Ought Six
Membership Revoked
The purpose of this thread is to debunk specific claims and inferences made by Michael Moore in his new propaganda piece, Farenheit 9/11 and other claims Moore has made against Bush recently. Debunking information is currently spread out over many different threads, and buried among a lot of other miscelaneous comments. I wanted to bring all this material into one thread so it can be easily referenced by our members.
==========================================
<center>THREAD RULES</center>
==================================================
Claim: The war in Afghanistan was primarily undertaken to secure a route for an oil pipeline from former Soviet Turkic republics south to the Indian Ocean.
-----
Afghanistan: the pipeline war?
BBC News
Monday, 29 October, 2001
By BBC Eurasia Analyst Malcolm Haslett
Some attractively original theories have been going the rounds about the real reasons for the Afghan war.
It is obviously much more, some columnists and political theorists suggest, than a simple effort to stamp out terrorism.
Apart from the popular theory (in some parts of Europe as well as the Middle East) that this is a war on Islam, there is also the theory that it is a war motivated mainly - or even purely - by long-term economic and political goals.
The importance of Central Asian oil and gas has suddenly been noticed.
The valuable deposits of fossil fuels in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan, previously discussed only by regional experts and international energy companies, are now being mulled over on the opinion pages of popular dailies.
Economic imperatives
The Afghan war, it has been discovered, has an economic side to it.
Some writers, indeed, have gone further, suggesting that economic considerations provide the main, or at the very least a major, motivation for US and western involvement in Afghanistan.
If one discounts the more extreme and emotional versions of this theory, the argument boils down to this:
This line of argument falls down on a number of points.
It is undeniably true that the Central Asian republics do have very significant reserves of gas and oil, and that they have been having difficulty in getting them on to the world market on conditions favourable to them.
Until recently Russia had an almost total monopoly of export pipelines, and was demanding a high price, in economic and political terms, for their use.
But it simply is not true that Afghanistan is the main alternative to Russia.
On the contrary, very few western politicians or oil companies have taken Afghanistan seriously as a major export route - for the simple reason that few believe Afghanistan will ever achieve the stability needed to ensure a regular and uninterrupted flow of oil and gas.
There have been exceptions, of course, like Unocal and the Argentine company Bridas.
The main proponents of the Afghan pipeline idea, however, apart from the Taleban regime itself and its backers in Pakistan, was the government of the eccentric Turkmen President Saparmyrat Niyazov, known as "Turkmenbashi".
Caucasus route
The West, in contrast, and particularly the US, has put almost all its efforts into developing a major new route from the Caspian through Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Black Sea.
This had the potential advantage (from a western point of view) of bypassing Russia and Iran, and breaking their monopoly of influence in the region - allowing the states of the Caucasus (Georgia, Azerbaijan and possibly Armenia) and Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan) to develop a more balanced, independent foreign policy.
That, of course, worries many in Russia, and to a lesser degree in Iran.
They also now fear that the Central Asians' willingness to entertain US forces on their territory could substantially increase US influence in the region.
Such a scenario, however, is far from certain.
The western powers have caused considerable annoyance among the authoritarian regimes of Central Asia by harping on human rights abuses - particularly, incidentally, against Muslims - and the need for greater democratisation.
It seems highly unlikely, moreover, that the US-led "Coalition against Terrorism" has any illusions about how "pro-western" any potential new Afghan Government would be.
The main prerequisite for the survival of a new administration in Kabul, is that it win wide acceptance among the various ethnic and political groupings in Afghanistan itself.
No US stooges
And very few of those groups are exactly pro-western.
Western influence in Afghanistan would, at best, remain shaky.
In addition, if peace and stability were to return to Afghanistan, and a new pipeline to Central Asia was to be built, the principal beneficiaries would undoubtedly be the Afghans, as well as Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and the other Central Asians.
In brief, then, considerations of economic and political influence will undoubtedly play a part in western strategies in Afghanistan.
It would be strange if they did not. But the argument that these are the main motivations behind US actions, not the desire to stamp out international terrorism, will probably find support mainly among those who already have a fondness for conspiracy theories.
+++++
We all know that BBC News is the farthest thing from a neocon, Bush-loving conservative media outlet, yet even they can see that this conspiracy theory is total BS. The idea of an Afghan pipeline makes no sense, and it never did.
