Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Don't Kill The Messenger

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:43 PM
Original message
Don't Kill The Messenger
just because you don't like the message. I doubt if anyone in this forum loathes George Bush as much as I do. I have used the gamut of adjectives, references, personifications, euphemisms, you name it to describe my disdain for the world's most dangerous man. But I see a lockstep here that is reminiscent of what we chide the republicans for. Michael Moore's film, though powerful is still to some degree unproven propaganda, and does a disservice to us all by not being 100 percent factual. As I said before, This administration has done plenty to us, without any of us having to embellish. I am disappointed in not only Mr. Moore, but any journalist who doesn't look at Mr. Moore's project in a more objective manner. As for the son/nephew thing, it was an honest error. I fully intended to write "nephew" in my original post. It has been corrected. But as for the vetting of passengers, Richard Clarke stands by his story. Believe what you want to believe. Moore's proof just isn't there.


Joe Fields
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FloridaPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. What parts aren't factual???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. "unproven propaganda"
Not going to kill you, but you are dead wrong. I have spent every day for the past four years researching and writing on the topic of Bush, his wars, 9/11 and the rest of it. I found nothing questionable in Moore's film, and to make sure, I'm going back to watch it again tonight.

Try this: Line up the "unproven propaganda" you believe is in the film, and I will do my best to show how well proven it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
22. This from his link
Based upon his link, I guess this is the best he can do:

...where he made his biggest mistake was trying to tie potential terror suspects to the flights filled with Saudi's that had top priority to leave the country after the shutdown of airspace was liffted directly after 9/11. This is a point that can be speculated on, but not proven. To me, and I hate Bush as much or more than the rest of you, that is a giant leap to make. The vetting of passengers on those Saudi flights was the responsibility of terror expert Richard Clarke. In a recent interview Clarke categorically denied the possibility of any persons of interest leaving on those jets. He said that had there been any questionable people booked for those flights, he would have detained and questioned them. There were no such people. This is the same Richard Clarke that all of us were rooting on and so eager to believe, when his book came out and he testified in front of the 9/11 commission, making the Bush administration look inept and foolish. Are we NOT to believe Richard Clarke now that his statements directly conflict with what Michael Moore supposes may have happened? Is he now a liar and it is Moore who is telling the truth? I don't think so. I believe that if anything Moore suggests really happened, regarding those flights, Clarke would have mentioned what happened either in his book, or in front of the 9/11 commission. He wouldn't have hesitated. But he was there, was directly involved and said there was no connection of persons of interest, possible terrorists and the Saudis who were allowed to quickly leave the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #22
112. WHO GIVES A SH** IF IT WAS CLARKE ???
CLARKE WAS PART OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
29. Well, Mr. Pitt, since you have laid down the challenge.
Richard Clarke, as late as yesterday claimed that no passengers in any of those jets full of Saudi's were persons of interest, or were suspected of terrorism. It was Clarke's job to vett the passengers. He did just that, and according to him, no Saudi got on any planes that shouldn't have been allowed to. Mr. Moore wasn't there. He did not personally vett the passengers, and all moviegoers have to go on is his suppositions. He has yet to make the incontravertible leap. Now, do we believe Clarke when he testifies in front of the 9/11 commission because we want to believe him? Or are we to ignore Clarke now, when what he says contradicts Moore's opinion? It seems as though you can't honestly have it both ways. I am of the opinion that if Clarke had reservations about some of the passengers, he would have either written it in his book, or told the commission, or mentioned it in the hundreds of interviews he's had since.

Mr. Pitt, I, too have closely followed domestic and world events. I've done it for more than forty years. I have not written any books. But if you can provide evidence that backs up Michael Moore, maybe you should provide it to the 9/11 commission. I'm sure they would be interested.


Joe Fields


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. Saudis
Didn't we already know that OBL had nothing to do with the rest of his family? I mean, we've known he's been a bad guy for a long time so if we had any inclination that his family had anything to do with him AND they were living in the US, we would have forbade them from living here already. And I do think it was a prudent decision to wisk them out of the country. Everyone saw how many backlash beatings/killings happened as it is against people who were perceived to be Arab. There is no telling what would have happened to someone who actually had the name bin Laden.

I think this Saudi connection is probably the weakest part of the movie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Well, if they're family members...
...Don't you think they would have been under at least some suspicion?

I think it would be a pretty obvious place to start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. bin Laden declared war on us since the 90's
If they weren't under suspicion pre-9/11, why would they be under suspicion post-9/11?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #37
46. Bin Laden and the Taliban were not under suspicion before 9-11
Edited on Sat Jun-26-04 03:28 PM by Cheswick
Not with the Bush administration. They never had one meeting on the topic of terrorism or Bin Laden before 9-11. The Taliban visted TX.

