Thoughts on Fahrenheit 9/11 *spoilers*

[dissention]

Sorry I didn't post this yesterday, guys, I was still getting over what I had just seen. :xoxo:

I started balling two minutes into the film when they showed the congressmen and women standing on the floor of the Senate calling Gore "Mr. President" and saying they didn't give a damn that their bills hadn't been signed by a single senator. That was some heavy **** to take.

To have that quickly followed by footage of 9/11 really affected me.

If Moore's main point was to enrage people, he did so with me. I was already raging when I went in to see it, but I came out with a mission to defeat Bush. Movies like this NEED to be made more often. It's a very different experience to watch the news because you only get a couple pieces of real info each night, if that. But to see everything in such quick succession on film is something to behold. Bush really is the embodiment of evil.

Now, first off, don't listen to what the right-wing pundits say about Moore lying, he doesn't do it once. Pay extra special attention to what he says about the Saudi and bin Laden flights, you'll see that it is completely factual.

While I type this, only two words come to mind: Lila Lipscomb. That woman, my god. If I was sobbing before she came onscreen, I really lost it when she did. It put things about this war into so much perspective that I couldn't handle the reality of it all. When she was in DC for a conference and decided to go to the White House, the whole theater cheered her on. But when that abomination of humanity approached her and yelled "This is all staged! Blame al-Qaeda!" at her, I literally saw red. Never in my life had I ever been so infuriated by a person, not even Bush. When she proceeded to yell "Where was your son supposedly killed?!" I wanted to commit murder. Then, when she had the gall to yell "Well, others died, too!" I screamed "C*CKSUCKER!" at the screen as loud as I could. :laugh:

I was incredibly touched that she had shared the letter her son had written to her a few days before he was murdered. To hear her read him writing about seeing his family and newborns was something I'll never forget. I will also never forget the old Iraqi woman screaming for Allah, that was unforgettable.

The scenes from Iraq were incredibly hard to watch, not only because of the violence, but because of the sheer ignorance of the troops on the ground. The same guy that says he's going to win the hearts and minds of the people invades a residential house for no reason at all, then proceeds to kidnap the young man who lives there with his mother and sister.

Then, to top it all off at the end, they showed that blasted convention where everyone tlake dabout how much money could be made off of Iraq. Soulless bastards.

Moore's use of humor was very much necessary, in my opinion. Without it, I don't think I would've made it through the movie.

The crowd I was with was fantastic. They were among the most furious Bush-haters I've come across. A group of people were even handing out Kerry flyers and stickers. The last scene of Bush trying to say the "old saying" got a lot of "What a f*cking IDIOT!" comments from the audience. When the movie was over, the crowd applauded. And it couldn't have been more deserved.

This movie was a masterpiece and I'll most certainly see it again. You'll never have a more sobering experience.

[dissention]

Are most people going to see this film with little previous knowledge?

Yes. Americans are the most ignorant people on the face of the earth and wouldn't pay attention to political issues that affect them if those issues flew up and bit them in their McDonalds-enlarged asses. The only reason this is doing so well is because of the controversy. Just as it was the popular thing to do to see "Passion of the Christ," it's the popular thing to do to see this film. Hopefully it will change some ignorant minds. I mean, there was obviously a few people in the showing I went to that didn't get most of it; it flew right over their heads. For all they know, the Carlyle Group is a Catholic school in the mid-west. :laugh: But, the majority of people were greatly affected by what they saw and left with tears in their eyes. That's wonderful, if you ask moi.

[dissention]

Where in the hell did your post go, Jason???

I didn't know we were into self-censoring. :laugh:

To tackle what you said about the humor, I greatly disagree. I don't think the movie would have gone over as well if it didn't contain humor. I mean, it does contain it and it was STILL a VERY difficult movie to watch. It needs some sort of levity and Bush and his cronies certainly provided it. It doesn't make Moore's points any less credible or valid at all.

As for it being biased, show me a doc that isn't. :shrug:

And I especially loved the footage of the cronies saying that Saddam was under control and had no weapons. :cool:

[DrummerDeanna]

Crazy....and yes, I'm thinking this film will enrage many...and many many people are going to go in having absolutely NO prior knowledge of anything...

A good friend of mine went last night with a group of his theater friends (all over 18, NOT ONE voted in the last presidential election..they are all registered democrats) And a lot of them were moved enough by the film to start getting on the defeat bush band wagon....some (who had no prior knowledge) decided to wait and do more research, which I admire...but really hope they vote.

I haven't seen the film yet, because movies are crazy expensive here in DC...but I do want to see it, so I"m going to try and catch a matinee...

[strandinthewind]

Where in the hell did your post go, Jason???

I didn't know we were into self-censoring. :laugh:

To tackle what you said about the humor, I greatly disagree. I don't think the movie would have gone over as well if it didn't contain humor. I mean, it does contain it and it was STILL a VERY difficult movie to watch. It needs some sort of levity and Bush and his cronies certainly provided it. It doesn't make Moore's points any less credible or valid at all.

As for it being biased, show me a doc that isn't. :shrug:

And I especially loved the footage of the cronies saying that Saddam was under control and had no weapons. :cool:

I edited - then deleted. I did not want to tear down the movie with my over analyzation. So, I thought better of my post. That is why I deleted. Hell, it was only up for like 15 min. I thought no one saw it :shrug: :laugh:

But, in the end and like I said, I think it is a stunning and good good movie. I think it will awaken people to thought, which is a good thing no matter how they think :cool:

[gldstwmn]

Sorry I didn't post this yesterday, guys, I was still getting over what I had just seen. :xoxo:

I started balling two minutes into the film when they showed the congressmen and women standing on the floor of the Senate calling Gore "Mr. President" and saying they didn't give a damn that their bills hadn't been signed by a single senator. That was some heavy **** to take.

The only thing that remedied that scene for me (I was extremely upset) was Bush's limo getting egged after the inauguration. It cracked me up. He knew he didn't win. That's why he's the only president that never got out and walked. It's tradition. He'a a f*cking coward. :mad: It did my heart good to see all the protestors.
Now, that said, I want to say something that's been bugging me. I posted an article about 1.9 million votes in the 2000 election not being counted-about half of which were votes from African Americans. I got one snarky response to it-no offense Carne- and in my mind I kind of equate that to that scene in the movie. It was exactly what I was thinking as I was watching it. No one said anything. :confused:

While I type this, only two words come to mind: Lila Lipscomb. That woman, my god. If I was sobbing before she came onscreen, I really lost it when she did. It put things about this war into so much perspective that I couldn't handle the reality of it all. When she was in DC for a conference and decided to go to the White House, the whole theater cheered her on. But when that abomination of humanity approached her and yelled "This is all staged! Blame al-Qaeda!" at her, I literally saw red. Never in my life had I ever been so infuriated by a person, not even Bush. When she proceeded to yell "Where was your son supposedly killed?!" I wanted to commit murder. Then, when she had the gall to yell "Well, others died, too!"

I pity that woman in the film if she is ever found. :distress:

I was incredibly touched that she had shared the letter her son had written to her a few days before he was murdered. To hear her read him writing about seeing his family and newborns was something I'll never forget. I will also never forget the old Iraqi woman screaming for Allah, that was unforgettable.

The scenes from Iraq were incredibly hard to watch, not only because of the violence, but because of the sheer ignorance of the troops on the ground. The same guy that says he's going to win the hearts and minds of the people invades a residential house for no reason at all, then proceeds to kidnap the young man who lives there with his mother and sister.

Then, to top it all off at the end, they showed that blasted convention where everyone tlake dabout how much money could be made off of Iraq. Soulless bastards.

That's the convention where Moore filmed Nick Berg. That scene was quite disgusting.

Moore's use of humor was very much necessary, in my opinion. Without it, I don't think I would've made it through the movie.

The crowd I was with was fantastic. They were among the most furious Bush-haters I've come across. A group of people were even handing out Kerry flyers and stickers. The last scene of Bush trying to say the "old saying" got a lot of "What a f*cking IDIOT!" comments from the audience. When the movie was over, the crowd applauded. And it couldn't have been more deserved.

This movie was a masterpiece and I'll most certainly see it again. You'll never have a more sobering experience.

I plan on seeing it a few more times. There is so much to absorb. Moore really lets the images speak for themselves.

[gldstwmn]

I'm so happy it's getting such big response. However I have to ask a question. Are most people going to see this film with little previous knowledge?

I would guess there are surprises in the film for everyone. The military document was quite a suprise to me.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm

SNOPES: Members of the Bin Laden family and several
Saudis MAY have left the US while almost all flights
were still grounded until Friday the 14th of
September, 2001. I have not found any evidence
otherwise. Not in any Newsweek article or in the 911
commissions reports, but I did find this on the Snopes
Urban Legend Reference pages (link to follow):

"However, records obtained from the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) seem to indicate that one flight carrying
approximately 46 Saudi citizens may have left the U.S.
from New York as early as September 13, before the
general ban on air travel was lifted. The records do
not identify who these passengers may have been — bin
Laden relatives, royal family members, or other Saudi
nationals. (The "Class of Admission" column in the
document lists the departing passengers as a mixture
of foreign government officials and their employees
and temporary visitors to the U.S. for either business
or pleasure.)"

[dissention]

Now, that said, I want to say something that's been bugging me. I posted an article about 1.9 million votes in the 2000 election not being counted-about half of which were votes from African Americans. I got one snarky response to it-no offense Carne- and in my mind I kind of equate that to that scene in the movie. It was exactly what I was thinking as I was watching it. No one said anything. :confused:

:sorry: I didn't see it. I'll go look for it and read it.

I pity that woman in the film if she is ever found. :distress:

If I ever saw her on the street, I'd spit on her. What a waste of life.

That's the convention where Moore filmed Nick Berg. That scene was quite disgusting.

It was more than disgusting, it was awe-inspiring. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I didn't think anyone would be so blatant, but they were. Lots of 'em.

I plan on seeing it a few more times. There is so much to absorb. Moore really lets the images speak for themselves.

There's a LOT to absorb, which is why I'm confused by people saying he doesn't make his case. He does...tenfold.

[gldstwmn]

:sorry: I didn't see it. I'll go look for it and read it.



It's okay doll. :xoxo: I was just kind of surprised and frustrated at the general lack of response.

[dissention]

It's okay doll. :xoxo: I was just kind of surprised and frustrated at the general lack of response.

I always leave my mark in EVERY political thread, so thanks for bumping it up. :laugh:

[dissention]

It's official: Fahrenheit 9/11 is a phenomenon!

http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/weekendboxofficer.html

'Fahrenheit 9/11' Tops North American Box Office
Sunday June 27 11:30 AM PST

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Michael Moore's red-hot documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" earned more in its first three days of release across North America than his Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine" did in its entire run, the film's distributors said on Sunday.

"Fahrenheit 9/11," in which Moore takes aim at President Bush (news - web sites), and the war in Iraq (news - web sites), opened at No. 1 after selling about $21.8 million worth of tickets in the United States and Canada since June 25.

The film opened in two theaters in New York on Wednesday to help build even more media buzz before expanding to a relatively modest 868 theaters two days later. (In contrast, most of the other movies in the top five were playing in more than 2,500 theaters each.)

Including the sales from the head start in New York, the film's total stands at $21.96 million. Moore's previous movie, "Bowling for Columbine," grossed about $21.5 million during its nine-month run, during which it peaked at about 250 theaters, according to Moore.

"This is a testament to Michael Moore. His voice resonates across the country in what I think we can all now fairly describe as America's movie," said Tom Ortenberg, the president of distribution at Lions Gate (news - web sites) Films, which backed the movie.

He said in a conference call that the film played strongly in both Democrat and Republican states, even drawing sell-out crowds in Republican strongholds like Nassau County, New York and Fayetteville, N.C., home of Fort Bragg.

Lions Gate, a unit of Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., partnered on the film's distribution with IFC Films, a unit of Cablevision Systems Corp.'s Rainbow Media Holdings LLC, and Miramax co-chairmen Harvey and Bon Weinstein. The Weinsteins bought the movie's rights with their own money after Miramax parent Walt Disney Co. refused to let them release it under the Miramax banner.

The movie cost about $6 million to make, according to Moore. Additionally, the distributors spent less than $10 million -- a relatively modest sum -- to market the movie, said Ortenberg.

[Keith]

and I didn't realize I could think even less of our President than I do now. It wasn't a misreading of intelligence, it wasn't a miscalculation.. the Administration LIED to us about the Iraq war. In 2001, both Rice and Powell stated that Iraq was actually no threat. The policy of containment was working.

Yes, the movie made me angry. It was intense at times, hard to watch at times.. and I'm so glad it had moments where we could laugh.. because the seriousness of the film almost made me want to walk out. I can't believe so many in my country actually applauded the day we "shocked and awed" a city the size of Baghdad, where half of it's population is under 16. How could we even think the people of Iraq would embrace us after we drop 500 lb cluster bombs and kill their fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters?

Powerful movie and I applaud Michael Moore for his patriotism. I also applaud the members of the Congressional Black Caucas who protested the selection of W. Where were the Senators? Not one stood up for justice.

I applaud the families of the 911 victims for pushing hard for an investigation of that tragic day. An investigation the administration did it's best to thwart.. Bush should have ordered an independent investigation on 9-12, but instead he did all in his power to stop it.. thanks to the families for not giving up.

Mrs. Limpscomb broke my heart, especially her grieving by the barricaded White House. An amazing American and an amazing woman who lost her son in a war that we should not have been in. I cried with her and I can't even begin to understand her pain.

I also now understand why many in the news media have been blasting this film.. it implicates them for NOT doing their job.

I also thought it was interesting that the current administration was dealing with the Taliban in early 2001.. trying to get the pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan.. the bombing of the Cole just happened, and our government is dealing with the Taliban (inviting them to Texas) in early 2001, and we knew they were harboring Bin Laden. What the hell is that all about?

I saw the film in D.C. (it is showing in 5 theaters at Loews Georgetown) and the crowd was engaged, and we applauded at the end!

I have many more thoughts about the movie, but I need to chill.. and although I'm not crazy about Kerry, I will do all I can to get Bush out of the White House. This administration is a disaster.

[Sugar]

I saw the film in D.C. (it is showing in 5 theaters at Loews Georgetown) and the crowd was engaged, and we applauded at the end!

Here in suburban Philadelphia, the film was applauded at the end as well. Comforting, because this is a pretty Republican area.

I can't say I was shocked at the information contained, but it was interesting to see everything put together concisely.

Lila Lipscomb was the truely dynamic character in the film, going from encouraging her children to join the army to breaking down in front of the White House. I think she symbolizes a (hopefully) ever-growing segment of the population.

And I respect Michael Moore's guts. He is putting himself out in the midst of all the controversy to get this message across. And I realize he's a filmmaker and benefitting from all the publicity, but if our politicians (particularly our Democratic ones) and media outlets would have stood up and not been carried away or threatened by the jingoistic, rah-rah, can't-go-against-the-president bull****, there wouldn't have been a film to make. THAT is what resonates with me. :nod:

[Johnny Stew]

I really hope this film is released on DVD before November.

If it is, I'm going to make sure it's displayed at the front desk of the library. :nod:

[estranged4life]

who saw this movie and who are very political in your views (In my younger years I used to somewhat to the left like most in my family, But as I grew older my life experiences moved me towards a neutral middle political view.), I just can't bring myself to see it because I made up my mind about the current administration without Mr.Moore's on film schenanigans.

Btw, I am interested to read the 13 pages in Slick Willie's book about the Murrah bombing and how he reacted as the President to try to bring comfort to those Oklahomans who were affected by this act of terrorism. Has anyone read this part of his book yet?

Brian j.

[dissention]

I saw the film in D.C. (it is showing in 5 theaters at Loews Georgetown) and the crowd was engaged, and we applauded at the end!

It should vanish from that theater anytime now. The Carlyle Group just bought the Loew's theater chain. :shocked:

[strandinthewind]

It should vanish from that theater anytime now. The Carlyle Group just bought the Loew's theater chain. :shocked:

True, but CNN had inteviews from Lowes chain owners that indicated the managers were opening the theaters at 6:30 a.m. or some such hour to accommodate more showings to meet the demand. So , , , , , ,

[dissention]

True, but CNN had inteviews from Lowes chain owners that indicated the managers were opening the theaters at 6:30 a.m. or some such hour to accommodate more showings to meet the demand. So , , , , , ,

I don't think the takeover has happened yet. I do know that they did purchase it, though. They are partners with two other comapnies that did so.

