Fahreheit 9/11..finally watched it

[distortion9]

Crap!

No wonder Moore is submitting it for "Best Picture" and not "Best DOCUMENTARY".

"Best Documentary" would require Moore's "facts" to be checked, Since it's a work of FICTION... that can't happen.

Anyone that let's this movie sway their vote really needs to have that right taken away from them.

Fucking dummies

[Jerry Falwell]

I haven't watched it yet, I have the feeling that it would only irritate me. I probably won't give it the time of day.

[scorpioboy33]

Originally posted by distortion9
Crap!

No wonder Moore is submitting it for "Best Picture" and not "Best DOCUMENTARY".

"Best Documentary" would require Moore's "facts" to be checked, Since it's a work of FICTION... that can't happen.

Anyone that let's this movie sway their vote really needs to have that right taken away from them.

Fucking dummies

example of the facts being fictious

[lucky wilbury]

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7066&highlight=moore

the article shows how wrong he is

[distortion9]

Originally posted by scorpioboy33
example of the facts being fictious

Do I really need to do this?

[distortion9]

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

MOORE'S MYTHS

By JOHN R. LOTT, JR. & BRIAN BLASE

Email Archives
Print Reprint

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.

[distortion9]

http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx


Clarke claims responsibility
Ex-counterterrorism czar approved post-9-11 flights for bin Laden family
By Alexander Bolton

Richard Clarke, who served as President Bush’s chief of counterterrorism, has claimed sole responsibility for approving flights of Saudi Arabian citizens, including members of Osama bin Laden’s family, from the United States immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

pedro sa da bandeira
Former White House counterterrorism adviser testifies before the 9-11 commission.

In an interview with The Hill yesterday, Clarke said, “I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again.”

Most of the 26 passengers aboard one flight, which departed from the United States on Sept. 20, 2001, were relatives of Osama bin Laden, whom intelligence officials blamed for the attacks almost immediately after they happened.

Clarke’s claim of responsibility is likely to put an end to a brewing political controversy on Capitol Hill over who approved the controversial flights of members of the Saudi elite at a time when the administration was preparing to detain dozens of Muslim-Americans and people with Muslim backgrounds as material witnesses to the attacks.

Several Democrats say that at a closed-door meeting May 6, they pressed members of the commission investigating the attacks of Sept. 11 to find out who approved the flights.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who attended the meeting, said she asked former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.) and former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, a Republican, “Who authorized the flight[s] and why?”

“They said it’s been a part of their inquiry and they haven’t received satisfactory answers yet and they were pushing,” Boxer added.

Another Democrat who attended the meeting confirmed Boxer’s account and reported that Hamilton said: “We don’t know who authorized it. We’ve asked that question 50 times.”

Referring to questions about who authorized the flights, former Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Ind.), one of the 10 members of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission, said in an interview Monday: “In my mind, this isn’t resolved right now. We need more clarity and information from the relevant political sources and FBI sources.”

But Clarke yesterday appeared to put an end to the mystery.

“It didn’t get any higher than me,” he said. “On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn’t get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.”

Clarke’s explanation fit with a new stance Hamilton has taken on the issue of the Saudi flights.

Hamilton said in an interview Friday that when he told Democratic senators that the commission did not know who authorized the Saudi flights, he was not fully informed.

“They asked the question ‘Who authorized the flight?’ and I said I did not know and I’d try to find out,” Hamilton said. “I learned subsequently from talking to the staff that we thought Clarke authorized the flight and it did not go higher.”

“I did not at any point say the White House was stalling,” Hamilton added. “They asked me who authorized it, and I said we didn’t know.”

Hamilton said, however, that “we asked the question of who authorized the flight many times to many people.”

“The FBI cleared the names [of the passengers on the flights] and Clarke’s CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] team cleared the departure,” Hamilton said.

He cautioned that this is “a story that could shift, and we still have this under review.”

