Bush senior rips into Michael Moore

[theshire]

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/10152004/maine/43035.htm

My only complaint is that the words he used weren't strong enough.

[Mitchell]

The Republican party infuriates me. They have free reign to criticize anyone they choose, but if someone is critical of them, they get all upset about it. How about a bit back when Dick Cheney called Democratic Senator Pat Leahy the F word? That was fine, and not put under a microscope in the media. I have no doubt Cheney said it.
I dont believe that any movie studio would have given Moore a license to tell blatant outright lies, they wouldnt have risked their necks.
Bottom line, if you cant take the heat, dont be the president. Look how Bill Clinton was villified for eight years for lying about sex. This guy Bush 43 did far more serious things, misleading about WMD's, and causing a war that cost 1100 American lives. If you arent prepared to take the crticism, dont become a public official. It goes with the territory.

Mitch

[theshire]

Yes, but these lies come from Michael Moore, a well-renowned teller of lies, hypocrysies and generally manipulative shit. What Bush Senior said didn't even cover half of it. He's angry about what Moore said about his son, yes, but he's also angry that anyone can possibly take the man seriously, and believe all his crap. This isn't just about politics; it's about an evil, money-grabbing hypocrite who doesn't know the meaning of the word 'truth'.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by theshire
it's about an evil, money-grabbing hypocrite who doesn't know the meaning of the word 'truth'.

Ah yes... this is a very good description of both Bush presidents and that loathsome brother of our current one by the name of Jeb.

[Mitchell]

Macphisto, well put, my friend. I couldnt possibly agree with you more.

Mitch

[drew70]

Well said, TheShire. Isn't it amazing that the liberals whine whenever their demigods like Moore are criticized, yet in every one of their posts they criticize the President. Typical liberal double standard.

Hey Mitch, if Michael Moore can't take the heat, maybe he should pull his triple chinned head out of Kerry's ass! :blaugh:

[drew70]

Originally posted by MrMacphisto
Ah yes... this is a very good description of both Bush presidents and that loathsome brother of our current one by the name of Jeb. Only if you buy into Moore's shoddy fantasy he calls Farenheit 911. If you're into reality, the description applies better to Moore himself.

[Cosmo_ac]

yes, because we all know Bush and his family have absolutely no linking to the saudi family Drew :rolleyes:

And we all know Iraq had WMD. I mean come on, Bush said so!

[theshire]

yes, because we all know Bush and his family have absolutely no linking to the saudi family Drew

To be honest, I'd find it very unusual if two families so important in the international oil trade DIDN'T know each other, but the conspiracies about improper control and relationships are just absurd.

[Cosmo_ac]

it's not a maytter of just knowing them, Shire. It's a matter of business relationships. However, there are plenty of truths in Moores movies, you just have to seek them out.

[General Zod]

Gee,how typical The left and right insulting each other while the country gets worse Just for once it would be nice if they both acted nice and took care of the problems This is why I will go to my grave hating both the democrats and republicans Neither of them give a damn about the people:sowrong:

[drew70]

Originally posted by cosmo_ac
it's not a matter of just knowing them, Shire. It's a matter of business relationships. However, there are plenty of truths in Moores movies, you just have to seek them out. Cosmo, your very statement implies that the "truths" are hidden or buried in non-truths. Why else would we have to "seek them out"? But of course, that's what liars such as Moore do. They mix their lies with some truth, to lend credence to them. And look at you, supporting and advocating a work of propoganda you know to contain lies.

[Cosmo_ac]

what i'm suggesting drew, along with anything else you hear as being stated as fact, is to look into it yourself. I'm in no way of implying the truths are burried. I support the movie because of the truths it contains, and also because of the fact that anybody serious about finding out if there real or not has to look.


Remember, the US people easily drank up the shit of Saddam having WMD, even though there was plenty of evidence to contradict that assesment. But, because it was the president, he HAD to be right. Just goes to show you, anybody can be wrong. Which is why if you have doubts, look it up.

[venray]

Zod...well said..
Cos..sorry old friend..but any "truths found in Moore's tripe is purely coincidental and unintentional.

In my opinion...(since some have said I sould express it) Moore is nothing more than an ass who only went after Bush because he was a good enough target to make money off of. Nothing more. Nothing less. If he had caught wind of the "swift boat agenda earlier,f-911 would have been a whole different movie.

Mitch...tis sad that you jump at the chance to agree with anything bad said against Bush only to try and affirm your position. If you felt truly that you were right you wouldnt need others to back up your beliefs.

Mac..you and I agree on many issues...this one however I cant agree with you on. Kerry and his billionaire wife and lifestyle is no better than anyone else (*coughteddy*cough*) in politics these days, so singling out Bush as THE money grubbing evil one doesnt wash.

It's all about the power. Kerry wants it and G forbid he gets it, cause he would be way out of his league and over his head if he did, and we would all pay the price. moreso than you think that we are now. (grass is always greener concept....

