Just Saw F 9/11

[Tony]

Good movie. When you cut through the BS, the innuendo and the appeals to emotion, the facts speak for themselves. More than anything F/911 calls into serious questions the goals, and motivations of those who try to assert themselves as our "leaders".

[zenith-nadir]

Problem is that my wee brain could not cut through the BS, the innuendo and the appeals to emotion...I've only walked out of two movies in my life and this was one of them...and I liked "Bowling" and "Roger & Me". This one was just to much over the top in blatant partisan rhetoric and innuendo.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Tony [/i]

>>Just Saw F 9/11
Good movie. When you cut through the BS, the innuendo and the appeals to emotion, the facts speak for themselves. More than anything F/911 calls into serious questions the goals, and motivations of those who try to assert themselves as our "leaders".


The facts? Like what? Name one.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Rouser2
The facts? Like what? Name one.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

with references.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Rouser2
The facts? Like what? Name one.

Just one? You make this too easy.

When Bush first took office Condi Rice and Colon Powell went on record saying Saddam's weapons capabilities were nil and that he (and I quote) "no longer had the ability to project conventional power against his neighbors".

[Jim Lennox]

Just in case anyone challenges the above fact, here is a link to a reputable source for you.

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001

"And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

Tony - Has the film changed your outlook?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh [/i]

>>Re: Re: Just Saw F 9/11

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
The facts? Like what? Name one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

>>with references.


You just failed the challenge. Like a lot of BS-ers, Michael Moore included, you couldn't name "one." but instead deferred to a laundry list. One more chance. Name just ONE.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Tony
Just one? You make this too easy.

When Bush first took office Condi Rice and Colon Powell went on record saying Saddam's weapons capabilities were nil and that he (and I quote) "no longer had the ability to project conventional power against his neighbors".


And just what does that prove???

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox [/i]

>>Just in case anyone challenges the above fact, here is a link to a reputable source for you.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001

"And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And just what does that prove??????

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Rouser2
And just what does that prove???

That all the later BS about WMD ("We know he has them, and we know where they are!" and such...) might not have been quite as honest as some people think it is - to put it diplomatically.

[c0rbin]

"What does that prove????????"

That the Bush Administrations case against Iraq was not as rock solid as they either hoped or wished to portray to the US and the world.

[Jim Lennox]

The facts? Like what? Name one.


Ask and ye shall receive.

And just what does that prove???

It proves you wrong. That's all.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Rouser2
And just what does that prove???

You asked for a fact, I gave it to you.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox

Tony - Has the film changed your outlook?

Yes, especially in regards to the Saudis.

[Jim Lennox]

Yes, the Saudis are definitely worth keeping an eye on I think.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony
Good movie. When you cut through the BS, the innuendo and the appeals to emotion, the facts speak for themselves. More than anything F/911 calls into serious questions the goals, and motivations of those who try to assert themselves as our "leaders".

The thing is, Tony, you can make similar types of movies about any administration. You throw in a couple of unflattering undisputed facts, a crying and emotion mother type figure and every allegation and rumor you can get away with and you have a movie like that.

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Grammatron
The thing is, Tony, you can make similar types of movies about any administration. You throw in a couple of unflattering undisputed facts, a crying and emotion mother type figure and every allegation and rumor you can get away with and you have a movie like that.

The thing is, Grammatron, it was not any administration that drove it's country to war under false pretenses. It was this one.

And please save me the "it was the right thing to do" rethoric. Even if it was the right move (which is arguable from a political, strategical, or humanitarian point of view), it would take a lot of nerve to claim that your country didn't go to war under false pretenses.

Anyway, such a war makes great motivation for this kind of movie.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Megalodon
The thing is, Grammatron, it was not any administration that drove it's country to war under false pretenses. It was this one.

And please save me the "it was the right thing to do" rethoric. Even if it was the right move (which is arguable from a political, strategical, or humanitarian point of view), it would take a lot of nerve to claim that your country didn't go to war under false pretenses.

Anyway, such a war makes great motivation for this kind of movie.

And yet the movie is not called Fahrenheit Iraq.

It's putting all the blame on President when the legislature not only allowed it all to happen but they had to vote in order for a lot of that to happen. Moore makes it look like they were duped into voting, but no one forced them to. They didn't do their ***** job so why is the Bush the only one to blame?

I stand by my point. If I had the same funds I could make a movie about Kerry just as negative and just as "believable."

[Nie Trink Wasser]

without viewing this : http://www.fahrenhype911.com/

you're probably not going to see the whole picture.

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Grammatron
And yet the movie is not called Fahrenheit Iraq.

It's putting all the blame on President when the legislature not only allowed it all to happen but they had to vote in order for a lot of that to happen. Moore makes it look like they were duped into voting, but no one forced them to. They didn't do their ***** job so why is the Bush the only one to blame?

Well, for what I remember of the movie, Moore makes it look (at least to me) to put a lot of the blame on what happened on the shoulders of incompetent politicians. He blames the Administration for the leadership, and the legislature for being apathetic idiots. It didn't seem to be very favourable to the politic class as a whole.

Actually every work of Moore that I've seen or read doesn't make a pretty picture of the democrats (although it's true that he enjoys bashing the republicans more).

I stand by my point. If I had the same funds I could make a movie about Kerry just as negative and just as "believable."

Don't take it personally, but I doubt you could. You might like him or not, but he is very good at what he does.

[c0rbin]

Originally posted by Grammatron
And yet the movie is not called Fahrenheit Iraq.

It's putting all the blame on President when the legislature not only allowed it all to happen but they had to vote in order for a lot of that to happen. Moore makes it look like they were duped into voting, but no one forced them to. They didn't do their ***** job so why is the Bush the only one to blame?

I stand by my point. If I had the same funds I could make a movie about Kerry just as negative and just as "believable."

You are basically saying "buyer beware" here--as if the Bush Administration could, while maintaining their integrity, place the blame on a bad move (into Iraq) on the congress that bought their dupery.