You can find more on this here:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020412.html
And here is another bit confirming what I have already said:
+++++
Book: 'Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man'
NewsMax.com
Thursday, June 24, 2004
>*snip*<
"Moore claims President Bush invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban so he could get an oil pipeline built. You've probably heard others parrot this allegation. A master of propaganda knows that if you repeat a lie often enough, people start to believe it.
"In reality, Bush had supported Enron's plan to run pipes under the Caspian Sea and avoid Afghanistan. "Clinton was the one backing the rival Unocal plan to put them through Afghanistan," Hardy and Clarke observe."
>*/snip*<
+++++
Clinton only supported the pipeline idea early-on because the Taliban had not really taken full hold of Afghanistan at that time, and revealed its true nature. Once that became known, the dubious pipeline idea became completely untenable, which is why GW did not support the idea.
==================================================
Claim: The FBI was not allowed to interview bin Laden family members before they were flown out of the country.
Inference: The bin Ladens were 'friends of Bush', and were flown out of the country when all other flights were grounded as a personal favor from GW.
-----
Clarke claims responsibility for bin Ladens' flight
Contradicts 9-11 panel testimony about depature of Osama's relatives
WorldNetDaily.com
May 26, 2004
Former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke says he is solely responsible for allowing members of Osama bin Laden's family to flee the United States immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I'd do it again," Clarke told The Hill newspaper yesterday.
The Hill said a political controversy has been brewing over who approved the six controversial flights that carried 140 Saudi citizens.
At the time the members of the Saudi elite were allowed to leave, the Bush administration was preparing to detain Muslims in the U.S. as material witnesses to the attacks.
Democrat leaders, including Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, had been pressing members of the 9-11 Commission to find out, "Who authorized the flight and why?"
A Democrat who attended a May 6 closed-door meeting of the panel quoted a panel member, former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., as saying: "We don’t know who authorized it. We've asked that question 50 times."
Most of the 26 passengers aboard a Sept. 20, 2001, fight were relatives of Osama bin Laden, whom intelligence officials blamed for the attacks almost immediately after they happened, The Hill said.
Clarke told the paper responsibility for the Saudis' departure "didn't get any higher than me."
"On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn't get any higher than me," he said. "I decided it in consultation with the FBI."
But this new account of the events seemed to contradict Clarke's sworn testimony before the Sept. 11 commission at the end of March, The Hill said.
"The request came to me, and I refused to approve it," Clarke testified. "I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the – at the time – No. 2 person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved … the flight."
Panel member Tim Roemer said yesterday in response: "That's a little different than saying, 'I claim sole responsibility for it now.'"
Moreover, the FBI has denied approving the flight, according to the Capitol Hill paper.
FBI spokeswoman Donna Spiser said, "We haven't had anything to do with arranging and clearing the flights."
"We did know who was on the flights and interviewed anyone we thought we needed to," she said. "We didn’t interview 100 percent of the [passengers on the] flight. We didn't think anyone on the flight was of investigative interest."
The Hill said when Roemer asked Clarke during the commission's March hearing, "Who gave the final approval, then, to say, 'Yes, you’re clear to go, it's all right with the United States government,'" Clarke seemed to suggest it came from the White House.
"I believe after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we ran it through the decision process for all these decisions that we were making in those hours, which was the interagency Crisis Management Group on the video conference," Clarke testified. "I was making or coordinating a lot of the decisions on 9-11 in the days immediately after. And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don't know. The two – since you press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State or the White House chief of staff's office."
Clarke told the Washington newspaper yesterday the furor over the flights is a "tempest in a teapot," arguing that since the attacks the FBI has never said any of the passengers should not have left.
"It's very funny that people on the Hill are now trying to second-guess the FBI investigation," Clarke said.
The 9-11 commission released a statement last month declaring the chartered flights were handled properly by the Bush administration, the Hill reported.
----------
The whole idea that GW had let the bin Laden family members go came from Clarke's orginal testimony, which he later denied. This direct self-contradiction not only discredits the original claim, it also totally discredits Clarke and any other claims he makes. And even in his original testimony, Clarke never said or even implied that GW okayed the release of the bin Laden family. So contrary to Moore's claim that Bush personally ordered the release of the bin Laden family members, this idea is wholly without foundation, whether you believe Clarke before or now. Apparently Bush was never even notified of the request before Clarke made his decision and okayed the flight. So this inference made in the film is false.