Have any of you actually looked at his very public voting record? I doubt it or you would be apalled if you are truly caring people that you all claim to be (and I believe that you are)

Become fully informed. You might just be a little surprised.If not, I hope the majority of voters are.....

Sigh...this has become tiresome..........same old crap different thread....

R

[theshire]

Moore is in it for the money. The way he works is to fill his movies and books with lots of little half-truths and inaccuracies amongst a few truths, in order to create one big lie. It's the highest form of manipulation, and my only compliment to him is that he's very good at it. If you have to 'dig around' for the truth, that is not a good defense of the guy, cosmo! You shouldn't have to search for it, it should be right there for all to see instead of fabricated newspaper headlines that never existed and cleverly cut footage to suggest something different to what it actually shows. Those are forms of lies; accept it.

And with all of this, Moore makes millions and millions of dollars. He takes advantage of a woman's pain after she loses her son and sells it to make more green. He even tries to sell F911 to pay-per-view channels just days before the election, and when they say that they can't take it for any reason, he threatens legal action! (See here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041015/ap_on_el_pr/election_moore)). WHAT???!!!

And still Moore claims to be a man of the people, a working-class hero. Yet he lives in a multi-million dollar mansion and has far more than any working-class man could ever have. Furthermore, he repeatedly insults the American working man on trips abroad.

Some man of the people, Mikey. Some liar, too.

[drew70]

From Cosmo
Remember, the US people easily drank up the shit of Saddam having WMD, even though there was plenty of evidence to contradict that assesment. But, because it was the president, he HAD to be right. That's going beyond absurd. No president has had that kind of power. In case you didn't know, the President is answerable. That's what makes him a president and not a dictator. You know as well as I do Bush made these statements based on his best intelligence at the time. Not only our intelligence, but those of other countries as well. Okay, so they weren't found. Does that mean they never existed? Does that mean Saddam wasn't seeking them? You liberals are really playing this "WMD" card to death, even to the point of calling it a "lie" which is just shrill petulance.

[Cosmo_ac]

Cos..sorry old friend..but any "truths found in Moore's tripe is purely coincidental and unintentional.

Ray, watch the movie, then come back to me. If not, your just giving your opinion about something you've never seen and statements in the movie you've never heard.


That's going beyond absurd. No president has had that kind of power. In case you didn't know, the President is answerable. That's what makes him a president and not a dictator. You know as well as I do Bush made these statements based on his best intelligence at the time. Not only our intelligence, but those of other countries as well. Okay, so they weren't found. Does that mean they never existed? Does that mean Saddam wasn't seeking them? You liberals are really playing this "WMD" card to death, even to the point of calling it a "lie" which is just shrill petulance.

And hows that going beyond absurd? It's what happened unless you haven't been paying attention. The best intelegence at the time was faulty. Weapons inspectors hadn't been to iraq since 1998. So, new ones were sent in, and they found NOTHING. Even the information the CIA was providing was questioned in America. The aluminum tubing for example and the yellow cake uranium. Did Iraq ever have WMD? sure. Hell the US gave them to him, so we know they existed. However the arguement wasn't wheather they existed at one point, but was that they exhisted when the war started. If you don't want to call it all a lie Drew fine, but at the least, it would be considered neglagence.

[venray]

Cos..seen and heard enough of Moore and his movies to know enough to make a reasonable judgement. I do not have to stick my hand into the fire to know I will get burned. I will not give the man a penny...

I visit his website regularly and followed his stuff long before Columbine and the fiasco called f/9-11.

My opinion is well based in fact. (in my opinion.....lol)


Ray

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by drew70
Only if you buy into Moore's shoddy fantasy he calls Farenheit 911. If you're into reality, the description applies better to Moore himself.

Well, apparently, the majority of the rest of the world buys more into Moore's perspective than Bush's. It's kind of hard to sell the story of weapons of mass destruction with "shoddy" evidence. Moore presents us with the facts concerning Bush's Saudi connections. Bush's family's closeness to the Saudi aristocracy and the fact that a good chunk of our terrorist enemies come from Saudi Arabia should be enough to tell you more about "reality."

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by theshire
To be honest, I'd find it very unusual if two families so important in the international oil trade DIDN'T know each other, but the conspiracies about improper control and relationships are just absurd.

For a fan of the Matrix, you'd fit extremely well into a system that discourages questioning things.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by drew70
Well said, TheShire. Isn't it amazing that the liberals whine whenever their demigods like Moore are criticized, yet in every one of their posts they criticize the President. Typical liberal double standard.

Hey Mitch, if Michael Moore can't take the heat, maybe he should pull his triple chinned head out of Kerry's ass! :blaugh:

I figure Moore will pull his head out of Kerry's ass as soon as Bush does the same with Karl Rove's ass.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by gen.zod
Gee,how typical The left and right insulting each other while the country gets worse Just for once it would be nice if they both acted nice and took care of the problems This is why I will go to my grave hating both the democrats and republicans Neither of them give a damn about the people:sowrong:

Ah.. but do the people really care about themselves when they elect and re-elect idiots? It is only natural for those with power to exploit the idiocy of the general public if they have no fear of repercussions. When the people learn to think for themselves, you will see better candidates running for office.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by venray1
Mac..you and I agree on many issues...this one however I cant agree with you on. Kerry and his billionaire wife and lifestyle is no better than anyone else (*coughteddy*cough*) in politics these days, so singling out Bush as THE money grubbing evil one doesnt wash.

