Skip to comments.More Distortions From Michael Moore
Posted on 06/30/2004 5:59:27 PM PDT by mkj6080
June 30 - In his new movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, film-maker Michael Moore makes the eye-popping claim that Saudi Arabian interests have given $1.4 billion to firms connected to the family and friends of President George W. Bush. This, Moore suggests, helps explain one of the principal themes of the film: that the Bush White House has shown remarkable solicitude to the Saudi royals, even to the point of compromising the war on terror. When you and your associates get money like that, Moore says at one point in the movie, who you gonna like? Whos your Daddy?
But a cursory examination of the claim reveals some flaws in Moores arithmeticnot to mention his logic. Moore derives the $1.4 billion figure from journalist Craig Ungers book, House of Bush, House of Saud. Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the countrys military and National Guard. Whats the significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group, the powerhouse private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board has included the presidents father, George H.W. Bush...
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Indeed, Moore himself has invited the scrutiny. He has set up a Web site and war-room to defend the claims in the movieand attack his critics. (The war-rooms overseers are two veteran spin-doctors from the Clinton White House: Chris Lehane and Mark Fabiani.)
Don't they own the Lowes theater chain? You know, the one that's running this crockumentary??
Another Chris Lehane siting...
I wish that guy would go away....he hates the military and he really hates that we have a President that has the balls to use it like a military should be used....
Unlike to crush the capitalist oppressors which is what his buddies Stalin and Lenin did....
So THAT'S why my liberal in-law was asking about that group.
"Don't they own the Lowes theater chain? You know, the one that's running this crockumentary??"
I'm sorta hung up on "crapumentary"
It seems to me like there should be a lawsuit for libel and slander. Making such serious accusations with no proof ---- or what about suing over defamation of character?
Big deal. The Saudis have invested at least 10 times that much in Time-Warner.
Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball wrote this article in Newsweak? Is the End of the World at hand?
I was surprised too!!! Maybe they see all the attention on Moore as hurting Kerry because he is such a raving lunatic.
A most excellent column
I love seeing Moore's lies exposed for what they are. And by Newsweak no less!
I'm sorta 'fonda' fittingly calling that sleazeball; Michael Mooremanure.
He is nothing but the 21st Century Leni Reifenstahl propagandist for the Islamofascist set.
Michael Moore is an obnoxious creep.
Moorelocks, don't read this article. It will make your head explode.
It is almost imposible and probably counterprodsuctive to sue. Public figures are in a different category when it comes to slander and libel. It's pretty much anything goes.
Yep. I don't know how much it will hurt Kerry- there seem to be a lot of people who don't follow the news very much and don't know how to think critically and might be convinced by Moore's arguments.
If our side gets info out about Moore, that's another matter. As liberal as Kerry is, Moore is much further left.
Moore claims that the war in Afghanistan was about a gas pipeline and not about overthrowing the Taliban. I don't think Kerry would say that; hell, I don't even think Dean would have said that.
On the other hand, a lot of Dems are embracing this guy because he is anti-Bush; never mind his anti-American rants to European audiences, or his conspiracy theories and bogus claims. If it becomes widely known what kind of guy Moore is, and that a lot of Democrats have embraced his movie, then that definitely has the potential to hurt the Dems. But on the other hand, Moore may well embarrass himself. I think/hope he is in the process of doing so through this movie.
It is true that there are still some in the FBI who had questions about the flights-and wish more care had been taken to examine the passengers. But the films basic pointthat the flights represented perhaps the supreme example of the Saudi governments influence in the Bush White House-is almost impossible to defend. Why? Because while the film claimscorrectlythat the White House approved the flights, it fails to note who exactly in the White House did so. It wasnt the president, or the vice president or anybody else supposedly corrupted by Saudi oil money. It was Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism czar who was a holdover from the Clinton administration and who has since turned into a fierce Bush critic. Clarke has publicly testified that he gave the greenlightconditioned on FBI clearance.
Moore has been really hyping up the assertion that Bush gave the order to let the Bin Laden family go, but it was in fact Richard Clarke: a Clinton hold over & fellow traveler who approved of the plan.
That's too bad --- it seems there should be something that limits this kind of thing --- if all voters were smart enough to understand that what they see in movies isn't necessarily true --- but too many people are completely gullible, the see soap operas and believe it's reality.