This new account of the events seemed to contradict Clarke’s sworn testimony before the Sept. 11 commission at the end of March about who approved the flights.

“The request came to me, and I refused to approve it,” Clarke testified. “I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the — at the time — No. 2 person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved … the flight.”

“That’s a little different than saying, ‘I claim sole responsibility for it now,’” Roemer said yesterday.

However, the FBI has denied approving the flight.

FBI spokeswoman Donna Spiser said, “We haven’t had anything to do with arranging and clearing the flights.”

“We did know who was on the flights and interviewed anyone we thought we needed to,” she said. “We didn’t interview 100 percent of the [passengers on the] flight. We didn’t think anyone on the flight was of investigative interest.”

When Roemer asked Clarke during the commission’s March hearing, “Who gave the final approval, then, to say, ‘Yes, you’re clear to go, it’s all right with the United States government,’” Clarke seemed to suggest it came from the White House.

“I believe after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we ran it through the decision process for all these decisions that we were making in those hours, which was the interagency Crisis Management Group on the video conference,” Clarke testified. “I was making or coordinating a lot of the decisions on 9-11 in the days immediately after. And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don’t know. The two — since you press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State or the White House chief of staff’s office.”

Instead of putting the issue to rest, Clarke’s testimony fueled speculation among Democrats that someone higher up in the administration, perhaps White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, approved the flights.

“It couldn’t have come from Clarke. It should have come from someone further up the chain,” said a Democratic Senate aide who watched Clarke’s testimony.
Clarke’s testimony did not settle the issue for Roemer, either.

“It doesn’t seem that Richard Clarke had enough information to clear it,” Roemer said Monday.

“I just don’t think that the questions are resolved, and we need to dig deeper,” Roemer added. “Clarke sure didn’t seem to say that he was the final decisionmaker. I believe we need to continue to look for some more answers.”

Roemer said there are important policy issues to address, such as the need to develop a flight-departure control system.

Several Democrats on and off the Hill say that bin Laden’s family should have been detained as material witnesses to the attacks. They note that after the attacks, the Bush administration lowered the threshold for detaining potential witnesses. The Department of Justice is estimated to have detained more than 50 material witnesses since Sept. 11.

Clarke said yesterday that the furor over the flights of Saudi citizens is much ado about nothing.

“This is a tempest in a teapot,” he said, adding that, since the attacks, the FBI has never said that any of the passengers aboard the flight shouldn’t have been allowed to leave or were wanted for further investigation.

He said that many members of the bin Laden family had been subjects of FBI surveillance for years before the attacks and were well-known to law-enforcement officials.

“It’s very funny that people on the Hill are now trying to second-guess the FBI investigation.”

The Sept. 11 commission released a statement last month declaring that six chartered flights that evacuated close to 140 Saudi citizens were handled properly by the Bush administration.

[distortion9]

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0704/162327.html


Bin Laden Brother Disputes Moore Film

PARIS (AP) - A half-brother of Osama bin Laden (news - bio) says he enjoyed most of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," except for what he called "inaccuracies" about his family.

"It's a moving film," Yeslam Binladin, a Geneva-based tycoon and one of the al-Qaida (website - news) leader's 54 siblings, said in an interview with the French magazine VSD.

"I even laughed at times," said Binladin, adding, "but a lot less when he states errors or inaccuracies about my family, knowing perfectly well that he's deceiving the public."

In the film, Moore says President Bush (website - news - bio) tried to cover up his family's longtime business and personal ties to the family of Osama bin Laden and other prominent

Saudis because many of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia (website - news) .

The movie also states that several family members attended a 2001 wedding of one of Osama bin Laden (news - bio) 's sons in Afghanistan - a claim Binladin says is exaggerated. "Nobody from my family was at this wedding in Afghanistan except for the mother of Osama," said Binladin. Yeslam and Osama are among the 54 sons and daughters of the late Saudi construction magnate Mohammed bin Laden and his 22 wives.

