Reply #5: Here's a long response I gave to a freeper at a UK site

[noahmijo]

(Hey I notice I was used in an example given by splinter down there! cool I feel spay-cial!)
:)

Anyways here ya go. (My words in bold


Do people on this forum REALLY believe that the President was involved in 9/11, or that he had enough intelligence beforehand to prevent it? And if you believe he could have prevented it with sterner pre-emptive action, does this not contradict your views on the patriot act and the war in Iraq?


I'm not one of the conspiracy theorists that believe the "President" secretly ordered the attacks on 9/11. However that's not to say that he can't be held accountable for what happened that day. Moore's movie implies and outright states that Bush ignored the warnings from the previous Clinton administration concerning the build up of an Al-Queda threat. This is just one example:


"Last week, the FBI acknowledged the existence of a memo written last summer in which an agent in its Phoenix, Arizona, office urged his superiors to investigate Middle Eastern men who had enrolled at American flight schools and who might be connected to bin Laden.
.
The Phoenix memo, along with the disclosure this past week that President George W. Bush was warned in August of the possibility that Al Qaeda might be planning hijackings, have been seized on by lawmakers as evidence that the government may have bungled the chance the prevent the Sept. 11 terror attacks."


Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/58146.html>http://www.iht.com/articles/58146.html



Do the people on this forum realise that the 9/11 enquiry praised Bush for sitting in that classrom?


Actually they "praised" Bush for not alarming the children. This however is really more of an opinion. It's true that there was no need for Bush to bolt up and run out to "get something done" However, at the same time sitting there with a puzzled look is hardly the sort of behavior one would seek in a leader during a time of crisis.

What would I have done? very simple ::in the calmest voice I could muster:: "Kids Mr or Mrs X (insert teacher's last name here) is going to finish reading this to you okay? My friend over here (aide) needs to speak to me about something really important okay? part of being the president means I have to be ready to tend to important things at all times sort of like those of you whose daddies are firemen or doctors."

:::walk out calmly while keeping a positive look:::

There how hard would that have been?


Do people on this forum believe that links to the large westernised Bin Laden family (who disowned their son Osama years ago) can be used to make some sort of unspecified claim about the president and 9/11


This is what Micheal Moore essentially portrayed in the movie based off this fact:


"Cannistraro, the former C.I.A. antiterror expert, believes that many family members have cut off all contact with Osama, and revile his tactics. But there is also, he suggested, "an interconnectedness" among others in the family which frustrates and tantalizes American investigators. He told me that as recently as nine months ago an allied intelligence agency had seen two of Osama's sisters apparently taking cash to an airport in Abu Dhabi, where they are suspected of handing it to a member of bin Laden's Al Qaeda organization."

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?011112fa_FACT3>http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?011112fa_FACT3

Now assuming you're right they all cut off ties with the Bin Laden family because they are/were ashamed of him and his ways.

That means they should've been more than willing to step forward and help the government out in capturing him then right? instead they flee? something doesn't add up here....

The point Micheal is trying to make here is to show the hypocracy of the Republican right. It would not have damaged anyone's civil liberties to have questioned the family members. But to arrange it so that they got free flights to Paris when the rest of us were grounded, planes carrying vital organs for dying patients weren't even allowed to fly, but if you are a relative of who the suspected mastermind behind the terror attacks you get a free flight to Paris!

What kind of message is that exactly? As Moore asked "What would've happened to Clinton had he ordered McVeigh's family to be flown out of the country prior to the Oklahoma City bombing?"


Do you realise that Moores source on Saudi connections could not be published in the UK because of a 'higher burden of proof'?


Well this isn't Moore's source necessarily, however even over there in the UK it (similar sources) was published at least once



"FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11.

US intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale failure to predict the catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But some are complaining that their hands were tied.

FBI documents shown on BBC Newsnight last night and obtained by the Guardian show that they had earlier sought to investigate two of Osama bin Laden's relatives in Washington and a Muslim organisation, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), with which they were linked.
They said the restrictions became worse after the Bush administration took over this year. The intelligence agencies had been told to "back off" from investigations involving other members of the Bin Laden family, the Saudi royals, and possible Saudi links to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan"


Source http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4293682,00.html>http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/...4293682,00.html

Show me your sources for this and your other claims.


Do they realise that Hizbolla (a Palestinian terrorist group) wanted to distribute this film?



Here's a point though.


The claim of Hezbollah backing was based on a gossip column item in The Guardian newspaper, which in turn cited a story printed in trade publication Screen International."


Source: http://www.tiscali.co.uk/news/newswire.php/news/reuters/2004/06/19/entertainment/fahrenheit911firespoliticaldebate.html&template=/entertainment/templates/newswire/entertainment_news_story.html>http://www.tiscali.co.uk/news/newswire.php...news_story.html

So it's actually a claim from one source to another probably from another....in other words there's no definite proof here it sounds like a he said she said issue...

Moore himself denied that Hezbollah endorsed the film during his interview with Howard Stern, and dismissed it as a rather kooky theory.

The right wing radio talk show hosts though however are doing everything they can to spread this "fact" around as gospel.

They send their thanks to you for your help.



Do they realise that 29% of Bushes supposed 'vactions' were actually weekends?


LOL oh where did you hear this one?? I gotta know where you heard this one.


By the time President Bush returns to Washington on Labor Day after the longest presidential vacation in 32 years, he will have spent all or part of 54 days since the inauguration at his parched but beloved ranch. That's almost a quarter of his presidency.

Throw in four days last month at his parents' seaside estate in Kennebunkport, Maine, and 38 full or partial days at the presidential retreat at Camp David, and Bush will have spent 42 percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route.


Source: http://www.dke.org/haginranch.html>http://www.dke.org/haginranch.html


And his use of juxtoposition of children flying kites, then scenes of war are a kick in the teeth to Iraqi's considering the REAL pre-war situation in Iraq...


Okay this one I can say I half agree with you.However the point of these scenes was to show that Iraqis were people just like us. Too often in our media all we see are the "bad" Iraqis so the notion of "just bomb them all" sinks in far too easily especially for an unjust war.

I believe Moore showed us these scenes in order to humanize the Iraqi people and point out how they take part in activities that are not all that different of your average American.

Ultimately the only thing Moore is guilty of is clever editing in which for example he shows you a grieving mother, and then immediately after Bush claiming that he "doesn't understand what it's like to lose a child"

Now did those two events really happen one after another? no. But did they really happen? yes.
Moore takes these two scenes puts them together to really enhance the emotional impact. It's to better put the audience in the shoes of those suffering.

Ultimately the movie is full of facts, and the reason why this movie is being attacked (yet interestingly not sued for slander by the Bush admin) is because the right wing in this country knows this movie is exposing the truth behind their precious emperor and that the truth will not be silenced.