[strandinthewind]

I don't think the takeover has happened yet. I do know that they did purchase it, though. They are partners with two other comapnies that did so.


I read that too. It is scary to think those people are going to be in control of the movie threaters - it smacks on mind control gas being put into the AC vents to me :distress: :cool:

[dissention]

I read that too. It is scary to think those people are going to be in control of the movie threaters - it smacks on mind control gas being put into the AC vents to me :distress: :cool:

It smacks of Goebbels. :D

[strandinthewind]

It smacks of Goebbels. :D

Or the blob coming out of the vents! :eek: :eek: :eek:

[dissention]

Or the blob coming out of the vents! :eek: :eek: :eek:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

How did Rush get in the air vents?!

[dissention]

I really hope this film is released on DVD before November.

If it is, I'm going to make sure it's displayed at the front desk of the library. :nod:

In one of the order catalogs for video stores (I think it's called Video ETA?), it's advertised as haivng a street date of the last week of September.

[strandinthewind]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

How did Rush get in the air vents?!

Looking for an oxycotin he dropped :cool:

[dissention]

Looking for an oxycotin he dropped :cool:

He wife got away with it all. She's selling them in the back of Rite Aid for $5 a pop to help with her lawyer fees.

[hayley]

I heard on GMA the other day that the plans were for a September DVD release, like Diss said. Moore wants it on DVD so more people can see it before the election.

[CarneVaca]

I saw the movie at 11:30 a.m. on Friday, the first showing in my town at a three-screen, non-profit independent theater. That morning showing was added at the eleventh hour but it was too late to fill the theater. So it was about half full. I understand later showings were packed. Mrs. Carne tried to get in with a friend to the 7:30 p.m. showing on Saturday, but no luck.

Anyhoo, my impressions:

Nothing really new here. The genius of the movie is the way Moore pieces the scenes together to back up his argument that the reason we went into Iraq was primarily about profiteering.

After the opening credits, when the screen went black and we heard the planes crashing into the towers and the chaos that followed, there weren't many dry eyes in the theater. This is one of the most chiling scenes I have ever seen in a theater.

There were some gasps at the revelations of the alliance between the Bushes and prominent Saudis, including the part about George Sr. watching the news on TV on 9/11 with one of his Saudi pals, a half-brother of Osama.

I was also struck by the US soldiers in Iraq who were so gung ho about going to war and explaining why they had rock music fed through their helmet phones. It's as if they were preparing for a football game of an athletic meet. Then some of them come back on and they talk about the gruesome scenes they witnessed as they rolled into Baghdad, how they weren't expecting that the destruction they caused would affect them as much as it did.

The Marine who said he wouldn't go back to Iraq, and even would go to jail if he had to, has my undying respect.

Others have mentioned the woman who lost her son and how that completely turned her views around. Her pain is so very palpable in this movie. And as she fell apart on screen I was wondering how it is that so many people don't make the mental leap of what it means to join the military. In rich, mostly peaceful America, we were lulled into believing that joining the military is a career choice, something you do if you have no other prospects (I will spare you my dissertation of the perversity of advertising the military as such). With Iraq, I suspect more people are going to start viewing joining the military as something other than a career choice.

This is an important movie for people to watch. Folks who dismiss it and say they won't go see it because of Moore's reputation need to open their minds a little.

[CarneVaca]

I also now understand why many in the news media have been blasting this film.. it implicates them for NOT doing their job.

Also, keep in mind that Saudis have been financing Euro Disney for a while. Do you think that may have entered Eisner's mind as he was refusing to distribute the film? Eisner will be gone soon, I suspect. He is pretty much a joke of a CEO at this point.

I also thought it was interesting that the current administration was dealing with the Taliban in early 2001.. trying to get the pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan.. the bombing of the Cole just happened, and our government is dealing with the Taliban (inviting them to Texas) in early 2001, and we knew they were harboring Bin Laden. What the hell is that all about?

True. But let's be cautious about this. Much of the negotiation between Unocal and the Taliban had taken place during the preceding administration. Running that pipeline through Afghanistan was an old idea.

[CarneVaca]

I posted an article about 1.9 million votes in the 2000 election not being counted-about half of which were votes from African Americans. I got one snarky response to it-no offense Carne- and in my mind I kind of equate that to that scene in the movie. It was exactly what I was thinking as I was watching it. No one said anything. :confused

No offense taken. And while "snarky" may appropriately characterize the tone of my reply in that thread, I hope you didn't miss the point. As I recall, you are one of the people who have continued to insist on the fantasy that Nader lost the election for Gore in 2000. It's fantasy because

1) Al Gore was a ****ty candidate (no need to go into that now).

2) Way too many people had their votes thrown out. As a former reporter, I covered a fair number of elections and one thing I know is that there is always a small percentage of votes that gets spoiled. But in 2000, it was clear to me that too many votes were being thrown out that came from certain contingencies of voters. Without the resources to look into it myself, what that suggested to me was that there was something systematic going on. The report you posted about the 1 million out of 1.9 million spoiled votes having come from blacks surprised me not in the least. All things being equal, the percentage of spoiled black votes would have been less than 20 percent, as opposed to more than half.

But all things are not equal. And the report you posted, though it does not conclusively prove what I've suspected all along, is confirmation of my suspicions.

Ralph Nader didn't give the election to George Bush. It was a combination of a very, very dislikable Democratic candidate with the shennanigans that went on in voting precincts, especially in Florida, that gave the election to the loser. But, you see, true to form, the Democrats didn't even have the guts to do anything about it.

[dissention]

Also, keep in mind that Saudis have been financing Euro Disney for a while. Do you think that may have entered Eisner's mind as he was refusing to distribute the film? Eisner will be gone soon, I suspect. He is pretty much a joke of a CEO at this point.

Euro Disney has been eating a hole through Eisner's pockets for ages, then Pince Talal lent him quite a bit of monetary support and Eisner made a small profit. Go figure.

And I find it rather funny that just last week, Eisner announced that Disney is going roll back greatly. He told shareholders he only wants to make two a year. :laugh: Meanwhile, McDonalds is furious at Eisner because they signed contracts almost ten years to only promote Disney films at their restaurants, back when Disney films made money. Now that they're forced to promote straight-to-video releases and places like Burger King get to promote stuff like Shrek, they've lost a lot of business.

I've heard that the Weinstein's are going to buy their Miramax and subsidiary labels back from Disney, but they won't get their film library. In any case, this does not bode well.

Eisner will be gone within a year.

[dissention]

I also thought it was interesting that the current administration was dealing with the Taliban in early 2001.. trying to get the pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan.. the bombing of the Cole just happened, and our government is dealing with the Taliban (inviting them to Texas) in early 2001, and we knew they were harboring Bin Laden. What the hell is that all about?

Well, that really explains all of the questiuoning from the 9/11 commission about why nothing was done in retaliation for the Cole bombing, an investigation that the Bush administration put a halt to and cost John Dean his life.

[dissention]

Others have mentioned the woman who lost her son and how that completely turned her views around. Her pain is so very palpable in this movie. And as she fell apart on screen I was wondering how it is that so many people don't make the mental leap of what it means to join the military. In rich, mostly peaceful America, we were lulled into believing that joining the military is a career choice, something you do if you have no other prospects (I will spare you my dissertation of the perversity of advertising the military as such). With Iraq, I suspect more people are going to start viewing joining the military as something other than a career choice.

I thought the same thing. I liked how Moore explored that by transitioning from Lipscomb to the recruiters, then back to Lipscomb. There's something about how he dealt with her that made her story unforgettable and intensely difficult to watch. He didn't exploit her, he didn't cue the music whens he was onscreen, he let do all the talking. We've been so desensitized by the media and how they report war casualties that we almost forget that these are people with families, not just another notch on CNNs chalkboard. To see just one family in the way Moore presented them put an all too real face on what this administration doesn't want us to see.

[gldstwmn]

It should vanish from that theater anytime now. The Carlyle Group just bought the Loew's theater chain. :shocked:

George Soros is still a major player in The Carlyle, so maybe not. Poppy bush got out some time after 9/11.

[gldstwmn]

No offense taken. And while "snarky" may appropriately characterize the tone of my reply in that thread, I hope you didn't miss the point. As I recall, you are one of the people who have continued to insist on the fantasy that Nader lost the election for Gore in 2000.



I am? Where did I say that? The election was stolen, no doubt. However Nader is but one symptom of many in that cancer.

[gldstwmn]

Ralph Nader didn't give the election to George Bush. It was a combination of a very, very dislikable Democratic candidate with the shennanigans that went on in voting precincts, especially in Florida, that gave the election to the loser. But, you see, true to form, the Democrats didn't even have the guts to do anything about it.

It's not up to just the Democrats. It's up to everyone. Why didn't you do your damn job and write the article?

[dissention]

It's not up to just the Democrats. It's up to everyone. Why didn't you do your damn job and write the article?

:eek:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[estranged4life]

The Marine who said he wouldn't go back to Iraq, and even would go to jail if he had to, has my undying respect.


the US Army soldier who did not want to go back because of the abuse he saw and is current seaking to have "C-O" status??? (See the thread I started elsewhere)

He (Mejia) has my respect for standing up for what he thought was right, And he is not the only soldier at Ft.Sill who wishes to make it home alive (I've lost count of how many soldiers based at Ft.Sill that have died in Iraq/Afghanistan at around 12).

[dissention]

George Soros is still a major player in The Carlyle, so maybe not. Poppy bush got out some time after 9/11.

I picked up Soros' book before I saw F9/11 on Saturday and it's pretty darn good. Great writer.

[gldstwmn]

I picked up Soros' book before I saw F9/11 on Saturday and it's pretty darn good. Great writer.

You know this but just so everyone else knows, George Soros is the major backer of MoveOn.org and doing his best to unseat Bush.

[CarneVaca]

It's not up to just the Democrats. It's up to everyone. Why didn't you do your damn job and write the article?


Perhaps you should read with a little less passion, or at least tone it down, before you react. I didn't mean I covered presidential elections. Also, I am no longer a reporter, nor was I covering elections in 2000.

Perhaps you haven't said that Nader gave the election to Bush in 2000 but you damn well have said that he would this year. I won't look for the thread because it would be a waste of time. You seem to want to have it both ways.

[CarneVaca]

the US Army soldier who did not want to go back because of the abuse he saw and is current seaking to have "C-O" status??? (See the thread I started elsewhere)


Different guy.

[estranged4life]

Different guy.

is did you have any respect for Mejia in his stand for his beliefs?

[CarneVaca]

is did you have any respect for Mejia in his stand for his beliefs?

I have to acquaint myself with this story first. I'll let you know.

[estranged4life]

I have to acquaint myself with this story first. I'll let you know.

no more...

[gldstwmn]

Well, that really explains all of the questiuoning from the 9/11 commission about why nothing was done in retaliation for the Cole bombing, an investigation that the Bush administration put a halt to and cost John Dean his life.

O'Neill darling. :xoxo:

[dissention]

O'Neill darling. :xoxo:

:laugh: There's so many John's!

Anyways, did oyu see that episode of Frontline about him? That was eerie as all hell.

[gldstwmn]

:laugh: There's so many John's!

Anyways, did oyu see that episode of Frontline about him? That was eerie as all hell.

I watched just a little of it on the web site. I am familiar with the story, though.

[dissention]

I watched just a little of it on the web site. I am familiar with the story, though.

They went into great depths regarding the Cole bombing investigation and how ChimpCo halted it.

[gldstwmn]

They went into great depths regarding the Cole bombing investigation and how ChimpCo halted it.

I'm not surprised. I'm seriously begining to think finding OBL/Al Qaida is not in the administration's best interest.

[strandinthewind]

Here is an article by Fox News disputing the facts in F - 9/11. It is no suprise it comes from Fox, but others may follow. My comments are in bold.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124079,00.html

The Truth About 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

Tuesday, June 29, 2004

Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" broke records this weekend, becoming the first documentary to debut as Hollywood's top weekend film — but there are holes in the controversial film's story.

For instance, in one often-showed clip, Moore claims that President Bush was on vacation 42 percent of the time during his first several months in office — but that estimation included weekends at Camp David, a common practice for presidents. Without those days figured in, Bush actually spent 13 percent of his time on vacation. [FOUL - I think that 13 percent means the time while he was on a "working vacation" that he spent not working" ]

The movie also criticizes Bush for staying inside a Florida classroom full of kids for a full seven minutes after he learned that the country was under attack on Sept. 11, 2001.

However, the vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission has said that Bush did the right thing. "Bush made the right decision in remaining calm, in not rushing out of the classroom," said Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. [No Comment - I do not fault him for staying the classroom - but respect that other's do ]

In "Fahrenheit 9/11" (search) Moore also claims that the White House approved plans for planes to pick up relatives of Usama Bin Laden right after the attacks. But according to terrorism czar Richard Clarke (search), he alone approved the Saudi flights. [If Clarke did it alone, which he apparently says he did, then W would not be in on it, but maybe he was and Clarke is not saying. But, Clarke said a whole lot about other embarassing things so . . . ]

In addition, Moore says that the departing Saudis were not properly processed by the FBI when leaving the country. That too is contradicted by the Sept. 11 commission, which said the Saudis were properly interviewed. [I have no comment because I have not read the 9/11 Commission's report. but, if true, then MM is wrong]

Finally, Moore shows prominent members of the Taliban visiting Texas, implying that they were invited by then-Governor Bush. The Taliban delegation, however, was invited to Houston by UNOCAL (search), a California energy company. [Is this true and if so, who owned UNOCAL?]

Moore also doesn't mention that the visit was made with the permission of the Clinton administration, which twice met with Taliban members — in 1997 and 1998. [Well, this is no surprise, MM was not commenting on Clinton]


____________________________________________________________

Anyway, they make some interesting points even if they are Fox News. I do not think MM has responded yet. He ways he was going to. So, hopefully he will.

[strandinthewind]

From
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/17/entertainment/main624585.shtml

CBS News Correspondent Jim Axelrod reports another pan of the film comes from a Republican congressman who's in the movie
and complains that Moore, who did an ambush interview with him on the street, failed to include his answers.

Moore shows himself telling Minnesota Rep. Mark Kennedy that "We are trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the army... and go over to Iraq."

Kennedy's got two nephews in the military - and says he told Moore that one was on the way to Afghanistan - a fact Kennedy says should have been included in the film.
____________________________________________________________

Yes, MM should have put that in the film. This is an example of MM's self-admitted style of use of editing to make his point. It is at any cost and that is unfortunate. This, BTW, is an example of me finding fault with MMand this film. MM did not like the answer and the answer would have taken away from the message of the movie, so despite its truth, he omits it. How is that truthful :shrug:

Is it a distinction without a difference?: Who can say? But it does beg the question of how many more omissions were there. That is something MM will have to answer and he says he is going to answer all critics, etc. i look forward to that one.

[CarneVaca]

Jason, the 9/11 commission's report came out after the movie was made. It is hardly fair to use the report as a way to point out errors of fact in the movie.

[CarneVaca]

From
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/17/entertainment/main624585.shtml

CBS News Correspondent Jim Axelrod reports another pan of the film comes from a Republican congressman who's in the movie
and complains that Moore, who did an ambush interview with him on the street, failed to include his answers.

Moore shows himself telling Minnesota Rep. Mark Kennedy that "We are trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the army... and go over to Iraq."

Kennedy's got two nephews in the military - and says he told Moore that one was on the way to Afghanistan - a fact Kennedy says should have been included in the film.
____________________________________________________________

Yes, MM should have put that in the film. This is an example of MM's self-admitted style of use of editing to make his point. It is at any cost and that is unfortunate. This, BTW, is an example of me finding fault with MMand this film. MM did not like the answer and the answer would have taken away from the message of the movie, so despite its truth, he omits it. How is that truthful :shrug:

Bull****, Jason. I don't remember Moore asking anyone about nephews and other relatives. He was strictly talking about offspring.

[dissention]

From
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/17/entertainment/main624585.shtml

CBS News Correspondent Jim Axelrod reports another pan of the film comes from a Republican congressman who's in the movie
and complains that Moore, who did an ambush interview with him on the street, failed to include his answers.

Moore shows himself telling Minnesota Rep. Mark Kennedy that "We are trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the army... and go over to Iraq."

Kennedy's got two nephews in the military - and says he told Moore that one was on the way to Afghanistan - a fact Kennedy says should have been included in the film.
____________________________________________________________

Yes, MM should have put that in the film. This is an example of MM's self-admitted style of use of editing to make his point. It is at any cost and that is unfortunate. This, BTW, is an example of me finding fault with MMand this film. MM did not like the answer and the answer would have taken away from the message of the movie, so despite its truth, he omits it. How is that truthful :shrug:

Is it a distinction without a difference?: Who can say? But it does beg the question of how many more omissions were there. That is something MM will have to answer and he says he is going to answer all critics, etc. i look forward to that one.