It's all about the power. Kerry wants it and G forbid he gets it, cause he would be way out of his league and over his head if he did, and we would all pay the price. moreso than you think that we are now. (grass is always greener concept....

Have any of you actually looked at his very public voting record? I doubt it or you would be apalled if you are truly caring people that you all claim to be (and I believe that you are)

Become fully informed. You might just be a little surprised.If not, I hope the majority of voters are.....

Sigh...this has become tiresome..........same old crap different thread....

R

So, in effect, what you are saying is that you're voting for the one who you believe is the less evil money-grabbing hypocrite? In that respect, we are voting in the same mindset.

However, I have to ask you: doesn't Bush seem over his head as President? I would be hard-pressed to find someone less qualified in the Republican party to be president. Kerry isn't as on top of things as Dean, but he's definitely better than Ted Kennedy or Al Sharpton, who are basically the equivalents to Bush in the Democratic party.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by drew70
That's going beyond absurd. No president has had that kind of power. In case you didn't know, the President is answerable. That's what makes him a president and not a dictator. You know as well as I do Bush made these statements based on his best intelligence at the time. Not only our intelligence, but those of other countries as well. Okay, so they weren't found. Does that mean they never existed? Does that mean Saddam wasn't seeking them? You liberals are really playing this "WMD" card to death, even to the point of calling it a "lie" which is just shrill petulance.

Plenty of presidents have done worse things than Bush. Look at Andrew Jackson creating the Trail of Tears. Look at Andrew Johnson enforcing Reconstruction. Look at Rutherford B. Hayes essentially buying his election. Look at LBJ heightening the atrocity and futility of the Vietnam War. Look at Reagan and the first Bush setting up the Iran-Contra scandal. We have a long history of leadership that has done heinous and outright stupid things, but only some presidents have truly had to answer for their crimes. It's all a matter of who your friends are and how much money you have to throw to your defense. Most importantly, it depends on the perception of the public. If much of your society is currently suffering from complacency or just sheer ignorance, then the president has an awful lot of power. If the president rules over a Congress that has a majority involving the same party as the president, he has a lot of power as well. If the president stands to gain the appointment of several new seats in the Supreme Court, then the president has even more power. Our system may be designed to promote a balance of power, but no system is full-proof (or fool-proof). The way things currently are, the president is quite powerful indeed, and that's why our current situation is so scary.

As for the argument involving our intelligence and foreign intelligence, it depends on what government you ask and when you ask them as to what the information really has to offer. The Russian government, in particular, has flip-flopped far more about the WMD issue than Bush or Kerry combined.

One thing I agree with you on, Drew, is that I believe Saddam was probably seeking WMD's. The problem herein lies that going to war with a country in a "pre-emptive strike" requires that you have solid evidence. That's why Afghanistan was a success and why Iraq has been a failure. Our evidence against Saddam was circumstantial at best. About the only solid reason to attack Iraq was for the violation of U.N. accords after the first Iraq War. Unfortunately, this reason is rarely cited as the reason for our attack, and thus, it is most often perceived as an imperialist move by both the Islamic World and otherwise.

[venray]

Originally posted by MrMacphisto
So, in effect, what you are saying is that you're voting for the one who you believe is the less evil money-grabbing hypocrite? In that respect, we are voting in the same mindset....

Kerry isn't as on top of things as Dean, but he's definitely better than Ted Kennedy or Al Sharpton, who are basically the equivalents to Bush in the Democratic party.

Yes. I am voting for Bush for that and perhaps a few other reasons....

Kerry (in my opinion ) is far worse than Teddy....look at the voting records in detail.....

Kerry has been up Kenedy's ass for years in Massachusettes....

Ray

[Cosmo_ac]

could you post that record Ray? I think i remember you posted a link to it a while ago.

[venray]

I will have to find it again Cos. You can prolly find that page or similar with a google search, though.....

Ray

[Cosmo_ac]

i think i found it Ray. This it?

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm

[venray]

That's the one, Cos...It takes a little time to go through to be sure. It also lists the records of many other political figures.

Just match your POV to the candidate who is most like you on the issues you feel important and there ya go...

[drew70]

Originally posted by MrMacphisto
Moore presents us with the facts concerning Bush's Saudi connections. Bush's family's closeness to the Saudi aristocracy and the fact that a good chunk of our terrorist enemies come from Saudi Arabia should be enough to tell you more about "reality." Perhaps it should be, but it isn't. You say this as if it implies some measure of guilt by association on Bush's part. What does the Bush family's business relationships have to do with the terrorists? Are you saying that ALL Arabs are connected with terrorism?