Yes, shame on the congress for buying it, but more shame on the Bush Administration for selling the lie. When consumers are exposed to dangerous products in this country, the producer is held liable, not the consumer.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Megalodon

Don't take it personally, but I doubt you could. You might like him or not, but he is very good at what he does.

Oh I could, it's much easier than you think. I just need time and money, which basically means money.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by c0rbin
You are basically saying "buyer beware" here--as if the Bush Administration could, while maintaining their integrity, place the blame on a bad move (into Iraq) on the congress that bought their dupery.

Yes, shame on the congress for buying it, but more shame on the Bush Administration for selling the lie. When consumers are exposed to dangerous products in this country, the producer is held liable, not the consumer.

Absolutely not, we have checks and balances for a reason and that's not to blame people it's to make sure this s**t does not happen.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Moore makes it look like they were duped into voting, but no one forced them to. They didn't do their ***** job so why is the Bush the only one to blame?



Watch the movie Gramm. People in Congress do get blamed for not doing thier job. Bush is not the only one who is criticized in this movie.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Megalodon
It didn't seem to be very favourable to the politic class as a whole.


Or the media, or the Saudis or the military industrial complex.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony
Watch the movie Gramm. People in Congress do get blamed for not doing thier job. Bush is not the only one who is criticized in this movie.

I did see the movie and it's BS, I posted about it when it was out in theaters, I'll see if I can dig up the post.

[Grammatron]

Ok I found it. It's not much, but here it is.

I just saw F911 and I can't say my mind wasn't change by it when it has, because I now hate Moore more than before. Not only did he take things out of context further than I thought was possible but he also pissed on the US soldiers and then said how nice they were and that evil Republicans are picking on them. So all I am trying to say here is, f**k Moore.

Man I sure was pissed :)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Ok I found it. It's not much, but here it is.


Is that all you had to say?

Can you explain which specifics of the movie were BS? The Carlyl (sp?) Group? The Saudi connection? The corporate conflicts of interests? The fear mongering before the Iraq War? The misleading statements about WMD's? The lying about an Iraq/Al queda connection?

How exactly did he "piss" on the US soidlier? He didn't say anything that wasn't said on M*A*S*H.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Tony :

www.moorewatch.com

www.fahrenhype911.com

[Grammatron]

Well I don't remember exact specifics because it's been few months and I stopped giving a damn. I'll try to do the best I can here.

The Carlyl group was a Kevin Bacon connection type of thing. The fact that Bush was in oil business and thus was involved with Saudis, big ***** deal.

The administration might have pushed hard for the war at any stage they could. And why shouldn't they if they felt it was necessary? If it was wrong it was the job of the legislature to step in and say, sorry we disagree. But they did not, even though they all had the same intelligence reports. And as far as I am aware there is a link between Iraq and Al-Queda (not to be confused with Iraq and 9/11).

I can't believe you Tony who lauds himself as a skeptic fall into this obvious BS propaganda so easily. (No it's not no true Scotsman fallacy, it's do your research after watching an obviously biased film like that.)


How exactly did he "piss" on the US soidlier? He didn't say anything that wasn't said on M*A*S*H. [/B]

Because he showed them as trigger-happy fools at first and then showed how it was wrong to send these fine, lower class, people into combat.... unless of course it's against the Saudis which to me it seemed he was asking why we are not bombing them. There are many conflicting messages in this movie.

[BPSCG]

I wrote this up the other day about my dog, which I'm trying to sell:

"This dog is awful. He can be trained to do nothing. I can't keep him in the house any more, because he's broken every antique I own. The local animal patrol told me they'd fine me if they ever saw him with children. An AKC representative registered shock when she saw him - said she'd never seen such a repulsive animal."

My buddy Michael Moore had a look at it and told me he could edit it for me.

Here's the ad as we ran it in the paper:

"Trained...house broken... fine with children... AKC registered."

And every word is true! Thanks, Mike!

"This dog is awful. He can be trained to do nothing. I can't keep him in the house any more, because he's broken every antique I own. The local animal patrol told me they'd fine me if they ever saw him with children. An AKC representative registered shock when she saw him - said she'd never seen such a repulsive animal."

[Tony]

Originally posted by Grammatron
The Carlyl group was a Kevin Bacon connection type of thing. The fact that Bush was in oil business and thus was involved with Saudis, big ***** deal.


Yep, big ***** deal that Bush was financed by one of the most corrupt, backwards and anti-freedom regimes in the world. Where do Bush's loyalties lie? With an american public who pays him less that half a mil. a year or the family that financed him, his businesses and his family? I'm sorry, but that's a huge conflict of interests.

The administration might have pushed hard for the war at any stage they could. And why shouldn't they if they felt it was necessary?

So what? Why should it matter what they feel? You're just apologizing for blatantly unamerican actions by the government.

If it was wrong it was the job of the legislature to step in and say, sorry we disagree.

Yes it was. But that doesn't absolve Bush of his responsibility for this mess. They are all to blame.

But they did not, even though they all had the same intelligence reports.

They, like Bush, are pieces of *****.

I can't believe you Tony who lauds himself as a skeptic fall into this obvious BS propaganda so easily. (No it's not no true Scotsman fallacy, it's do your research after watching an obviously biased film like that.)

I researched the film before I saw it. I knew what was wrong (i.e the Bin Ladens leaving the US in the wake of 9/11). As a skeptic, I am obliged to question everything.

I asked you to explain to me what was BS in the movie. Thus far you have failed. Your reply has been "big f'ken deal" and "congress had the same intelligence". You have essentially confirmed facts that are in the movie.

Because he showed them as trigger-happy fools at first and then showed how it was wrong to send these fine, lower class, people into combat....

Like I said, nothing you won't see on M*A*S*H.

unless of course it's against the Saudis which to me it seemed he was asking why we are not bombing them.

I always thought the Saudis should have been dealt with before Saddam, now I know why. Now I also know why we didn't.

There are many conflicting messages in this movie.

Not really.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony
Yep, big ***** deal that Bush was financed by one of the most corrupt, backwards and anti-freedom regimes in the world.