He should not have included it. He asked point blank for members on Congress to get their children to enlist. Children of other family members do not factor into that equation. End of story.

[dissention]

However, the vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission has said that Bush did the right thing. "Bush made the right decision in remaining calm, in not rushing out of the classroom," said Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. [No Comment - I do not fault him for staying the classroom - but respect that other's do ]

That is the vice chairman's opinion, nothing more.

In "Fahrenheit 9/11" (search) Moore also claims that the White House approved plans for planes to pick up relatives of Usama Bin Laden right after the attacks. But according to terrorism czar Richard Clarke (search), he alone approved the Saudi flights. [If Clarke did it alone, which he apparently says he did, then W would not be in on it, but maybe he was and Clarke is not saying. But, Clarke said a whole lot about other embarassing things so . . . ]

It makes no difference who approved the flights, it's still shady.

In addition, Moore says that the departing Saudis were not properly processed by the FBI when leaving the country. That too is contradicted by the Sept. 11 commission, which said the Saudis were properly interviewed. [I have no comment because I have not read the 9/11 Commission's report. but, if true, then MM is wrong]

Do a google search, not even 25% of the Saudi's were interviewed. And they did not even interview all twentysomething bin Laden's.

Finally, Moore shows prominent members of the Taliban visiting Texas, implying that they were invited by then-Governor Bush. The Taliban delegation, however, was invited to Houston by UNOCAL (search), a California energy company. [Is this true and if so, who owned UNOCAL?]

False. Again, do a google search, the truth will set Faux News free. The Taliban members even had photos taken with Bush (which I was surprised to see not included in the film).

Moore also doesn't mention that the visit was made with the permission of the Clinton administration, which twice met with Taliban members — in 1997 and 1998. [Well, this is no surprise, MM was not commenting on Clinton]

Clinton had nothing to do with it. Bush is the one who met with them.

[dissention]

Don't flame me, Goldie, but it was just too funny to pass up:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/27/120331.shtml

Sunday, June 27, 2004 12:01 p.m. EDT
Michael Moore Linked to Carlyle Group

In his film "Fahrenheit 9/11," Democratic Party propaganda-meister Michael Moore accuses President Bush of being too cozy with Osama bin Laden's relatives, claiming Bush once accepted money from an international investment consortium known as the Carlyle Group, on whose board bin Laden family members used to sit.

But it turns out that Moore, not Bush, may have the more active financial relationship with Carlyle.

Reports Sunday's New York Post: "The Carlyle Group - which [Moore] bashes in the movie as some sort of shadowy war profiteering company - has become part owner of Loews Cinemas, which is currently showing his film."
How much of Caryle's bin Laden-tainted cash has found its way into Moore's pockets - the portly propagandist isn't saying.

But Sunday's Newsday debunks his claim that President Bush has any financial links to Osama's kin.

Citing Craig Unger's book "House of Bush, House of Saud," Moore invokes the name of James R. Bath, who served with Bush in the Texas Air National Guard and who managed the Texas investments for the Bin Ladin Group during the 1970s. Supposedly, one of their investments was in George W.'s Arbusto Energy.

Reports the paper:

"Moore implies the bin Ladens wanted to curry favor with Bush while his father was CIA director. But Unger's reporting - omitted by Moore - says that Bath denies putting bin Laden money in Arbusto."

The president's father was once a Carlyle adviser, but cut ties with the group after 9/11, as did the bin Laden relatives.

_________________________________________________________________

That is some funny ****.

[strandinthewind]

He should not have included it. He asked point blank for members on Congress to get their children to enlist. Children of other family members do not factor into that equation. End of story.

True, but the intent is the same. This guy was trying to show he had loved ones there, which was MM's point. Yet, MM edits it out. That was not a nice thing to do IMO. But, I know I know MM has no faults :laugh: :rolleyes: (this is sarcasm)

[strandinthewind]

Well, it MM does not want Carlyle money . . . . he could refuse to show it in Lowes theaters :shrug: But, he is not doing that. The guy has a point but it is a silly one because MM does not care about who pays to see this flim, etc. He has no problem taking money from any patron and nor should he and the partons have to see it in some theatre. Actually, the Carlyle Group should be thanking MM for the sales :cool:

[dissention]

Well, it MM does not want Carlyle money . . . . he could refuse to show it in Lowes theaters :shrug: But, he is not doing that. The guy has a point but it is a silly one because MM does not care about who pays to see this flim, etc. He has no problem taking money from any patron and nor should he and the partons have to see it in some theatre. Actually, the Carlyle Group should be thanking MM for the sales :cool:

Again, the Carlyle Group is not in control of Loew's as of yet. I thought I already told you that?

[dissention]

True, but the intent is the same. This guy was trying to show he had loved ones there, which was MM's point. Yet, MM edits it out. That was not a nice thing to do IMO. But, I know I know MM has no faults :laugh: :rolleyes: (this is sarcasm)

He asked for their children to enlist. No other family members were queried about.

[strandinthewind]

Again, the Carlyle Group is not in control of Loew's as of yet. I thought I already told you that?
I know, but they will be soon and the money made today wil go to them.

[dissention]

I know, but they will be soon and the money made today wil go to them.

As soon as they take over, they're going to pull it from every theater. As of now, they have no say. So we're supposed to fault Moore for it?

[strandinthewind]

He asked for their children to enlist. No other family members were queried about.

I know that. I am not arguing that. What I am saying is the intent of MM's question was to demonstrate that, I think, one member of Congress had a child in the armed forces and overseas. I think this guy was trying to say, while I do not have kids, I have the next best thing there so I think you need to know that as it is relevant to the point you are trying to make. I think the guy has a legitimate point. I mean if his neice or nephew dies or is injured it will hurt less than his own kid, but it will still hurt. I am also sure this guy thought about that when voting for the war, which was MM's other point. I think he should have included it and not to do so was a crummy thing to do.

[strandinthewind]

As soon as they take over, they're going to pull it from every theater. As of now, they have no say. So we're supposed to fault Moore for it?

Well, yes, if you think he actually cares that he is somewhat indireclty giving the Carlyle Group money, which I do not think he does. I think he could care a less because he wants this movie to be seen by as many people possible and the Lowe's chain, no matter who owns it, let's him achieve that goal. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, some theaters bent over backwards and opened very early in the morning to meet the demand. How is he gonna go against that :shrug:

[dissention]

Well, yes, if you think he actually cares that he is somewhat indireclty giving the Carlyle Group money, which I do not think he does. I think he could care a less because he wants this movie to be seen by as many people possible and the Lowe's chain, no matter who owns it, let's him achieve that goal. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, some theaters bent over backwards and opened very early in the morning to meet the demand. How is he gonna go against that :shrug:

He can't go against it because he has no say in where his movie is distributed :shrug:

And Lowe's is a money pit, I doubt they'd even see a dime from this movie. They almost had to file for Chapter 11 last year, that's why it was bought so cheaply.

[dissention]

I know that. I am not arguing that. What I am saying is the intent of MM's question was to demonstrate that, I think, one member of Congress had a child in the armed forces and overseas. I think this guy was trying to say, while I do not have kids, I have the next best thing there so I think you need to know that as it is relevant to the point you are trying to make. I think the guy has a legitimate point. I mean if his neice or nephew dies or is injured it will hurt less than his own kid, but it will still hurt. I am also sure this guy thought about that when voting for the war, which was MM's other point. I think he should have included it and not to do so was a crummy thing to do.

I don't think he should've included it because his entire point was whether or not Congress would risk their own children in fighting this war. If he thought that adding the part about this one guy with a nephew over there was going to ruin his message, why even mention that there's one with a son over there? Shouldn't he have just dropped the entire bit, then? There's no logical reason to include the fact that a guy has a nephew over there.

[gldstwmn]

_________________________________________________________________

That is some funny ****.

Honey, it's NewsMax. Even Michael Reagan ran away from that place. ;)

[gldstwmn]

Well, it MM does not want Carlyle money . . . . he could refuse to show it in Lowes theaters :shrug: But, he is not doing that. The guy has a point but it is a silly one because MM does not care about who pays to see this flim, etc. He has no problem taking money from any patron and nor should he and the partons have to see it in some theatre. Actually, the Carlyle Group should be thanking MM for the sales :cool:

Since George Soros is a big part of Carlyle and MoveOn.org, then this is a good thing because an awful lot of Soros's money is going to unseat Bush this year. :)

[gldstwmn]

I know, but they will be soon and the money made today wil go to them.

And indirectly to MoveOn.org. :)

[dissention]

Honey, it's NewsMax. Even Michael Reagan ran away from that place. ;)

But it's still funny as all hell. :lol: I mean, this movie is doing so much damage and the right is simply grasping at straws. :thumbsup:

[dissention]

And indirectly to MoveOn.org. :)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Good point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I read today that the Bush campaign is thinking of putting the Kerry/Hitler ad on TV. :eek:

[strandinthewind]

I don't think he should've included it because his entire point was whether or not Congress would risk their own children in fighting this war. If he thought that adding the part about this one guy with a nephew over there was going to ruin his message, why even mention that there's one with a son over there? Shouldn't he have just dropped the entire bit, then? There's no logical reason to include the fact that a guy has a nephew over there.

I see the purpose of the question to be broader than that. I think he asked people that question because he wanted to illustrate almost none had loved ones over there. I think that probably would include a neice or nephew. But, if you take MM at his literal word (which even he does not do :laugh: ) - then yes, it should not have gone in. But, clearly the intent is the same because I am sure this guy worried about his sibling's child when he voted for the war. But, that is my opinion and I do not think it is black and white.

[CarneVaca]

True, but the intent is the same. This guy was trying to show he had loved ones there, which was MM's point. Yet, MM edits it out. That was not a nice thing to do IMO. But, I know I know MM has no faults :laugh: :rolleyes: (this is sarcasm)

Jason, here's why this is a silly point:

As an uncle, I have no power over my nephews and nieces.

As a parent, I have some power, however limited it may turn out to be, over my children.

[strandinthewind]

Jason, here's why this is a silly point:

As an uncle, I have no power over my nephews and nieces.

As a parent, I have some power, however limited it may turn out to be, over my children.

I do not see what having power over your (in general) own children has to do with anything exclusive - members of Congress have power over everyone and there is nothing a parent can do about that :shrug:

In any event, what I think you are talking about and certainly the main point of MM's question clearly was to imply the members of Congress have the power to send all people to war. In the exercise of that power, it would be a harder decision for them to make if they knew their own child was going to war and they may not make that decision based on that. In this case, all but I think one member of Congress had a child over there and I am unsure if he knew that child would be going when he made the decision to go to war (if he voted for the war). So, the conclusion MM draws is it was easier for Congress to send other peoples' children to war - they did not have to send their own nor are they sending their own, save one member of Congress; the decision to go to war is personally detached for them.

This member we are discussing was saying although he did not have a kid there, he had a niece or nephew. He had the power to send them there and he did. He implied that he would not have done so if he did not think it was serious, etc. Although we are unsure what he said because MM did not show it (hence my problem with this omission :cool: ), this member essentially said, look MM, your implication with your question is that I/we did this with less care and no personal attachment because my/our own child(ren) is/are not there is wrong, my siblings' children are there and that factored into my decision almost as much or as much as it would if my own child was there. That is why I think it was unfair of MM not to include it.

I think it negates his general point that members of Congress did not care as much about sending people to war because they had no personal interest in the loss of lives. How could it not? Apparently, this member of Congress thought about it if we can draw that conclusion from what he is saying. Again MM makes us draw a phantom conclusion because he omits the quote. I just do not buy MM's and apprently your point of "it only matters if it is your kids and not your siblings' children" approach - I think that is too narrow and interpretation. I think when a member of Congress is asked that question (which is a serious charge) says or implies look I agree my kids are not there, but it mattered to ME and here is why, they should be heard - they are directly addressing his general point of the decision to go to war, stay in Iarq, etc., was not a personal one, etc. But, MM knew he could not show that becuase to do so, to have that dialogue, would somewhat if not directly negates MM's implication that members of Congress knew their own children (which are the only people that matter to MM in this thought) would not be going so the hell with it, let's go anyway and stay there for awhile even if we do not have to go - it matters less to us when it is other peoples' children - we do not have to make any significant sacrifice :shrug:

I think MM should have asked the member of Congress, what does it matter if you sent your niece or nephew, they are not your children. Surely, they do not matter to you as much as your own children. Didn't their mattering less to you factor in to your decision? Even though he is frank, I do not think MM would ever have asked that direct question because it would have made him seem silly and hard and given the member of Congress the chance to show a human side in the decision to go to war that MM did not want to show. So, instead of addressing that, MM omits it. I think that was wrong. He should have addressed it no matter how it made him or the memeber of Congress look.

But, if you think only the decision to send your own children to war can have any significant bearing and the decision to send your brother or sister's children is less significant and carries much less weight in the decision to go to war, stay there, etc., then you will never see my point. I think this member of Congress deserved to be heard and MM should have addressed it by making that exact point. He did not. That is what I think is bad :shrug:

But and again, I think on the whole, this movie is good and it is very good at accomplishing MM's objective which he says was to show in his own way a side of the war he thinks has not been shown before and get people to think about it. he accomplished that goal and I think he did a good job doing it even if some of the connection are, as one great Ledgie recently said :wavey: , dubious.

[CarneVaca]

I do not see what having power over your (in general) own children has to do with anything exclusive :shrug: The main point of MM's question clearly was to imply the members of Congress have the power to send all people to war.

Uh? I'm not sure I agree with that. The point was that the Congress voted for the war. Since all but one Congressmen have no children in the military, they did not have to worry about their children being shot at in Iraq. But since they supported invading Iraq, Moore was arguing, why not send their own children there for the cause they supposedly believe in so much?

You're reading more into it than the point Moore was trying to make.



That may be a given, but I am not sure that Moore was going for that point. He was goading these guys in the context of their already having voted for a war for which they didn't have to sacrifice their children.

But you are right about this:

[quote]So, the conclusion MM draws is it was easier for Congress to send other peoples' children to war - they did not have to send their own nor are they sending their own, save one member of Congress; the decision to go to war is personally detached for them.

But the following I have trouble with:

This member we are discussing was saying although he did not have a kid there, he had a niece or nephew. He had the power to send them there and he did.

He had the power to send them there but it was incidental power. They presumably were already part of the military for which they volunteered. Now if this discussion were about enacting the draft, you would have a valid point here. But under the current circumstances, and in the context of the Iraq war, you are stretching. And this rubber band is going to snap at any second.

this member essentially said, look MM, your implication with your question is that I/we did this with less care and no personal attachment because my/our own child(ren) is/are not there is wrong, my siblings' children are there and that factored into my decision almost as much or as much as it would if my own child was there. That is why I think it was unfair of MM not to include it.

Using the footage about the niece/nephew may show some personal attachment, but it still misses the point. I bet you every single one of those senators and congressmen can claim they know a so-an-so, relative or close friend, who is serving in the military. So they could all claim personal attachment and get off the hook that way. But if it were their own children, could they legitimately claim they would have made the same decision?

I just do not buy MM's and apprently your point of "it only matters if it is your kids and not your siblings' children" approach - I think that is too narrow and interpretation. I think when a member of Congress says or implies look it mattered to ME and here is why, they should be heard - they are directly addressing his point.

On your first point, I disagree and I already explained why. You have a hell of a lot more power over your own child than over your nephew or niece. On the second point, so Moore decided not to include the footage. So what? He made an editing decision in making a movie that he himself calls an op/ed piece. So what's the bellyaching about?

But, MM knew he could not show that becuase it negates his implication that members of Congress knew their own children (which are the only people that matter) would not be going so the hell with it, let's go anyway even if we do not have to go :shrug:

This is where you are so wrong I can't believe you don't even see it. So one guy saying he has a niece or nephew in the military negates the point that the members of Congress, all of whom except one have no children in the military, have less of a personal attachment to the decision to go to war because their children aren't serving? That rubber band just snapped, dude.

I think MM should have asked the member of Congress, what does it matter if you sent your niece or nephew, they are not your children. Surely, they do not matter to you as much as your own children. Even though he is frank, I do not think MM would ever have asked that direct question because it would have made him seem silly and hard and given the member of Congress the chance to show a human side in the decision to go to war that MM did not want to show.