Did you see the movie yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #46
59. What?
You don't remember the African embassy bombings?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #37
48. See post 44
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #34
42. have you seen the movie yet?
It is not so clear that his family cut him off totally. In fact it is clear that they did not.
If it was such a prudent idea to get them out of the country and Bush inc didn't see anything wrong with doing that....why did they pretend it didn't happen and cover it up for 3 years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:30 PM
Original message
Goin' next week
I can't stand crowds. I get claustrophobic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #34
51. It is NOT true that Bin Laden had no contact with ANY family some of his
familys supported him and had even attended his son's wedding. Other reports are that money was funneled to him by some relatives. Of more than 100 relatives, you can assume there are some more black sheep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #51
66. Got any links?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #66
73. try Google--not hard to find n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #73
77. If so...
Why weren't they picked up in the intervening years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #77
86. Let's see.
Edited on Sat Jun-26-04 04:02 PM by stickdog
Because they are RICHER than God himself?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #86
95. Sounds like there is more speculation than proof
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #95
99. What are you talking about? While Americans were grounded, rich
Saudis were being flown all over the country in preparation for their evacuation.

15 of the 19 supposed hijackers were Saudi.

Meanwhile, random brown people were being rounded up all across America for indefinite detention based on NAME ALONE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #99
102. Actually
The skies were reopened on Sept. 13th and that is when people started flying again, including the Saudis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #102
108. For commercial flights ONLY
Private flights, such as the saudi's, were still on lockdown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AbbeyRoad Donating Member (848 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #77
119. Link- Cozy relations
"It didn't help that as the World Trade Center burned on Sept. 11, 2001, the news interrupted a Carlyle business conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel here attended by a brother of Osama bin Laden. Former president Bush, a fellow investor, had been with him at the conference the previous day."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A25406-2003Mar14¬Found=true
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smirkymonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #34
115. Did you miss the part where it was stated that
Bin Ladin family members showed up at the wedding of (one of) OBL's sons in Afghanistan? Did you even watch the movie?

It doesn't sound like it because the information and unprecedented nature of whisking the Bin Ladin family out of the country under such extreme conditions was discussed quite thoroughly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoadRunner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #29
41. It was Clarke's job to vett the passengers?
Where did you get that from? Clarke said in his book that he didn't know who gave the authority for the planes to leave the US. It damn sure wasn't him.

What he said on the interview was that there was no "proof" that any of the passengers had anything to do with 911, and he's saying that after the fact. He also said that Bush's ties with the Saudis had nothing to do with Bush's incompetence leading up to 911. I have to agree with him there, Bush is incompetent even without motives. Clarke said nothing about Bush's ties with the Saudis having any relationship with the Bin Laden family being allowed to leave after 911.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #29
44. The point Moore made in the film
was not that these people were suspects, or that they were terrorists, but that they were, in the parlance of investigations, 'persons if interest.' Their relative had just killed 3000 people, and so it was probably worthwhile for them to be interviewed at least once. The FBI investigator from the task force, who was in Moore's film, was and remains flabbergasted that they were allowed to leave.

There is also the matter of the Saudis having over $800,000,000,000 in our economy, equivalent to 7%. Money talks, Joe. I remember when people were flipping out in the 80s because the Japanese were buying up large chunks of America. Moore has done his part to make sure people know about this fact, as well.

If Clarke cleared them, then Clarke made the error. Not many people were thinking straight on 9/12.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catt03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #44
61. My thoughts too
they were family members and why not interview them extensively and then let them go. If necessary, they could have been secreted out of the country after that.

Also in re the Saudis and their money...I read in business week that a large chunk of our debt has been bought by Saudi money (China too) and if they ever pull out, we may be in the cellar.

I don't claim to know alot about the nations financial bottom line but this literally scares me. It would not be so frightening if the world were a little more stable but the timing of all this cannot be good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #44
63. So you are saying that Clarke made the error?
You can't even be sure it was an error.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #63
70. I said "If"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #70
74. You say you are a journalist. Fine. But then you should know
that Clarke DID clear them. There was no "IF" to it. He vetted and cleared them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nostamj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. "You say you are a journalist"
check out:

truthout.org

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #74
80. Then he made a mistake
Just because Clarke blew it doesn't mean Moore isn't allowed to say it was a stupid decision. And to believe Clarke did this on his own and without direction is to fundamentally misunderstand his position.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #74
87. He never said he vetted them. He said that he OK'd the flights.
Stop spreading disinformation.

And where does your buck stop, Joe?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #87
111. He did say he vetted them. I saw the interview yesterday.
Sorry. Don't have a buck. Got any spare change?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #74
88. Wrong!
This is from Clarke's testimony to the 9/11 Commission in March:

"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."

The article goes on to state that the FBI has denied approving the flight.

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38669

Given the above info, my guess is that the authorization for the Bin Ladens' flights came from Chimpy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #74
126. Have you read Clarke's book?
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #44
64. I thought many of them were interviewed
And how many were children or were just very distant cousins?

As for Saudi investment, how much do other countries have invested? How much do we invest in other countries?

Without a proper context, all these "facts" don't really mean that much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AbbeyRoad Donating Member (848 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #64
83. out of 142 allowed to leave 30 were interviewed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #83
89. Page 13 says:
"The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #89
103. Who made this conclusion? A person made this conclusion. Who?
Watch the movie.