Inderectly. If you deal with any business that deals with CitiBank the same can be said.

I always thought the Saudis should have been dealt with before Saddam, now I know why. Now I also know why we didn't.


Uh, uh I know! Is it because attacking a country that is home to Mecca would be asking for Armageddon? Of course not, how silly of me, it's because Saudis paid Bush off. :rolleyes:

[Tony]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Of course not, how silly of me, it's because Saudis paid Bush off.

No, it's because Bush doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds him.

Why are you so afraid to consider it?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony
No, it's because Bush doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds him.

Why are you so afraid to consider it?

Attacking Saudi Arabia? That's an insane move that's only just a bit more reasonable than nuclear war.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Attacking Saudi Arabia?

No, sorry I should have been clear.

Why are you afraid to consider that Bush's loyalties lie more with the Saudi family than they do the USA, and the american people?


Since you have failed to answer this question, I'll ask again. What, in this movie, was BS?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony
No, sorry I should have been clear.

Why are you afraid to consider that Bush's loyalties lie more with the Saudi family than they do the USA, and the american people?

Because that's a lie and why should I consider a lie?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Attacking Saudi Arabia? That's an insane move that's only just a bit more reasonable than nuclear war. There are ways to be tough without going to war.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony
Since you have failed to answer this question, I'll ask again. What, in this movie, was BS?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

[Tony]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Because that's a lie and why should I consider a lie?

That doesn't answer the question.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony
That doesn't answer the question.

Ok how about this: I researched it and the facts don't add up to that conclusion.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by varwoche
There are ways to be tough without going to war.

Perhaps that's why there were unrests in Saudi Arabia and they were making arrests and crackdowns?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Grammatron
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

I've already read that Gram. Hell, I'm the one who made the first thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42171&highlight=9%2F11) (this one too (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42329&highlight=9%2F11)) featuring that article when the movie was first released.

Do you have any thoughts of your own on the article?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony
I've already read that Gram. Hell, I'm the one who made the first thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42171&highlight=9%2F11) (this one too (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42329&highlight=9%2F11)) featuring that article when the movie was first released.

Do you have any thoughts of your own on the article?

Yes, I agree with it. Perhaps if the movie was fresh in my mind I would be more specific, but that article more or less covers my opinion of the movie. I am sure I could add more if I were to watch it again, not very likely as I won't be paying any more money to view it.

What in the article do you disagree with to be agreeing with Moore?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Ok how about this: I researched it and the facts don't add up to that conclusion.

So Bush's family, friends and his companies weren't funded with Saudi money?

[Tony]

Here's a far and balanced review Gram. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122680,00.html

[American]

I researched the film before I saw it. I knew what was wrong (i.e the Bin Ladens leaving the US in the wake of 9/11). As a skeptic, I am obliged to question everything.

You researched nothing. Certainly no farther than a Google or two. That's simply a pompous statement you made to sound well-learned.

"... I am obliged to question everything..." :roll: Get a life!


Your stated interests are: "art, history, politics, video games, books and cool movies...." Gee, I wonder in what order you prioritize those hobbies. I certainly couldn't guess that video games might come first, nor that you left out "wacking off" and "wasting daddy's money" from that list....

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony
So Bush's family, friends and his companies weren't funded with Saudi money?

He might have been, in fact probably was. However, I don't see it as an important fact since Saudis fund a lot of business in the USA doesn't make those business traitors.

[crimresearch]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tony
So Bush's family, friends and his companies weren't funded with Saudi money?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote Grammatron:
"He might have been, in fact probably was. However, I don't see it as an important fact since Saudis fund a lot of business in the USA doesn't make those business traitors."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I was at a luncheon on Friday with Adel Al-Jubeir, the foreign affairs advisor to the Saudi Crown Prince, and he mentioned that it was ironic how quickly that Americans forget the close relationship between their country and ALL administrations over the last 70 years.

He was talking more about American attitudes since 9/11, but it serves to highlight Grammatron's point....the Saudi royal family owes their first allegiance to their own interests, and it profits them greatly to be influential friends no matter who is in the White House.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Grammatron
He might have been, in fact probably was. However, I don't see it as an important fact since Saudis fund a lot of business in the USA doesn't make those business traitors.

Then what are these "lies" you are talking about?

[Tony]

Originally posted by crimresearch
I was at a luncheon on Friday with Adel Al-Jubeir, the foreign affairs advisor to the Saudi Crown Prince, and he mentioned that it was ironic how quickly that Americans forget the close relationship between their country and ALL administrations over the last 70 years.

Having not been alive the last 70 years, I find myself at a disadvantage. I know our government has had a long relationship with the Saudi family. But, I am unaware of the nuaces of these relationships. If you know of evidence as to the nature of past president's relationships (both private and public) with the Saudi family, I'd love to see it.

[American]

Originally posted by Grammatron
He might have been, in fact probably was. However, I don't see it as an important fact since Saudis fund a lot of business in the USA doesn't make those business traitors.

Hey leave him alone. He RESEARCHED the film before he even saw it. He was obligated to, being a skeptic, unlike you and me who don't question things or understand how George Bush is bad for this country.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony
Then what are these "lies" you are talking about?

The "lie(s)" being that it influenced Bush's policy toward Saudi Arabia.

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Grammatron
The "lie(s)" being that it influenced Bush's policy toward Saudi Arabia.

IIRC, he didn't assert it. He just asked a question that compares Bush revenues from two different sources and asks you who do you think he's loyal to. You might not like the question, but it's not a lie.

(I might be wrong on the details though... It's been a while since I saw the movie.)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Megalodon
IIRC, he didn't assert it. He just asked a question that compares Bush revenues from two different sources and asks you who do you think he's loyal to. You might not like the question, but it's not a lie.

(I might be wrong on the details though... It's been a while since I saw the movie.)

Yeah he did ask in the movie if you were being paid 200K here and few hundred million here over this period who are you going to be loyal to, who's your daddy?

Isn't that the same thing as saying he would be reluctant to do anything about Saudi Arabia because he worked with some Saudis in the past in a successful for him venture?

