, it would be out there for the world to see. There would be no need for his admitted "spin" on things.

You also seem to trivialize this a bit by just calling it a movie. It's much bigger than that. Calling Moores work simply a movie is about like saying Limbaugh is just another DJ, or that Coulter is just another writer. Each is a powerful political player regardless of their medium.

I do question and scrutinize my government on a regular basis, you should know that by now. I hold this administration to the same standard that I have held every other administration to. This administration ain't doin' so hot, but I don't see a better alternative out there right now. Kerry is getting so desperate in his attempt to hide from the fact that he's a very left liberal that he's seriously thinking about getting a republican VP candidate. McCain already told him no, and now he's talking to Cohen.

The Dems picked him, now the majority of Dems admit that he's not their first choice. If his own party doesn't want him, how am I supposed to want him? Apparently he doesn't even want himself, he's doing everything he can to present himself as something he's not, a moderate. Get someone besides Kerry on that ticket and I will think long and hard about voting Dem this fall. Get Edwards in Kerry's place and my vote is yours. With status quo, I'm voting for Bush unless something comes out about him.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Re: Re: Re: My sister -

Here's a direct quote: "George W. Bush is the most honest man to have occupied the White House in our lifetime."

Not by a long shot. That would have to go to Carter. Carter was the most morally upstanding man to be in that office in my lifetime. He had a lot of things go wrong with his presidency, but I truly believe he was of much better virtue than any of the rest of them.