Now you're making assumptions, and rather dubious ones at that. Now you are presuming to tell us that you can read Michael Moore's mind. I would take your argument a lot more seriously if you didn't make silly comments like that.

I think this member of Congress deserved to be heard and MM should have addressed it by making that point. He did not. That is what I think is bad :shrug:

Gee, Jason, this is the other reason why you're being so silly. The guy deserves to be heard? Says who? Let's assume for a second that indeed he does deserve to be heard. He's been heard now, hasn't he? Isn't that why we're having this discussion? See how silly that is?

But and again, I think on the whole, this movie is good

Why do I get the feeling you say that through clenched teeth? Fully embracing the movie for what it is and unabashedly liking it, as I do, does not make one a dummy who got duped, Jason. Perhaps you should come to terms with that. Stop apologizing for liking the movie. Or telling us you like it when maybe you really didn't. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Hey now - I never fully embrace everything :laugh: I have to analyze - you know that - and for that mattter so do you :laugh:

I see your points, but I disagree. It is not great leap of logic to see MM wanted to make his point which was members of Congress find it easy to vote for and sustain a war when they do not have to send their own kids - MM implies the members of Congress are saying they have no personal attachment so the hell with it - it is someone else's kids - not mine.

It does not take a great leap or any mindreading (puuhhlleeze we are discussing his motives how can any of this be anything but mindreading unless you know something about MM other than what is in the press :laugh: ) to get to my point that MM knew that putting in this member of Congress' direct rebuttal of that point above meant MM would have to rebut it or make no comment on it and let the audience take it for its face value (he perhaps could have made the member of Congress look like an idiot if he did the latter :shrug: ). But, I think in rebutting it, MM would have to say his point rather than imply it and in saying it he would lose credibility. Do you really think MM is dumb enough to rebut on camera that fact that neices and nephews do not count as a significant potential personal loss in the decision to send other peoples' children to war, etc. He would have lloked like a hard, cold fool and I think he knew it.

But, if you cannot see that, then there is no way you are ever going to see my point, which I think is valid. Apparently, MM did as well because he chooses not to address it and instead omits it. I think he should have had more bal$$ than that. I mean he has no trouble taking on anything else.

But, you are right in that he could have thought with blinders on, "well it does not directly answer my question, so it is out of here." I think, however, you know better than that because MM is very smart and he rarely say things he has not thought about - he chooses his words carefully just as he chose this edit carefully - I mean if we unenlightened plebians :laugh: can pick up on it, I dare to say MM can and did.

Anyway, food for thought :wavey:

[CarneVaca]

Jason, as a parent, I don't believe it makes me cold-hearted to place my own child's interests above everyone else's. I don't apologize for that. Now, with a bit of good fortune, I'll never have to be in a position where protecting my child v. someone else's would be a decision I would have to make.

That's speaking strictly as a parent.

As a human being, I don't want to see anybody's children getting shot at in an unjustified and, yes, illegal, war. Were I in Congress, I would have voted against it, plain and simple. I abhor war. Put this whole discussion in the context of legitimacy and legality, and your whiney congressman's beef becomes subterranean in its validity. If anything, he should be ashamed of himself and running to his god to beg for forgiveness. Shame on him and the rest of them.

[strandinthewind]

Why do I get the feeling you say that through clenched teeth? Fully embracing the movie for what it is and unabashedly liking it, as I do, does not make one a dummy who got duped, Jason. Perhaps you should come to terms with that.

Don't you bait me :laugh:

Stop apologizing for liking the movie. Or telling us you like it when maybe you really didn't. ;)

Now who is being the mindreader :laugh: I apologize for nothing. I like the movie. I have repeatedly said I think MM is effective in getting his message across. I think it is provocative. Those are things I like. I do not like that he edited the member of Congress' answer to that question. So what. I am susposed to like all of the movie or die or be forever shunned into a lesser existence :laugh: Just as i put forth what I liked, I then put forth what I did not like. You and others said why you thought I was wrong. I responded. Am I not entitled to my opinion, which I have given and explained as you called for :shrug:

[CarneVaca]

Am I not entitled to my opinion, which I have given and explained as you called for :shrug:

Good question. I know I'm entitled to my opinion. And you are too. You are entitled to my opinion. :laugh:

[dissention]

Boy, Jason, you're fighting all of us lately!

How far up did that bug crawl? :lol: :wavey:

[Sugar]

Jason, as a parent, I don't believe it makes me cold-hearted to place my own child's interests above everyone else's. I don't apologize for that. Now, with a bit of good fortune, I'll never have to be in a position where protecting my child v. someone else's would be a decision I would have to make.

That's speaking strictly as a parent.

As a human being, I don't want to see anybody's children getting shot at in an unjustified and, yes, illegal, war. Were I in Congress, I would have voted against it, plain and simple. I abhor war. Put this whole discussion in the context of legitimacy and legality, and your whiney congressman's beef becomes subterranean in its validity. If anything, he should be ashamed of himself and running to his god to beg for forgiveness. Shame on him and the rest of them.

I have a child. I also have nieces and nephews. There is a HUGE difference in my mind as to how I feel about my own child going to war as to how I feel about nieces and nephews going to war.

[CarneVaca]

I have a child. I also have nieces and nephews. There is a HUGE difference in my mind as to how I feel about my own child going to war as to how I feel about nieces and nephews going to war.

Thank goodness! I was beginning to wonder if I was indeed cold-hearted. Or, anyway, more cold-hearted than most!

[strandinthewind]

Hateful people - the lot of ya!!! :laugh:

To you I say BALDERDASH :p :p :laugh: :laugh:

Seriously, I was initially hesitant to comment on this film because many people cannot take anything but praise for MM and this and his other films. This is a discussion thread not a post here only if you like the film lovefest for MM thread :laugh: At least, that is how I took it. Yet, when people make a comment like I did about what they liked and disliked about the film and put that out there for discussion, it is as if I or they have horribly insulted MM. I did not do that. I was disussing what I liked and disliked providing reasons for those opinions. I think I had a valid point about MM's choice to edit out that member of Congress' response. I provided reasons why I thought it lessened the film and then discussed why I thought MM did it. I certainly do not know for sure why he did it - no one but MM knows for sure. But that does not mean I am not allowed to speculate and then support that specualtion. We all do that all of the time in a discussion board :shrug:

So, my point is, I think it is okay to discuss the various aspects of this film. That is not the same thing as degrading MM. I have not done that.

[strandinthewind]

I have a child. I also have nieces and nephews. There is a HUGE difference in my mind as to how I feel about my own child going to war as to how I feel about nieces and nephews going to war.


I am not saying there is not - of course someone's own children will matter more - I never said they did not. ALL I am saying and have said is I think for a lot of people (maybe not you :shrug: ), there would still be a personal attachment with nieces and nephews as opposed to a common stranger's children. I think that would have been an interesting point for MM to make. Or, like I said earlier, he could have put the member of Congress' five or so second response in the film and not commented on it and let people draw their own conclusions. But, he did not. I think that was, for want of a better word, bad of him. It lessens IMO his point. It takes away from the discussion of it. Yes, we are discussing it here, all 20 of us :laugh: But, it was in the press also. So, it is being discussed - I admit that. But, I think it would have been better to put it in the film. That is my opinion and that is why I think it.

[Sugar]

Seriously, I was initially hesitant to comment on this film because many people cannot take anything but praise for MM and this and his other films. This is a discussion thread not a post here only if you like the film lovefest for MM thread :laugh: At least, that is how I took it. Yet, when people make a comment like I did about what they liked and disliked about the film and put that out there for discussion, it is as if I or they have horribly insulted MM. I did not do that. I was disussing what I liked and disliked providing reasons for those opinions. I think I had a valid point about MM's choice to edit out that member of Congress' response. I provided reasons why I thought it lessened the film and then discussed why I thought MM did it. I certainly do not know for sure why he did it - no one but MM knows for sure. But that does not mean I am not allowed to speculate and then support that specualtion. We all do that all of the time in a discussion board :shrug:

So, my point is, I think it is okay to discuss the various aspects of this film. That is not the same thing as degrading MM. I have not done that.

CHILL, DUDE! :lol:

I certainly never said that I thought you were insulting MM. Hell, this is the only film of his that I've ever seen. You provided lovely reasons why you thought Fox News had a point. They were wrong...but no less lovely. :lol:

Seriously it has nothing to do with MM, there's just a big difference between being a parent and being an uncle. What if that senator's sister lives in Montana and he hasn't seen that nephew in 15 years? I think that's a big difference.

[strandinthewind]

Boy, Jason, you're fighting all of us lately!

How far up did that bug crawl? :lol: :wavey:

Now Now, there is no competition to reach the level of your's :cool: :eek: :angel: :D :xoxo: :wavey:

(for the faint hearted - that is me respnding in kind with complete and total sarcasm)

[strandinthewind]

Seriously it has nothing to do with MM, there's just a big difference between being a parent and being an uncle.

I totally agree and never said differently.

What if that senator's sister lives in Montana and he hasn't seen that nephew in 15 years? I think that's a big difference.

But, that is the point isn't it. We will never know the answer to that question because MM never allows us to decide that for ourselves. He dismisses it by choosing not to address it or let us see it. I think that makes his point less severe, it waters it down.

Interestingly, if the Senator's sister did live in Montana and he had not seen that nephew in 15 years, I think it would have compelling for MM to have responded with that - he could have asked the Senator "How close are you - why would you equate a nephew to your own offspring?" MM does not do that. He avoids the issue IMO because it takes away from the point he is trying to make.

Again, this is just my opinion.

[dissention]

Yet, when people make a comment like I did about what they liked and disliked about the film and put that out there for discussion, it is as if I or they have horribly insulted MM.

Not at all. :)

If you want to make criticisms about Michael Moore or the movie, that's your right and no one said you can't do it. However, just as you have the right to make criticisms about portions of the film, we have the right to say we don't agree with those criticisms. And I feel we have in a respectful manner. No one has said you can't have those criticisms, we've simply said we feel those criticisms are unwarranted and posted why we felt that way.

The sword cuts both ways. ;)

[dissention]

Interestingly, if the Senator's sister did live in Montana and he had not seen that nephew in 15 years, I think it would have compelling for MM to have responded with that - he could have asked the Senator "How close are you - why would you equate a nephew to your own offspring?" MM does not do that. He avoids the issue IMO because it takes away from the point he is trying to make.

And you don't think that's just a tad intrusive, especially if they had met for the first time on the street? I'm all for Moore asking the tough questions, but I think questions pertaining to a mans personal family relationships are just a bit off limits, especially in the context in which Moore was asking questions in the film.

Again, he was asking for members of Congress to try to get their kids to enlist. He wasn't asking for second cousins or nieces and nephews or sons of a brother-in-law. The man we're discussing did not have a child in Iraq or anything like that, he said his nephew was in iraq. Big difference.

[dissention]

Now Now, there is no competition to reach the level of your's :cool: :eek: :angel: :D :xoxo: :wavey:

(for the faint hearted - that is me respnding in kind with complete and total sarcasm)

Hey, the bug crawled up as far as it could and died; it's dead carcass is lodged up there indefinitely.

[strandinthewind]

And you don't think that's just a tad intrusive, especially if they had met for the first time on the street? I'm all for Moore asking the tough questions, but I think questions pertaining to a mans personal family relationships are just a bit off limits, especially in the context in which Moore was asking questions in the film.

Again, he was asking for members of Congress to try to get their kids to enlist. He wasn't asking for second cousins or nieces and nephews or sons of a brother-in-law. The man we're discussing did not have a child in Iraq or anything like that, he said his nephew was in iraq. Big difference.

Are you suggesting MM not be instrusive - the man walks up to and ambushes people on the street in an atempt to make them look like idiots :laugh: PPUUUHHHHLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZEEEEEE I mean people actually ran away from him :laugh:

I think the Senator opened the door by responding. I think once he said that he had a nephew there, then MM would have been justified by walking through it and asking the follow up question. Most journalists would have asked the follow up question IMO and called this Senator on his effort to evade the point.

Again, I think I have made a valid point about the editing choice here, but I know you all will never concede it. To do so would be to take away from MM and that cannot happen. I just cannot believe you all think that not promoting more discussion in the film was a good thing. I cannot believe you all think that a discussion about why the Senator's nephew does not matter as much as his own child would not have been thought provoking from all angles. But, so be it.

[dissention]

Are you suggesting MM not be instrusive - the man walks up to and ambushes people on the street in an atempt to make them look like idiots :laugh: PPUUUHHHHLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZEEEEEE I mean people actually ran away from him :laugh:

There'a difference between ambushing someone like he did and asking those people questions about the personal relationships they have. Moore has never gone that far and he knows not to. Although some would argue that he did when discussiing Bandar Bush... :laugh: I would've had no problem with him asking whether or not he had any input on whether or not his nephew would serve, but I would have a problem wiht him asking "So, have you seen your sister or nephew in 15 years? Do you get along? Why? How come?" C'mon, Jason.

Again, I think I have made a valid point about the editing choice here, but I know you all will never concede it. To do so would be to take away from MM and that cannot happen. I just cannot believe you all think that not promoting more discussion in the film was a good thing. I cannot believe you all think that a discussion about why the Senator's nephew does not matter as much as his own child would not have been thought provoking from all angles. But, so be it.

When don't you think you've made a valid point? I don't see it this time and it doesn't look like anyone else does. He asked about members of Congress recruiting their children to fight in Iraq. None of them wanted to do so, with the exception of that one with a son over there. He didn't ask about nephews or nieces, he asked about offspring. You have no point. :sorry:

[strandinthewind]

What was that about swords and cutting both ways :laugh:

I am not a big ole dummy. I get that MM was asking about recruiting their kids for the war, etc. I am not dipsuting that.

I am just saying it would have been interesting for MM to go further than that when that Senator responded like he did. I think the Senator brought up an interesting point. I was questioning why MM chose not to show that. What is so invalid about that? Why would it not have been interesting? Why am I am wrong in saying MM could have chosen to take it out because it fails to support his broader point that the members of Congress have no personal attachment to the war and the decisions made therein. That certainly is not beyond the realm of possibility and it is related to MM's general point. What is invalid about these points?

[strandinthewind]

Here is an interesting opt-ed from the NYTimes. IT says sort of what I was saying earlier about vehemence on both sides.

____________________________________________________________

June 30, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Calling Bush a Liar
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

o is President Bush a liar?

Plenty of Americans think so. Bookshops are filled with titles about Mr. Bush like "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," "Big Lies," "Thieves in High Places" and "The Lies of George W. Bush."

A consensus is emerging on the left that Mr. Bush is fundamentally dishonest, perhaps even evil — a nut, yes, but mostly a liar and a schemer. That view is at the heart of Michael Moore's scathing new documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11."

In the 1990's, nothing made conservatives look more petty and simple-minded than their demonization of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were even accused of spending their spare time killing Vince Foster and others. Mr. Clinton, in other words, left the right wing addled. Now Mr. Bush is doing the same to the left. For example, Mr. Moore hints that the real reason Mr. Bush invaded Afghanistan was to give his cronies a chance to profit by building an oil pipeline there.

"I'm just raising what I think is a legitimate question," Mr. Moore told me, a touch defensively, adding, "I'm just posing a question."

Right. And right-wing nuts were "just posing a question" about whether Mr. Clinton was a serial killer.

I'm against the "liar" label for two reasons. First, it further polarizes the political cesspool, and this polarization is making America increasingly difficult to govern. Second, insults and rage impede understanding.

Lefties have been asking me whether Mr. Bush has already captured Osama bin Laden, and whether Mr. Bush will plant W.M.D. in Iraq. Those are the questions of a conspiracy theorist, for even if officials wanted to pull such stunts, they would be daunted by the fear of leaks.

Bob Woodward's latest book underscores that Mr. Bush actually believed that Saddam did have W.M.D. After one briefing, Mr. Bush turned to George Tenet and protested, "I've been told all this intelligence about having W.M.D., and this is the best we've got?" The same book also reports that Mr. Bush told Mr. Tenet several times, "Make sure no one stretches to make our case."

In fact, of course, Mr. Bush did stretch the truth. The run-up to Iraq was all about exaggerations, but not flat-out lies. Indeed, there's some evidence that Mr. Bush carefully avoids the most blatant lies — witness his meticulous descriptions of the periods in which he did not use illegal drugs.

True, Mr. Bush boasted that he doesn't normally read newspaper articles, when his wife said he does. And Mr. Bush wrongly claimed that he was watching on television on the morning of 9/11 as the first airplane hit the World Trade Center. But considering the odd things the president often says ("I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"), Mr. Bush always has available a prima facie defense of confusion.