[Cosmo_ac]

Perhaps it should be, but it isn't. You say this as if it implies some measure of guilt by association on Bush's part. What does the Bush family's business relationships have to do with the terrorists? Are you saying that ALL Arabs are connected with terrorism?

Certainly not all arabs are terrorists, Drew. Interesting fact though. You know Prince Bandar? Guy whose supposed to be very close to the President Bush? If memory serves, a few weeks before 9/11, two of his wives gave one of the terrorists a suit case filled with money. $10,000 dollars i believe. Add into the fact that a lot of the 9/11 report dealing with the saudi's was censored, and i personally begin to wonder about a few things, don't you?

[kurchatovium]

:rolleyes:

[Cosmo_ac]

Kurtch, if your going to post, then please post something more then a little Emoticon which gives us absolutely no idea what your meaning or intent is, or who or what it's directed to.

[drew70]

From Cosmo
Certainly not all arabs are terrorists, Drew. Interesting fact though. You know Prince Bandar? Guy whose supposed to be very close to the President Bush?Sure. He was close to President Clinton, President George H. W. Bush, President Reagan, and even Jimmy Carter. Being the Saudi Ambassador to the US tends to put you close to US Presidents.From Cosmo
If memory serves, a few weeks before 9/11, two of his wives gave one of the terrorists a suit case filled with money. $10,000 dollars i believe. Add into the fact that a lot of the 9/11 report dealing with the saudi's was censored, and i personally begin to wonder about a few things, don't you? Well, I'm wondering what point you're trying to get across. I'm still wondering how this implies any guilt on the President. I'm wondering when you or Phist will ever get around to coming out with whatever you suspect this means. Sure, Cosmo. I'm wondering about a few things.

[Cosmo_ac]

I believe the saudies had more to do with 9/11 then we're being told. Can we say that Bush played some part in covering it up? Nope, not anything that i can produce. Too many things have been censored. It's possible that he didn't. However, i find odd that for some reason, the focus ended up on Iraq, instead of Suadi arabia. I'm not about to say i'm above being wrong. I've been wrong before, and i'll probably be wrong again. However, like the whole Iraq fiasco, something just doesn't wash with me on this. Too many questions without answers.

[MrPartickler]

I'm definitely not a Bush fan, but I and others who feel similarly surely recognize what Moore puts out is really more like a rant. Just a conglomeration of snippets of facts and stories put together to promote controversy. Yes, I'm sure he recognizes controversy sells too. I think we all do.

Still, he does a good job of it, IMHO--obviously, as is evidenced even in the discussion forums here. It, the controversy, makes people ask questions and discuss the issues. One article I read asked a few undecided voters what they thought of the movie. One of them echoed the same sentiment: "it makes you ask questions." I have some gripes with his presentation too, but in that way at least I think it is good. I don't know about others who liked the movie, but I've become too cynical over the years to just swallow anyone's spoon-fed lines--particularly those that have such far-reaching implications--too quickly.

I'll change gears a bit here and just say that nothing is 100%. Something that was obviously 100% true wouldn't be controversial and neither would something that was clearly 100% false. Never mind the fact that it's nearly impossible to conclusively prove anything without all the facts, which frankly no one is likely to ever have. Hence, the debate. There aren't going to be any "smoking gun" memos written and signed by Bush saying, "I tricked the American people...mwahhahaha!" Still, I've read some folks views here that seem to say Moore's stuff is all lies. And others--or perhaps the same folks, not sure--who seem to stand by Bush--a politician--as if he's always told the truth...and I mean the whole truth. That, to me, ridiculously oversimplifies the case.

At least some of the things presented by Moore are just undisputed truths. The "seven-minute pause" (or was it six minutes?) Dubya took after he was told the US was under attack had a friggin' time counter at the bottom of the screen. I've never heard anyone dispute the fact that he just sat there for all that time, listening to the kiddie stories (or whatever) and doing nothing. I've heard it rationalized and I've heard folks dispute Moore's interpretation of it, but I've heard no dispute about it having occurred. (Ok, folks commence Google-searches for the lone web page disputing its occurrence ...nnnnow!) There's minimal editing in the movie during that part. And when I saw it, I honestly felt anxious--like "damn, get up and DO SOMETHING! Umm..they'll understand if you say you're busy and leave." I mean, I'd have excused myself from that silliness if they'd told me my car was being towed. Most of us probably would have as well.

Anyway, that's just a minor nit (to me) actually, but it's pretty damn poignant. And that's just it. There are honestly a bunch of major (or at least semi-major) "nits" in this administration that people are discussing. I just started compiling a list and it's pretty darn long. I mean there's really a lot to choose from when you think about it. They've all been argued about here at one time or another. Heck, some are mentioned in Moore's film too.