Binladin, the founder of Geneva-based financial company Sico, said the last time he saw his younger half-brother was before Osama left Saudi Arabia (website - news) in 1981.

[distortion9]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek

More Distortions From Michael Moore
Some of the main points in ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ really aren’t very fair at all
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 6:26 p.m. ET June 30, 2004

June 30 - In his new movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” film-maker Michael Moore makes the eye-popping claim that Saudi Arabian interests “have given” $1.4 billion to firms connected to the family and friends of President George W. Bush. This, Moore suggests, helps explain one of the principal themes of the film: that the Bush White House has shown remarkable solicitude to the Saudi royals, even to the point of compromising the war on terror. When you and your associates get money like that, Moore says at one point in the movie, “who you gonna like? Who’s your Daddy?”

advertisement
But a cursory examination of the claim reveals some flaws in Moore’s arithmetic—not to mention his logic. Moore derives the $1.4 billion figure from journalist Craig Unger’s book, “House of Bush, House of Saud.” Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990’s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country’s military and National Guard. What’s the significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group, the powerhouse private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board has included the president’s father, George H.W. Bush.

Leave aside the tenuous six-degrees-of-separation nature of this “connection.” The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman, is that former president Bush didn’t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998—five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm. True enough, the former president was paid for one speech to Carlyle and then made an overseas trip on the firm’s behalf the previous fall, right around the time BDM was sold. But Ullman insists any link between the former president’s relations with Carlyle and the Saudi contracts to BDM that were awarded years earlier is entirely bogus. “The figure is inaccurate and misleading,” said Ullman. “The movie clearly implies that the Saudis gave $1.4 billion to the Bushes and their friends. But most of it went to a Carlyle Group company before Bush even joined the firm. Bush had nothing to do with BDM.”

In light of the extraordinary box office success of “Fahrenheit 9/11,” and its potential political impact, a rigorous analysis of the film’s assertions seems more than warranted. Indeed, Moore himself has invited the scrutiny. He has set up a Web site and “war-room” to defend the claims in the movie—and attack his critics. (The war-room’s overseers are two veteran spin-doctors from the Clinton White House: Chris Lehane and Mark Fabiani.) Moore also this week contended that the media was pounding away at him “pretty hard” because “they’re embarrassed. They’ve been outed as people who did not do their job.” Among the media critiques prominently criticized was an article in Newsweek.

In response to inquiries from NEWSWEEK about the Carlyle issue, Lehane shot back this week with a volley of points: There were multiple Bush “connections” to the Carlyle Group throughout the period of the Saudi contracts to BDM, Lehane noted in an e-mail, including the fact that the firm’s principals included James Baker (Secretary of State during the first Bush administration) and Richard Darman (the first Bush’s OMB chief). Moreover, George W. Bush himself had his own Carlyle Group link: between 1990 and 1994, he served on the board of another Carlyle-owned firm, Caterair, a now defunct airline catering firm.

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

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

VIDEO GALLERY
Clip: 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
Clip: 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
Clip: 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
Clip: 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
Trailer: 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
Fahrenheit 9/11
1/62/63/64/65/66/6


• Clip: 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
George W. Bush is shown taking some leisure time in Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp
• Clip: 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
Michael Moore asks members of Congress if their children will enlist in the U.S. military

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp
• Clip: 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
A Secret Service officer asks why Moore and his crew are outside the Saudi embassy

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp
• Clip: 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
Moore reads the Patriot Act to members of Congress from an ice cream van

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp
• Trailer: 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
Michael Moore's latest documentary dissects the September 11 attacks and how the Bush administration responded to them