Mr. Bush's central problem is not that he was lying about Iraq, but that he was overzealous and self-deluded. He surrounded himself with like-minded ideologues, and they all told one another that Saddam was a mortal threat to us. They deceived themselves along with the public — a more common problem in government than flat-out lying.

Some Democrats, like Mr. Clinton and Senator Joseph Lieberman, have pushed back against the impulse to demonize Mr. Bush. I salute them, for there are so many legitimate criticisms we can (and should) make about this president that we don't need to get into kindergarten epithets.

But the rush to sling mud is gaining momentum, and "Fahrenheit 9/11" marks the polarization of yet another form of media. One medium after another has found it profitable to turn from information to entertainment, from nuance to table-thumping.

Talk radio pioneered this strategy, then cable television. Political books have lately become as subtle as professional wrestling, and the Internet is adding to the polarization. Now, with the economic success of "Fahrenheit 9/11," look for more documentaries that shriek rather than explain.

It wasn't surprising when the right foamed at the mouth during the Clinton years, for conservatives have always been quick to detect evil empires. But liberals love subtlety and describe the world in a palette of grays — yet many have now dropped all nuance about this president.

Mr. Bush got us into a mess by overdosing on moral clarity and self-righteousness, and embracing conspiracy theories of like-minded zealots. How sad that many liberals now seem intent on making the same mistakes.

[CarneVaca]

Seriously, I was initially hesitant to comment on this film because many people cannot take anything but praise for MM and this and his other films. This is a discussion thread not a post here only if you like the film lovefest for MM thread :laugh: ... I think I had a valid point about MM's choice to edit out that member of Congress' response. I provided reasons why I thought it lessened the film and then discussed why I thought MM did it.

Jason, you should feel free to lambast Michael Moore as much as you want. That is not the issue. The issue is that you've taken a very insignificant point about one of the corporate-bought slimeballs in Washington whining about the movie. This idiot thinks he's got a complaint? I bet there's a few thousand people in Iraq who have a complaint about his actions. I bet there is a goodly number of grieving Americans with a complaint or two as well.
%#&^ him and the horse he rode in on. He is in no position to complain after getting us into an illegal, unprovoked war. %#&^ him! %#&^ him! %#&^ him!

[strandinthewind]

Jason, you should feel free to lambast Michael Moore as much as you want. That is not the issue. The issue is that you've taken a very insignificant point about one of the corporate-bought slimeballs in Washington whining about the movie. This idiot thinks he's got a complaint? I bet there's a few thousand people in Iraq who have a complaint about his actions. I bet there is a goodly number of grieving Americans with a complaint or two as well.
%#&^ him and the horse he rode in on. He is in no position to complain after getting us into an illegal, unprovoked war. %#&^ him! %#&^ him! %#&^ him!

I am unsure why you think I want to lambast MM. I do not and I have repeatedly said I do not. But, I guess I can say it 1,000 times and, as I have done, repeatedly praise this movie, but no one will believe me because I think MM made a poor editing choice in this one scene.

I guess you all doubt my sincerity. There is nothing more I can do about that than i have already done.

[CarneVaca]

I am unsure why you think I want to lambast MM. I do not and I have repeatedly said I do not. But, I guess I can say it 1,000 times and, as I have done, repeatedly praise this movie, but no one will believe me because I think MM made a poor editing choice in this one scene.

I guess you all doubt my sincerity. There is nothing more I can do about that than i have already done.

Jason, come on, take a deep breath. I said you should feel free to lambast him. I did not say you had. I am not doubting your sincerety, nor do I think Michael Moore is the deity.

I merely think it is silly to take the side of some corporate-bought Washington robot who had a hand in sending about 1,000 Americans to an early death and god knows how many Iraqis. This guy has no right to whine about anything after what he did.

Secondly, Michael Moore can do what he wants with his own film. You can criticize his decisions in making the film as much as you want. I could pick on certain things about the film that I wasn't crazy about, but I'd rather take into consideration its overall value than nitpick those things.

Finally, I think those of us who disagree with you see a huuuuuge different between one's own child and a nephew or niece.

[CarneVaca]

I am not doubting your sincerety, nor do I think Michael Moore is the deity.

Dang, them therez pretty good rhymin'!!

[dissention]

I am unsure why you think I want to lambast MM. I do not and I have repeatedly said I do not. But, I guess I can say it 1,000 times and, as I have done, repeatedly praise this movie, but no one will believe me because I think MM made a poor editing choice in this one scene.

I guess you all doubt my sincerity. There is nothing more I can do about that than i have already done.

I think the big beef is that instead of really discussing the good points of the film, you're focusing on what you feel is the negative aspects of it more than anything. :shrug:

I think you liked the movie a lot, just as I think everyone who saw it liked hearing the truth, but all the harping on that one piece of justified editing is tiring. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

I think the big beef is that instead of really discussing the good points of the film, you're focusing on what you feel is the negative aspects of it more than anything. :shrug:

I think you liked the movie a lot, just as I think everyone who saw it liked hearing the truth, but all the harping on that one piece of justified editing is tiring. :laugh:


Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water . . . :laugh:

Please note the bolded part.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/state/minnesota/8838660.htm?1c

Posted on Fri, Jun. 04, 2004

Rep. Kennedy no fan of Michael Moore film ad

Associated Press

Rep. Mark Kennedy, a Republican, is a little annoyed at leftist film maker Michael Moore after an edited version of an interview between the two appeared in the trailer for Moore's upcoming U.S. release of the film "Fahrenheit 9/11."

"I was walking back to my office after casting a vote, and all of a sudden some oversized guy puts a mike in my face and a camera in my face," Kennedy said. "He starts asking if I can help him recruit more people from families of members of Congress to participate in the war on terror."

Kennedy said he told Moore that he has two nephews in the military, one who has just been deployed in the Army National Guard. But to Kennedy's annoyance, his response to Moore was cut from the trailer, which was released Thursday. His response was also cut from the film, according to a spokeswoman for the movie.

"The interesting thing is that they used my image, but not my words," Kennedy said. "It's representative of the fact that Michael Moore doesn't always give the whole story, and he's a master of the misleading."

A spokeswoman for the fiercely anti-Bush film, which has found a U.S. distributor after the Walt Disney Co. refused to release it, said she had no comment.

A transcript released by the film's producers shows Moore telling Kennedy that "there is only one member (of Congress) who has a kid over there in Iraq." He asks Kennedy to help him pass out literature encouraging others "to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq."

Kennedy replies, "I'd be happy to. Especially those who voted for the war. (As Kennedy did.) I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan."

To which Moore replies: "I appreciate it."

Anne Mason, Kennedy's spokeswoman, said Friday that Kennedy now has one nephew in the military and another one who got out of the Navy since the Moore interview. In addition, Kennedy's cousin's son recently completed his military service.

______________________________________________________

I cannot believe MM edited this. But, hey if no one wants to harp on this anymore - so be it.

[dissention]

I see the asshole wasn't above making a crack about Moore's weight. :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

I see the asshole wasn't above making a crack about Moore's weight. :rolleyes:

Well, he is large :laugh: :shrug:

I cannot believe MM did not put the Senator's response in the movie and then show MM sending him letters asking if he passed out those fliers yet. That would have been great :shrug: OR - he could have during the intermission of the PA reading broadcast that this Sen. had these fliers and was anxious to pass them out. Now THAT would have been funny :laugh: :cool:

[CarneVaca]

WHOA.... AFGHANISTAN!!!

Sorry, Jason, you've now just managed to invalidate your point completely.

[dissention]

Ummm... well, there's been plenty on the other side who made cracks about Rush Limbaugh's weight. Just trying to be fair and balanced here. ;) :wavey:

Yeah, but we're not elected officials. ;)

I guess it's okay for Dick Cheney to swear like a sailor on the Senate floor, too? :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

WHOA.... AFGHANISTAN!!!

Sorry, Jason, you've now just managed to invalidate your point completely.

Whaaaa - in post No. 53, where I brought this up, it specifically says Afganistan? Did you not read that :shrug:

[CarneVaca]

Whaaaa - in post No. 53, where I brought this up, it specifically says Afganistan? Did you not read that :shrug:\

Evidently not!


Dammit, I wish I had noticed! Would have made my side of the argument infinitely easier. Dude, Moore asks him about sending his offspring to Iraq and he replies that he has a nephew going to Afghanistan. The asshole, who had a very real hand in sending thousands of people, including about 1,000 Americans to death in an illegal, unprovoked war, then has the temerity to complain about it?

Now, as an editor, I would most definitely leave that out. No question. If the nephew were going to Iraq, it then becomes a tougher judgment call. But Afghanistan!!?? Sorry, Jason, you're even more way off than I gave you credit for.

[GypsySorcerer]

Yeah, but we're not elected officials. ;)

I guess it's okay for Dick Cheney to swear like a sailor on the Senate floor, too? :laugh:

I knew you were going to bring that Cheney incident up at some point. :laugh: I'm proud of you for going this long before mentioning it, really. :D

[dissention]

I knew you were going to bring that Cheney incident up at some point. :laugh: I'm proud of you for going this long before mentioning it, really. :D

To quote Cheney, "I feel better now that I said it." :wavey:

Anybody read the article in Newsweek about the 9/11 commission not believing Cheney and Bush's testimony? It's a good one!

[strandinthewind]

\

Evidently not!


Dammit, I wish I had noticed! Would have made my side of the argument infinitely easier. Dude, Moore asks him about sending his offspring to Iraq and he replies that he has a nephew going to Afghanistan. The asshole, who had a very real hand in sending thousands of people, including about 1,000 Americans to death in an illegal, unprovoked war, then has the temerity to complain about it?

Now, as an editor, I would most definitely leave that out. No question. If the nephew were going to Iraq, it then becomes a tougher judgment call. But Afghanistan!!?? Sorry, Jason, you're even more way off than I gave you credit for.

At least you admit it would have been a tough call - I am making headway :laugh:

Come on, his point was people are in harms way in Afganistan as well, whcih certainly is true. But, I agree Afganistan is not Iraq in terms of the greater harm.

Again, now that I know the exact quote, I think even more that MM should have put it in and then followed up on it.

[dissention]

At least you admit it would have been a tough call - I am making headway :laugh:

Come on, his point was people are in harms way in Afganistan as well, whcih certainly is true. But, I agree Afganistan is not Iraq in terms of the greater harm.

Again, now that I know the exact quote, I think even more that MM should have put it in and then followed up on it.

First of all, you don't know the exact quote, you know what the guy is telling you he said. Unless it's a deleted scene on the DVD, you don't know if he's telling the truth. (and to throw in a bit of irony- Disney now wants the video distribution rights! :eek: )

Secondly, the whole Afghanistan business just proves that Moore edited it out justifiably. His point was that no member of Congress would send their kids to Iraq, he did not say Afghanistan. Then this buffoon says he has a nephew in Afghanistan. Big whoop.

[strandinthewind]

First of all, you don't know the exact quote, you know what the guy is telling you he said. Unless it's a deleted scene on the DVD, you don't know if he's telling the truth. (and to throw in a bit of irony- Disney now wants the video distribution rights! :eek: )

The article says:

A transcript released by the film's producers shows Moore telling Kennedy that "there is only one member (of Congress) who has a kid over there in Iraq." He asks Kennedy to help him pass out literature encouraging others "to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq."

Kennedy replies, "I'd be happy to. Especially those who voted for the war. (As Kennedy did.) I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan."

To which Moore replies: "I appreciate it."

_______________________________

So, apparently it is a direct quote unless Moore's transcript is incorrect.

[CarneVaca]

Come on, his point was people are in harms way in Afganistan as well, whcih certainly is true. But, I agree Afganistan is not Iraq in terms of the greater harm.

Again, now that I know the exact quote, I think even more that MM should have put it in and then followed up on it.

Sorry, dude, no way. This to me is one of the most aggravating things about politicians answering questions. You ask the guy a question, he gives an answer to a different question.

I say, no, no, no. Answer the question. Would you send your child to Iraq to fight the war you voted for? That's pretty straightforward. If you tell me, "Well, my nephew is going to Afghanistan," you haven't answered the question. Surely you would agree with me on that one, Jason. And if you haven't answered the question, why should I use an answer to a question I did not ask?

Whether your child is going to Iraq or your nephew to Afghanistan is a very, very, very different situation.

Our actions in Afghanistan were justified, at least at first. Our unprovoked attack on Iraq was not.

Now that I realize I missed this little nuance early on, I am surprised you insist on this line of argument, Jason. It makes no sense at all.

[dissention]

The article says:

A transcript released by the film's producers shows Moore telling Kennedy that "there is only one member (of Congress) who has a kid over there in Iraq." He asks Kennedy to help him pass out literature encouraging others "to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq."

Kennedy replies, "I'd be happy to. Especially those who voted for the war. (As Kennedy did.) I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan."

To which Moore replies: "I appreciate it."

_______________________________

So, apparently it is a direct quote unless Moore's transcript is incorrect.

I stand corrected. :wavey:

Still don't agree with you, though. :lol:

[Merf]

I just saw this movie for the first time with my Dad today, and all I did was cry.

I just don't know what to say. God bless you Harvey Weinstein, for having the balls to sack up and release this movie. I hope it stays in the theaters long enough for every registered voter to see it-- the fact that there are people sitting out there who won't see this movie and will vote for GW in November just ASTOUNDS me.

If enough people see this movie, Kerry will win by a landslide in November. How could he not? Bush is a thief, a criminal, and a terrorist. GOD, the bit about the marine corporal telling Michael Moore he would be willing to go to prison rather than to go back to Iraq to kill more poor people that did nothing to us.... and Lila Lipscomb. How could someone not be moved by this film? I cried the whole way through.

And Bush is a LIAR. How could I forget that? And don't even COMPARE this to Clinton-- Clinton lied to us about getting a blow job in the oval office... HOW CAN THAT EVEN COMPARE TO WHAT BUSH HAS DONE??????? I AM SO ANGRY RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[dissention]

I just saw this movie for the first time with my Dad today, and all I did was cry.

I just don't know what to say. God bless you Harvey Weinstein, for having the balls to sack up and release this movie. I hope it stays in the theaters long enough for every registered voter to see it-- the fact that there are people sitting out there who won't see this movie and will vote for GW in November just ASTOUNDS me.

If enough people see this movie, Kerry will win by a landslide in November. How could he not? Bush is a thief, a criminal, and a terrorist. GOD, the bit about the marine corporal telling Michael Moore he would be willing to go to prison rather than to go back to Iraq to kill more poor people that did nothing to us.... and Lila Lipscomb. How could someone not be moved by this film? I cried the whole way through.

It made $4 million yesterday alone and is expanding to 2,000 theaters this weekend, it's not going anywhere. :)

I cried just as much, the whole thing was heartbreaking. How did your dad like it? I hope he did! :xoxo:

[CarneVaca]

GOD, the bit about the marine corporal telling Michael Moore he would be willing to go to prison rather than to go back to Iraq to kill more poor people that did nothing to us.

That was one of the most telling moment in the movie. Also, the part when the soldiers are all gung ho about attacking, then some of then come on to say how they are affected by the destruction and death they caused. That's the kind of thing that ruins a lot of these guys for life.

[Merf]

It made $4 million yesterday alone and is expanding to 2,000 theaters this weekend, it's not going anywhere. :)

I cried just as much, the whole thing was heartbreaking. How did your dad like it? I hope he did! :xoxo:

My dad is a card carrying member of moveon.org, So this is his second time seeing it. He will probably go see it a couple more times. He took my brother and sister to see it the day it was released. (I had school and work). I went to the 1:30 show on a Wed. afternoon and the place was about 60% full. Impressive.

[strandinthewind]

Sorry, dude, no way. This to me is one of the most aggravating things about politicians answering questions. You ask the guy a question, he gives an answer to a different question.

I say, no, no, no. Answer the question. Would you send your child to Iraq to fight the war you voted for? That's pretty straightforward. If you tell me, "Well, my nephew is going to Afghanistan," you haven't answered the question. Surely you would agree with me on that one, Jason. And if you haven't answered the question, why should I use an answer to a question I did not ask?

Whether your child is going to Iraq or your nephew to Afghanistan is a very, very, very different situation.

Our actions in Afghanistan were justified, at least at first. Our unprovoked attack on Iraq was not.

Now that I realize I missed this little nuance early on, I am surprised you insist on this line of argument, Jason. It makes no sense at all.

I have agreed with you that Iraq is more dangerous than Afganistan and MM asked about Iraq and children not other relatives.

