Michael Moore on the Late Show
 

Did anyone catch Michael Moore on Letterman, Friday night? I have heard quite a bit of discussion in the electronic media about the impending release of Fahrenheit 9/11, and it was interesting to hear from the man in person. It sounds like the documentary is going to really heat up the debate on Bush vs Iraq and bin Laden (as if it wasn't hot enough already).:rolleyes:

Moore made quite a point when he said that the Saudi Royal family and the bin Ladens had donated $1.4 billion to the Republicans, and that the day after 9/11 Bush personally authorised transport for 24 members of the bin Laden family to be flown out of the US. (I'm not implying here that the bin Laden family supports Osama. I don't know one way or the other, whether some members do, or none do. It is the special treatment they received that raises the question.)

Dave's audience seemed to be split pretty evenly in their support of, or opposition to Moore. It sounds like Fahrenheit 9/11 is a very damning indictment of the Bush administration. I just wonder whether it will have sufficient impact to unseat Bush in November. Fahrenheit 9/11 is certainly going to polarise the voters even more than they currently are.

What do you guys think?

Re: Michael Moore on the Late Show
 

Bush is already far into the process of unseating himself in November. Moore's movie is a symptom, not a cause.

The flight which flew bin Ladin family members out happened after the ban on commercial flights was lifted. It was an offer made to many Saudis, not to bin Laden's family specifically. The decision to permit it was made by Richard Clarke.

I did see the interview. To disclose my bias, I'm fairly conservative but have no reservations about trashing Bush when its called for (a lot lately). Having said that, however, Moore both picked up and lost some credibility with me.

His pro-military position (which surprised me) was refreshing and shored him up a bit. But, Moore basically admitted that he has little regard for accuracy in his public positions. Letterman asked him about his Oscar speech about basing the war on a lie and Moore admited without reservation that he had no idea whether or not it was true and took some delight in that (thought it was funny). The short clip they played from the documentary at first blush is very damning - Bush talks tough and presidential about the war on terror then (presumably as soon as the camera is "off") says "Now, watch this drive." This snippet is designed to portray W's position as insincere while nothing could be further from the truth. As wrong as he might be, he is very sincere about what he is doing.

But, what Moore did was juxtapose the two sentences snipping out what came between - the second time I watched it the cutaway was more obvious.

He did the same thing in the Columbine documentary to make it look like Heston was cheering the tragedy.

Moore is a smart guy and he knows how to make a movie. And its difficult to criticise Moore without having it look like I'm supporting W (which I'm not). And that is sort of the problem - Moore could care less about accuracy and believes that the end justifies the means. However, that really undermines his credibility with me.

Letterman asked Moore three separate times if the points he made in the film were refutable. Moore appeared to welcome all conservative challengers yet he will not appear on any conservative show to "defend" himself. I would respect him a lot moore (pun intended) if he would meet with and discuss his film with a Sean Hannity or even a Tim Russert. But he won't.

But, I'm not sorry he made the film and I plan on watching it. And there is much I will learn from it but for me, I take everything he says with a grain of salt. If there is another side to the story, you will never hear it from Moore. I treat conservative talking heads the same way.

Also, in a stunning display of impartiality, the review of Farenheit 9/11 on Fox News website has effusive praise for the film.

Fox News review

And, as an aside, Ray Bradbury is really pissed off about the name ripoff and wants Moore to change the name.

Bradbury not pleased.

Moore said he got the inspiration for the movie from an article that mentioned the bin Laden family's alleged privilege. He indicated that he got the title from the subject line of an email sent to him by a fan shortly after the 9/11 tragedy.

But, what Moore did was juxtapose the two sentences snipping out what came between - the second time I watched it the cutaway was more obvious.

Really? I thought there was no editing--that's not the first time I've seen that clip, they showed it on the Daily Show a couple years ago when it first happened. Granted, the Daily Show edits stuff too, I'm just saying it never looked edited to me.

I missed it the first time also. But there is definitly a cutaway betweeen the sentences. It would not come as a shock if Moore borrowed the entire thing from the Daily Show and just dropped it in. Seems like quite a number of elements in and of the film are not Moore's (the title, the story about the bin Laden family flying privilege (which UT seems to be debunking), and now, the marketing clip of the film).

Well, it looks like Michael Moore might have manipulated the facts a little to suit his own position, but does that mean that he is totally off in his arguments? It certainly did not look good for Bush to be holidaying while his country (and the rest of the western world), was in turmoil. If Clarke really did authorise the flights of the bin Ladens and others, without consulting higher up the ladder, then I suppose that we can't blame Bush for that one, but it still leaves questions about the relationship between the bin Ladens and the Bush administration.