Again, I'm pretty cynical, so I (and most others I'd say) usually assume all politicians or almost anyone for that matter will lie to some extent at some time or another. Also, anyone can be wrong at one time or another. Call it incompetence, call it negligence, or call it a "boo boo"--your choice really. So, considering the list of <i>major</i> concerns, my question would be: given that AT LEAST one of these "inconsistencies" is really connected to a lie or cover-up, and AT LEAST one comes from just incompetence and/or negligence and/or a simple screw-up, do you still think that's OK?

Well, that's all. Sorry for rambling. :)

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by drew70
Perhaps it should be, but it isn't. You say this as if it implies some measure of guilt by association on Bush's part. What does the Bush family's business relationships have to do with the terrorists? Are you saying that ALL Arabs are connected with terrorism?

Let me put it this way... If Clinton was the son of a previous president who is tied to various oil companies and who is remarkably friendly to the Saudis, AND who was once the director of the CIA, AND who still has connections that allow him to monitor what the CIA is doing, AND Clinton strangely let a large group of the Bin Laden family out of the country right after 9/11 occurred without so much as 1 question, then... would you still assume Clinton's "innocence?" Simply put, if this were Clinton or any other Democrat doing these kind of things, we'd have already impeached him. We nearly impeached Clinton for perjury; surely, the situation would have been worse if he lied about weapons of mass destruction and wasn't honest in his true motives among the Saudis. What I'm saying, Drew, is that you're conveniently looking the other way just because Bush plays for your team, so to speak. If Bush were a Democrat, you'd probably be even more fervent than myself in your words against him.

[drew70]

From MacPhisto
Let me put it this way... If Clinton was the son of a previous president who is tied to various oil companies and who is remarkably friendly to the Saudis, AND who was once the director of the CIA, AND who still has connections that allow him to monitor what the CIA is doing, AND Clinton strangely let a large group of the Bin Laden family out of the country right after 9/11 occurred without so much as 1 question, then... would you still assume Clinton's "innocence?" "Innocense" with regards to WHAT? You've still not come out and said what you think Bush is guilty of! Is your position so weak you have to dance around it like this? Enough of this innuendo. I can't answer your question until you make your allegations clear.From MacPhisto
We nearly impeached Clinton for perjury; surely, the situation would have been worse if he lied about weapons of mass destruction and wasn't honest in his true motives among the Saudis.I daresay it would, just as it would be worse for Bush if he lied about weapons of mass destruction, which we all know is not true. But this thread isn't about Clinton, is it?From MacPhisto
What I'm saying, Drew, is that you're conveniently looking the other way just because Bush plays for your team, so to speak.Not at all. If he's guilty, he's guilty. That business about the White House letting the Bin Laden family out of the country on September 13th is disturbing, I'll give you that. I'm downloading the 9/11 Commission's final report to see what it says in this regard. But until you come out and actually name a specific crime, there's no "other way" for me to look.From MacPhisto
If Bush were a Democrat, you'd probably be even more fervent than myself in your words against him.Oh, I think you underestimate yourself, Mr MacPhisto. I dare say few could match the ear splitting pitch of your fervency. Give yourself some credit.

[drew70]

Well, it looks like the 9/11 Commission's final report disagrees with Michael Moore's allegations that Bush allowed the departure of Saudi nationals from the United States while all other traffic was grounded.

From Pages 329-330 of the 9/11 Report:
Flights of Saudi Nationals Leaving the United States
Three questions have arisen with respect to the departure of Saudi nationals from the United States in the immediate aftermath of 9/11:
(1) Did any flights of Saudi nationals take place before national airspace reopened on September 13, 2001? (2) Was there any political intervention to facilitate the departure of Saudi nationals? (3) Did the FBI screen Saudi nationals thoroughly before their departure?

First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001. To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.

Second, we found no evidence of political intervention. We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals. The issue came up in one of the many video teleconferences of the interagency group Clarke chaired, and Clarke said he approved of how the FBI was dealing with the matter when it came up for interagency discussion at his level. Clarke told us, "I asked the FBI, Dale Watson ... to handle that, to check to see if that was all right with them, to see if they wanted access to any of these people, and to get back to me. And if they had no objections, it would be fine with me." Clarke added, "I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House."

Although White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card remembered someone telling him about the Saudi request shortly after 9/11, he said he had not talked to the Saudis and did not ask anyone to do anything about it. The President and Vice President told us they were not aware of the issue at all until it surfaced much later in the media. None of the officials we interviewed recalled any intervention or direction on this matter from any political appointee.

Third, we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United States on charter flights. The Saudi government was advised of and agreed to the FBI's requirements that passengers be identified and checked against various databases before the flights departed. The Federal Aviation Administration representative working in the FBI operations center made sure that the FBI was aware of the flights of Saudi nationals and was able to screen the passengers before they were allowed to depart.

The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to their departures. They concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion. Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights.So there you have it. No presidential involvement. The flights took place after the grounding was lifted. And nobody on those flights was connected with terrorism. Michael Moore is once again proven to be full of shit.

[venray]

Mr. P...that was the most intelligent post I have seen in this forum in ages...:D

Mac...Clinton was impeached, just not removed from office. Therefor he was proven to have committed a crime.