My point is the Sen.'s point, which is what we are discussing. The Senator's point was, I think, soldiers are in harm's way in Afganistan as well. He would be correct, although certinly not as much harm as in Iraq. I never referred only to Iraq in my previous posts. I just referred to war, going overseas, etc.

I also think it would have been good of MM to bring out exactly the point you are making, which I again agree with, " Well, Sen. big whooo - Afganistan hardly if Iraq - Why not send your nephew to Iraq instead while you are passing out these pamphlets you just agreed to distribute." i think that would have been effective.

No one reads what I say :laugh:

[dissention]

My dad is a card carrying member of moveon.org, So this is his second time seeing it. He will probably go see it a couple more times. He took my brother and sister to see it the day it was released. (I had school and work). I went to the 1:30 show on a Wed. afternoon and the place was about 60% full. Impressive.

If it was 60% full on a Weds. afternoon, you know this movie is going to have some legs. :nod:

I plan on seeing it again on Saturday; there's so much to soak in and I'm fascinated with watching the other moviegoers and their reactions.

And give your dad a shout out from me, good for him! :D

[CarneVaca]

Sorry, Jason, I wish I had read it more closely the first time. Would have saved me and you some typing. I stand by my opinion the guy's answer does not belong in the movie.

[strandinthewind]

No harm No foul (cyber kick notwithstanding :cool: )

I am thinking this film will easily break $100 million. Any bets for $200 million?

[dissention]

No harm No foul (cyber kick notwithstanding :cool: )

I am thinking this film will easily break $100 million. Any bets for $200 million?

My bet is for $130 million. $60 million for video sales and rentals. ;)

PS: Did you get my PM? :p

[strandinthewind]

My bet is for $130 million. $60 million for video sales and rentals. ;)

PS: Did you get my PM? :p

That is HUGE for a doc. I cannot wait for the comparisons to "The Passion" the other, if you will, sleeper now blockbuster.

I cannot open it at work. I will open it later at home.

[dissention]

That is HUGE for a doc. I cannot wait for the comparisons to "The Passion" the other, if you will, sleeper now blockbuster.

I cannot open it at work. I will open it later at home.

$30 mil is huge for a doc. BFC only made $20 mil in the states. :shocked:

As for not opening it, I understand why. :lol:

[dissention]

http://www.silive.com/newsflash/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-9/1088621950158920.xml

Military, 9/11 families call on Bush to see Michael Moore movie
By DEEPTI HAJELA
The Associated Press
6/30/2004, 2:54 p.m. ET

NEW YORK (AP) — President Bush and everyone in Washington should screen Michael Moore's controversial anti-Bush film "Fahrenheit 9/11," a group of military and 9/11 families said Wednesday.

"What we want to say is how important Michael Moore's movie is ... in bringing back the ability to have a dialogue" about the issues surrounding the war," said Nancy Lessin of the group Military Families Speak Out, whose stepson is a Marine.

"What we're trying to do here is to tell the administration ... not only see it but then come out ... and explain why this happened, why we went to Iraq and why 9/11 happened," said Ivan Medina, a former Marine from Middletown, N.Y., who served in Iraq and whose twin brother Irving was killed there.

Moore's movie is highly critical of Bush and the decision to go to war in Iraq. It took in $23.9 million last weekend to become the first documentary to debut as Hollywood's top weekend film.

The movie won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival in May. But its release here has been anything but smooth sailing. New distributors had to be found after Disney refused to let its Miramax subsidiary release it, claiming it was too politically charged. The documentary was later bought by Miramax heads Harvey and Bob Weinstein, who found Lions Gate Films and IFC Films to help distribute it.

Conservative groups have tried to mobilize the public against the film, arguing that Moore's portrayal of the Bush administration is inaccurate. Speakers at Wednesday's news conference were critical of those efforts.

"I'm disappointed that the movie would be attacked just because (Moore) wants to consider the questions," said April Gallop, a Pentagon employee injured in the 9/11 attacks.

[The Chain]

I found this interesting link:

9/11 Cover Up (http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg)

Some of you probably know all this stuff, but for those who don't (like me), I found it very interesting. I never really payed attention to politics, seeing that I'm still a kid, but I really am interested in all of this. It's kind of scary though, if it's true. There's so much that goes on, that the public should, but isn't informed about

[CarneVaca]

I found this interesting link:

9/11 Cover Up (http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg)

Some of you probably know all this stuff, but for those who don't (like me), I found it very interesting. I never really payed attention to politics, seeing that I'm still a kid, but I really am interested in all of this. It's kind of scary though, if it's true. There's so much that goes on, that the public should, but isn't informed about

Yeah, I'm familiar with most of that stuff. There are also sites with some pretty wild theories. This one is tame by comparison, and it also happens to have information that seems accurate.

If you go through the links, you start to understand why Clinton has been so kind to Bush in the matter of the war on terrorism and the attack on Iraq. See, Clinton's administration was an abject failure at dealing with al Qaida. Sudan practically handed Osama to us on a platter but because of its categorization as a "terrorist state," we declined the offer. To make it worse, we conspired with the Saudis to get Sudan to expell al Qaida, where it was being closely watched, to Aghanistan, where it was infinitely more difficult to keep track of the murderous beasts.

Yes, Fahrenheit 9/11 is very damning of the Bush administration, and rightly so, but it would have been interesting to see what it would have unearthed had it been done about the Clinton years.

[dissention]

Anyoen catch Lila Lipscomb on Deborah Norville last night? It was pretty good and I'm glad she stated emphatically to all the neocons that she wasn't being used, she was participating willingly and that she thought the film came out beautifully. She seems to have bonded with Moore and said he was very mindful of her position.

She was only on for about 15 minutes, the rest was torturous footage of that new "America" doc from Disney. Oh, how torturous. I turned it off and watched Nip/Tuck. :laugh:

[dissention]

Moore will be on Charlie Rose tonight. :wavey:

Glad to see that Moore is only going on a quality show. Love Charlie Rose.

[dissention]

He's the truth that those in the conservative media like to call lies. :)

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/f911facts /

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


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

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

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

Isikoff's account of the movie is flatly untrue.

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

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

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

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

To the Editors:

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

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

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

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

Craig Unger
New York City, NY

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

2. Carlyle and United Defense. Isikoff writes, "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."

This is completely misleading. The Crusader contract was canceled AFTER UNITED DEFENSE WENT PUBLIC, which is the entire point of the movie.

Here is what the film says: "September 11th guaranteed that United Defense was going to have a very good year. Just 6 weeks after 9-11 Carlyle filed to take United Defense public and in December made a one day profit of $237 million dollars."

This is exactly what happened, to wit:

"On a single day last month, Carlyle earned $237 million selling shares in United Defense Industries, the Army's fifth-largest contractor. The stock offering was well timed: Carlyle officials say they decided to take the company public only after the Sept. 11 attacks... On Sept. 26, <2001>, the Army signed a $665-million modified contract with United Defense through April 2003 to complete the Crusader's development phase. In October, the company listed the Crusader, and the attacks themselves, as selling points for its stock offering. Mark Fineman, "Arms buildup is a boon to firm run by big guns," Los Angeles Times, January 10, 2002.

"Or its 1997 purchase of United Defense for $ 180 million. Four years later -- just before Rumsfeld canceled its Crusader howitzer program -- Carlyle took United Defense public and sold about half the stock for $ 588 million." Greg Schneider, "Connections and then some," The Washington Post, March 16, 2003

In "Crusader a Boon to Carlyle Group Even if Pentagon Scraps Project," Washington Post's Walter Pincus wrote (May 14, 2002):

Carlyle's financial success with United - and the success of others associated with the Crusader - shows how major Pentagon weapon systems can turn into cash cows. In turn, United's lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions show why they can be so difficult to kill, as Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld announced he would try to do with the Crusader last week.

'Carlyle's aggressive approach ...is one reason why the Crusader lived this long,' said Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary in the Reagan Pentagon and now director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Even if Rumsfeld's decision stands, Korb said, United still will have received $ 2 billion from the Crusader program and will receive substantially more to close it down.

Still, in its annual report for 2001, United announced that it had been awarded a three-year, $ 697 million contract to complete full upgrading of 389 Bradley units and had added a $ 655 million contract modification to complete the Crusader's "definition and risk-reduction phase contract," which would be worth $ 1.7 billion through 2003. Together, the Crusader and Bradley programs contributed 41 percent of United sales in 2001, the report said.

With Crusader and the Bradley upgrade in hand, a decision was made to sell United stock to the public in late 2001. In preparation, United refinanced the roughly $ 180 million it owed on the original purchase loan, securing a new $ 600 million loan and $ 200 million in revolving credit.

...

After the debt restructuring came the stock offering. The United offering filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission included this boilerplate caveat to potential investors: 'The Carlyle group, our other stockholders and our executive officers will realize substantial benefits from the offering.'

When it took place, in December 2001, Carlyle sold 11 million shares of the 20 million offered at $ 19 a share, receiving a total of about $ 225 million. Even so, Carlyle still owns more than 47 percent of the outstanding United shares and controls United's board of directors.

Also in late 2001, according to SEC filings, Peay and Shalikashvili were paid 'performance' bonuses, though their separate employment contracts filed with the SEC state they only are to serve as directors and receive $ 25,000 annual retainers plus stock options and reimbursed expenses. Peay received $ 160,000, and Shalikashvili $ 102,586, according to a filing with the SEC.

A United spokesman said the generals did no lobbying and that their bonuses were similar to ones given company officers based on "the performance of the company." Neither retired general responded to requests for comment. Korb, who served as a vice president at Northrup, said he had never heard of company directors receiving bonuses based on the performance of the company.


June 20th, 2004 11:41 am
What Fahrenheit 9/11 Says About the Saudi Flights Out of the Country After September 11

WHAT THE FILM SAYS:

Sen. Byron Dorgan: We had some airplanes authorized at the highest levels of our government to fly to pick up Osama Bin Laden's family members and others from Saudi Arabia and transport them out of this country.

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

Additionally, in an interview with author Craig Unger, the film makes reference to the fact that these individuals were briefly interviewed before they were allowed to leave.

WHY WE SAY IT:

1. THE FLIGHTS - WHO GOT OUT WHEN

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

Unfortunately, some news organizations have misinterpreted what the film says. Some have said Fahrenheit 9/11 alleges that these flights out of the country took place when commercial airplanes were still grounded. The film does not say this. The film states clearly that these flights left after September 13 (the day the FAA began to slowly lift the ban on air traffic).

2. WHO APPROVED THESE FLIGHTS AND WHY

We really do not know why it was so necessary for the White House to allow the quick exodus of these Saudi and bin Ladens out of the country, and "the White House still refuses to document fully how the flights were arranged," according to a June 20, 2004, article by Phil Shenon in the New York Times.

We do know who asked for help in getting Saudis out of the country - the Saudi government. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12 The film also includes a television interview with Saudi Prince Bandar, confirming this as well.

Former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke has testified that he approved these flights, stating that "it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House." Testimony of Richard Clarke, Former Counterterrorism Chief, National Security Council, before The Senate Judiciary Committee, September 3, 2003.

3. DID THESE INDIVIDUALS GET SPECIAL TREATMENT BY LAW ENFOCEMENT?

Yes, according to Jack Cloonan, a former senior agent on the joint FBI-CIA Al-Qaeda task force, who is interviewed in Fahrenheit 9/11. Cloonan raises questions about the type of investigation to which these individuals were subjected, finding it highly unusual that in light of the seriousness of the attack on 9/11, bin Laden family members were allowed to leave the country and escape without anyone getting their statements on record in any kind of formal proceeding, and with little more than a brief interview.

Most Saudis who left were not interviewed at all by the FBI. In fact, of the 142 Saudis on these flights, only 30 were interviewed. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12

The film puts this in perspective. Imagine President Clinton facilitating the exit of members of the McVeigh family out of the country following the Oklahoma City bombing. Or compare this treatment to the hundreds of people detained following the 9/11 attacks who were held without charges for months on end, who had no relationship to Osama bin Laden.

The question, which has never been answered, is what was the rush in getting these individuals out of the country? As Cloonan says, ""If I had to inconvenience a member of the bin Laden family with a subpoena or a Grand Jury, do you think I'd lose any sleep over it? Not for a minute Mike... ou got a lawyer? Fine. Counselor? Fine. Mr. Bin Laden, this is why I'm asking you, it's not because I think that you're anything. I just want to ask you the questions that I would anybody."

4. ADDITIONAL FACTS NOT REPORTED IN FAHRENHEIT 9/11 THAT SUPPORT THE FILM'S THESIS

First, the US Customs and Border Protection document released by the Department of Homeland Security under the FOIA, Feb 24, 2004 lists 162 Saudi Nationals who flew out of the country between 9.11.2001 and 9.15.2001.

Second, even though Fahrenheit does not make the allegation, on June 9, 2004, news reports confirmed that, "Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with most of the nation's air traffic still grounded, a small jet landed at Tampa International Airport, picked up three young Saudi men and left. The men, one of them thought to be a member of the Saudi royal family, were accompanied by a former FBI agent and a former Tampa police officer on the flight to Lexington, Ky. The Saudis then took another flight out of the country."

Moreover, "For nearly three years, White House, aviation and law enforcement officials have insisted the flight never took place and have denied published reports and widespread Internet speculation about its purpose... The terrorism panel, better known as the 9/11 Commission, said in April that it knew of six chartered flights with 142 people aboard, mostly Saudis, that left the United States between Sept. 14 and 24, 2001. But it has said nothing about the Tampa flight… The 9/11 Commission, which has said the flights out of the United States were handled appropriately by the FBI, appears concerned with the handling of the Tampa flight.

"Most of the aircraft allowed to fly in U.S. airspace on Sept. 13 were empty airliners being ferried from the airports where they made quick landings on Sept. 11. The reopening of the airspace included paid charter flights, but not private, nonrevenue flights." Jean Heller, TIA now verifies flight of Saudis; The government has long denied that two days after the 9/11 attacks, the three were allowed to fly. (St. Petersburg Times, June 9, 2004 )


June 20th, 2004 8:58 am
What Fahrenheit 9/11 Says About The Relationship Between The Families Of George W. Bush And Osama Bin Laden


WHAT THE FILM SAYS:

Narration: Bush’s good friend James Bath was hired by the bin Laden family to manage their money in Texas and invest in businesses. And James Bath himself, in turn, invested in George W. Bush.

…

Author Dan Briody: George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush worked for the Carlyle Group, the same company that counted the bin Laden family among its investors.

…

Author Dan Briody: Carlyle Group was holding its annual investor conference on the morning of September 11th in the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington, D.C. … George H. W. Bush … left the morning of September 11th. Shafiq bin Ladin, who is Osama bin Laden’s half-brother, and was in town to look after his family’s investments in the Carlyle Group. All of them, together in one room, watching as the planes hit the towers.

…

Narration: With so much attention focused on the bin Laden family being important Carlyle investors, the bin Ladens eventually had to withdraw. Bush’s dad stayed on as Senior Advisor to Carlyle’s Asia Board for another two years.

…

Author Dan Briody: As unseemly as it seems, to know that George H.W. Bush was meeting with the bin Laden family while Osama was a wanted terrorist, well before September 11, it’s very discomforting for Americans to know that.

WHY WE SAY IT:

BUSH, BATH AND BIN LADEN.

James R. Bath and George W. Bush were friends. They served together in the Texas Air National Guard. According to records released by the Bush campaign in 2000, in 1972, both Bush and Bath were suspended for failing to take their medical examination (although Bath’s name was blacked out in records released by the White House in 2004). National Guard Bureau, Aeronautical Orders Number 87, September 29, 1972. Time Magazine reported in 1991 “ Bath, 55, acknowledges a friendship with George W. Bush that stems from their service together in the Texas Air National Guard, and says he is ‘slightly’ acquainted with .” Jonathan Beatty, “A Mysterious Mover of Money and Planes,” Time, October 28, 1991.

In 1976, Bath became the Texas money manager for the Bin Laden family. Notarized Trust Agreement, Harris County, Texas, signed by Salem M. Binladen, July 8, 1976, Bath’s business relationship with Salem bin Laden, and other wealthy Saudi businessmen, has been well documented. See, e.g., Mike Ward, “Bin Laden relatives have ties to Texas,” Austin American-Statesman, November 9, 2001; Jerry Urban, “Feds investigate entrepreneur allegedly tied to Saudis,” Houston Chronicle, June 4, 1992; Thomas Petzinger Jr., et al., “Family Ties: How oil firm linked to a son of Bush won Bahrain Drilling Pact,” The Wall Street Journal, December 6, 1991.