Moore is essentially calling the President a traitor in not so many words. When someone does that they better have good ***** evidence for that.

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Yeah he did ask in the movie if you were being paid 200K here and few hundred million here over this period who are you going to be loyal to, who's your daddy?

Isn't that the same thing as saying he would be reluctant to do anything about Saudi Arabia because he worked with some Saudis in the past in a successful for him venture?

Moore is essentially calling the President a traitor in not so many words. When someone does that they better have good ***** evidence for that.

You might have all the problems in the world with the question, but that doesn't make it a lie.

As for your president being a traitor... I would think leading the country to a war under false pretenses is treasonous. Sending your army to die in a foreign land without being honest about your motive is treasonous.

But maybe it's just me...

[Charlie Monoxide]

Originally posted by Tony
Having not been alive the last 70 years, I find myself at a disadvantage. I know our government has had a long relationship with the Saudi family. But, I am unaware of the nuaces of these relationships. If you know of evidence as to the nature of past president's relationships (both private and public) with the Saudi family, I'd love to see it.

Tony, I saw the "movie" way back in August when it first came out. I like it. I think the woman who lost her son in Iraq and questioned the whole reason for the war (and still hung Old Glory out every day), was and still is the fundamental "raison d'etre" for Moore movie. The neocons had a long term strategy to somehow invade Iraq. To hang the atrocities of 9/11 as a justifiable reason to throw more American souls into that black pit. That is truly unconscienable.

Call Michael Moore a fat slob, or whatever. He is doing exactly what Kerry did back in the 70's and somehow the sanctimonious right wants to pillory him. The irony is that they want to call him "unpatriotic". How is it a citizen, with the allegded rights accorded under the constitution is "unpatriotic" when they have the ****** nerve to question the government in power? How is it that the government in power feel so threatened by this individual. Michael Moore is no Enron. What kind of power does he have? He is just an documentary film maker. If Michael Moore is so wrong, why do so many people subscribe to his message?

Charlie (way too many questions) Monoxide

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Chaos
That all the later BS about WMD ("We know he has them, and we know where they are!" and such...) might not have been quite as honest as some people think it is - to put it diplomatically.

Nonsense. Condi Rice and Colin Powell are not George Bush. Nor the statements they made at the start of the Bush administration contemporary to the intelligence leading up to the war.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox
Ask and ye shall receive.



It proves you wrong. That's all.

It proves not such thing. It only proves that you, Michael Moore and his "Amen" chorus of Bush haters are simply full of it.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Tony
You asked for a fact, I gave it to you.

I asked for one fact and you submitted zero. Someone else's laundry list is not a single "fact," Sherlock.

[Jim Lennox]

Is Powell's quote not a fact then?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Tony
If you know of evidence as to the nature of past president's relationships (both private and public) with the Saudi family, I'd love to see it. Here ya go... (http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm#Saudi_Departures_from_United_States) The following has links to the quoted sources:
Moore points out the distressingly close relationship between Saudi Arabia’s ambassador, Prince Bandar, and the Bush family. But Moore does not explain that Bandar has been a bipartisan Washington power broker for decades, and that Bill Clinton repeatedly relied on Bandar to advance Clinton’s own Middle East agenda. (Elsa Walsh, "The Prince. How the Saudi Ambassador became Washington’s indispensable operator," The New Yorker, Mar. 24, 2003.)

President Clinton’s former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Wyche Fowler, has been earning a lucrative living as a Saudi apologist and serving as Chairman of the Middle East Institute—a research organization heavily funded by Saudi Arabia. (Joel Mowbray, "Feeding at the Saudi Trough," Townhall.com, Oct. 1, 2003.) Former President Clinton received $750,000 for giving a speech in Saudi Arabia, and the Saudis have donated a secret sum (estimated between $1 million and $20 million) to the Clinton Library.

Former President Carter (who sat next to Moore at the 2004 Democratic Convention) met with 10 bin Laden brothers in 2000, and came away with a $200,000 donation from the bin Ladens to the Carter Center in Atlanta.

I am not suggesting that Mr. Fowler or former President Carter are in any way corrupt; I’m sure that they are sincere (although, in my view, mistaken) in their pro-Saudi and anti-Israel viewpoint. Nor is there anything illegal about former President Clinton's receipt of huge Saudi largesse. What is misleading is for Moore to look at the web of Saudi influence in Washington only in regard to the Republican Bushes, and to ignore the fact that Saudi influence and money are widespread in both parties.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Tony
Is that all you had to say?

Can you explain which specifics of the movie were BS? The Carlyl (sp?) Group? The movie quotes author Dan Briody claiming that the Carlyle Group "gained" from September 11 because it owned United Defense, a military contractor. Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman notes that United Defense holds a special distinction among U.S. defense contractors that is not mentioned in Moore’s movie: the firm’s $11 billion Crusader artillery rocket system developed for the U.S. Army is one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration.

There is another famous investor in Carlyle whom Moore does not reveal: George Soros. (Oliver Burkeman & Julian Borger, "The Ex-Presidents’ Club," The Guardian (London), Oct. 31, 2000.) But the fact that the anti-Bush billionaire has invested in Carlyle would detract from Moore’s simplistic conspiracy theory.
Link (http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm#Saudi_Departures_from_United_States)

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Tony
So Bush's family, friends and his companies weren't funded with Saudi money?
Moore mentions that Bush’s old National Guard buddy and personal friend James Bath had become the money manager for the bin Laden family, saying, [that after the bin Ladens invested in James Bath,] "James Bath himself in turn invested in George W. Bush." The implication is that Bath invested the bin Laden family’s money in Bush’s failed energy company, Arbusto. He doesn’t mention that Bath has said that he had invested his own money, not the bin Ladens’, in Bush’s company.Link. (http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm#Saudi_Departures_from_United_States)

[Snide]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Link. (http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm#Saudi_Departures_from_United_States)

One man's rebuttals to Kopel: http://www.opednews.com/wade_071004_deception.htm

[Drooper]

Maybe with the passage of time people will see this for what it is.


