Thoughts on Fahrenheit 9/11 *spoilers*

[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 )

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

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No harm No foul (cyber kick notwithstanding )

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?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

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

PS: Did you get my PM?

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

As for not opening it, I understand why.

[dissention]

http://www.silive.com/newsflash/metr...1950158920.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

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]

Originally Posted by The Chain

I found this interesting link:

9/11 Cover Up

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.

[dissention]

Moore will be on Charlie Rose tonight.

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 ) - but he is a liar and a cad nonetheless

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

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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?