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp
• Fahrenheit 9/11
June 18: Filmmaker Michael Moore talks to Matt Lauer about this controversial new movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11.”
Most importantly, the movie fails to show any evidence that Bush White House actually has intervened in any way to promote the interests of the Carlyle Group. In fact, the one major Bush administration decision that most directly affected the company’s interest was the cancellation of a $11 billion program for the Crusader rocket artillery system that had been developed for the U.S. Army (during the Clinton administration)—a move that had been foreshadowed by Bush’s own statements during the 2000 campaign saying he wanted a lighter and more mobile military. The Crusader was manufactured by United Defense, which had been wholly owned by Carlyle until it spun the company off in a public offering in October, 2001 (and profited to the tune of $237 million). Carlyle still owned 47 percent of the shares in the defense company at the time that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld—in the face of stiff congressional resistance—canceled the Crusader program the following year. These developments, like much else relevant to Carlyle, goes unmentioned in Moore’s movie.

None of this is to suggest that there aren’t legitimate questions that deserve to be asked about the influence that secretive firms like Carlyle have in Washington—not to mention the Saudis themselves (an issue that has been taken up repeatedly in our weekly Terror Watch columns.) Nor are we trying to say that “Fahrenheit 9/11” isn’t a powerful and effective movie that raises a host of legitimate issues about President Bush’s response to the September 11 attacks, the climate of fear engendered by the war on terror and, most importantly, about the wisdom and horrific human toll of the war in Iraq.

But for all the reasonable points he makes, on more than a few occasions in the movie Moore twists and bends the available facts and makes glaring omissions in ways that end up clouding the serious political debate he wants to provoke.

Consider Moore’s handling of another conspiratorial claim: the idea that oil-company interest in building a pipeline through Afghanistan influenced early Bush administration policy regarding the Taliban. Moore raises the issue by stringing together two unrelated events. The first is that a delegation of Taliban leaders flew to Houston, Texas, in 1997 (”while George W. Bush was governor of Texas,” the movie helpfully points out) to meet with executives of Unocal, an oil company that was indeed interested in building a pipeline to carry natural gas from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan.


TERROR WATCH

Current Column | Archives
• Terror Watch: What ‘60 Minutes’ Didn’t Run
Here’s the piece that ‘60 Minutes’ killed for its report on the Bush Guard documents
• Hamdi to be Released ‘Soon’
‘Enemy combatant’ Yaser Hamdi will soon be released from a military prison without facing any charges. PLUS, Did North Korea explode a nuke?
The second is that another Taliban emissary visited Washington in March, 2001 and got an audience at the State Department, leaving Moore to speculate that the Bush administration had gone soft on the protectors of Osama bin Laden because it was interested in promoting a pipeline deal. "Why on earth would the Bush administration allow a Taliban leader to visit the United States knowing that the Taliban were harboring the man who bombed the USS Cole and our African embassies?" Moore asks at one point.

This, as conspiracy theories go, is more than a stretch. Unocal’s interest in building the Afghan pipeline is well documented. Indeed, according to “Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to Sept. 10., 2001,” the critically acclaimed book by Washington Post managing editor Steve Coll, Unocal executives met repeatedly with Clinton administration officials throughout the late 1990s in an effort to promote the project—in part by getting the U.S. government to take a more conciliatory approach to the Taliban. “It was an easy time for an American oil executive to find an audience in the Clinton White House,” Coll writes on page 307 of his book. “At the White House, [Unocal lobbyist Marty Miller] met regularly with Sheila Heslin, the director of energy issues at the National Security Council, whose suite next to the West Wing coursed with visitors from American oil firms. Miller found Heslin…very supportive of Unocal’s agenda in Afghanistan.”

Coll never suggests that the Clintonites’ interest in the Unocal project was because of the corrupting influence of big oil. Clinton National Security Council advisor “Berger, Heslin and their White House colleagues saw themselves engaged in a hardheaded synthesis of American commercial interests and national security goals,” he writes. “They wanted to use the profit-making motives of American oil companies to thwart one of the country’s most determined enemies, Iran, and to contain the longer-term ambitions of a restless Russia.”