It wasn't the people investigating who made this conclusion. It was the people covering up the misdeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AbbeyRoad Donating Member (848 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #89
107. Is that the standard for detective work?
It seems like the detectives on "Law and Order" are doing a more thorough job.

Whether you "want" to or not, shouldn't their statements be taken? After all over 3,000 people had just been murdered by 15 Saudi nationals in a plan that was orchestrated by Osama Bin Laden, a relative of many of the people allowed to flee the country.

If my third cousin hit Donald Rumsfeld on the knee with a baton and then fled, I bet they would pay me a visit to ask if I knew his whereabouts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike1963 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #89
123. The same FBI that failed to coordinate information BEFORE 9/11?
I feel so much better now...
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #44
110. Didn't the FBI just raid and shut down WAMY in Falls Church
Founded by Abdullah bin Laden?

I thought I recently read about this and heard Greg Palast comment about it (he was onto WAMY years ago.) I also thought I read Abdullah BL was on one of the flights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #29
81. Clarke never said he vetted the passengers.
And where does your buck stop, Joes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mandate My Ass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #29
98. From Snopes....
Edited on Sat Jun-26-04 04:38 PM by Monica_L
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm

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.)

Whether these accounts are all describing the same flights or different flights (and hence the several-day difference in departure dates) is difficult to determine, but in many cases it appears that the issue of Saudis flying within the U.S. has been confused with the issue of their leaving the U.S.


4. Did flights of bin Laden family members leave the U.S. "secretly"?

"Secret" is something of an subjective term, because everything is known to some people and unknown to others. Obviously neither the U.S. nor the Saudi government was going to announce that planes full of bin Laden family members fearful for their lives were about to leave the country (or put the matter up for a vote), since publicizing the event would have defeated its purpose by providing potential attackers with valuable information on their whereabouts. The flights were conducted in a hush-hush manner, and the U.S. government didn't (and still hasn't) officially acknowledged their existence, yet the secret was not of the "to be kept for all time" ilk in that these flights were reported upon in major newspapers (both in the U.S. and in other countries) within days of their occurrence.

Their departure was effected quietly, but once the Saudis were gone the "secret" no longer needed to be guarded all that scrupulously.

Did flights take bin Laden family members out of the U.S. over the objections of the FBI?

It's hard to make the case that flights of Saudis departed from the U.S. over the objections of the FBI when, according to former White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke, the FBI itself gave the go-ahead:

"Somebody brought to us for approval the decision to let an airplane filled with Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, leave the country," he told Vanity Fair magazine.

Mr Clarke said he checked with FBI officials, who gave the go ahead. "So I said, 'Fine, let it happen'."


6 And, as noted, the FBI was directly involved in the process of collecting bin Laden family members and ferrying them to departure points from which they could leave the country:
The young members of the bin Laden clan were driven or flown under F.B.I. supervision to a secret assembly point in Texas.3
Was the FBI denied the chance to question departing bin Laden family members?

Again, it's hard to make the case that the FBI was denied any opportunity to question bin Laden family members given that they were directly involved in the process of rounding them up and gave the go-ahead for the flights to leave. Moreover, news accounts indicate that the FBI was not only "all over" the departing flights (grounding some of them temporarily), but had the opportunity to question passengers, and in at least some cases actually did:

All of those who took up the Saudi government's offer to fly home were reportedly questioned by the FBI before being allowed to board the flights. A source at Logan said that the FBI was "all over these planes" prior to takeoff.4
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
33. Well-thrown gauntlet, Will.
So how about it, Joe? Mr Pitt has offered his assistance to you. How will you respond I wonder?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nostamj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. to some degree unproven propaganda
your list???

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. Welcome to DU!
:D






:shrug:






:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. ...you dingbat
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #5
18. *tthhhhpppth*
:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoadRunner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
49. Yo, Robb!
Great welcome! You should be a DU moderator some time!

Your ol' buddy from the trenches,

RoadRunner.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
6. "does a disservice to us"
Who is the "us" you are talking about?

I doubt it's the same "us" that most DU members talk about. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Ya got a mouse in your pocket?
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
39. "Us means us. Anyone who is interested in the truth. Does that,
or does that not include you?


Joe Fields
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qanda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #39
60. Welcome to DU Joe!
:hi:

I hope you know that your ideas are welcomed here, even though I happen to disagree with them. I'm sure there's plenty of ground that we share. Enjoy your time here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #60
114. Thank you. I accept your welcome in good spirit.
Yes, I am a left-leaning Democrat, and have been for over forty years. I'm sure you are right in assuming we share more common ground than not. I have no ax to grind concerning Michael Moore, other than that of being 100 percent truthful when making documentaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
8. I'd like to know what isn't factual please.
Edited on Sat Jun-26-04 03:08 PM by vickiss
All on video and newspapers, etc.

shrub incriminates himself.

I'll listen, if you can show otherwise.


Waiting...............


edit> still waiting............
btw, why were the Saud's allowed to fly when NO ONE ELSE WAS??????? person of interest or not?????

still waiting.................................please Joe I need a nap!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moonbeam_Starlight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
9. You started a whole new thread to say the same things
and correct yourself on a point I made to you in another thread???