No, not by a long shot. Making a movie to trash W is not difficult - he's low-hanging fruit as the saying goes.

But, all I'm saying is that we should probably refrain from calling Moore's films documentaries and call them what they look like and smell like: propoganda films.

That he ever called them documentaries underscores my point.

From your link:

In the two days immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, the U.S. government allowed bin Laden family members to fly within the country during a general ban on air travel: True.

During that same period the U.S. government allowed bin Laden family members to fly out of the U.S.: Undetermined.


Did you put this link in your bookmarks before it was corrected?

Tim Russert..maybe. Sean Hannity..from what I've heard about him...HELL NO. You think that he wouldn't try to skewer Moore..on his OWN show? I'd bet money on it. That would be like having Moore on Rush Limpballs' show. :mad:

That page was corrected on March 31st. You know UT is always fair and balanced.

Born with a silver spoon.
"Bin Laden was born in Saudi Arabia around 1957 to a father of Yemeni origins and a Syrian mother. His father, Mohammed bin Laden, founded a construction company and with royal patronage became a billionaire. The company's connections won it such important commissions as rebuilding mosques in the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

Mohammed bin Laden took numerous wives and fathered about 50 children. Osama was the 17th son, the only born to a later wife. In a society where status within a family is highly important, bin Laden would therefore have been of relatively low rank.

Bin Laden studied management and economics at King Abdul Aziz University in Jedda, Saudi Arabia, coming under the influence of religious teachers who introduced him to the wider world of Islamic politics."

"Yet, even as he is reviled in the West, bin Laden is a hero in parts of the Islamic world, according to intelligence reports. His organization is called al-Qaeda, "the Base," and has approximately 3,000 followers, which he funds with his estimated $250 million fortune. Experts have said that bin Laden could represent a new trend in terrorism—privatization. Until his emergence, most large-scale terrorist organizations are believed to have been connected to governments. With his money and disciplined followers, however, bin Laden is believed to have the ability to launch even more devastating terrorist attacks. He has not denied that he is seeking nuclear or chemical weapons, saying that it is a religious duty to defend Islam.

Bin Laden has been disowned by most of his family, including a brother, Sheik Bakr Mohammed bin Laden, who has established scholarship funds at Harvard Law School, and the Harvard School of Design. In 1991 his Saudi citizenship was revoked."

The bin Laden family is wealthy and politically connected but can hardly be blamed for the black sheep.

;)

Snopes is good, but they're not authoritative. In this case I saw the issue discussed and the flyout happened after the end of the ban, I'm pretty certain.

As far as the golf shot, I saw it on The Daily Show too. It's pretty silly and irrelevant. It's taken out of the larger context, which is where Bush was on vacation at the time and relentlessly pursued by members of the press. Big effing deal.

A serious challenge to the administration would be that there has been a much deeper disconnect between the press and the administration, that the administration treats the press as seriously hostile and that this disconnect has hurt the administration's ability to communicate effectively with the public.

But Moore doesn't want to seriously challenge. He wants to mock, along with all the other people who want to mock, so that he can make millions of dollars. When asked about his approach he has justified it on the basis of the fact that he makes a mint at it. So I say, buyer beware.

It was your link. ;)

The New Yorker then.

Am I the only one that finds that statement almost hilarious? Seriously. Lock up people for years without access to the legal system and then released most when you realize they're mostly harmless? Sure.

Detain a member of a family that has produced the worlds most wanted terrorist after he launches the biggest every terrorist attack on US soil? That's hostage taking.

Your right, Jag. We should round up every living relative of Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols and Ted Bundy. Yeah, string 'em up and don't forget the pitchforks and torches. :rolleyes:

Wouldn't you at least question them and check them out instead of giving them an express ticket out of extraditeable areas?

I'm sure all the people connected with the 3 you listed were well and truely checked out.

The other bin Ladens were probably already on America's Most Watched list, under continuous surveillance. With all the things the US government has done wrong, you and Moore choose to criticize for something they did RIGHT?

Given that we have known that Osama was not our buddy for going on ten years prior to 9/11 don't you think that maybe we already checked them out? Since they were already in the US, they were probably ALL under at least basic surveillance.

The McVeighs and the McNichols were not known to us for what they were until AFTER the Oklahoma disaster. Big difference.

to further stoke the fire
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123247,00.html

Free news story that will provoke claims of spin doctoring and other hysterics from the Left.

Brian

oh, fox news! I love comedy too.