NEWSFLASH.....NEWSFLASH......NEWSFLASH.....

Texas oil industry found to have financial links with Saudi oil industry.....

.....shock horror.......



For crying out loud. Moore is either naive or calculating about the naivity of others.


If the Bush family were not from Texas and were into the textile industry you could have linked them with the Tiananmen Square massacre.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Megalodon
As for your president being a traitor... I would think leading the country to a war under false pretenses is treasonous. Sending your army to die in a foreign land without being honest about your motive is treasonous.

But maybe it's just me...

I think a first step in skepticism is propper word definitions. Treason is waging war against your own country, not making bad decisions while leading it.

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I think a first step in skepticism is propper word definitions. Treason is waging war against your own country, not making bad decisions while leading it.

The first step to seriously discussing a topic is to stop patronizing.

You don't think that someone conscienciously causing the unnecessary death of his country's soldiers for his private purposes is treason?

Let's say I agree with you... Would you settle for what? Murder? Manslaughter?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Snide
One man's rebuttals to Kopel: http://www.opednews.com/wade_071004_deception.htm I skimmed it. Found it interesting that right up at the very top, there's a link that asks for money to defeat Bush. Then, even before addressing the points Kopel makes, he points out that Kopel is not an unbiased source.

Now it's one thing to want to kill the messenger because he's supposedly biased. But shouldn't you make sure you're not guilty of the same sin yourself?

And of course, Wade goes on to cite his own sources to back him up, including indymedia, whose hatred of Bush is only surpassed by its love for Fidel Castro. Yes, we're supposed to credit a fanatic left-wing "news" site over the Wall Street Journal, which has won an investigative Pulitzer or two (most recently for its impressive work exposing official malfeasance in the McMartin preschool child abuse prosecutions).

I note that a lot of Wade's criticism amounts to simply regurgitating Moore's points while wholly ignoring context. For example, when Kopel points out that Moore ignored the fact that President Clinton also has finanacial ties to the Saudis, Ward says, "so what?" The point is, Ward maintains, that Bush has financial ties to the Saudis, so we should therefore question his loyalty, and never mind Clinton. But if Bush's loyalty to America is in question, why shouldn't Clinton's be, also? By Moore's standards, you could argue that Clinton also has divided loyalties; you could try to make the case that Clinton spent eight years ignoring what he knew was a Saudi problem because he was in their pocket (Let's be clear - I think that's ridiculous, but it makes as much sense as claiming that Bush was in their pocket). The fact is that the Saudis try to exert their influence on American politicians and policy, just as any other country does - Israel, for example - but that doesn't make the president a traitor, regardless of his party.

Ward's criticism of the Carlyle Group connections is similar. Never mind that lots of wealthy, powerful people on both ends of the U.S. political spectrum have big investments in it; the only thing that's important is that the Bush family has investments in it. Ward says that "...choosing not to discuss Soros, does not make Moore a liar..." Well, yes it does. There's a reason why, when you testify in court, you swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." The reason is, if you leave out context, i.e., you don't tell the whole truth, the jury can be deceived. Moore doesn't tell the whole truth here, because that would show the irrelevance of his point that the Bush family has holdings in the Carlyle Group. He's trying to paint a picture of Bush family corruption, but can't make a persuasive case if he shows that other rich and poweful also invest in Carlyle. He hasn't told the whole truth, and the picture that results is a lie.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Rouser2
I asked for one fact and you submitted zero. Someone else's laundry list is not a single "fact," Sherlock.


LOL. Yes I submitted a fact, not a link to someone's laundry list.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox
Is Powell's quote not a fact then?

It is not a fact that has any relevence to any alleged deception on the part of the President, nor of Colin Powell.

[Snide]

Originally posted by BPSCG
I skimmed it. Found it interesting that right up at the very top, there's a link that asks for money to defeat Bush. Then, even before addressing the points Kopel makes, he points out that Kopel is not an unbiased source.

Now it's one thing to want to kill the messenger because he's supposedly biased. But shouldn't you make sure you're not guilty of the same sin yourself?


No. He's not killing the messenger. Simply pointing out that Kopel is indeed very biased. I doubt he would claim to not be biased; he's merely offering up that for every biased argument, there's a biased retort. I'm sure he thinks he's acting less-biased than his countreparts would claim, as would Kopel.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by crimresearch



I was at a luncheon on Friday with Adel Al-Jubeir, the foreign affairs advisor to the Saudi Crown Prince, and he mentioned that it was ironic how quickly that Americans forget the close relationship between their country and ALL administrations over the last 70 years.


How come you get invited to all the good luncheons? That must be the benefit of paying city taxes. I knew there was something wrong with living in the county and paying much less.

[c0rbin]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Absolutely not, we have checks and balances for a reason and that's not to blame people it's to make sure this s**t does not happen.

Firstly, thanks for replying.

Secondly: Which *****?

Thirdly: I am not worried about some huge power grab by George Bush or even the Republicans. I am not as hot-headed as some of the doom-sayers on this board or in the world at large. This country went to war based on faulty evidence that was cherry-picked by an administration with an erection for Saddam. Maybe the thinking was that they could have brought democracy to the middle east, maybe they thought they could cash in on it as well, maybe they thought the ends would justify the means.

Time will tell.

[crimresearch]

"...How come you get invited to all the good luncheons?"

No, I can't claim to have been sought out for that...they sent 'X' number of tickets to the university, and someone asked me if I wanted to go on their spare ticket.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by HarryKeogh [/i]

>>Re: Re: Just Saw F 9/11

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
The facts? Like what? Name one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

>>with references.


You just failed the challenge. Like a lot of BS-ers, Michael Moore included, you couldn't name "one." but instead deferred to a laundry list. One more chance. Name just ONE.

For a while there I thought you were being sarcastic with the above but obviously, I see now , you were not.

That is just too funny. Essentially you're telling me I failed to produce one fact because I produced a "laundry list". Of course, it's a laundry list of FACTS, but yet you still posted that ridiculous response to my post.