Isn't there something on Faux News you need to see?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
136. Locking.....
This is flamebait.


DU Moderator
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
10. Joe Joe, you're killing me
Please tell me what part was unproven propaganda?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
12. Joe, Joe, Joe. Why am I not surprised that you've offered nothing...
...to back up you rather interesting claims.

Come back again when you can prove anything...anything at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #12
65. I guess you are willing to believe Michael Moore's assumption,
rather than Richard Clarke's sworn testimony. That is your right to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thebigidea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #65
78. Talk about misleading!
Clarke says ZILCH in the sworn testimony about approving the flights - he said he passed on the request, which came from State or Card.

If I'm wrong, go to the transcripts and back it up. You can't.

He gave an interview to "The Hill" where it says something about approving the flights, but he did NOT in the sworn testimony.

And if he DID approve the flights, um - how the fuck is Bush off the hook? Clarke was a member of his admin, yes? Others knew about, yes?

It doesn't change Moore's point at all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #65
92. Where does your buck stop, Joe?
Was Clarke part of the Bush Administration at the time or not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
13. and of course Joe never answers the questions posed to him
Come on Joe, just one simple example so we can talk about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #13
67. You now have my attention. What is your question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoadRunner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
14. Oh jeez, now I'm really confused.
I thought the Bush apologists said you couldn't believe Richard Clarke on anything cuz he's just a disgruntled employee, now they're using him in a lame attempt to discredit this film. Have they no shame?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #14
27. Honestly! I find it so hard to remember who are the evil-doers and...
...who are the, er, good-doers. I mean, Clarke was bad, now he's good, Saddam was good, now he's bad, etc. etc.

*pulling out hair*

WHEN WILL IT END?!?!?!?!?!

It's almost like they're.....like they're...

flip-flopping!!!!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drdigi420 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
15. The right wing media keeps repeating that this movie
is full of 'factual errors', yet NOT ONE 'factual error' has been proven.

Moore has his ducks in a row and is ready to refute any attacks on the facts in his film. We keep hearing that it's incaccurate, but noone can point out any specific inaccuracies.

It's probably enough for most repubs just to hear 'its inaccurate' and write it off completely, although they can't tell you ONE ITEM that is inaccurate.

So, where's your list?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
16. I don't think Moore was out to prove anything EXCEPT...
...that Bush's agenda apparently an agenda that is more concerned with the ideology of select few and the good of the nation comes secondary to that.

In that, Moore proved his case over and over and over again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
17. "Moore's proof just isn't there"
Neither is Bush's. I would love to see your write as much about WMD claims! There are very few journalists who have looked at this administration in an objective manner, that upsets me way more than any perceived inaccuracies in a film.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
19. JOE PROBABLY SHOULD BRING IT AT THIS POINT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #19
40. I already brought it. Check replies, Mr. Pitt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skooooo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. back up what you say....

People have asked you for details of what is inaccurate. Until you address the issue, you're just pissing in the wind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #43
55. I already backed it up. Don't you read my replies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. See post 44
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. See post 44
Sorry for the slow reply. My mom called. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #40
93. You've brought NOTHING. Quit wasting our time.
List ALL the factual errors in this movie. RIGHT HERE. RIGHT NOW.

Otherwise Please Shut The Hell Up and find someone else's time to waste.

The gloves are OFF.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #93
113. It is less than honest to make the kind of link that Moore
tries to make with the Saudi on the planes. Richard Clarke denies what Michael Moore tries to assert. There is my proof. Where is yours?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
20. "Moore's proof just isn't there. "
Man, that's hard-hitting! Good work on refuting his points!

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
21. Welcome to DU, have you seen the movie yet?
and by the way, who do you think Richard Clarke was working for and taking orders from? duuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhh, I don't know, could it be SATAN (weedboy)?

:hi: Enjoy your visit. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mandate My Ass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
23. Drop a stink bomb and flee
Gotcha.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
24. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #24
47. Thanks for your warm reception. Seriously,
I don't consider it flame bait to offer my honest assessment of a couple of points to Moore's movie. He didn't need to embellish anything. There is plenty there to smash Bush over the head with. Maybe I am different, in that when I look at something, I see it warts and all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #47
54. True, but...
You started nearly the same damn thread TWICE. The first one was locked.

Common sense is that when one does that upon entrance to the board, it usually means that person is what's referred to as a 'troll'.

There's a way to present effective arguements. The approach you chose seems like it's intended to piss people off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #54
62. Not intended to piss anyone off.
But I have to admit, when I see such a knee-jerk genuflection toward Moore, I have to shake my head. Moore's motives may be commendable, but his method is sorely lacking. I think that is obvious. Or, at least I thought it was obvious. Hell, he even admits to using less than honest means in furthering his agenda. So why do you defend against something that he has already admitted to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #62
124. The presumed knee-jerk genuflection that you perceive
Edited on Sat Jun-26-04 05:39 PM by Zorra
may be due to the fact that many of us been trying to get the mainstream media to bring to the attention of American public many of the issues addressed by MM in Farenheit 9/11 for three frustrating years with little success.