Picture this. Saudis, whom we have no reason to believe had anything to do with the attack, are here in the US when the towers get trashed.
We are on friendly terms with their country and have no reason to believe that we should not.(no proof guys)

Given the mindset of the American public at that time, do you honestly believe that we should have refused them safe passage out of the country?

I could see some maniac bigot with a gun smearing their brains on some hotel room wall in the name of "patriotism"..that would have done wonders to fuel the terrorist cause....and further peace in the region....sigh...

What would Clinton have done? Exactly the same thing being the statesman that he was. ( The only thing I actually liked about the man) Though as pointed out by Drew, the White House had nothing to do with arranging the whole thing.....


Ray

[Cosmo_ac]

Though as pointed out by Drew, the White House had nothing to do with arranging the whole thing.....

Did they, or did they not? See, this bothers me a little. Lets take a look at clarks testimony on May 25, 2004.

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.”

Now, this seems clean cut enough. Problem is it contradicts his previous statements, which is odd.



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.”


Now, does this strike anybody else as somewhat odd? I admit, Clark could have had a bad day. Perhaps he simply forgot, i don't know. However, i deffinitly think it's odd.

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


Michael Moore is once again proven to be full of shit.

Drew, it should be noted that the 9/11 commission didn't come out until after Moores movie had, and he certainly wasn't the only person curious about those flights or making accusations.

[drew70]

From Cosmo
Now, does this strike anybody else as somewhat odd? I admit, Clark could have had a bad day. Perhaps he simply forgot, i don't know. However, i deffinitly think it's odd.Dancing...inuendo...insinuations....nothing concrete. Much like Kerry's campaign promises. Cosmo, whenever you decide what blame you can pin on Bush with regards to the Saudi nationals departing the US on 9/13/01, let us know. It sounds like you can't make up your mind.From Cosmo
Drew, it should be noted that the 9/11 commission didn't come out until after Moores movie had, and he certainly wasn't the only person curious about those flights or making accusations.Yes, that's why I refrained from calling him a liar on this count. I said he was full of shit. Shit being misinformation in this context. Without being candid, Bush wasn't the only one saying there were WMD in Iraq, but that didn't seem to stop you from calling him a liar. Oh, but the liberal double standard rears its ugly head yet again.

[Cosmo_ac]

Dancing...inuendo...insinuations....nothing concrete. Much like Kerry's campaign promises. Cosmo, whenever you decide what blame you can pin on Bush with regards to the Saudi nationals departing the US on 9/13/01, let us know. It sounds like you can't make up your mind.

I'm confused drew. You brought this subject up, not i. I mearly pointed out the inconsistancies with Clarkes testimony. Take from it what you will.

Yes, that's why I refrained from calling him a liar on this count. I said he was full of shit. Shit being misinformation in this context. Without being candid, Bush wasn't the only one saying there were WMD in Iraq, but that didn't seem to stop you from calling him a liar. Oh, but the liberal double standard rears its ugly head yet again.

I called Bush a liar when Weapons inspectors found no WMD. Please Drew, if you know where those WMD are, i'd love to hear about it. See, here's the thing. Basically the entire bush Administration said there was no doubt there was WMD in iraq. Yet, there weren't. And there was plenty of evidence to show that the information Bush had was questionable at best. Yet, they proceeded anyway. Because, apparently US intel can't be wrong. However, it was, and horribly so. Do i think Bush lied? Yes. I think he had questionable info, knew it, and lied anyway. Can i prove it? Well, aside from the fact there are no WMD, the accusations Bush had made were being questioned for credibility if not out right being proven wrong, and the UN weapons inspectors found absolutely nothing with the best intelegence the US and Britain had to offer, i can't. I don't think many people could. I've heard theres going to be several investigations, but none that focus on the President or his circle.

[drew70]

From Cosmo
I'm confused drew. You brought this subject up, not i. I mearly pointed out the inconsistancies with Clarkes testimony. Take from it what you will.My mistake, then. I had this crazy idea you were insinuating guilt on the part of the president. From Cosmo
I called Bush a liar when Weapons inspectors found no WMD. Please Drew, if you know where those WMD are, i'd love to hear about it. See, here's the thing. Basically the entire bush Administration said there was no doubt there was WMD in iraq. Yet, there weren't. And there was plenty of evidence to show that the information Bush had was questionable at best. Yet, they proceeded anyway. Because, apparently US intel can't be wrong. However, it was, and horribly so. Do i think Bush lied? Yes. I think he had questionable info, knew it, and lied anyway. Can i prove it? Well, aside from the fact there are no WMD, the accusations Bush had made were being questioned for credibility if not out right being proven wrong, and the UN weapons inspectors found absolutely nothing with the best intelegence the US and Britain had to offer, i can't.Oh, okay. So if Bush's information later turns out to be questionable, you call him a liar. If Michael Moore's propoganda contains proven falsehoods you urge us to "seek out the truths." Go figure. :rolleyes:

[theshire]

cosmo - I'm sure there were truths in Bush's claims - you just have to search for them. :p

[Cosmo_ac]

Moore= 0 deaths

Bush= 11,000-20,000 deaths

A man spinning information to sell a movie is one thing. I man spinning information to invade a country is another. I would hope people can see the difference.