[Jim Lennox]

Sorry, Rouser2, I thought this question
The facts? Like what? Name one.
meant that you thought there were no facts in the film and was a challenge to find one. (Obviously I've wildly misunderstood, perhaps you could clarify?)

It is not a fact that has any relevence to any alleged deception on the part of the President, nor of Colin Powell.

Now, do you really want to see some facts which are relevant to any alleged deception on the part of Bush & Powell?

I don't think you do.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Drooper
Texas oil industry found to have financial links with Saudi oil industry.....

For crying out loud. Moore is either naive or calculating about the naivity of others.

If the Bush family were not from Texas and were into the textile industry you could have linked them with the Tiananmen Square massacre. Between Moore's overstatement, and this understatement, lies reality.

The Bush family has specific, long-standing relations with the Saudi royals. PBS' Frontline did a piece on the history of US/Saudi relations -- transcript can be found at pbs.org.

Preemptively, this is not meant to suggest there was malfeasance -- it's just a data point. However, it's a data point that resonates when, inexplicably, Bush does not use the bully pulpit to urge americans to conserve fuel in an effort to reduce dependence on the Saudis. (Part of the effete war on terror.)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by varwoche
it's just a data point. However, it's a data point that resonates when, inexplicably, Bush does not use the bully pulpit to urge americans to conserve fuel in an effort to reduce dependence on the Saudis. (Part of the effete war on terror.)

We get far less oil from the Saudis than we do from western hemisphere sources. I think the Saudis only account for 8-12 percent of oil we consume. If we reduced consumption of oil, I am not sure what percentage we would get from saudi arabia. My guess is 8-12 percent.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by varwoche
Between Moore's overstatement, and this understatement, lies reality.

The Bush family has specific, long-standing relations with the Saudi royals. PBS' Frontline did a piece on the history of US/Saudi relations -- transcript can be found at pbs.org.

Preemptively, this is not meant to suggest there was malfeasance -- it's just a data point. However, it's a data point that resonates when, inexplicably, Bush does not use the bully pulpit to urge americans to conserve fuel in an effort to reduce dependence on the Saudis. (Part of the effete war on terror.)

While conserving oil is a good thing, if we were to start doing it I would wager that Saudi Arabia would probably be the very last to stop supplying oil to us. This wager/guess is based on simple fact that it cost less to pump it there and bring it here than it would in other locations. And since oil is bough on the global market you can't seriously pick and chose where it's coming from.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
For a while there I thought you were being sarcastic with the above but obviously, I see now , you were not.

That is just too funny. Essentially you're telling me I failed to produce one fact because I produced a "laundry list". Of course, it's a laundry list of FACTS, but yet you still posted that ridiculous response to my post.

Oh, what sophomoric argument comes from those educated in the government school. If you want to really impress with "facts," why don't you point to an encyclopedia? There is not a single fact (apparently) which you dare to have cross-examined, and thus hide behind Moore's laundry list of BS. And that is a fact.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Oh, what sophomoric argument comes from those educated in the government school. If you want to really impress with "facts," why don't you point to an encyclopedia? There is not a single fact (apparently) which you dare to have cross-examined, and thus hide behind Moore's laundry list of BS. And that is a fact.

okay, here's one fact presented in the movie. Before 9/11 GWB didn't hold even one meeting with his head of counterterrorism, Richard Clarke.

cross examine away.

What are you trying to prove? Do you really think anyone can make a documentary and not get one thing right? Your original challenge to point to one fact was stupid.

[fishbob]

Oh, what sophomoric argument comes from those educated in the government school. Here is more sophomoric stuff for your viewing pleasure. check the links (http://www.youforgotpoland.com/)

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Tony [/i]
The facts? Like what? Name one.

Originally posted by Jim Lennox
Just in case anyone challenges the above fact, here is a link to a reputable source for you.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

Tony - Has the film changed your outlook?

Originally posted by Rouser2
And just what does that prove???

Thanks for proving that facts for people like yourself make no difference in how you want to interept the issues. You call them lies then when presented with facts you change the subject.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh [/i]

>>okay, here's one fact presented in the movie. Before 9/11 GWB didn't hold even one meeting with his head of counterterrorism, Richard Clarke.


That's it???? That's your best ONE fact??? Your best Michael Moore as truth-teller "fact"?????

Well, no surprise. That "fact" also happens to be factually incorrect. In fact, Clark finally did get his meeting with Bush and the entire cabinet one week before 911:

" 'The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11.' "

In that meeting, Clarke proposed a plan to bomb al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and to kill bin Laden.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml


Nice try. Got any other Michael Moore "facts"????

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by HarryKeogh [/i]

>>okay, here's one fact presented in the movie. Before 9/11 GWB didn't hold even one meeting with his head of counterterrorism, Richard Clarke.


That's it???? That's your best ONE fact??? Your best Michael Moore as truth-teller "fact"?????

Well, no surprise. That "fact" also happens to be factually incorrect. In fact, Clark finally did get his meeting with Bush and the entire cabinet one week before 911:

" 'The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11.' "

In that meeting, Clarke proposed a plan to bomb al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and to kill bin Laden.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml


Nice try. Got any other Michael Moore "facts"????

love your selective quoting but you forgot this part from the same cbs news article you linked to...

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

Now read the fact I posted again...Before 9/11 GWB didn't hold even one meeting with his head of counterterrorism, Richard Clarke.

You have yet to disprove it. If you'd like to try again, please go ahead.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
love your selective quoting but you forgot this part from the same cbs news article you linked to...

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

Now read the fact I posted again...Before 9/11 GWB didn't hold even one meeting with his head of counterterrorism, Richard Clarke.

You have yet to disprove it. If you'd like to try again, please go ahead.


It has been disproved. The "meeting" was a cabinet meeting, and it was indeed before 911. And just what was Clark to tell him? That Bin Laden's crazies were ready to commandeer commercial airplanes and suicide bomb the W Trade towers and Pentagon, but not to worry about his Bin Laden familiy and friends in the US, because he, Clark, US Terror Czar, would OK their quick escape soon after the event????