James Bath invested in George W. Bush’s oil company, Arbusto. See 1981 Schedule 4 spreadsheet showing $50,000 investment by James Bath in George W. Bush’s Bush Exploration. According to Time Magazine, “arly 1980s tax records reviewed by Time show that Bath invested $50,000 in Bush's energy ventures and remained a stockholder until Bush sold his company to Harken in 1986.” Jonathan Beaty, A Mysterious Mover of Money and Planes, Time Magazine, October 28, 1991.

GEORGE W. BUSH, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, THE BIN LADENS AND THE CARLYLE GROUP.

In the early 1990s, George W. Bush served on the board of directors for CaterAir, an airline catering company. CaterAir was owned by the Carlyle Group. Kenneth N. Gilpin, “Little-Known Carlyle Scores Big,” The New York Times, March 26, 1991. See also, Nicholas M. Horrock, “With friends like these…,” United Press International, July 16, 2003. “Fred Malek, a senior advisor to Carlyle, who also served as the director of the 1988 Republican Convention, suggested to Carlyle that the President’s eldest son, George W. Bush, would ‘be a positive addition to Caterair’s board.’ Mr. Malek was also a Caterair director and vice chairman of Northwest Airlines, a major Caterair customer. ‘I thought George W. Bush could make a contribution to Caterair,’ stated Malek.” Kenneth N. Gilpin, Little-Known Carlyle Scores Big, New York Times, March 26, 1991.

George W. Bush left the company in 1994, a year after his father’s presidency ended. Ross Ramsey, et al., “Campaign ’94 Fisher’s Staff Slips Up On Spanish,” The Houston Chronicle, September 17, 1994 .

Former President George H. W. Bush joined the Carlyle group in the mid-1990s after losing his bid for re-election. He became a member of the company's Asia Advisory Board and stayed as a Senior Advisor to the Asia Board until 2003. Kevin Phillips, “The Barreling Bushes,” Los Angeles Times, January 11, 2004; Kurt Eichenwald, “Bin Laden Family Liquidates Holdings With Carlyle Group,” The New York Times, October 26, 2001. See also, Conal Walsh, The Carlyle controversy: With friends in high places: Former world leaders give Carlyle Group unrivalled prowess in lobbying for business,” The Observer, September 15, 2002.

According to Carlyle, “Former President Bush was at one time the Senior Advisor to the Carlyle Asia Advisory Board but retired from that position in October 2003.”

The bin Laden family first invested in Carlyle in 1994. Representing Carlyle’s Asia Board, George H.W. Bush visited the bin laden family's headquarters in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Kurt Eichenwald, Bin Laden Family Liquidates Holdings With Carlyle Group, The New York Times, October 26, 2001.

Following the attacks on September 11, the bin Laden family’s investments in the Carlyle Group became an embarrassment to the Carlyle Group and the family was forced to liquidate their assets with the firm. Kurt Eichenwald, “Bin Laden Family Liquidates Holdings with Carlyle Group,” The New York Times, October 26, 2001.

BIN LADENS AND BUSH AT A CARLYLE INVESTORS CONFERENCE, SEPTEMBER 10-11, 2001

On the morning of September 11, 2001 , “in the plush setting of the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Washington, DC, the Carlyle Group was holding its annual international investor conference. Frank Carlucci, James Baker III, David Rubenstein, William Conway, and Dan D’Aniellow were together, along with a host of former world leaders, former defense experts, wealthy Arabs from the Middle East, and major international investors as the terror played out on television. There with them, looking after the investments of his family was Shafiq bin Laden, Osama bin Laden’s estranged half-brother. George Bush Sr. was also at the conference, but Carlyle’s spokesperson says the former president left before the terror attacks, and was on an airplane over the Midwest when flights across the country were grounded on the morning of September 11. In any circumstance, a confluence of such politically complex and globally connected people would have been curious, even newsworthy. But in the context of the terrorist attacks being waged against the United States by a group of Saudi nationals led by Osama bin Laden, the group assembled at the Ritz-Carlton that day was a disconcerting and freakish coincidence.” Dan Briody, The Iron Triangle, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003, p. 139-140. See also, Melanie Warner, “What do George Bush, Arthur Levitt, Jim Baker, Dick Darman, and John Major Have in Common? (They all work for the Carlyle Group),” Fortune, March 18, 2002.

[CarneVaca]

Good post.

Jason, what say ye?

I say Isikoff is whore.

[gldstwmn]

=CarneVaca
If you go through the links, you start to understand why Clinton has been so kind to Bush in the matter of the war on terrorism and the attack on Iraq. See, Clinton's administration was an abject failure at dealing with al Qaida. Sudan practically handed Osama to us on a platter but because of its categorization as a "terrorist state," we declined the offer.

Actually, this is a right wing talking point that has been repeated over and over and is nothing but a flat out, bold faced lie.

[strandinthewind]

Well, I am unsure he has sex for money (although you never know :laugh: ) - but he is a liar and a cad nonetheless :nod:

I agree with the points MM made. I have not argued against them, except to say the investment was around 30 years ago and $50,000 is seemingly inconsequential to the BL's who are worth billions and the Bushes who are very rich in their own right. But, MM correctly says the BL's through Bath invested $50,000 in W's company. So, people can take that for what it is worth - he is not in error and he notes an important fact that people need to know.

Interestingly, in the late 70's it is widely reported that OBL was running much of his late father's vast enterprises - so I wonder if OBL himself ordered the investment. If he did, that was 30 years ago and he was not the overt terrorist he is now, but still - that is a chilling fact :shrug:

[CarneVaca]

Actually, this is a right wing talking point that has been repeated over and over and is nothing but a flat out, bold faced lie.

OK, now you're employing the right-wing tactic of calling it a lie but not explaining why. There are several news reports, mostly from non-US news sources, about this.

What's the lie?

[strandinthewind]

OK, now you're employing the right-wing tactic of calling it a lie but not explaining why. There are several news reports, mostly from non-US news sources, about this.

What's the lie?

Even though you did not ask me - Glodie has such a lovely back that it is worth watching :laugh: :cool: :wavey:

Regarding the alleged Sudan offer, there are a few sides to that story, so I guess it just depends on which side you believe. The Sudan is not known for the truth, they apparently were in business with OBL, and the timing and players involved are suspicious :shrug: Thus, I tend to believe the offer was never extended or at least extended with any true intent. I also think this because Clinton did send missles there and elsewhere in an attempt to kill OBL, so his rejection of serious offer does not make that much sense to me. But, others may differ.

Here are some articles on it and Clinton's efforts to catch OBL in general. I also note Clinton did capture and prosecute the 1993 WTC bombers as well as other terrorists. So, Clinton has a favorable track record on catching and prosecuting terrorists. But, the fact remains he did not get OBL even though he tried.

http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/news/story123493.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/21/eveningnews/main625205.shtml

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp

[gldstwmn]

Thanks Strandie! You just saved me a lot of typing.
Sorry Carne, I'm a little pressed for time right now, I'll try to catch up this weekend. :)

[CarneVaca]

Here are some articles on it and Clinton's efforts to catch OBL in general. I also note Clinton did capture and prosecute the 1993 WTC bombers as well as other terrorists. So, Clinton has a favorable track record on catching and prosecuting terrorists. But, the fact remains he did not get OBL even though he tried.

Jason, I was wondering how long it would take for someone to post that link to the CBS interview with Clinton. Our distinguished former president says:

To the best of my knowledge it is not true that we were ever offered him by the Sudanese even though they later claimed it. I think it's total bull. Mr. Absurabi, the head of the Sudanese government was a buddy of bin Laden's. They were business partners together. There was no way in the wide world this guy who was in business with bin Laden in Sudan was going to give him up to us.

Now, isn't this the same guy who looked straight into the camera and without blinking, said, "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky?" The same man who said, "Depends on what your definition of 'is' is?"

Notice the careful way he starts the sentence, saying "to the best of my knowledge." Jason, you're a lawyer and you know what that qualifier means. Also notice the way he says he was "obsessed" with capturing bin Laden. How often did Clinton talk about Osama publicly during his administration? I bet if you counted the instances, they wouldn't be a significant enough number to qualify for as an "obsession." I'm expected to believe that Clinton wouldn't attempt to cover his ass if it were revealed that his administration made a huge faux pas if it turns out it was true that Osama was offered to him on a platter?

I have done a fair amount of research on this, and I consider Mr. Isaaz somewhat suspicious, but not any more so than Clinton himself. I listened to a recording of Clinton from a speech delivered on Long Island. It is unquestionably Clinton's voice uttering the following:

Mr. Bin Laden used to live in Sudan ... And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

While it is true that this story got a lot of mileage in the conservative press, it was also reported in Vanity Fair, which used documents from the Clinton administration to back up the claims of Sudanese offers.

Here's the bottom line: Something happened. This Isaaz guy may well be a charlatan and it is possible that some miscommunication took place. It is possible that Isaaz made it all up. But what about the documents Vanity Fair unearthed? My gut tells me some kind of offer happened, but the Clinton administration dropped the ball. In addition, the reports that the US and Saudi pressured Sudan to expel Osama are credible. Why would the Sudan agree to that it if weren't willing to negotiate?

The Clinton administration made plenty of mistakes. It bombed the Sudanese plant that supplied medicine to a great deal of its population, claiming it was a chemicals factory. Clinton himself has defended George W. Bush, saying he'd gotten the same reports of WMDs Bush had. Don't you find that funny? Especially since Gore has taken every opportunity he can to lambast the Bush Iraq misadventure.

Ultimately, Jason, Gldtswmm, what makes Clinton so believable? Or his former cabinet members for that matter. Madeline Allbright told quite a few fibs during her time in office as well, as I recall. Tell me, guys, why are these people so much more credible in your eyes?

[strandinthewind]

Ultimately, Jason, Gldtswmm, what makes Clinton so believable? Or his former cabinet members for that matter. Madeline Allbright told quite a few fibs during her time in office as well, as I recall. Tell me, guys, why are these people so much more credible in your eyes?

Well, as I mentioned earlier, I think that Clinton caught and prosecuted several of OBL soldiers/terrorists that actually bombed the WTC in '93, that he caught and prosecuted other terrorists, and that he bombed this and other countries because the intelligence said the window to kill OBL and/or disrupt his operations was there is proof that Clinton wanted to get him - he just never succeeded and for that he can be most certainly faulted and I do so. Also, his timing of the one set of the bombings, the ones during the Lewinsky circus, was also suspect, but he tried to kill OBL just the same - it is just the timing I question for what I think are obvious reasons (see "Wag the Dog" :cool: ) . Interestingly, I think that if the property in the Sudan was a medicine plant (we have only their word for it I think and certainly the Weekly Standard article I posted indicated we had evidence that things other than medicine making could have been going on there :shrug: ) is not really the point, although if it was a mistake, it was a horrible tragedy that if I could change I would. The point is, which is my point, it was just one more attempt where Clinton tried to get rid of OBL and his operations. BTW - I see no logic in Clinton intentionally bombing a medicine factory - so I conclude the Sudanese are lying (which is not that far of a stretch :shrug: ) Butand again, if the intelligence was incorrect, that is a horrible thing.

Also, there are more articles in which people other than Clinton and his cabinet discredit the Sudan offer. A search on google will reveal a host of them.

Finally, the Sudan information/offer was based solely on the word of a biased party and the Sudan govt., which apparently was a business partner and/or had other affiliations with OBL. That does nothing but make them less credible IMO. Then, what about the timing of the making public of the alleged offer - that is suspect as well, esp. considering Sudan is not exactly a nation that is unfriendly to terrorists.

I think, those facts (I guess I see them as facts) provide support for Clinton's statements as well as the other people that discredit the alleged Sudan offer.

I do fully realize, however, that the facts are there for all to see and they certainly are not dispositive of any definite resolution. So, I think we are left with an educated guess and that is mine. :cool:

Also, as far as for Clinton saying "as far as I know" and his carefully chosen lang. I think your assertion that it qualifies his statement is correct - I agree with you there. But, I think he has to say it because he did not read all of the 1,000's of pages of information, he did not talk to everyone, etc. There is no way he could have - that is why he has a staff, etc. So, he has to say that because if he said the sentence without that qualifier, some anti-Clinton socially repressed govt. worker would pull the smoking gun doc. that had been locked in his FBI desk in an effort to keep it from the CIA :rolleyes: :eek: and give it to the press who would then crucify Clinton for his unqualified statement. So, I understand the game he plays with that statement and the reasons he had to say it.

BTW - I love the word "charlatan" - I also love "cad" which I used earlier :cool:

[gldstwmn]

Ultimately, Jason, Gldtswmm, what makes Clinton so believable? Or his former cabinet members for that matter. Madeline Allbright told quite a few fibs during her time in office as well, as I recall. Tell me, guys, why are these people so much more credible in your eyes?

What possible reason would Maddie and the gang have to pass up Bin Laden? It would be a huge feather in their cap and shore up Clinton's bid for reelection in '96.

[strandinthewind]

What possible reason would Maddie and the gang have to pass up Bin Laden? It would be a huge feather in their cap and shore up Clinton's bid for reelection in '96.


Ignoring any IMO unsupported theory that OBL and W are in bed together and fully realizing we are talking about Clinton, I have to make a note that the same logic you assert about Clinton could be asserted to W. Capturing OBL would get W relected by a landslide compared to today's and 2000's statistical tie. In fact, there is the theory that Rove already knows where he is and will haul him out at the end of Oct. 2004. I also have to note that even though that is just a rank unsupported a rumor, I would not rule out such an action by any politician much less Rove and company. In that last sentence I think I display my inherent distrust of all politicians :laugh:

[CarneVaca]

Well, as I mentioned earlier, I think that Clinton caught and prosecuted several of OBL soldiers/terrorists that actually bombed the WTC in '93,

He did!!?? Boy, he sure kept busy in between fellatio appointments at the Oval Office. ;)

At best, Clinton's efforts to get Osama were half-hearted, and I believe largely because of the tremendous failure in Mogadishu. Here is a president who was haunted by an incident so ugly and so recent in the public memory that he was so timid about military action that the most he ever allowed himself to agree to was firing missiles at very distant targets and air strikes on fighting factions. Even Kosovo, unquestionably a success from a military standpoint, was a timid exercise in the history of war.

I am quite amused by people who now buy into the fantasy that Clinton was obsessed with Osama bin Laden. Isn't the effect of time on perception indeed a wonderous thing? And I will remind you the simultaneous attacks on the suspected al Qaida camps in Aghanistan (and parts of Pakistan as well) and the Kkartoum bombing happened on the night Monica was returning to the Grand Jury to testify. Clearly, Clinton was so obsessed with Osama that even while the testimony of the silly girl who could have brought down his presidency -- and did, in a way -- was being delivered, he was out there pressing missile buttons to get Osama. :rolleyes: Billy Cohen himself later admitted there was no financial connection between the plant and Osama after more and more evidence against the chemical plant claims came through. Some of the evidence: medicine vials among the plant's debris.

BTW - I see no logic in Clinton intentionally bombing a medicine factory - so I conclude the Sudanese are lying (which is not that far of a stretch :shrug: ) Butand again, if the intelligence was incorrect, that is a horrible thing.

I didn't say it was intentional. I called it a mistake, though I wonder. As soon as that bombing happened, there were immediate reports that it wasn't what the Clinton administration claimed it to be. There were other similar very bad "mistakes," including bombing the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, which by the way was later ascertained as an intentional bombing. Hmm... Makes you wonder about other mistakes doesn't it?

Also, there are more articles in which people other than Clinton and his cabinet discredit the Sudan offer. A search on google will reveal a host of them.

Yeah, I've seen them. It's a story that hasn't been told right, I suspect. Something transpired, and I am sure there are exaggerations on both sides. I just won't dismiss it as pure fiction because I believe there was something to it.

Even Al Franken, who has done a very good job of spelling out a lot of the right-wing lies makes only a tepid rebuttal to this story, failing to provide any solid evidence that it isn't true.

Then, what about the timing of the making public of the alleged offer - that is suspect as well, esp. considering Sudan is not exactly a nation that is unfriendly to terrorists.

That's a good point. But you have to admit that expelling Osama from Sudan, under pressure from Saudi Arabia and the US, was a dreadful mistake. When we finally got around to trying to bomb him he had found plenty of places to hide in Afghanistan.

I think, those facts (I guess I see them as facts) provide support for Clinton's statements as well as the other people that discredit the alleged Sudan offer.