Whatever the motive, the Unocal pipeline project was entirely a Clinton-era proposal: By 1998, as the Taliban hardened its positions, the U.S. oil company pulled out of the deal. By the time George W. Bush took office, it was a dead issue—and no longer the subject of any lobbying in Washington. (Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force report in May, 2001, makes no reference to it.) There is no evidence that the Taliban envoy who visited Washington in March, 2001—and met with State Department and National Security Council officials—ever brought up the pipeline. Nor is there any evidence anybody in the Bush administration raised it with him. The envoy brought a letter to Bush offering negotiations to resolve the issue of what should be done with bin Laden. (A few weeks earlier, Taliban leader Mullah Omar had floated the idea of convening a tribunal of Islamic religious scholars to review the evidence against the Al Qaeda leader.) The Taliban offer was promptly shot down. “We have not seen from the Taliban a proposal that would meet the requirements of the U.N. resolution to hand over Osama bin Laden to a country where he can be brought to justice,” State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said at the time.

The use of innuendo is rife through other critical passages of “Fahrenheit 9/11.” The movie makes much of the president’s relationship with James R. Bath, a former member of his Texas Air National Guard who, like Bush, was suspended from flying at one point for failure to take a physical. The movie suggests that the White House blacked out a reference to Bath’s missed physical from his National Guard records not because of legal concerns over the Privacy Act but because it was trying to conceal the Bath connection—a presumed embarrassment because the Houston businessman had once been the U.S. money manager for the bin Laden family. After being hired by the bin Ladens to manager their money in Texas, Bath “in turn,” the movie says, “invested in George W. Bush.”

The investment in question is real: In the late 1970’s, Bath put up $50,000 into Bush’s Arbusto Energy, (one of a string of failed oil ventures by the president), giving Bath a 5 percent interest in the company. The implication seems to be that, years later, because of this link, Bush was somehow not as zealous about his determination to get bin Laden.

Leaving aside the fact that the bin Laden family, which runs one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest construction firms, has never been linked to terrorism, the movie—which relied heavily on Unger’s book—fails to note the author’s conclusion about what to make of the supposed Bin Laden-Bath-Bush nexus: that it may not mean anything. The “Bush-Bin Laden ‘relationships’ were indirect—two degrees of separation, perhaps—and at times have been overstated,” Unger writes in his book. While critics have charged that bin Laden money found its way into Arbusto through Bath, Unger notes that “no hard evidence has ever been found to back up that charge” and Bath himself has adamantly denied it. “One hundred percent of those funds (in Arbusto) were mine,” says Bath in a footnote on page 101 of Unger’s book. “It was a purely personal investment.”

The innuendo is greatest, of course, in Moore’s dealings with the matter of the departing Saudis flown out of the United States in the days after the September 11 terror attacks. Much has already been written about these flights, especially the film’s implication that figures with possible knowledge of the terrorist attacks were allowed to leave the country without adequate FBI screening—a notion that has been essentially rejected by the 9/11 commission. The 9/11 commission found that the FBI screened the Saudi passengers, ran their names through federal databases, interviewed 30 of them and asked many of them “detailed questions." “Nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country,” the commission stated. New information about a flight from Tampa, Florida late on Sept. 13 seems mostly a red herring: The flight didn’t take any Saudis out of the United States. It was a domestic flight to Lexington, Kentucky that took place after the Tampa airport had already reopened.(You can read Unger’s letter to Newsweek on this point, as well as our reply, by clicking here.)

It is true that there are still some in the FBI who had questions about the flights-and wish more care had been taken to examine the passengers. But the film’s basic point—that the flights represented perhaps the supreme example of the Saudi government’s influence in the Bush White House-is almost impossible to defend. Why? Because while the film claims—correctly—that the “White House” approved the flights, it fails to note who exactly in the White House did so. It wasn’t the president, or the vice president or anybody else supposedly corrupted by Saudi oil money. It was Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism czar who was a holdover from the Clinton administration and who has since turned into a fierce Bush critic. Clarke has publicly testified that he gave the greenlight—conditioned on FBI clearance.