Since some people are stupid enough to think they report say, news for example maybe you should try reading the PDF of the document they claim supports those links. The document clearly states that the intel is based on the claims of defectors - the same people who the CIA based their evidence that Iraq has stacks of WMD on. They have been shown to have lied and vastly exagerated as well as be dangerously out of date t push their own agendas. Secondly, the reports there of Al-Queda members having been in bagdhad is based on intel that has since been discarded due to unreliability. Thats what happens when you try and base a bit of hysteria on a 2 year own document. But hey, you read fox news, it's not like critical thinking is encouraged.

As opposed to Michael Moore's "documentaries."

I don't watch them either.

Michael Moore is to liberals what Ann Coulter is to conservatives.

Only I have no desire to do Michael Moore.

The really damning bit from the Fox News link, which wasn't really Fox News per se but Bill O'Reilly, was the Putin bit. Just in case you don't trust that bit of news coing from Fox, here it is presented by CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...ussia.warning/

How about the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3819057.stm

The AP where it originated:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...iraq&e=4&ncid=

You might enjoy this piece written by UT.

Originally posted by Undertoad Bullshit. Everyone knows that CNN and the BBC are little more than W's handpuppets.

:)

You've obviously been spending too much time at the office, lately. :)

Get a grip.

This says it all:
They can scream is as loud as they want, it doesn't make it any more true. It never made sense, it was enver backed up by credible evidence at any point and that has not changed today.

Furthermore, the BBC article doesn't make much sense:

Putin says they warned of PLANS to attack, but did not connect actual PAST attacks to Iraq.

Where do the Mohammed Atta / Prague meetings sit in all this?

Originally posted by Undertoad You still aren't getting it, UT. After we foiled Saddam's assassination attempt on Bush 41, he turned over a new leaf. Putin is just coming up with stuff to distract from the war in Chechnya. :)

Seriously, tho - I think its interesting that, when facing nearly unbearable pressure to justify the Iraq war, W chose not to disclose the information Putin provided to him. Had Putin not disclosed it, I doubt we ever would have known. I wonder what else he's not disclosing - perhaps from sources not as willing or able to go public as Putin did.

I'd say fuck all, if they had something we'd know about it, they're busy pandering half-lies as loudly as they can as it is. Remember this is the same administration that burnt a CIA officer and an entire operation in the wild doing WMD investigations because they didn't like what her husband said, I doubt they'd give a damn about protecting sources if there was political advantage.


fixed a few typos in edit.

What I got from Putin's statements was that Iraq (Saddam) was also planning attacks on the US and the "War on Terror(ists)" didn't end with Afghanistan. Not that there was a corroboration between Osama and Saddam.;)

Re: to further stoke the fire
 

That's not a news story. That's Bill O'Reilly, who freely admits that he isn't a journalist. Sometimes.

You're assuming Putin's information existed before the Iraq war.

He said between 9-11 and the start of the war.:)

As much as I am against the war in Iraq, and disbelieve 99% of what the Bush administration, the Blair administration, and my own Aussie administration say in justification of Iraq, most of the "informed" comment I heard over the weekend from very experienced journalists, cast strong doubt over the validity of Putin's claims. Don't forget that he has not presented any evidence to back up his claim, yet, and is not likely to.

I would like to debate Bush's credibility just as much as anyone else, but I think we have to be fair. There is enough damning evidence against him anyway, without having to rely on Putin.

And don't forget that it is unlikely that Saddam would have been in a position to take any action against the US. We now know that pretty much all of his rhetoric was just bluster. He really did not have the resources to do anything of any consequence against the US, and as much as Saddam hates the US, it is extremely unlikely that he would resort to terrorism.

He had enough money on him in his hidey hole, to do a lot of damage. It's a matter of whether he had the balls.:)

Before the war it would have been against his "sense of honour" (don't say it, I know, I know...), to take action that was anything other than direct - eg. a military strike against the US. After the war he might have become so desperate that he would have accepted assistance from anyone (eg. terrorists), but it looks like he did not follow through on that avenue (if he ever thought of it in the first place).

Saddam believed in direct action, and saw himself as a heroic fighter, mounted on his stallion, swinging a sword above his head. I think I remember seeing a painting in one of his palaces that showed exactly that image.

Saddam's style would have been to take his army across the oceans, in his vast navy, and invade the infidels, and sack DC.

And pay a reward to suicide bombers.:p
Oh,...and where was he when they invaded Kuwait?

I must admit that I forgot that it was alleged that he had paid people to kill the "invaders", but this was after the fact. We are talking about what he was proposing to do *before* the war, not after.