[Jas]

I assume that everyone here is planning on seeing 'Michael Moore Hates America' when it comes out?

BTW, 'Michael Moore is a Big, Fat, Stupid, White Man' is actually quite an informative book. They're quite good at showing how much editing (and outright lies), that went into 'Stupid White Men' and 'Bowling for Columbine.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
For a while there I thought you were being sarcastic with the above but obviously, I see now , you were not.

That is just too funny. Essentially you're telling me I failed to produce one fact because I produced a "laundry list". Of course, it's a laundry list of FACTS, but yet you still posted that ridiculous response to my post.

He asked for one fact. Giving him more than one is dishonest... I guess. Maybe he thinks that two facts make a false.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Rouser2
It has been disproved. The "meeting" was a cabinet meeting, and it was indeed before 911.

the fact that I provided, from F9/11, was that GWB never held a meeting with Clark prior to 9/11. You did not disprove that.

You are now playing around with the fact that I provided when you asked for "one fact" from the movie.You are doing the same thing you accuse Michael Moore of, distortion and manipulative editing. That's as ironic as you are hypocritical on this topic.

So again I ask...did George W. Bush ever attend a meeting with Richard Clark prior to 9/11? (Not his cabinet, not his representatives but the president himself.)

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
the fact that I provided, from F9/11, was that GWB never held a meeting with Clark prior to 9/11. You did not disprove that.

You are now playing around with the fact that I provided when you asked for "one fact" from the movie.You are doing the same thing you accuse Michael Moore of, distortion and manipulative editing. That's as ironic as you are hypocritical on this topic.

So again I ask...did George W. Bush ever attend a meeting with Richard Clark prior to 9/11? (Not his cabinet, not his representatives but the president himself.)

So your 'fact' is asking someone to disprove a negative?

As far as I know, Bush never took a meeting with Sylvia Browne either, and she certainly knew all about the 9/11 attacks well in advance...
:rolleyes:

Clarke was not really 'Bush's security advisor', he was the outgoing person from the previous administration, soon to be replaced by Bush's actual choice.

If he had complete and verified proof of 9/11 in advance, and all he did was 'request' a meeting, then Clarke is as complicit as Bin Laden.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Clarke was not really 'Bush's security advisor', he was the outgoing person from the previous administration, soon to be replaced by Bush's actual choice. To be precise, he was originally a Reagan appointee.

And yes, despite that he was carried over from the Clinton admin, he was in point of fact "really" Bush's terrorism czar.

Though it seems somewhat irrelevent to me, can you cite any evidence that Clarke was soon to be replaced?

edit: strike somewhat

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by crimresearch
So your 'fact' is asking someone to disprove a negative?

So you want to play the part of Mr. Extremo-skeptic? No one is claiming a Bush/Clark meeting took place before 9/11. It didn't happen. If you are claming it did you would get some pretty funny looks from both Bush and Clark.

As for your Sylvia Browne comment, she wasn't the President's
terrorism czar Michael Moore's point wasn't that Richard Clark knew exactly what was going to go down, just that don't you think it would be important for the President to meet with him at least once during his first year in office. Especially after a report that says bin Laden determined to strike in the US is issued a month before the attacks.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
So you want to play the part of Mr. Extremo-skeptic? No one is claiming a Bush/Clark meeting took place before 9/11. It didn't happen. If you are claming it did you would get some pretty funny looks from both Bush and Clark.

As for your Sylvia Browne comment, she wasn't the President's
terrorism czar Michael Moore's point wasn't that Richard Clark knew exactly what was going to go down, just that don't you think it would be important for the President to meet with him at least once during his first year in office. Especially after a report that says bin Laden determined to strike in the US is issued a month before the attacks.

You were criticizing another poster for failing to disprove your 'fact'...and I asked you to be more clear about what 'fact' you were talking about, since anyone on a skeptic's board should be familiar with the likelihood of proving a negative...you get zero points for someone else's failure to disprove your assertion that something never happened.

Now that you have admitted that you were actually talking about the *assumption* that Bush 'should have' met with someone else's lame duck security advisor, carry on.
Its as good an assumption as any.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Now that you have admitted that you were actually talking about the *assumption* that Bush 'should have' met with someone else's lame duck security advisor, carry on.
Its as good an assumption as any.

one last time. He (Rouser) asked for one fact from the movie. I provided one. A fact (note: no quotations around the word fact) not in dispute by either Clark or the Bush camp.

that's enough for me. I feel like I'm doing an impersonation of a CF Larsen/Shanek post.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
one last time. He (Rouser) asked for one fact from the movie. I provided one. A fact (note: no quotations around the word fact) not in dispute by either Clark or the Bush camp.

that's enough for me. I feel like I'm doing an impersonation of a CF Larsen/Shanek post.

I wouldn't know...I have all 3 of them on 'ignore'
:D

Your posts should stand on their own merit...

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
the fact that I provided, from F9/11, was that GWB never held a meeting with Clark prior to 9/11. You did not disprove that.

You are now playing around with the fact that I provided when you asked for "one fact" from the movie.You are doing the same thing you accuse Michael Moore of, distortion and manipulative editing. That's as ironic as you are hypocritical on this topic.

So again I ask...did George W. Bush ever attend a meeting with Richard Clark prior to 9/11? (Not his cabinet, not his representatives but the president himself.)


Your claim was that Moore says Clark never met with the Pres., prior to 911. That is false.You didn't say a "private" meeting. He did indeed meet with Clark in a cabinet meeting. That makes Moore's representation false. Presumeably, the others in attendance were not spys. Clark could have laid out his case, and perhaps he did. A lot of people did prior to 911. But they didn't have the specifics. Get it???

[Bruce]

I'm just going to step in here and comment that I find it sickening the disproportionate number of people that are worshiping Michael Moore and his obvious propaganda on a skeptic's forum. I would expect this type of advocacy from people who buy homeopathic medicine, drink Penta water, and visit oxygen bars.