[theshire]

Moore doesn't kill people directly (actualy, neither does Bush), but he does exploit people's pain at the deaths of their loved ones and then sells it to make millions and millions of dollars. The last thing that woman in F911 needed was for that fat fool to come along with a camera and open up old wounds. Michael Moore doesn't give a flying fuck about people's grief; he is interested only in taking advantage of it to make a point and a lot of money.

The People's Champion - was there ever a personal claim more ridiculous?

[New2u]

theshire said, The People's Champion - was there ever a personal claim more ridiculous?

Yes,George W. Bush claiming that he's a leader.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by drew70
"Innocense" with regards to WHAT? You've still not come out and said what you think Bush is guilty of! Is your position so weak you have to dance around it like this? Enough of this innuendo. I can't answer your question until you make your allegations clear.

I'm saying that Bush's family being in power creates a major liability for American leadership due to how the Saudis obviously have very close business dealings with them. When you consider that a large portion of our terrorists come from Saudi Arabia and that many among the Saudi aristocracy are sympathizers to the fundamentalists (through evidence compiled by the same intelligence sources that were investigating the links that Iraq had to Al Quida), that puts the nation in a true security threat situation. Essentially, what I'm saying is that such business relations with Saudi Arabia create a conflict of interests among the Bushes. The President is supposed to protect America, but he can't offend his Saudi friends in the process. The allegation I am making is that Bush is showing favoritism toward suspicious Saudi aristocrats (like the Bin Ladens) to serve his own interests, even if that puts his own country at risk. Now, I'll admit that such behavior is not obliquely illegal, but you have to admit that it's not trustworthy by any means.

I daresay it would, just as it would be worse for Bush if he lied about weapons of mass destruction, which we all know is not true.

What planet are you on, Drew? Even the 9/11 commission showed that there was little to no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. If you say there is and there actually isn't, that's lying.

Oh, I think you underestimate yourself, Mr MacPhisto. I dare say few could match the ear splitting pitch of your fervency. Give yourself some credit.

Perhaps, you're right... it does get tiresome after a while, and what am I really fighting for? There are plenty of people that would agree with your viewpoint, Drew. There's a chance that even a slight majority of the people in this country would rather keep Bush in office than not (at least among those people that actually vote in the first place). I'll tell you what... If Bush wins in about a week, I won't rant here anymore, because I'll be busy trying to leave the country in the fear that a draft will be passed around February. I'm at prime drafting age, and I'd rather not die in a war I don't even agree with...

[drew70]

From MacPhisto
What planet are you on, Drew?A planet you should try visiting from time to time. It's called Earth, otherwise known as the real world.From MacPhisto
Even the 9/11 commission showed that there was little to no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. If you say there is and there actually isn't, that's lying.No. You know as well as I that's not true. If you know there's none and say there is, that's lying. If you believe there is, having been told there is by numerous sources, and later come to discover something else, that's not lying. It's called unintentional misinformation. Besides, no one has proven that there were not WMD's before we attacked, ergo nobody has proved Bush wrong in this case. With the UN dragging their asses for months, Saddam had plenty of time to move them. Oh, but if we consider that, we pull the rug out of Kerry's only campaigning platform. Can't have that, now can we.From MacPhisto
If Bush wins in about a week, I won't rant here anymore, because I'll be busy trying to leave the country in the fear that a draft will be passed around February. I'm at prime drafting age, and I'd rather not die in a war I don't even agree with...Well, you could always desert. If Hilary gets elected in 2008, she'll no doubt grant you full amnesty at which time you can move out of Cosmo's basement and come back home. :blaugh:

[MrPartickler]

Originally posted by drew70
If you know there's none and say there is, that'slying. If you believe there is, having been told there is by numerous sources, and later come to discover something else, that's not lying. It's called unintentional misinformation. Besides, no one has proven that there were not WMD's before we attacked, ergo nobody has proved Bush wrong in this case. With the UN dragging their asses for months, Saddam had plenty of time to move them.

Honestly, I'm not trying to incite anymore pissing matches than are already going on here. But above, in your own words, you concede that this administration <i> at the very least made a mistake </i>--unintentional or not.

For me, no more need be said, because this was (and is) not a small mistake but a very costly one. I'll add that I do think it's fairly naive to believe there were exactly <b>zero</b> lies told before and/or during and/or after such an event. However, even if these politicians were 100% honest, they at least screwed up. Big time. The fact that they cannot admit that and modify their course accordingly (i.e., swallow some pride, admit it, and "flip flop" a bit) is an unforgiveable sin in my book. It means they'll likely keep making the same one(s) in the future. Over and over...perhaps even more costly ones in terms of lives and dollars and broken relationships. (Sure it would likely mean political suicide, and that's why I wouldn't expect it to ever happen.)

