SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (9547)6/20/2004 6:07:45 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
When Bush-Bashers Collide? Moore's Film at Odds with Clarke Remarks
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
June 01, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - One of the central charges made by left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore in his upcoming, Bush-bashing film is being undermined by another critic of the president -- former White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke.
Moore's upcoming film, Fahrenheit 911, points to President Bush's rumored relationship with Saudi officials as the motivating factor in the president allegedly allowing relatives of terror mastermind Osama bin Laden to fly out of the country following the Sept.11, 2001 terror attacks.
But Clarke recently admitted that he alone approved the exit of the bin Laden kin -- damaging the key premise of Moore's film.
Chris Horner, a GOP strategist, finds irony in the fact that the credibility of Moore's film is being undermined by one of Bush's biggest critics even before the film is released in the United States.
"When self-promoting, Bush-hating conspiracy theorists collide," Horner said of Moore and Clarke.
"One self-promoting, Bush-hating conspiracy theorist (Clarke) proves the undoing of another Bush-hating conspiracy theorist (Moore)," Horner told CNSNews.com.
Moore has alleged in interviews promoting the film that Bush and his father, former president George H.W. Bush, had close ties to the Saudis, which led to the decision to help bin Laden's family leave the country following the terrorist attacks.
Clarke's sworn testimony before the 9/11 Commission in March, describing how the FBI approved the flights for the bin Ladens and other Saudis to leave the U.S., may have strengthened that premise. But Clarke's interview with The Hill newspaper, published on May 26, contradicted that previous testimony.
The decision to approve the flights, Clarke admitted last week, had been his own. The request "didn't get any higher than me," he told The Hill .
"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," Clarke said of the plane flight carrying bin Laden's relatives.
"I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I'd do it again," he added. The Saudis and bin Laden's relatives were flown from the U.S. out of fear for their safety following the terror attacks.
Clarke turned against the Bush administration and became a darling of the left earlier this year when he criticized the government's anti-terror policies. His book Against All Enemies : Inside America's War on Terror , detailed his frustrations working in the administration, and news clips of Clarke appear in Moore's documentary, according to film critics who have screened the movie.
But Moore's film relies in part on Clarke's original comments, the ones he has now contradicted.
According to a movie review by the BBC, one of the film's "chief accusations is Bush allowed planes to pick up 24 members of the bin Laden family and fly them out of the U.S. in the days following the attacks - when all other aircraft were grounded."
The BBC review states that the movie explores "the relationships between the Bush and bin Laden dynasties."
Fahrenheit 911 received a 10-minute standing ovation and the top award at the Cannes Film Festival in France in May. It is expected that the film will be released in the U.S. in July.
While promoting the documentary, Moore has not been shy in linking Bush's alleged "relationship" with the bin Laden family to the flight that took the bin Ladens and other Saudis from the U.S. following Sept. 11, 2001.
"So here is Bush trying to deal with everything on Sept. 11, 12 13th, you know. You remember, everybody remembers the total state of chaos and people, just everyone, all of us, discombobulated by the whole thing, and he had the time to be thinking -- what can I do to help the bin Ladens right now," Moore told Pacifica radio last October.
"And all of these elaborate plans were made, because [the Saudis] were spread out throughout the country, to be able to pick them up, get them to Boston and then get them to Paris," Moore said.
"While we are being told that the hunt is on for Osama bin Laden, what is really going on is when you got 24 bin Ladens here, (a disputed number) you know, none of them are asked for any kind of help. None of them are interrogated, and they are given the royal red carpet treatment in the days after September 11th. My question is why? What is really going on here?" Moore asked.
But Horner believes Moore's film will eventually be discredited.
"In his rush to ensure that no credit goes un-annexed, Clarke exposes Moore's rant as based on paranoia and the presumptions common among fever-swamp liberals that never survive the slightest encounter with facts," he said.
Horner sees Clarke's admission and its impact on the credibility of Fahrenheit 9/11 as just the latest setback for what he calls the "conspiratorial left" in the past year.
"First [former Democratic presidential candidate] Howard Dean implodes in a fury. Then Clarke bombs, and then the [Al] Franken/[Al] Gore political MoveOn-ment (MoveOn.org) lashes itself to the hilariously hapless [global warming disaster film] The Day After Tomorrow . And then there is the collective failure of [the liberal] Air America radio," Horner explained.
"Now Moore's movie's premises are revealed to be nothing more than huffing liberal anger. Every weapon in the pacifist arsenal has proven, fittingly, a dud," Horner charged.



To: American Spirit who wrote (9547)6/20/2004 6:42:04 PM
From: Orcastraiter  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
Moore's new film will show us exactly what Bush was up to as we were being attacked on 9-11.

Are you talking about sitting in the classroom...paralyzed. Funny thing is that the President's visit to that school was well publicized, and there could have been suicide attackers at the school. He should have been up and moving to secure location...instead he sits there putting the children at risk as well.