MM has finally done it, and we are exceedingly grateful to him for this. Most of us feel that our nation is in extreme peril due to the unconscionable, unjustifiable, and anti-democratic actions of the Bu$h administration and many republican legislators in general.

Because I live abroad, I have not seen Farenheit 9/11, and am not informed enough comment on the factual validity of the film, but a number of DUers whose research and analytical skills that I have learned to respect seem to believe that most of the facts presented in the film are verifiable, and they have posted credible information to support their posts.

(BTW, Joe, welcome to DU. There are an awful lot of logical, analytical folks here at DU, so, IMO, posting links to credible information to support your assertions is one of the best ways to make a valid point if you have one. After years of dealing with ludicrous, non-factual RW propaganda, most of us have issues with what appear to be rhetorical arguments, even when these arguments support our positions. There is nothing wrong with expressing opinions, but unless these opinions are rooted in solid verifiable information, they will most often be perceived as merely unsupported opinion.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prodemsouth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
25. Bang. Bang. Your dead.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
luaneryder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
26. Please make your list public
I'd like to take a copy with me when I go see the movie to tick off all the errors I see. I doubt there will be many, if any, tick marks, but all the same....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ParanoidPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
28. Your "reality check" bounced dude!
Don't you have a blog to attend to? :shrug: :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #28
52. I have to wonder if you even saw the movie.
It would be awfully hard to do with your head buried in the sand.

Joe Fields
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #52
71. Simple suggestions
Lurk the boards before starting posting a flame thread. Learn the lingo. George Bush is generally referred to as Dubya, *, weed, shrub, skrub, and other similar adjectives are used to describe him.
Repubicans are rethugs, repukes, thugs, mafia, nazis, neo-cons, etc.
I haven't been on DU that long, but I know enough to respect the senior posters and I truly believe that they have been researching the facts long before Moore made his film and not long after weedboy stole the election.
If Moore were to include all of the facts in the movie, then it would certainly take more than the 1.5/2 hours to show in the theater.

Bushco has had 4 years to tear down our nation and to spin his lies. If you want answers to your questions do the research yourself. If you want answers to your questions from posters here then pose a question and seek their input.

Trolls can be fun, but being ignorant of the rules and the lingo is just stupid and being disrespectful is just not appreciated.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ParanoidPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #52
109. No Joe, my head has been right here for well over 2 years.....
.....researching the FACTS! :evilgrin:

Do you even have a clue as to where Mohammed Atta got his funding to pull off 9/11? (Hint! Look up Muhammed al-Faisal, Yassin al Qadi and also the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), Saudi Arabia’s most powerful charity that is funded by members of the Saudi royal family.) Do you know who is associated with the banks that the transactions went through? Are you aware that many of the people on the planes that were allowed to fly out of the US were NEVER INTERVIEWED by anyone prior to leaving?

Vetted you say? :eyes:

Thousands of 'middle easterners' were rounded up, held without charges and questioned in many countries but those closest to Osama Bin Laden and his financiers were allowed to leave. You might want to read this excellant article from the CBC News about Conspiracy Theories. Perhaps you might understand why many here are just a little upset about the way the Saudi Royals were treated just after 9/11.

Perhaps it is YOU who should pull your head out of your self important little blog and follow the money. You might learn something.

You would be surprised at what we here have uncovered through the use of 'massive parallel browsing', posting our findings, compairing notes and following up on the leads. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #109
116. Take your findings to the 9/11 commission.
I'm sure they would be interested.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ParanoidPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #116
131. You're a funny guy Joe, perhaps you've been too busy blogging......
.....to notice that the 9/11 whitewash commission is over. :eyes:

Too bad you missed it. The victims families had a really good time trying to get Bush*'s hand picked commissioners to ask pertinent questions of the interviewees but were either shut up or escorted out of the hearings.
It made for some riveting television on C-SPAN.

Perhaps you've forgotten the Congressional Hearings several months after 9/11 that produced an 838 page report in the summer of 2003 that the administration had 28 pages of classified and redacted.

Again from the CBC News.

<snip>

People familiar with the missing pages claim that they deal with the Saudi government's relationship with the 9/11 hijackers.

In an interview with the fifth estate, Eleanor Hill, chief investigator for the Committee, would only confirm that those files dealt with sources of foreign support for the hijackers.

"Because they're classified I can't tell you what's in those pages. I can tell you that the chapter deals with some information that our committee found in the FBI and CIA files that was very disturbing. It had to do with sources of foreign support for the hijackers."

This summer, U.S. Senators held a hearing on the financial support of terrorism.

The Bush Administration had refused to place several Saudi charities and individuals on the terror watch list. The senators asked the U.S. government to release the names of Saudi charities and individuals who were being investigated for funding Al-Qaeda.

By the next day, the names were classified by the Bush Administration and could not be made public.

But other sections of the Congressional Report reveal more about what the Bush administration would prefer the public didn't know about 9/11.

<More>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
30. Hey Joe, where you goin' with that gun in your hand...
I start to get a little jumpy anytime anyone leads off a post with "Don't Kill The Messenger." WTF?!? Where's the fun in that?