Michael Moore is a deuche, he's selling you dueche, and you are buying the deuche. The movie should be called, "Michael Moore's Dueche."

Now excuse me while I go psyche myself up to vote for Bush.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Rouser2
He did indeed meet with Clark in a cabinet meeting. That makes Moore's representation false.

please provide proof. it's all I ask. after all, this is a skeptic's forum.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by corplinx
We get far less oil from the Saudis than we do from western hemisphere sources. I think the Saudis only account for 8-12 percent of oil we consume. If we reduced consumption of oil, I am not sure what percentage we would get from saudi arabia. My guess is 8-12 percent. That's not the entire picture. Saudi supplies to the global market and we demand from it.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
please provide proof. it's all I ask. after all, this is a skeptic's forum.

Are you dense? The "proof" has been provided and comes from right out of Richard Clark's mouth.

" 'The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11.' "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain607356.shtml

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Snide
One man's rebuttals to Kopel: http://www.opednews.com/wade_071004_deception.htm


...and a sad little attempt at rebuttal it is. Let's take for example this moron blogger's (Anthony Wade) attempt at rebutting Kopel's critique of F911 lies #42-43:
41-42) This deals with the already debunked connection that never existed between Saddam and al Qaeda. This is a fact, corroborated by the Republican led 911 commission, yet the right wants to continue to hammer the lie down our throat. Again as his source, he quotes directly from Hayes book about this phony link. I am sorry Mr. Kopel, but quoting a discredited right wing individual, who works for the Weekly Standard, is not my idea of “proof�. For a more detailed explanation of the nonsense this man has put forth, please go to this article, ironically enough by Isikoff:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540586/
To finish off this part, Kopel again states a lie:

“Whether you agree with the staff report or the critics, there is no dispute that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with al Qaeda, an organization whose only activity was terrorism. Fahrenheit dishonestly pretends that there was no relationship at all.�

Hmm, I am not sure how many times we have to go over this, but THERE WAS NO RELATIONSHIP! Period, end of story. To continue to assert there was one, in the face of official reports to the contrary is to continue to LIE. Your source is the Weekly Standard, again. The 911 commission stated NO relationship. That isn’t being misrepresented, it is a fact. Here is a detailed breakdown of this deception:

http://hnn.us/articles/5745.html

43) Iraq before the liberation is a topic for debate. Moore makes everything seem rosy I agree but I also think the other extreme being put forth by the right is equally unbalanced. Were there happy children in Iraq prior to this invasion, I would have to think yes, there was. Are some of them dead now because of this invasion, again, I would have to say yes. Additionally, I am not sure where Kopel thinks all of these happy Iraqis are to state his case since it is a known fact that we have not been welcomed as liberators. Kopel then quotes another NY Post article where it is intimated that we should be blowing up far more countries than Iraq , regardless of whether children are playing with kites there or not. Point taken Mr. Kopel, point taken.

Well, that all sounds very nice....but here's what Mr. Kopel actually said :

Iraq and al Qaeda

Deceit 42-43



Moore declares that George Bush fabricated an Iraq/al Qaeda connection in order to deflect attention from his Saudi masters. But consider the facts presented in Stephen F. Hayes's book, The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2004). The first paragraph of the last chapter (pp. 177-78) sums up some of the evidence:

Iraqi intelligence documents from 1992 list Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset. Numerous sources have reported a 1993 nonaggression pact between Iraq and al Qaeda. The former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence now in U.S. custody says that bin Laden asked the Iraqi regime for arms and training in a face-to-face meeting in 1994. Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer al Iraqi met with Iraqi intelligence officials in 1995. The National Security Agency intercepted telephone conversations between al Qaeda-supported Sudanese military officials and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program in 1996. Al Qaeda sent Abu Abdallah al Iraqi to Iraq for help with weapons of mass destruction in 1997. An indictment from the Clinton-era Justice Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda "weapons development" in 1998. A senior Clinton administration counterterrorism official told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had supported al Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999. An Iraqi working closely with the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur was photographed with September 11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar en route to a planning meeting for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11 attacks in 2000. Satellite photographs showed al Qaeda members in 2001 traveling en masse to a compound in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Iraqi regime. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, senior al Qaeda associate, operated openly in Baghdad and received medical attention at a regime-supported hospital in 2002. Documents discovered in postwar Iraq in 2003 reveal that Saddam's regime harbored and supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attack...

Hayes is a writer for The Weekly Standard and much of his writing on the Saddam/Osama connection is available there for free; simply use the search engine and look for articles by Hayes.



The preliminary staff report of the September 11 Commission states, "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." Some critics, including the chief prosecutor of the World Trade Center bombers, have argued that the staff report inexplicably ignores substantial evidence of Iraqi involvement in the September 11 attacks. The final Commission Report finds that there were "friendly contacts" between Al Qaeda and the Saddam regime. The Commission does not find that there was a "collaborative operational relationship" for "carrying out attacks against the United States." Whether you agree with the preliminary staff report, the staff's critics, or the final commission report, there is no dispute that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with al Qaeda, an organization whose only activity was terrorism. Fahrenheit dishonestly pretends that there was no relationship at all.

well, well....that certainly is not "NO RELATIONSHIP END OF STORY!" as the moron blogger fulminates. Then he completely skips over the one most blatent Moore distortion:


Fahrenheit shows Condoleezza Rice saying, "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11." The audience laughs derisively. Here is what Rice really said on the CBS Early Show, Nov. 28, 2003:

Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York. This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they're all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East....

Moore deceptively cut the Rice quote to fool the audience into thinking she was making a particular claim, even though she was pointedly not making such a claim. And since Rice spoke in November 2003, her quote had nothing to do with building up American fears before the March 2003 invasion, although Moore implies otherwise.



[Moore response: None.]


I guess even he could not find a way to apologise for this dirty little exercise in creative editing. Why do YOU think he decided to skip it??? Perhaps it was just too blatant?

What this shows is that even Moore apologists cannot directly answer the challenges to Moore's shifty tactics. Instead they take a page from their master and respond with half the truth....
:rolleyes:

-z