“I thought the flights were correct,” Clarke told ABC News last week. “The Saudis had reasonable fear that they might be the subject of vigilante attacks in the United States after 9/11. And there is no evidence even to this date that any of the people who left on those flights were people of interest to the FBI.” Like much else relevant to the issues Moore raises, Clarke’s reasons for approving the flights—and his thoughts on them today—won’t be found in “Fahrenheit 9/11,” nor in any of the ample material now being churned out by the film-maker’s “war room” to defend his provocative, if flawed, movie.
© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

[distortion9]

Are you reading any of this or am I wasting my time?...I can do this shit all night.

[Kermit The Frog]

more limp dick liberalist propaganda

much like bowling for columbine

its unfortunate that the uneducated masses take this for the truth at face value without regard to the facts.

its in a movie it must be true

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by distortion9
Are you reading any of this or am I wasting my time?...I can do this shit all night.

Yes, you're wasting your time, but I gather it's a commodity you have plenty of, so knock yourself out.

You can cut and paste ALL NIGHT????

Imagine our surprise.

wow


Want to impress me?

Defend the IDIOT and his bunch of half wit's ACTUAL QUOTES TAPED

ANYBODY can spin, moron.

DEFEND THE FACTS

But to answer your question...

Yes, you're wasting your time.

[DrMaddVibe]

Why would he want to defend Moo-re?

I think he showed quite clearly that Moo-re's agenda was built on a hatred for the truth. Every "film" of his is the same. Lying by omission is as bad as lying overtly. He wants to smirk while lying, the facts speak for themselves.

Too bad not enough people bother to actually check the facts. He's be a skinny out of work drop out.

[wraytw]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
ANYBODY can spin, moron.


There's no reason to call someone a moron simply because you don't agree with them.

You're 42 yrs old? Start acting like it.

[distortion9]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Yes, you're wasting your time, but I gather it's a commodity you have plenty of, so knock yourself out.

You can cut and paste ALL NIGHT????

Imagine our surprise.

wow


Want to impress me?

Defend the IDIOT and his bunch of half wit's ACTUAL QUOTES TAPED

ANYBODY can spin, moron.

DEFEND THE FACTS

But to answer your question...

Yes, you're wasting your time.


I'm wasting my time because your narrow mind is slammed closed. You're not interested in the fucking truth at all. You believe Moore and all his bullshit...lol...how sad... which makes you a complete fucking sucker.

"I can do this shit all night" meant pointing to the truth. Dude asked for examples so I gave him some...didn't know the truth wasn't allowed if it was "cut and pasted" you fucking hammer.

No! I don't want to impress you. If I did, I'd show you my cock.

"Defend the idiot"? As was pointed out....why would I defend Moore?

"Anybody can spin"....Don't YOU fucking know it.

Answer this one fucking simple question dick.

Why isn't Moore submitting it for best documentary?

Fuck you....I'LL answer.

He won't because he fucking CAN'T!...It's NOT a documentary...it's bullshit.

Now go watch a fucking X-File.

[Satan]

Originally posted by distortion9
I'm wasting my time because your narrow mind is slammed closed. You're not interested in the fucking truth at all. You believe Bush and all his bullshit...lol...how sad... which makes you a complete fucking sucker.

"I can do this shit all night" meant pointing to the truth. Dude asked for examples so I gave him some...didn't know the truth wasn't allowed if it was "cut and pasted" you fucking hammer.

No! I don't want to impress you. If I did, I'd show you my cock.

"Defend the idiot"? As was pointed out....why would I defend Bush?

"Anybody can spin"....Don't YOU fucking know it.

Now go watch fucking FAUX News.