Sometimes we feed the trolls, sometimes we skin 'em and hang their shabby hides on the barn...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elidor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
31. On second thought, let's kill the messenger anyway
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AbbeyRoad Donating Member (848 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
32. Nope. You're wrong, but nice try
"I doubt if anyone in this forum loathes George Bush as much as I do."
"we chide the republicans for"


Maybe if you had more than 12 posts you could try to make these statements.


"But I see a lockstep here"
"any journalist who doesn't look at Mr. Moore's project in a more objective manner"


The republicans have been "goosestepping" to this administration's propaganda for the past four years, and the mainstream media has been more than willing to be its mouthpiece. Where have the real, objective journalists been?


"Michael Moore's film, though powerful is still to some degree unproven propaganda"

Really? Why don't you prove it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. A blogger is NOT a "journalist", Joe.
Just so you know.

I like animals and I know a lot about them, but that doesn't make me a zoologist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
35. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Stew225 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #35
50. What's the record for most replies? Maybe Joe
is trying to top that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
necso Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
53. There is at least one area of what looks like factual dispute or omission,
that of Clarke's versus Moore's account of post 911 flights... the truth may be somewhere in between.

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

Generally I agree with your point, but just maybe it is a little overly broad. It is also hard to measure any sentiment on DU, particularly if you give any import to thread/reply count.

There is a tendency on DU to beat down on anyone who goes however slightly against the grain that some members seem to want to set. So people are hesitant to go there. There are also some people who look to see if a particular sentiment has already been expressed, and do not post/reply if it is so. My particular version of "Michael Moore's ego is so large that it threatens to pull the entire planet into the sun." has no more value than anyone else's, so why inflict it on people?

I appreciate your making this post. People are going to look to get you kicked though, so be careful!

I imagine that many of the people flaming you are the loudest defenders of free speech in some other (improper) guise. When you start praising chimpy and that lot, you have to go. Until then, keep it up.

Oh, I have to go work now, but I will be happy to reply to any flames that contain real content later... although I expect none of that sort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
57. See post 44
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. See post 57
Which will direct you to post 44. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #58
69. See post 122
...I'm not going to contribute anything of substance until post 122. So you can take a bathroom break, or make a sandwich, or something. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #69
75. lmao i'll follow with post #123
:silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kukesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #69
133. And Will should return his Mom's call;
after all, it was she who called him the first time -- Moms like to be called by their sons. Or their daughters, or most other family members. Call Your Mom Will!

Be back before post 121 -- your Mom will understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
68. Pouring more lighter fluid on
could YOU, perhaps, cite a few references. Maybe one.

From what I've read (and that's about everything on the subject),
Clarke would NOT have been the one to tell the FBI field agents
what to do with these people. He DOES admit that he was contacted
about this, and that he "passed it along" to his superiors.
so that means Condi and, maybe, Cheney, and Bush (though not directly).

SOMEONE called the FBI director and told him to lay off these Saudis.
I don't think that this was in Richard Clarke's pay grade to make that
kind of decision, nor is it one that is consistent with his, for
lack of a better word, obsession with Osama Bin Laden. Could Clarke
have been the messenger boy for the decision to OK the flights,
some of them (like the one from Florida to Kentucky happening before
the airspace was even partially re-opened), yeah, he could have been.
The decision maker... no.

As for their connection to 9/11, let's see... 20+ members of the
Bin Laden family... strong suspicion that OBL was behind the attack.
I'm no rocket scientist (more like an aeronautics scientist, that's
actually MUCH harder), but I would want to detain and question each
and every Bin Laden I could get my hands on... "black sheep" status
or not. And I'm pretty sure that I believe the FBI guys that they
wanted to question this group.

I didn't see any misstatements or distortions, everything that MM
said has been sourced in other places... and those places have
been fact checked. One of the most important things that you freepers
are missing is the Moore doesn't tell you these things, he interviews
the direct people involved, and THEY tell you, right there, on film.

BTW, welcome to DU... quit drinking the koolaid, we can help you.

See, the real belief here is that the BFEE either CAUSED Bin Laden
to attack the US, or knew all about it and did nothing (MIHOP, LIHOP).
And there IS a lot of evidence that this might actually be the case,

Read up on the short, happy life of Prince Ahmed bin Salman.
Buys a cheap horse (War Emblem), wins the Kentucky derby, the
Preakness, can't be here in the US to watch the Belmont (recalled
to Saudi Arabia)... and dies of a "heart attack". Oh, this is after
his private phone number was recited by a known Al Quida operative
captured in Pakistan... one of two phone numbers, his brother being
the other one. The same brother who died in a car accident while
traveling to Ahmed bin Salman's funeral. Coincidence I'm sure.
bin Salman's ONE passion in life was to win the Kentucky Derby, and
then the Triple Crown. But he had to miss his shot because of "family
obligations... and then he dies days later.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/horses/2002triplecrown/2002-06-08-prince.htm
http://www.horse-races.net/library/aa072202.htm
http://www.forrelease.com/D20030910/dcw069.P2.09102003182017.00958.html

Moore didn't cover any of this, because is isn't quite established
as fact. Maybe the Prince was, as his widow says, a great
humanitarian and friend of the United States. Maybe he was the go
between guy (or one of them) between Osama and the Saudi Royals.