Facts? I don't know, Jason. What you allude to is not much more factual than what the other side says. So if we're going to be objective and open-minded, we have to at least allow for the possibility that the Clintonites are lying, once again, and that there may be something to the story. As you say:

I think we are left with an educated guess and that is mine. :cool:

[CarneVaca]

What possible reason would Maddie and the gang have to pass up Bin Laden? It would be a huge feather in their cap and shore up Clinton's bid for reelection in '96.

Really!? In 1996? Everybody was going around then talking about Osama, as I recall. No wonder Clinton was obsessed with him. :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

Facts? I don't know, Jason. What you allude to is not much more factual than what the other side says. So if we're going to be objective and open-minded, we have to at least allow for the possibility that the Clintonites are lying, once again, and that there may be something to the story. As you say:


To clarify - I thought I presented both sides' facts in the articles I posted and then concluded :shrug: I do agree though that it is possible to conclude differently than I did based on those sames facts.

As for the evidence that the medicine plant was not just a medicine plant, some of the evidence is more compelling than what you cited. The Weekly Standard article I cited of says:

For nearly two years, starting in 1996, the CIA monitored the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. The plant was known to have deep connections to Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation, and the CIA had gathered intelligence on the budding relationship between Iraqi chemical weapons experts and the plant's top officials. The intelligence included information that several top chemical weapons specialists from Iraq had attended ceremonies to celebrate the plant's opening in 1996. And, more compelling, the National Security Agency had intercepted telephone calls between Iraqi scientists and the plant's general manager.

Iraq also admitted to having a $199,000 contract with al Shifa for goods under the oil-for-food program. Those goods were never delivered. While it's hard to know what significance, if any, to ascribe to this information, it fits a pattern described in recent CIA reporting on the overlap in the mid-1990s between al Qaeda-financed groups and firms that violated U.N. sanctions on behalf of Iraq.

The clincher, however, came later in the spring of 1998, when the CIA secretly gathered a soil sample from 60 feet outside of the plant's main gate. The sample showed high levels of O-ethylmethylphosphonothioic acid, known as EMPTA, which is a key ingredient for the deadly nerve agent VX. A senior intelligence official who briefed reporters at the time was asked which countries make VX using EMPTA. "Iraq is the only country we're aware of," the official said. "There are a variety of ways of making VX, a variety of recipes, and EMPTA is fairly unique."
__________________________________________________________

That is pretty compelling to me :shrug: Interestingly, it also damns Iraq, but that is another argument and we have already had it 1,000 times - granted not citing this exact evidence :laugh:

As for the mistakes in the bombings in Clinton's regime, I think that is due to intelligence failure. I think we place WAY too much on the veracity of our intelligence and often do not consider the source enough. But, the flip side is people, i.e. the voting public, are apparently willing to accept intelligence until it is proven to be wrong. For example, people seemingly automatically assume the Sudan was not lying and Clinton has to rebut that presumption. For me, I look at the Sudan's comments initially with disbelief and expect them to support them, which they have not other than through inuendo and tainted sources IMO.

Interestingly, you criticize Clinton for what you see as a "half-hearted" effort to get OBL by "firing missiles at very distant targets and air strikes on fighting factions." What would you or anyone else have him do instead? I do not think you are arguing we should have invaded Afganistan or a similar action on the Sudanese? Even though Al-Q\OBL attacked America a few times prior to 9/11 and I think we would have been justified in an all out attack in Afganistan where OBL clearly had a safe harbour, such action would have infuriated the Muslim community to no end. But, then again and for a variety of reasons not all to balme on the US, most of the people in the Middle East could not hate us more and perhaps (and that is a big perhaps) we could have stopped 9/11. Sadly, may of "them" would have died instead of "us." That is a sad thing when I say it, but it is true. I just cannot believe that if we left the entire Middle East - withdrew all American aid, protection, etc., that that would stop OBL and the other crazy, manical terrorists from still attacking us. They hate us that much. So, I do not see any solution in sight. That is terrifying.

In the end, yes, I agree, Clinton could have and should have done more. His actions, though there and effective in most cases, were not enough because we never got OBL.

Ooooo - what a ramble :laugh:

[CarneVaca]

That is pretty compelling to me :shrug: Interestingly, it also damns Iraq, but that is another argument and we have already had it 1,000 times - granted not citing this exact evidence :laugh:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

It's gotta be true! No wonder we attacked Iraq. Saddam had been exchanging dangerous chemicals with Sudan. Why didn't we bomb Sudan?

As for the mistakes in the bombings in Clinton's regime, I think that is due to intelligence failure.

Yes and no. Khartoum probably was intelligence failure. Belgrade? No, and the case has been made convincingly.

But let's say you're right about intelligence failures. It sure as hell would advance my argument of the botched Osama handover, nyet?

For example, people seemingly automatically assume the Sudan was not lying and Clinton has to rebut that presumption. For me, I look at the Sudan's comments initially with disbelief and expect them to support them, which they have not other than through inuendo and tainted sources IMO.

Fair enough. But why not use the same truth test for Clinton and his cronies? Is he that credible to you?

What would you or anyone else have him do instead? I do not think you are arguing we should have invaded Afganistan or a similar action on the Sudanese?

I am arguing against it, Jason, in case it was hard to tell that. What I would do is deal with even a terrorist state to capture the most dangerous terrorist mastermind out there. It wouldn't be the first time we cut deals with enemy or terrorist states.

I just cannot believe that if we left the entire Middle East - withdrew all American aid, protection, etc., that that would stop OBL and the other crazy, manical terrorists from still attacking us. They hate us that much. So, I do not see any solution in sight. That is terrifying.

I guess we'll never know. But it is instructive that the 9/11 Commission reported about dissent among the upper echelons of al Qaida. They are politically savvy. They are not mindless, blind-faith warriors. There's some political tactical planning going on there.

[gldstwmn]

Really!? In 1996? Everybody was going around then talking about Osama, as I recall. No wonder Clinton was obsessed with him. :rolleyes:

Well, the offer was made in 1996. You can't have it both ways. Oh wait, I forgot, you're a Utopian, so never mind. :) By the way, you didn't anser my question. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

It's gotta be true! No wonder we attacked Iraq. Saddam had been exchanging dangerous chemicals with Sudan. Why didn't we bomb Sudan?

We did if I am not mistaken - we did and that is the subject of this exchange of ideas :shrug: But, I get your point in that we did not go to war with them although bombing them is an act of war. Interestingly, that brings forth the whole timing issue of the revelation of the take over attempt. It is a valid point that the Sudanese could have been trying to take oureyes off of them.

Fair enough. But why not use the same truth test for Clinton and his cronies? Is he that credible to you?

No - he and anyone else are not, esp. politicians. But, I provided the reasons why I think Clinton was not lying in this instance. I think in the end his version of events is more credible. I do not just automatically credit Clinton. I will say, the Sudanese do start off with less credibility - how could they not?

I guess we'll never know. But it is instructive that the 9/11 Commission reported about dissent among the upper echelons of al Qaida. They are politically savvy. They are not mindless, blind-faith warriors. There's some political tactical planning going on there.

I think that is true about the upper level. But, as with all armies, the grunts in the ranks are historically not as savy. I think the same applies to Al-Q. I mean for someone to perform a suicide mission to kill thousands of people, they have to be a little insane. Conversely, I notice OBL and the top brass are not conducting the events himself. Sort of like our members of Congress and Rumsfeld do not have to haul out to Iraq and risk getting their assess blown to hell and back.

Food for thought :cool:

[CarneVaca]

I will say, the Sudanese do start off with less credibility - how could they not?

Perhaps you're right. Really, the only way to know is to find out if they are capable of lying about fellatio.

I think that is true about the upper level. But, as with all armies, the grunts in the ranks are historically not as savy. I think the same applies to Al-Q.

The rank-and-file are not making the decisions on whom to bomb, unless there is a loose cannon, which I am sure will happen once in a while.

[strandinthewind]

Perhaps you're right. Really, the only way to know is to find out if they are capable of lying about fellatio.


Ture, but I think that act is forbidden in their religion. Then again, it is forbidden in the eyes of some Pentacostals, unless of course it is happening to them ;) :laugh: :wavey:

Poor Billy Boy - most people will always think the lie about that and other sexual acts is the worst thing. To me, that is nothing. It was his calculated waste of the taxpayers money in an effort to cover his lie. I get that Starr was on a witch hunt that was authorized by Reno and repeatedly expanded by Reno once Starr realized there was nothing provable about Whitewater (does anyone really think they did not do it :rolleyes: ) - BUT when asked, Clinton should have told the truth, instead he began the cever up before he was asked and maintained the cover up essentially until the dress was produced - all at the waste of our money. Therein is a bright example of his credibility probelms :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

An AP story from

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124879,00.html

________________________________________________________________

9/11 Panel: Still No Iraq Connection

Tuesday, July 06, 2004

WASHINGTON — The Sept. 11 commission (search) is standing by its finding that Al Qaeda had only limited contact with Iraq before the terrorist attacks.

The 10-member, bipartisan panel issued a one-sentence statement Tuesday saying it had access to the same information as Vice President Dick Cheney (search), who suggested strong ties between ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (search) and Al Qaeda.

That assertion was one of the justifications the Bush administration gave for going to war with Iraq. In a preliminary report released last month, the Sept. 11 commission cited contacts between Saddam's regime and Usama bin Laden (search) but said there was no "collaborative relationship."

Click to read the Sept. 11 Commission's report http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/911panel_statement17.pdf

In an interview with CNBC, Cheney had said there "probably" was information about Iraq's links to terrorists that the commission members did not learn during their 14-month investigation. The commission statement Tuesday disputed that.

"After examining available transcripts of the vice president's public remarks, the 9/11 commission believes it has access to the same information the vice president has seen regarding contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks," the commission said.

The commission invited Cheney to offer any evidence that he thought it didn't have but never received any information. As a result, the panel wished to make clear that after some double-checking it was basing its findings on the same intelligence and material that Cheney had, Democratic commissioner Timothy Roemer said in an interview.

"Our position is firm, unchanged and committed to our previous finding," said Roemer, a former congressman from Indiana. "We have not discovered collaboration-cooperation between Al Qaeda and Iraq in general terrorist activities across the world, against the United States."

Cheney's spokesman, Kevin Kellems, said, however, the vice president was satisfied the panel had all relevant information to make an accurate determination. Cheney's main concern was about some media reports suggesting that Al Qaeda and Iraq had no ties whatsoever, he said.

"We are pleased with today's statement from the 9/11 commission, which puts to rest a non-story," Kellems said. "As we have said all along, the administration has provided the commission with unprecedented access to sensitive information so they can perform their mission."

Kellems added that Cheney "did not criticize the commission's work" and said, "We look forward to reading the commission's final report."

The commission, which faces a July 26 deadline to issue its final report, is winding down its 1 1/2 year investigation into what went wrong and why.

Commissioners already have submitted substantial portions of the report to the White House for review and are meeting this week to hash out recommendations into how to prevent future attacks. Proposals under consideration include creating a domestic intelligence agency modeled after Britain's MI5 (search).

[strandinthewind]

From

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/27166.htm

Interesting and food for thought!!!
_______________________________________________________________

MOORE'S MYTHS

By JOHN R. LOTT, JR. & BRIAN BLASE

July 12, 2004 -- AMONG its many errors, Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" is poisoning our political debate with its fictional account of the Florida vote in 2000.
Perhaps his distortions have gone unremarked because they've been repeated so often. (Jesse Jackson, for one, still speaks of Florida as "the scene of the crime" where "[blacks] were disenfranchised. Our birthright stolen.") But still, Moore's "documentary" seems to set a new record for political dishonesty.

Consider a few of the movie's assertions:

The Fox News Channel played a major role in Bush's victory in Florida: The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Gore, followed by a voiceover uttering, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy."

First off, Moore leaves out the fact that Fox first called Florida for Gore — and didn't call it back until 2 a.m.

Indeed, all the networks, Fox included, helped Gore by calling the Florida polls as closed at 7 p.m. Eastern time — and quickly declaring a Democrat the winner of the state's U.S. Senate race, before also saying the state had gone to Gore.

In fact, polls in the 10 heavily Republican counties in the state's western panhandle, located in the Central time zone, were open until 8. But why bother trying to vote when a trusted newsman says the polls are closed and you've already lost?

After surveying voters, Democratic strategist Bob Beckel claimed that the early call cost Bush a net loss of up to 8,000 votes. Another survey conducted by John McLaughlin and Associates, a Republican polling company, put Bush's net loss at about 10,000 votes.

"Under every scenario Gore would have won" the Florida vote if the U.S. Supreme Court hadn't stopped the count. In making this claim, Moore chooses to ignore the most definitive post-election examinations of the ballots.

Two large news consortiums (USA Today and The Miami Herald headed one; the other included The New York Times) conducted massive recounts of Florida's ballots. Both reached very similar conclusions, and neither supported Moore's claim. To quote from the USA Today group's findings (May 11, 2001):

"Who would have won if Al Gore had gotten manual counts he requested in four counties? Answer: George W. Bush."

"Who would have won if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount of undervotes, which are ballots that registered no machine-readable vote for president? Answer: Bush, under three of four standards."

"Who would have won if all disputed ballots — including those rejected by machines because they had more than one vote for president — had been recounted by hand? Answer: Bush, under the two most widely used standards; Gore, under the two least used."

Unless all these news organizations are part of Moore's vast rightwing conspiracy, his claim that the U.S. Supreme Court's reversal of the Florida Supreme Court's decision cost Gore the election is based only upon his own wishes, not facts.

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush stole the election for his brother by removing African-American voters, who were likely to vote for Gore, from the rolls. Again, Moore ignores documented fact.

Some background: Florida bans felons from voting (unless they've been granted clemency). Before the 2000 vote, the state hired Database Technologies to purge rolls of felons and dead people. Some non-felons were erroneously removed from the rolls — but the errors didn't "target" minorities.

The liberal-leaning Palm Beach Post found that "a review of state records, internal e-mails of [Database Technologies] employees and testimony before the civil rights commission and an elections task force showed no evidence that minorities were specifically targeted."

The law against felon voting does have a racial impact, since African-Americans make up the greatest share of felons (nearly 49 percent felons convicted in Florida). But the application of that law in 2000 skewed somewhat the opposite way — whites were actually the most likely to be erroneously excluded.

The error rate was 9.9 percent for whites, 8.7 percent for Hispanics, and only a 5.1 percent for African-Americans.

Michael Moore has been honest in one regard: He freely admits he hopes his film helps defeat President Bush this fall. It's hard to find much else that he's been honest about, however — including calling "Fahrenheit 9/11" a documentary.

John R. Lott Jr. is a resident scholar and Brian Blase a research assistant at the American Enterprise Institute.

[strandinthewind]

In response MM says:

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

Too long to quote directly :cool:

[cliffdweller]

While I type this, only two words come to mind: Lila Lipscomb. That woman, my god. If I was sobbing before she came onscreen, I really lost it when she did. It put things about this war into so much perspective that I couldn't handle the reality of it all. When she was in DC for a conference and decided to go to the White House, the whole theater cheered her on. But when that abomination of humanity approached her and yelled "This is all staged! Blame al-Qaeda!" at her, I literally saw red. Never in my life had I ever been so infuriated by a person, not even Bush. When she proceeded to yell "Where was your son supposedly killed?!" I wanted to commit murder. Then, when she had the gall to yell "Well, others died, too!" I screamed "C*CKSUCKER!" at the screen as loud as I could. :laugh:

I probably would have punched that b*tch in the face. If I had been Lila, all my pacifist leanings would have gone out the window with one swift kick in her scumsucking ass. Needless to say, I too saw red too.

As for Bush, after he leaves the White House next fall...I'm thinking a little of the old Mousselini treatment would do him just fine.

[gldstwmn]

In response MM says:

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

Too long to quote directly :cool:

Why not? The New York Post (who called Gephardt Kerry's VP choice on it's front page last week) :rolleyes: article was long enough. And you posted it twice. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Why not? The New York Post (who called Gephardt Kerry's VP choice on it's front page last week) :rolleyes: article was long enough. And you posted it twice. :shrug:

I did? i do not remember posting that article once - ooppss!!!!! :laugh:

[dissention]

I did? i do not remember posting that article once - ooppss!!!!! :laugh:

She's talking about the Moore's Myths one. ;)

[strandinthewind]

She's talking about the Moore's Myths one. ;)

I was like WTF- once in this thread and once in the other. gotcha ;) :D

[gldstwmn]

She's talking about the Moore's Myths one. ;)

Thank you, oh left side of my brain for speaking for me again. :laugh: