OK for RW to LIE about 9-11 because Michael Moore told TRUTH about 9-11.

[blm]

Isn't that just typical of everything we have ever heard from the GOP and their mediawhores for the last twenty years?

It has no chance of stopping till Democrats decide AS A PARTY ACTION that the GOP control of media needs to be exposed at every opportunity.

ABC should be the last straw for even the most tolerant Democrat.

[Jade Fox]

1. Yes. Unfucking believable!!

It's not about whether you like the information or not, it's about the Truth vs. Lies!!

[C_U_L8R]

2. Republicans can't handle the truth

yellowstain chickenhawks cut n run
from defending our constitution...
a bunch of GiveUplicans

[Joe Chi Minh]

3. Nice one, blm. They seem to inhabit not so much an anti-matter

universe, as an anti-truth universe.

A psychlogist once said of Blair that he was probably one of the few people who had never lied in Parliament, because whatever he said, he believed, because whatever he wanted to be true, he believed to be true. There must be few eccentrics whose world could be begin to match such a bizarro world.

[blm]

4. Think about the last 40years - at every turn a Democrat has worked to OPEN

government to the citizens so they can better understand its real actions while Republicans work AGAINST the citizens' right to KNOW about their governments' policies and actions.

Proud to be an anti-corruption, open government Democrat.

[RangerSmith]

5. Even Spinsanity and factCheck.org took issue with Moore's 911 piece.

and rightfully so. He played too fast and loose with the facts.


He should have gotten more flack about that from us, too.

Hypocrisy is ugly regardless of it's origin.

[blm]

6. spinsanity and factcheck STRETCHED to make it APPEAR Moore was not

accurate with the facts, but failed to note one serious fact presented that was in dispute. Any retelling can get minor incidentals wrong, but the SERIOUS facts?

Prove it.

And while you're at it - prove that Moore's 9-11 received wide distribution over PUBLIC AIRWAVES and was set up as a teaching device for our nation's SCHOOLS.

[RangerSmith]

8. "Appear?"

I mean, come on... you have to be hard on the kool aid to not see the reality in these types of things...

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html

If you think it's bias, read this authors and some of the other contributors numerous breakdown of Coulters and many other right wing hacks crap.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/

[blm]

9. I'm very familiar with both. The SERIOUS facts presented were not proven

incorrect, while serious facts in Path ARE blatantly incorrect.

You want to equate the two, where the seriousness of the details aren't even close.

[RangerSmith]

10. "Everyone

is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan

There isn't an independent group out there that gave Moore a pass on his "facts". Not one.

That's the reality... like or not. Bias is the only thing keeping many from seeing it.

I'm betting you have no issue with one single piece these guys did slamming the RW nuts...

Don't you find that a little telling???

[blm]

11. I'm betting YOU can't find one MATERIAL fact in error in Moore's 9-11

and YOU are purposely trying to lead people to believe they are equal in their inaccuracies.


It is one thing to be in error about minor details that get mixed up in any retelling - it's another to lie ON PURPOSE about MATERIAL MATTERS even as you are disputed by experts and documents AS you are filming.

Why do you equate the two?

[RangerSmith]

12. because clearly Moore

... with everyone of his pieces... leads to his own conclusions. He makes opinion pieces, not documentaries and structures the presentation toward his opinion.

EVEN HE ACKNOWLEDGES THIS.

I mean, come on... it's out there...

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

And before claims of biased author are made...

Here is an excert from Isikoff's current book "'Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War"

[blm]

14. The point was that YOU can't find ONE MATERIAL FACT that Moore has wrong.

There are MATERIAL FACTS that Path has wrong and kept in even though they were apprised of their errors.

Whu do YOU equate the two and want others to do the same?

[RangerSmith]

15. Are you not reading the links?

There are numerous instances being pointed out by many non biased writers showing numerous instances of real problems with F 9/11.

I mean what you are saying is "The facts are correct."

Yes, no doubt... whats there that isn't NOT true is indeed a fact, but there are fabrications that no one including you can refute.

A fabrication is a fabrication is a fabrication. What I'm NOT doing is giving either side a pass for fabrication.

Why are you not doing the same?

[blm]

19. MATERIAL - do you not understand what MATERIAL means?

It's the difference between making a minor error or fabrication regarding a peripheral fact that has no bearing on a case and a lie about a matter that IS MATERIAL to guilt or innocence in a case.

[RangerSmith]

24. and that refutes

all the links how exactly?

I mean, your taking the "well, yeah, all the stuff he fudged and fabricated doesn't matter" approach.

I could go read that at freeperville right now about this thing.

You either denounce fabrication no matter the target or you are a hypocrite, or even worse, IMHO, no different than them.

[blm]

26. There was no FABRICATION - and no ERROR of a MATERIAL FACT.

And if Moore had been apprised of an error with an OFFICIAL DOCUMENT pointing out that error he would have corrected it or editted out the mistake. Path included as facts incidents that were NEVER part of the document they were claiming as their guide.

And your runarounds on this - as usual - reveal much.

[ProSense]

16. From your link:

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.)

Passenger Manifest of ' Bin Laden Family Airlift' Out of US One Week After 9/11 Attack (PDF)

Senator Lautenberg Releases Passenger Manifest of ' Bin Laden Family Airlift' Out of U.S. One Week After 9/11 Attack

Lautenberg, Schumer: Why Was a Charter Plane Also Rented by White House Used to Fly Bin Laden Family Out of USA After 9/11?

"The 9-11 Report concludes that none of the Saudi flights 'took place before the reopening of national airspace.' But that misses the point.

The issue with the 'Bin Laden flight' of 9-19 is not whether the airport was open at the time – it clearly was. The issue is whether the Bush Administration and the FBI should have let these Bin Laden family members leave the country so swiftly and without interrogation.

The 9-11 Report makes clear that no interrogation was conducted. Rather 'interviews' were conducted at the airport by an FBI Agent from the Baltimore Field Office.

As the Report indicates, the FBI agent cleared them after passengers claimed that they had 'no recent contact with Osama Bin Laden' and 'knew nothing about terrorist activity.' The passengers were not under oath, they were not interrogated, but were simply interviewed at the airport. If Muhammad Attah was asked such questions on his way out of the country, would he have answered yes?

The 9-11 Report also indicates that two passengers on the 9-19 flight had, in the late 1990's, been under investigation by the FBI for links to terrorism. Despite this, they were allowed to leave, after a cursory, insufficient interview.

FactCheck.org also took issue with statements that:

Social Security privatization would be part of Bush's agenda, he introduced it in shortly after the inauguration and still trying push it

the cost of the war, it wasn't supposed to reach $200 million for another 10 years, it's at over 300 billion and counting.

Factcheck.org relies heavily on media reports. We really need the return of investigative journalism.

[RangerSmith]

18. I guess I'm not sure what

you're really pointing out here...

Are you saying the FBI wasn't happy about how this was handled?

I guess I mean wouldn't the only people qualified to actually make the case that "figures with possible knowledge of the terrorist attacks were allowed to leave the country without adequate FBI screening" be the FBI?

What about the fact that it was Clarke who actually approved all this?

I certainly agree with you about a return to investigative reporting. There is hardly anybody not agenda driven even pursuing it. I really miss Spinsanity.org. I hope they crank back up for 08, but it doesn't look like they will.

[ProSense]

21. The point is that

they were allowed to leave, and a lot is still unknown:

“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.

http://www.thehill.com/news/052604/clarke.aspx

[blm]

23. Your "fact" is a RW talking point against Clarke that isn't accurate.

Clarke repeated the POSITION that it was the WH's decision to allow the Saudis to leave.

RW alwsya claims that it was Clarke's decision when he was passing on a decision that had already been made by BushInc.

[RangerSmith]

25. really?

Where does Clarke say that, specifically?

[blm]

27. Where do YOU get your information? From what I've read it's usually RW

talking points that you present as facts in your postings.