I tend to believe that the Saudi royals are BOTH. See, when NOT
in the Kingdom, they are rich frat boys, drinking (some of them),
partying, chasing the ladies (almost all of them), shopping, and
having a wonderful time in the decadent west... then they go home
and they are pious religious zealots who hold sway over almost ALL
of Islam because the holiest of holies (Mecca and Medina) are located
within their borders. It is the duty of every Muslim, if they are
able, to visit the Kingdom during their life... so as curators of
the holy land, I'm pretty sure that they promote a very religious
and anti-secular face for their Kingdom... and that includes promoting
Wahabi Islam and supporting "the struggle". Becoming westernized
in the Kingdom is NOT in the royal families interest. Enjoying the
decadent west and selling us the oil to enable that lifestyle (but
only for about 45,000 royals) is just fine. Would they both enjoy
the West, have many business dealings with, say, Harkin Oil and
BCCI, and Carlyle Group? Attempt to buy influence with at least
one American "royal" family? Call on that family for favors when
needed (like whisking all the royals and their employees out of the
country right after an attack that kills 3000 Americans BY a close
associate of the royal family)??? and simultaneously support
one of their own off building a new fundamentalist version of
Islam in Afghanistan? Nah. Couldn't happen.

Michael Moore is just "embellishing".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #68
85. Great post! Thanks so much.
I do appreciate the links too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #68
94. You're right, lapfog
Clarke did not approve the flights. See post #88.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
72. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
79. You are the one "killing the messenger."
Clarke was part of the Bush Administration at the time.

Where does your buck stop, Joe?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasSissy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
82. Richard Clarke--someone had to TELL him to do that.
He didn't automatically know that all the bin Ladens were here and where they were.

I take him at his word, that he arranged it. But who told him to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
84. Until you've seen the film
you're just spewing bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
90. The Movie Was An Indictment Of The Simian In Chief On Film
And like all indictments it only included inculpatory information...


Like any prosecutor Moore only included evidence favorable to his case...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
91. snarf!
whatever! :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #91
101. I've seen the Movie. And again I am calling you out.
Let's keep it simple so Joe "I can't write in Paragraphs" Fields can easily understand it.

RIGHT HERE. RIGHT NOW.

List.

ALL.

Of.

The.

FACTUAL.

ERRORS.

In.

F/911.

NOW.

All of them Joe. You seem to think you've got the goods, show them. We've already taken care of the one lame attempt you've made. Where are the rest.

Show Your Hand Or Show Yourself The Door.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #91
106. Stocked up on your snarfs I hope
This thread may get a few more before it's done :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
96. Yeah, I read your blog after your post in another thread
Edited on Sat Jun-26-04 04:12 PM by Eloriel
Wasn't particularly impressed. Moore gets it 99.9% right, and you quibble about the .1% -- that's IF the .1% is even inaccurate, which I don't necessarily believe it is.

Pathetic, frankly.

Welcome to DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tight_rope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
97. Welcome to DU Joe...but I disagree with you...I loath GW more! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
100. So the best you got is that Richard Clarke, an administration official...
personally, in a matter of hours, "vetted" the Saudis whom are allowed to leave without speaking to the FBI agents in charge of the investigation.

And since Moore points out that they weren't interviewed by the FBI but fails to point out that they were vetted by the Bush administration, you call the entire film "unproven propaganda"??


Weak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
104. Where Are They Joe? The FATCUAL ERRORS from the Movie.
Speak Up.

Show Them.

List Them.

Bring it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
105. AGAIN. That's what I thought.
You can't list anything because other than the one lame attempt you made you have nothing else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #105
118. List exact errors Joe
So far we have that the bin Laden family were not terrorist suspects. Moore never said they were. Bring it on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #105
121. Notice that Joe has responded to other posts since you wrote this
but,curiously,he's left your's unanswered.

Who would have thunk it? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tatiana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
117. We don't know the truth. We've got conflicting statements.
Clarke told The Hill: "I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I'd do it again."

Clarke also said: "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."

However, in Clarke's testimony before the panel he said: "The request came to me, and I refused to approve it...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."

<snip>

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 flight. We didn't think anyone on the flight was of investigative interest."


http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/newsletter2004/saudi-relations-interest-06-02.html

It is still unknown who authorized those flights. I think Clarke had his hands full with other management activities. It seems likely that Cheney approved the flights.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #117
128. What we also have is a suspicious, but unidentified, motive
Edited on Sat Jun-26-04 06:37 PM by Tansy_Gold
As Moore said on the Daily Show, if these folks had been members of Gaddafi's family and the 9/11 perps were Libyan, would the FBI even have been asked to vet and release them? It's because of the long-standing and billion dollar relationship between the House of Saud and the Charnelhouse of Bush that the freedom flight of the Saudis becomes suspicious.