Also, no one will ever "prove" Bush wrong in something as complex as this. And there's always wiggle room for folks who refuse to believe the obvious. It becomes like conspiracy theories at some point. I suspect, right up to the point when Clinton finally confessed himself, there were stauch supporters who conceived of <i>other</i> possible ways his semen could've ended up on Monica's dress--without him having been unfaithful the Hillary in the least. Funny, huh?

Aside: "Uninintentional misinformation" btw is a pretty good phrase to soften the impact of something really bad....I'm reminded of phrases like "operational exhaustion" and "wardrobe malfunction". :p

[New2u]

Drew70 said, ...if you know there's none and say there is, that's lying. If you believe there is, having been told there is by numerous sources, and later come to discover something else, that's not lying. It's called unintentional misinformation. Besides, no one has proven that there were not WMD's before we attacked, ergo nobody has proved Bush wrong is this case. With the UN dragging their asses...

Drew, I like that one, "unintentional misinformation". That falls into the catagory of when a politician lies he merely "mis-spoke..." which is a politically user friendly term for "lying". Ronald Reagan (Rest his soul) use to do that all the time. The Bush camp is still using the WMD lie rather "loosely" now even after the report established that Sadaam never really had them. Bush is continuing with this "fear factor" game to scare voters into putting him in for another four years.

[MrMacphisto]

heh... I must've touched a nerve, eh, Drew? Anyway... I think New and MrPartickler have pretty much covered everything I was going to say about the WMD situation, but as for Hillary in 2008... even I admit that's not possible. There's a much better chance that, if Bush gets re-elected, we won't even bother with elections anymore; the Supreme Court will just continue to appoint presidents due to our pathetic inability to count votes correctly and due to the extremely outdated electoral college.

[buggs]

..his film is filled with lies. I emailed him when the 9/11 commission report showed that Bush did not order the familes out before airspace opened, and that it was Richard Clarke. Clarke is a person that Moore feels he can quote unless it is something that shows Moore is making shit up. I email that fat rat bastard whos only job should be to be painted battleship gray and floating over sporting events. In fact, I told him that too. Every time, and no response from old fat liar. So far I have emailed him at his personal email account 12 times this year. This new video tape just shows again that he made up crap just to get rich off of saps like you guys who would believe that fat loser. If this guy wasn't doiong what he is doing now, he wouldn't be working. He has no skills. In fact, the facts show that he lied so much in that film now that I cant wait for him to be sued for slander and Libel and lose every bit of money that he has taken for his lies.

[New2u]

Originally posted by buggs
..his film is filled with lies. I emailed him when the 9/11 commission report showed that Bush did not order the familes out before airspace opened, and that it was Richard Clarke. Clarke is a person that Moore feels he can quote unless it is something that shows Moore is making shit up. I email that fat rat bastard whos only job should be to be painted battleship gray and floating over sporting events. In fact, I told him that too. Every time, and no response from old fat liar. So far I have emailed him at his personal email account 12 times this year. This new video tape just shows again that he made up crap just to get rich off of saps like you guys who would believe that fat loser. If this guy wasn't doiong what he is doing now, he wouldn't be working. He has no skills. In fact, the facts show that he lied so much in that film now that I cant wait for him to be sued for slander and Libel and lose every bit of money that he has taken for his lies.

Those same lawyers who sue Moore can also go after those who've created websites and movies claiming Bill Clinton of "murdering" people who he didn't like. Talk about "liars".

[buggs]

New, I can not make my point in that thread as I need my hard drive as all of the info from sites are not on the web anymore. But the fact is, this is not the thread for that. But Clinton was a card carrying piece of shit. I saw that damn Mike Figgis movie. He left out so many known facts it is rediculous. He is jsut another mouthpiece leaving stuff out, like eye witness testimony from people at the scene of the crime. Clinton killed people< and when I get my hard drive one day, I will make my case in that thread because the fact is that the people saying so have the actual documents showing something was covered up. Documents obtained through the freedom of information act which I have provided links to in that thread. They are unbiased, impartial documents that show corruption. I am sorry you wont allow yourself to see it.

[New2u]

Originally posted by buggs
New, I can not make my point in that thread as I need my hard drive as all of the info from sites are not on the web anymore. But the fact is, this is not the thread for that. But Clinton was a card carrying piece of shit. I saw that damn Mike Figgis movie. He left out so many known facts it is rediculous. He is jsut another mouthpiece leaving stuff out, like eye witness testimony from people at the scene of the crime. Clinton killed people< and when I get my hard drive one day, I will make my case in that thread because the fact is that the people saying so have the actual documents showing something was covered up. Documents obtained through the freedom of information act which I have provided links to in that thread. They are unbiased, impartial documents that show corruption. I am sorry you wont allow yourself to see it.

Ok Buggs, if it makes you happy, Bill Clinton is a Whitehouse "Godfather", I just wonder who'll play the part in the movie version.