Denver Morning News Program -- F911 website for "truth"

[Kanary]

I haven't had a chance yet to go through this website, but I didn't like the tone of the news spot about it, so I thought I'd post it here for anyone who wants to look through this, and get back to Channel 7 about it.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/entertainment/3790278/detail.html

I will also send this on to Michael Moore's website. I know that he had lawyers vet the whole film, so he can probably do something legal if there are "inaccuracies" on this website.

Thanks for taking a look at it.

Kanary

[RoundRockD]

1. Did they have a Bush reasons for Iraq War "truth" website? n/t

[Kanary]

2. Thanks for your input on this website.

[sniffa]

3. so far, so good

what i've cLicked through (it's rather Large) mostLy supports moore's movie. he does admonish for making some Leaps but i haven't seen anything to the extent of "MOORE'S MOVIE NOTHING BUT LIES"

[ET Awful]

4. Agreed.

It's a fairly impartial look overall. It's also fairly well sourced.

I don't agree with some of the sites conclusions, but it's not a hatchet job.

[eleny]

5. I have a different take because it doesn't appear impartial

Click the link to "Donald Rumsfeld's 1983 meeting with Saddam Hussein". It's at the Footnotes site. Here's a quote:

"At the time, Iraq was involved in a war with neighboring Iran, a war that Iraq started with an attack in 1980 and that would go on until 1988. The United States was officially neutral in the Iran-Iraq war, but did saw Iran as more of a threat to U.S. interests. ......

Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran does appear to have been a concern to the United States at the time. Official documents indicate that the United States did know that Iraq had used chemical weapons against Iran and had warned Iraq against doing so as early as November 1983."

My first response was "For crying out loud!". I thought we had everything to do with providing Iraq/Saddham with the technology to fight Iran and were hardly neutral. So right off the bat, Stephen Lee's analysis are off base.

I'll check out more links. And if they're the same wingnut meme flavor that reflects the current administration's "truth", I'll email Channel 7, Stephen Lee and Michael Moore to share my thoughts.

[paulk]

6. in the context of Rumsfeld's meeting with Hussein

I think the website in question is being fair.

The US didn't really become a major war material supplier to Iraq until '84/'85 - after the Rumsfeld/Hussein meeting. Most of Iraq's military used Russian ordinance.

It's interesting to also note that we were supplying Iran with weapons at the same time, ala the "Iran/Contra" affair.

[eleny]

7. I haven't seen yet where they point out...

that Saddham was working with our CIA as far back as the 1950s. So, I still have a bad taste in my mouth about the site.

[Kanary]

8. Good point about the CIA. I also think that needs to be questioned.

If I only had a memory, I would know the answer to this one. :)

Thanks for being "on" this one. It would really rankle me if some website purports to be "impartial" and continues to distort history!

Kanary

[eleny]

9. He became involved with the CIA in the late 50s

Saddham was approached by the CIA to off the Iraqi PM. Here's a link for anyone interested:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r

[paulk]

10. Saddam's involvement with the CIA was the usual

anti - communist thing. When Saddam became dictator, he damned near turned Iraq into a Soviet client state. He was hardly a CIA asset by then, so I don't understand how your post is relevant.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. The very first page I viewed was innacurate

http://www.newsaic.com/f911chap3-2a.html
However one credits Unger's figure, it pales compared to how much the United States has given the Bush family, based on the same principles that Unger applied to calculate his Saudi figure. It is difficult to calculate such a figure precisely, but even conservative estimates would put the figure at several times more than $1.4 billion. Any "investment" by Saudi Arabia into the Bush family and its friends should be compared more fairly against all the money that the United States has similarly "invested," not merely against the salary George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush have earned as president.

The United States government has paid George H.W. Bush a lot of money just for being or having been president. It paid him a total of about $1 million in salary and expenses while president ($200,000 annual salary plus $50,000 annual expenses), another $1-2 million in post-presidential pensions (about $160,000 a year), and about $4 million in post-presidential expenses from 1992 to 2000. It has paid or will pay George W. Bush even more. It will pay him about $1.8 million in salary and expenses assuming just one term as president ($400,000 annual salary plus $50,000 annual expenses), probably millions in post-presidential pensions, and probably millions in post-presidential expenses.


He states we cannot compare what the Bush's got from the Saudi's without comparing what they get from America ( I fail to see the logic) and lists the president's salary as 200,000...the president's salary is $400,000...

http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20010605.html
so I stopped reading.

This guy is supposed to be a lawyer...gues he can't afford any fact checkers for HIS evidence.

[Kanary]

12. Would you be willing to send that part in to Channel 7?

I tried to get Michael Moore's website tonight, and couldn't get to it, so I will have to wait until tomorrow before I can alert Moore to this website. I suspect they probably already know about it, but I'm not going to just make that assumption.

I know that it's just one more in a long line of falsified junk, but I would appreciate it if you could send in at least this part to Channel 7. I know that I and a friend will follow up with Channel 7, but I figure the more mail they get about it the better.

Thanks.

Kanary

[rfrrfrrfr]

13. My problem with

The site is it just lists things out without any relation as to why Moore put things in the film in the first place.

An example is the pre-Iraq footage comments. Moore put that footage in to show that the common Iraqi People are just like you and me. Kids play, people eat diner etc etc etc. And that as bad as things may have been under Sadam that in no way excuses the civilian casualties, and that the Bush administration specifically and the press somewhat have never paid it the proper concern it should.

Any time there is a war innocent civilians will be killed this is a fact and if the thought of innocent people getting killed in a war bothers you so much then maybe you shouldn't go around starting them in the first place. That message is the reason Moore put those scenes in the movie. Not ,as many right wingers try to say, to make life in Iraq seem idillic or great, but to point out that war has its costs and we should be honest about what they are if we intend to use force to resolve an issue.