[RangerSmith]

29. Obviously you couldn't find

something to back up your claim, so now it's "If you don't lock step with me you must be the enemy" time.



Here is an article from an obviously RW hack site you might find interesting.

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

[blm]

30. The Hill is pretty RW - but read the whole article you put up. Clarke

saying he takes responsibility is no different than Reno saying she accepts responsibility for Waco when the matter was way more involved as a 4yr ATF operation.

In your article Clarke discussed it with the FBI who cleared the passenger list - that means Mueller. Go read some history about Mueller and his coverup work for BushInc on BCCI.

[RangerSmith]

31. I know all about Mueller

He wasn't a part of the issue being refuted here in this thread.

What Clarke specifically said was....

and it is noted clearly in that link.

And yes, I've read the WHOLE article.. many, many times over the last few yrs. Thats why I posted it for you.

[blm]

33. And Reno specifically took responsibility, too. And after Clarke did it

still was noted that it was made clear earlier it came from a decision by the FBI who had it CLEARED the passenger list BEFORE Clarke was asked to sign off on it.

So, yeah....Mueller has EVERYTHING to do with it. I'd like to hear your rundown on the Mueller you claim to know.

[RangerSmith]

34. Why?

I think Mueller is a fucking clown... big deal? Why does that matter?

Doesn't have anything to do with what Clarke has gone on the record actually saying..

[blm]

35. And on the record saying FBI cleared the passenger list FIRST before it

got to Clarke - or is that part escaping your notice? It was UNDER OATH and included in the same article you posted, but you want to take Clarke's general claim of responsibility to a journalist as more pertinient than the FULLER remarks made UNDER OATH.

How interesting you would take that approach. I've seen others make priorities out of statements made and taken out of context over statements made under oath.

Which holds up in a court of law?

[RangerSmith]

36. lol

No, He actually implies that the FBI didn't get the chance to fully question some of the suspects they wanted to question before they left the country.

The testimony suggests otherwise. They cleared the departures without any record whatsoever of any kind of apprehension.

[blm]

37. FBI top brass cleared the passenger list and THEN went to Clarke. Stick to

the facts.

Your twists and turns have no sway with me.

[RangerSmith]

38. actually, no.... exactly....

as opposed to Moore's tales, the FBI cleared the passenger lists and as per the testimony questioned all the passengers they desired to.

There ya go!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

7. People had a choice to PAY and see F911 in a movie theater

It was not broadcast over the free airwaves with a secondary plan to show and teach it to school children.

This is their attempt to literally rewrite history and indoctrinate the new history to school children. Get it?

[peacetalksforall]

13. Did anyone sue Michael Moore?

Did the Republican Congress write a letter to anyone implying airwave violations?
Did he 'characterize' anyone?
Did he put words in anyone's mouth that was never said?
Did anyone on the right ever document what was not true in F911?
What exactly did Moore fictionalize?

[salin]

17. People knew the pov of the Moore film - b/c it *was* a Moore film...

This is very different.

The public is familiar with Michael Moore, and understands before walking into the theater of the perspective from which the movie is told.

This is marketed as being based on the 911 Commission report (which apparently, it isn't) - and had the word not leaked out... much of the public would have viewed this very slanted/propogandistic piece - as a recounting of history. Sadly, most people will not read/hear about the controversy and WILL view it as 'fact-based' (due to the "based on 911 Commission claims).

The ridiculous claims otherwise are just that. Ridiculous.

I don't watch cable, so cutting out ABC will leave me with even more limited viewing... but so be it.

[buddhamama]

22. ....

just wanted to say HI. :hi:

[salin]

28. likewise!

:hi: About to sign off until next weekend, glad to see you while I was here :D

[buddhamama]

20. you're correct, blm

we cannot let this travesty ABC has produced stand as fact.

what we need to to do, every single fair minded person in this country is, demand the return of the Fairness Doctrine.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. To quote Adlai Stevenson

"When the Republicans stop telling lies about us, we'll stop telling the truth about them."