Kuwait was a conventional military campaign. Sure, Saddam did not lead his troops into battle, but he saw himself as a great general, fighting a justified battle (remember, he believed that he had tacit approval of the US to invade Kuwait - right or wrong, that is what he believed).

Look, I don't want to come across as a Saddam lover. The guy is a scum bag of the first order, and he should be shot daily for the rest of eternity for his crimes against his people.:rattat:

I was thinking of paying Pals to blow up Jews.
Yes, he was a major scumbag.
Yes, any connection between him and Osama is tenuous at best and not the reason for the war, no matter what Bush claims.
Also, this is just one small point in the movie, which this thread is about.:beer:

I know - I started this thread, remember? :rolleyes:

According what Moore told Letterman, the doco is about the justification for the war, and how the US handled the war and its aftermath. That's what we are discussing, isn't it? :confused:

Yeah, but just one point. I must be dumb because I never got the impression that there was a connection between 9-11 and the war, from W or anyone else. I always thought it was because they're bad guys also, so lets get them before they get us too.:)

You are kidding, right?

I mean...really Bruce, you are a kidder from way back. You're not serious are you? :eek:

No, that is not what he believed. He informed US officials that he was bluffing and had no intention of invading. Then, he invaded. His intentions were to catch the world with its guard down and it worked. At no time did the United States sanction an invasion that was clearly contrary to its interests.

As a heart attack. I knew Osama's history and his Afghan, Sudan and Saudi connections. If anyone made a 9-11/ Iraq connection I must have dismissed it subconsciously, knowing it was farfetched. I heard a lot of other reasons but not that one.:)

edit-I should clarify that I’ve heard the accusation that W made that connection. Shit TW was saying that before the hostilities actually started. But I never heard anyone in the administration make that claim.

No, that's not what Moore said to Letterman (I was glued to the TV throughout the interview). As I pointed out earlier in this thread, Moore got the idea for the propoganda film (its not a documentary) from an article in the New Yorker that he read immediately after 9/11.

What pissed Moore off was the allegation (presented as a fact in the article - not unlike Moore's movies) that the bin Laden family were given a free pass to fly when all other planes were grounded. Moore had to drive from LA to New York (his flight was cancelled) so he had a chip on his shoulder about it.

While the Iraq war figures prominently in the film, it was not the justification for the film (notice also the film title).

IMHO, Bush was looking for a reason to invade Iraq and 9/11 gave him perfect cover (or so he thought). I agree, however, that the Saddam-Al Queada link was not the primary justification.

But, its Moore's fictional, Oliver Stone-like work that we are discussing and not the war itself.

I did not say that they did, just that Saddam believed it. He thought that if he invaded, the world would sit back and say OK. I know that the US would never agree to that.

If that link was the primary justification, who said it and when or was it just alluded to?:confused:

You are correct. I got a little carried away. Sorry. :(

Don't be sorry, it's your thread and you can lead it anywhere you want,:D

The primary justification as I recall was WMD and the letter that some dude at the CIA wrote up at Kinko's supposedly confirming Saddam's purchase of Nigerian yellowcake - a theory about as sound as those Nigerian spam mails I get. :rolleyes: The letter was signed by a Nigerian diplomat. Problem is, that diplomat retired some three years prior to the date of the letter (god help us).

Bush laid the groundwork for the attack in his State of the Union address and I'd be hard pressed to find the Saddam-Osama link in its text. It was pretty well known that Osama didn't care much for Saddam since he's not much of a Muslim and ran a secular government. Now, the idea that Atta met up with an Iraqi intel agent gained some traction in the talk show curcuit but I don't think that had much to do with it.

Basically, justification be damned, I think W's mind was made up probably before he took office and he was just looking for an excuse and he was dumb enough to believe those clowns who advise him.

Plus they were part of the axis of evil.;)

edit- Hey I wonder if that's the same Nigerian that left all the money I'm gonna get.:)

I wasn't correcting you. Sorry if it came off that way. :blush:

That lecturer title UT gave me is going straight to my head :)

So right now Bush's best arguments for the war came from an ex-Iraqi whose offices authorities recently raided and an ex-KGB officer/politician who is reintroducing Russia to authoritarian rule (and who probably helped Bush draft the Patriot Act).

OK, the last bit is just a wild guess, but what do you think Bush and Putin talk about? I wouldn't be surprised if Bush isn't exchanging lessons in running a democracy for ones in stifling dissent and intimidating opponents.

He says now that he said it then. At the time, there was no hint he had said it.