I haven't seen the film yet -- dogsitting this week-end and no screenings nearby -- but just taking on the point of whether or not the special treatment shown the Saudis deserves further scrutiny.

1. If all those Saudi royals/semi-royals were innocent, why did they need, want, or demand to be allowed to escape? Just because they could? Or were they afraid of something?

2. Why did the boosh administration accede to the request? Because they, too, were afraid of something? Blackmail? Loss of substantial income? Loss of oil? Why didn't they just provide a safe haven in one of their undisclosed locations, then allow the Saudis to quietly depart under the radar, so to speak?

3. Do we REALLY know what happened with Richard Clarke? We have his word on it, and while I think he's probably correct and not lying, I'm not sure I trust him completely. I think he, too, has an agenda, and while that agenda may be to bring down the booshies or at least shed light on their darker side, his agenda may color his reportage. As one poster has already stated, Moore himself is like a prosecutor: he's not going to introduce any exculpatory evidence. Why should Clarke be any different?

That said, I'm not defending our new DUer Mr. Fields. He has pointed out only one tiny element of Moore's film with which he takes issue, and it's not, IMHO, a particularly "factual" issue. Maybe when I've seen the film, I'll think differently. But fact is, I haven't yet.

So I'm just speculatin' my little heart out.


Tansy Gold

(edited to correct typo in header, sheesh)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
120. Can you list the factual errors Joe? Up your post count some more c'mon
give it a try. It only helps to crystallize the thinking around the irrefutable facts just as the RW attempts to snuff out Moore's movie create box office lines and record profits. As Michael Moore said: "Thank You."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
122. You have used a gamut adjectives, references,
personifications and euphemisms about Bush in twenty seven posts? Good going, but all I have seen in your posts is the trashing of Michael Moore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mandate My Ass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #122
125. the trashing of Michael Moore and of DU
but nobody loathes Bush more than Joe. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #125
127. Say it ain't so Joe...
Edited on Sat Jun-26-04 05:58 PM by trumad
The problem my friend is that you've entered a forum that is chalk full of experts regarding the political world. We dissect and we demolish the lies of the right. That's what we do here. When the Flight thing came to light we were on it like flys on shit and we along with Moore and other blogs demolished that talking point.

I read your comments regarding 9/11 on your blog and you use the word distort regarding Moore's visit to Capital Hill to ask Congressman to get their kids to go to Iraq. Out of the 500 plus congressman out there only one had kids in Iraq. That's simply amazing. Your hollow argument is that it's up to the Congressman's kids to decide if they want to go to Iraq. Well no shit. BUT...I can't fucking believe that you missed the central point of Moore's stunt.

Look... I hope you don't get banned from DU but i gotta say that if you bring a non-factual statement to DU you're gonna get flamed. That's what we do... AND that goes for me, Pitt, Paranoid, etc... If we're wrong were gonna hear it...BUT you know what... The truth ain't Kryptonite to us. It's nourishment, and if we are wrong we'll admit it and learn from our mistakes. Ain't no one perfect. Now, re-read the replies to your posts and try hard to take it in and realize that you're just dead wrong on this one.

tru
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kukesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #127
135. Well said, trumad. Perfect, actually. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RetroLounge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
129. Oh Man, you are a funny funny guy!
"I doubt if anyone in this forum loathes George Bush as much as I do"

Bwaaaahhahhahahhahahhahahhahah

RL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RetroLounge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
130. "Don't Kill The Messenger"
Oh, but why not? Or maybe we'll just feed you first.

_|_

RL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasBushwhacker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
132. You may perceive a "lockstep"
and you're free to have your perception. Personally, I think a lot of the enthusiasm is because most of us ARE SO TIRED of having to watch and listen to the news via the mainstream media and their bias, whether it's big (like on Fox) or smaller, like on the other networks. As Moore has said, mainstream media dropped the ball. They were "free" (according to the first amendment) to ask the hard questions but for the most part they didn't. Why did it take Craig Unger to write "House of Bush, House of Saud" about relationships that have been going on for decades? Why was The Carlyle Group and the Bush's involvement profiled on DUTCH TV and not on American TV?

Those are OUR AIRWAVES out there that the media is licensed to use and amoung other things, we count on them to provide information. All of the networks have what they call "investigative journalists", but all of them seem to have given Bush a free pass. I don't think Michael Moore is perfect, and I don't think his film is perfect, but it's a sad state of affairs that he even had to make this film in order to get this information out there.

Think about all the TV coverage of everything that Clinton did and everything that he was accused of and (except for his indiscretions with ML) was exonerated. Bush and Cheney and their band of brothers have been allowed to fuck up for the last 3 1/2 years while the media looked the other way. With the photos from Abu Ghraib being shown on 60 Minutes and their coverage of that story, someone finally said, "This just ain't right", and showed something that would reflect badly on Bush. Why did it take Michael Moore to reveal everything else in a way that the information could be understood by the general population?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #132
134. hammer meet nailhead.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-04 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
137. Locking....
This is flamebait.


DU Moderator
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Feb 12th 2025, 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC