[ER]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

I am for one, glad that at least SOMEONE asks questions or puts the screws to those in charge to ask basic questions to our government.

Man, you're absolutely right. I would hope there would be lots and lots of accountability for everyone who's in charge. The problem is, I believe Michael Moore has more of an agenda and less of a patriotic duty. He's voiced his ultra-Liberal opinion enough to show that he's not going to be happy with anyone to the right of him. Even many Democrats are distancing themselves from him.

The fact that Bush has been scrutinized is great. We shouldn't allow any sitting President to lead us into a conflict (well, I'd say we were brought into it by Al Queda) without asking lots of questions. The reason why people like Moore can be such a thorn is the general Liberal response to Bush. There's Hollywood, the media, Daschle, Hillary, Moore, etc, etc. The list goes on. It wasn't "Hey, we need some answers here". First it was, "Yeah Saddam has WMD - we all know that". Then it was, "We don't know if he has them or not", followed by "Bush is only doing this for re-election", then "War for oil!!!", etc, etc. The problem was, there was never any substantial evidence for the majority of their claims and they simply moved on to the next oppositional block when the previous one wore out. It was vile. Moore (along with the rest of Hollywood) wasn't any different, and given his spin with Columbine, well...you get the idea. Lost in all of that most likely were the sane and reasonable Liberal voices who could have raised what they felt were legitamite concerns.

[asiliat]

how does one go to prove that flights were not grounded for Bin Laden's family?

[Baketech]

None of this is secret or swept under the rug....

Richard Clarke testified before the 9/11 Commission that he authorized the flights, and Bush was not in that decision tree.

The 9/11 Panel with access to all the information found no mischief here....so how does Moore?

Simple....by giving his listener half the facts to make them appear more sinister than they really are. Then he cloaks it by making you think that he is the altruistic crusader asking "tough" questions of the "evil" government. This bonds his listener and distracts them from asking questions themselves....like Moore's motives...

Sometimes he is skillful at this, and sometimes not....


BTW...
Just because someone refutes Moore, does not mean they agree with Bush on every issue....why is this concept so hard to understand for some...

[BDA116]

Another question: Why did moore harp on the gun industry in his Columbine propaganda "film", but not get into how and why the klinton administration didn't do anything to stop it, or the lists of facts about the attack that were mostly kept from the masses?
Yet in his newest bullshit left wing extremist propaganda "film", he goes after the administration rather than the industry and groups that not only committed the attacks, but drive them to do so?
Could it be he has an agenda for his twisting of fact, not because he is the 'altruistic crusader' (nice wording there Bake) he claims to be?

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by ER

Well, check the first question. O'Reilly pointed out that Bush was acting on intelligence from three different sources - the CIA, the Brits, and the Russians. While he may have been misinformed (I don't think he was, personally), he wasn't lying. He was acting in information given to him from reputable sources. Regardless, Moore maintains that he's a liar period. Kudos to him for going on Bill's show, but he's wrong and he's misleading.

I caught that part...but neither one could break the stalemate, so it was a wash imho....

He pulled the same stunts in his mockumentary about Columbine as he has in 9/11, from what I've heard.

I like to think that while Columbine was a "mockumentary", Fahrenheit is a "crockumentary"....

[Baketech]

Hate to drag this thread back on topic, but it looks like the GOP has decided to fight fire with fire, and have released a documentary video that chronicles John Kerry's "evolving" stance on Iraq.

GOP Produces Video of Kerry on Iraq

SNIPPED
Using video clips of Kerry discussing Iraq on various talk shows, the Republican National Committee (news - web sites) has put together an 11-minute video that traces how Kerry struggled with the issue of Iraq through 2003 and early 2004 as he competed for — and finally won — the Democratic presidential nomination.


Republicans publicly unveiled the video Wednesday morning and sent it by e-mail to about 8 million supporters.


GOP officials also were pondering how to make the video, produced by Laura Crawford of the Texas firm Crawford Creative, available to the general public.


"I reached out to Miramax and asked them if they would consider using it," Republican national Chairman Ed Gillespie said, referring to the film company that initially had the rights to the anti-Bush movie Fahrenheit 9/11 and was involved in finding a distributor. Gillespie suggested the Kerry video could be a "a trailer to Fahrenheit 9/11."


In the video clips, Kerry gradually shifts from harsh anti-Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) rhetoric in 2001 and 2002 to more cautious comments about Iraq in late 2003 and then to anti-war comments by early 2004.


"We've all reached a judgment the United States has to protect its interests," Kerry says on one talk show in early 2002. Saddam "may even slide these weapons off to terrorist groups, it's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat," he says on a September 2002 talk show.


The video reminds that Kerry voted in October 2002 to authorize President Bush (news - web sites) to use force.


Through 2003 and early 2004, Kerry became more cautious and talked against the war, as problems grew in Iraq and his primary campaign against anti-war candidate Howard Dean (news - web sites) became more intense.
SNIPPED

Apparently the 11 minute video was released today...but I cannot yet find a copy.
Anyone have a link?

[BDA116]

Bake, check out www.rnc.org it's right there on the front page.

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by BDA116

Bake, check out www.rnc.org it's right there on the front page.

Yeah, but you gotta register....and you know that's just John Ashcrofts way of getting your name so he can kick your door in with his jack-booted goon squad....

[BDA116]

I've never registered there, and I'm watching it right now.

[Baketech]

OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just watched the video....

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Baketech

None of this is secret or swept under the rug....

Richard Clarke testified before the 9/11 Commission that he authorized the flights, and Bush was not in that decision tree.

The 9/11 Panel with access to all the information found no mischief here....so how does Moore?

Simple....by giving his listener half the facts to make them appear more sinister than they really are. Then he cloaks it by making you think that he is the altruistic crusader asking "tough" questions of the "evil" government. This bonds his listener and distracts them from asking questions themselves....like Moore's motives...

Sometimes he is skillful at this, and sometimes not....


BTW...
Just because someone refutes Moore, does not mean they agree with Bush on every issue....why is this concept so hard to understand for some...

As for the issue of who approved the flight, this appears to be at least at one level a question of semantics. Michael Moore's film claims that the White House "approved" the flights:

Narration: It turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis.
and backs it up from a quote from Richard Clarke's testimony in front of the 9/11 Commission:

Former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke has testified that he approved these flights, stating that "it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House." Testimony of Richard Clarke, Former Counterterrorism Chief, National Security Council, before The Senate Judiciary Committee, September 3, 2003.
So Moore doesn't dispute that Clarke nominally approved the request but also argues that the White House played a role in the approval process. Hitchens, however, refers to Clarke's more recent statement in an interview to the Hill:

“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.”

If Clarke's response in the Hill interview is correct then this would validate Hitchens, but surely there is at least some doubt now about White House involvement given Clarke's earlier testimony (cited by Moore) and the White House's unwillingness to comment on this. Again, all the White House has to say is that it was arranged and approved solely by Clarke in consultation with the FBI.

Until the White House speaks up on this, I think that Moore still has a case.

Ever heard of the term scape'goat"? And what in world does Kenneth Starr have to do with any of this? I see no comparison. I simply stated I don't despise Moore or call him an idiot for what he's done, OR CALLED ANYONE ELSE AN IDIOT BECAUSE THEY WATCHED THE FILM AND QUESTIONED SOME THINGS THAT HAPPENED. Some of you are way too high up on your pedestals. As my friend who hates the Republicans says, "life is like a box of chocolates..."

And btw,

Originally Posted by Baketech

None of this is secret or swept under the rug....

You sir, are the government's perfect model American citizen.

[Baketech]

Insult me all you want...


But meanwhile answer the question of why the 9/11 panel found no mischief?

[BDA116]

I posed questions that are completely relevant, but questions leftist would never answer.
You stated

I respect that he has the balls to question OUR government

My comparison apples to apples. What do you think of those like Starr (and more than half the country) when they questioned the last president?
Why is that so hard for you to answer?

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Baketech

Insult me all you want...


But meanwhile answer the question of why the 9/11 panel found no mischief?

I didn't mean to insult you, well... I really did, but now I'm sorry.

Myself, I still have a lot of questions on that whole incident. Why did we honor this evacuation request in the first place? WE HAD JUST BEEN ATTACKED!!! Why did George Bush, oops, I mean Clarke, believe that Saudi's were in danger? No terroist had really claimed responsibilities for the attack to that point. Who did the Saudi's ask, specifically? Why BinLaden relatives? I don't know why the 911 Commision found no mischief. I don't know.

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

I didn't mean to insult you, well... I really did, but now I'm sorry.

Myself, I still have a lot of questions on that whole incident. Why did we honor this evacuation request in the first place? WE HAD JUST BEEN ATTACKED!!! Why did George Bush, oops, I mean Clarke, believe that Saudi's were in danger? No terroist had really claimed responsibilities for the attack to that point. Who did the Saudi's ask, specifically? Why BinLaden relatives? I don't know why the 911 Commision found no mischief. I don't know.

They are supposedly a non-partisan panel with complete access. How can I, as a citizen second guess them when I only have bits and pieces?

Yes, I think it's healthy and responsible to question them, and hold them accountable. However it's a completely different thing to subscribe to an undocumented conspiracy theory.

Yes we should question their results...but imho it's our civic responsibility to not predicate our opinion based upon a movie.

[nomad]

Originally Posted by Baketech

Insult me all you want...


But meanwhile answer the question of why the 9/11 panel found no mischief?

This is coming from a guy that changes peoples names to insult them as part of his argument... And then uses the ignore list so he doesn't have to listen to other opinions.

[Kuss929]

Interesting video.
Can anyone really be surprised? Really now. Politician. Behind the poles. Losing everywhere cause you are for the war. Go against the war win more votes. Done. These people sold their souls so long ago that they can stand up for anything. If only more people who watched porn voted

[nomad]

Was this one of the movie promo T's?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...acs10507290317

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by BDA116

I posed questions that are completely relevant, but questions leftist would never answer.
You stated
My comparison apples to apples. What do you think of those like Starr (and more than half the country) when they questioned the last president?
Why is that so hard for you to answer?

I'm still not seeing the apples to apples. Starr and Clinton and the cum spot on the dress multi-million dollar investigation deal? Clinton disgraced the entire nation, and the whole "what really IS sex?". It was a huge fiasco that we already knew what he did. Waste of time and money. I don't understand the comparison. Sorry.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Baketech

They are supposedly a non-partisan panel with complete access. How can I, as a citizen second guess them when I only have bits and pieces?

Yes, I think it's healthy and responsible to question them, and hold them accountable. However it's a completely different thing to subscribe to an undocumented conspiracy theory.

Yes we should question their results...but imho it's our civic responsibility to not predicate our opinion based upon a movie.

I watched some of the 911 commision hearings on CNN, or as long as I could stomach it. Dr. Rice's testimony was laughable at best. Hell, my head was spinning from some her looooong way around "answers".

Example;

"Ms Rice, did you or did you not receive a memo in August stating that intel has it that terrorist are currently planning to hijack passenger airplanes and fly them into US landmarks, including the Whitehouse?"

Rice: "it wasn't a memo, it was just a, a...you know, we all feel horrible about the tradegy and terrorism is now crossing barriers....Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. ..and we did the best we could, but had no warning to prepare."

"Ms Rice, again, didn't you pass on this memo to the President, warning him in August, that the US may be very close to being attacked by terrorist, using our airlines against US targets?"

Rice: "Well, I wouldn't call it a memo. It was simply a note. A piece of paper with some scribbling on it. Maybe some recommendations or plan of action or something like that. Definately not a memo though."

"So, you did give 'something' to the president about the possible terrorist plot?"

Rice: "No, I don't recall a quote, memo, unquote, you see, we all feel horrible about what happened on..."

[Baketech]