Just Saw F 9/11

[Grammatron]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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 (this one too) featuring that article when the movie was first released.

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

[Grammatron]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony
I've already read that Gram. Hell, I'm the one who made the first thread (this one too) 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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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..." 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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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... The following has links to the quoted sources:

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

[BPSCG]

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

[Snide]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
Link.

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.......


[EDIT]
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.
[/edit]

[Mycroft]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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

Quote:

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?)

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.