If there's any spin, just take it out and study the factual footage. The footage is the center piece for sure. Even Moore said today on "This Week" that the movie is an op-ed piece. I don't even think that he thinks of it as a documentary, though that is the genre of this type of film...but Moore said that it was a comedy as well as a shocking expose on 9-11 and Bush.

I'm definitely going to see this movie.

What we will all see is a president who had no clue as to how to protect this country, and didn't seem to even care.

AS those are pretty strong words. While I agree about the first part...I do think that Bush cares. His methods are crude and ineffective though. He cares, but he does not know how to lead in difficult circumstances, and his administration has fallen short in critical areas of assessment and prescription of actions.

Orca



To: American Spirit who wrote (9547)6/20/2004 8:27:31 PM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 90947
 
Moore made up an interview with Fred Barnes in his book:

Michael Moore and Me
From the May 31, 2004 issue: An encounter with the Cannes man.
by Fred Barnes
05/31/2004, Volume 009, Issue 36


A FEW YEARS AGO Michael Moore, who's now promoting an anti-President Bush movie entitled Fahrenheit 9/11, announced he'd gotten the goods on me, indeed hung me out to dry on my own words. It was in his first bestselling book, Stupid White Men. Moore wrote he'd once been "forced" to listen to my comments on a TV chat show, The McLaughlin Group. I had whined "on and on about the sorry state of American education," Moore said, and wound up by bellowing: "These kids don't even know what The Iliad and The Odyssey are!"

Moore's interest was piqued, so the next day he said he called me. "Fred," he quoted himself as saying, "tell me what The Iliad and The Odyssey are." I started "hemming and hawing," Moore wrote. And then I said, according to Moore: "Well, they're . . . uh . . . you know . . . uh . . . okay, fine, you got me--I don't know what they're about. Happy now?" He'd smoked me out as a fraud, or maybe worse.

The only problem is none of this is true. It never happened. Moore is a liar. He made it up. It's a fabrication on two levels. One, I've never met Moore or even talked to him on the phone. And, two, I read both The Iliad and The Odyssey in my first year at the University of Virginia. Just for the record, I'd learned what they were about even before college. Like everyone else my age, I
got my classical education from the big screen. I saw the Iliad movie called Helen of Troy and while I forget the name of the Odyssey film, I think it starred Kirk Douglas as Odysseus.
So why didn't I scream bloody murder when the book came out in 2001? I didn't learn about the phony anecdote until it was brought to my attention by Alan Wolfe, who was reviewing Moore's book for the New Republic. He asked, by email, if the story were true. I said no, not a word of it, and Wolfe quoted me as saying that. That was enough, I thought. After all, who would take a shrill, lying lefty like Moore seriously?

More people than I thought. Moore's new movie attacking Bush was given a 20-minute standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival. Moore has described the movie as breaking new ground and revealing new facts, but the accounts by reviewers suggest it merely provides the standard left-wing, conspiratorial critique of the president. Reviewer Lou Lumenick of the New York Post, who gave Moore's previous movie Bowling for Columbine four stars, said the anti-Bush film would be news only "if you spent the last three years hiding in a cave in Afghanistan." Still, I suppose it's not surprising they loved it in France.

In publicizing the movie, Moore has been up to his old dishonest tricks. Just before the screening at Cannes, he charged that Disney had told him "officially" the day before that it would not distribute Fahrenheit 9/11. Moore said this was an attempt to kill the film. He indicated a newspaper article had the correct explanation of Disney's decision: "According to today's New York Times, it might 'endanger' millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will 'anger' the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush."

ater, in a CNN interview, Moore admitted he'd learned nearly a year ago that Disney would not distribute the movie. By pretending he'd just gotten word of this, Moore was involved in a cheap publicity stunt. And it wasn't the New York Times that said, on its own, that Disney feared losing tax breaks. It was Moore's agent who was quoted as saying that in the Times. Disney denied its president Michael Eisner had told the agent of any such fear. "We informed both the agency that represented the film and all of our companies that we just didn't want to be in the middle of a politically oriented film during an election year," Eisner told ABC News.

Where does this leave us? I think it's time for Moore to be held accountable. In Stupid White Men, he has 18 pages of "Notes and Sources," but he offers no evidence for the sham interview with me--no date, no transcript. How could he, since the interview never happened?

I have just the person to look into Moore's lies and distortions. Al Franken has taken special interest in public liars, writing a bestseller called Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Al, the Moore case is now in your court.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

weeklystandard.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (9547)6/23/2004 3:56:40 AM
From: jimcav  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
"I 've met with foreign leaders who cannot go out and say this publicly. But, boy, they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this. You've got to beat this guy. We need a new policy.'"
John Kerry


-- So tell me, did John Kerry really meet with these foreign leaders who said this or was he lying?