[Angel]

Originally posted by distortion9


He won't because he fucking CAN'T!...It's NOT a documentary...it's bullshit.

Now go watch a fucking X-File.

Best Documentary prize doesn't get any notice. Best Picture, does. Pretty plain and simple. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm guessing he perused a lot of Canadian news archives to get the facts necessary for it. :)

[Big Train]

Crack must be cheap up north....

[Angel]

Whatever....:rolleyes:

[Big Train]

Whatever...your the one making retarded comments..

Hi Angel!!

[distortion9]

Originally posted by Angel
Best Documentary prize doesn't get any notice. Best Picture, does. Pretty plain and simple. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm guessing he perused a lot of Canadian news archives to get the facts necessary for it. :)

Negative....not buying that at all. Do you really believe that?!?!?.....fucking weak.

Michael Moore claims to be a "documentary" film maker....all he does is make "documentaries". He claims that F 9/11 is a "documentary". He's "proud" to be a low budget, grass roots "seeker of truth" type film maker.

Man of the people...

Concerned American...

....fucking hippie.

Why not enter it in it's rightful category?

Why not claim your deserved "prize"?

The "truth" is that the fat slob is in it for the cash...just like everyone else, it's all about the cash not the "truth".

If it's not about the money why not just air the "film" on PBS or "The History Channel"?

Why bother with theaters at all?


The movie was garbage. Filled with half truths, distorted opinions and flat out hateful LIES. Created to sell the one thing everyone likes to buy....controversy.



I'd rather have someone throw a bucket of aids in my face than watch it again.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by distortion9
I'd rather have someone throw a bucket of aids in my face than watch it again.

I don't agree with everything you are saying, but I'm definitely gonna use that one!

[Angel]

Originally posted by distortion9
Negative....not buying that at all. Do you really believe that?!?!?.....fucking weak. The movie was garbage. Filled with half truths, distorted opinions and flat out hateful LIES. Created to sell the one thing everyone likes to buy....controversy.

Do I believe he entered it under best picture rather than documentary to get noticed more, and make more $$? Of course, yes I do believe it, it makes sense... Name ONE documentary that won top prize for its category, you probably can't, and that's his point in not entering it under that category, PLUS, he'd be up against the Canadian documentary makers, and we've won our fair share of Oscars in that category!

Do I think he got some of his stuff from the movie out of CBC news archives? Very possible: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/index.html This was a special aired on CBC originally in October of 2003.

Like I said, I haven't seen it yet so I'm not sure what 1/2 truths he tells, I believe he probably does embellish the truth, he's trying to get a point across.

[Angel]

Originally posted by Big Train
Whatever...your the one making retarded comments..

Hi Angel!!

Which comment do you consider to be retarded? (and it's you're, not your ;))

Hi to you too, Train! (Can't call ya BT, confusion will result)

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Angel
Name ONE documentary that won top prize for its category, you probably can't,

I know this was directed at somebody else, but I'll answer anyway -- Bowling for Columbine (Michael Moore). Hee hee

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Big Train
Whatever...your the one making retarded comments..

Hi Angel!!

Anybody else see the irony in this post?

retards seldom know the difference between your and you're

[Big Train]

yea lounge...misspelling words equals irony...keep fishing...

[Cathedral]

I am proud to say that to date, I have NOT supported Michael Moore at all. never seen anything he made and never will...I'm busy that night. :)

You all can argue Moore till you're blue in the face, he is a none issue, grandstanding, capitalist (nothing wrong with that), blow-hard loser.

I learned all i needed to learn about Michael Moore from his interviews, and to me he is just pond scum looking for a new bed of water to infect.

He'd be much happier residing in Canada with all his other French loving compadres.
"Hey Moore, Go Home, Buddy!"

[Warham]

I saw some poor schmo on the plane from Chicago to Honolulu last Sunday watching F 9/11 on his laptop. I couldn't help but make rude comments about the picture to my wife. He won't get a penny from me.