Also, it is clear from FBI testimony that they interviewed bin Laden family members they wished to and were fully aware who they were, and that they were leaving the country. So this claim made in the film is false.
==================================================
Inference: Moore implies that because the Bush family has a business relationship with the bin Laden family, and most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, somehow Bush was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
-----
Michael Moore: Propaganda Artist
by Amber Pawlik
Men's News Daily
June 26, 2004
>*snip*<
What follows next, after complaining that some from the bin Laden family rode on a plane and flew out of America without being stopped and questioned by the U.S. government, is a painfully forced attempt to connect President Bush to the bin Laden family. Not to bin Laden. To the bin Laden family. Bin Laden is considered a black sheep in his family, so this connection is really pointless – unless you are of the racist and tribal belief that because you are related to someone, you share their moral guilt. But, even so, Moore assures us that bin Laden is really tied to his family. His proof: a guy on film said that at bin Laden’s son’s wedding, a “few family members showed up.” Bin Laden’s father fathered 50 children alone. A few relatives showing up at – not bin Laden’s – but bin Laden’s son’s wedding is pathetic at best.
Moore then shows a piece of paper, Bush’s military records, which shows that Bush and a man named James Bath both failed to show up for a medical exam. The name was blacked out on the copy that the Bush administration released to the press. You see; their names were on the same paper, right next to each other even. Moore then explains the connection: Bush received money from Bath and Bath received money from the bin Laden family. Not from bin Laden. From the bin Laden family. Not that Bush received the money. But that a guy he knew did. And, remember, their names were on the same piece of paper! See the connection?
Moore also uses an utterly racist (along with the typical, “The Bush family gets money from the Saudis so therefore he must be loyal to him”) argument in trying to prove a Bush-terrorist link. Moore points out that 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudis, and also that Bush visited with the Saudi royal family after 9-11. Therefore, you see, Bush is completely responsible for 9-11.
I don’t want to have to remind leftists about the problem of racism – it just feels like they should already know (well, ok, no it doesn’t) – but just because some of the terrorists on the flight were Saudis doesn’t mean all Saudis are terrorists. Maybe some Saudis are; maybe some aren’t; or maybe all of them are. But you still need proof. The only proof offered in the movie of why a Saudi is inherently guilty of terrorism is that 15 of the 19 hijackers were also Saudis. We’ve heard repeatedly from the left that we cannot blame all Muslims for 9-11, and 19 of the 19 hijackers were Muslim. So why does Michael Moore get the liberty to label all Saudis as terrorists, and smear George Bush for talking to a Saudi?
>*/snip*<
----------
That covers it pretty well.
==================================================
Claim: Moore says that Bush spent 42% of his first year 'on vacation'. The truth is that Bush spent 42% of his time in office prior to September 11th, 2001 away from the White House (that claim originated from The Washington Post). The false and baseless assumption is that when GW goes to Camp David for policy sessions, or to his Crawford, Texas ranch, he is just enjoying himself and doing no work for the nation whatsoever.
The truth is that much of the time spent at Camp David & Crawford were not vacation at all, but meetings with foreign leaders and policy planning sessions, but to Moore this is all 'vacation'.
'Bush calls world leaders from Camp David' -- CNN -- 3 Feb 01
'Bush, Blair discuss Iraq sanctions' {at Camp David} -- AP -- 23 Feb 01
'Bush To Receive Musharraf At Camp David' -- Pakistan New Service -- 7 Jun 01
'Bush, Japanese prime minister forge relationship at Camp David' -- CNN -- 30 Jun 01
'A White House On the Range; Bush Retreats to Ranch For 'Working Vacation' ' -- Washington Post -- 7 Aug 01
And some of the time spent away from the White House was spent on trips involving foreign policy, but to Moore this is also all 'vacation'.
'THE PRESIDENT IN EUROPE' -- PBS -- 24 Jul 01
'Bush rallies Kosovo troops' -- BBC News -- 24 Jul 01
Other days away from the White House were for domestic events, but to Moore, this is also all 'vaction'.
'President Visits Elementary School in Jacksonville - Urges Quick Passage of Education Plan' -- White House website -- 10 sep 01
'Presidents Bush, Fox Conclude State Visit {Toledo, Ohio} -- White House website -- 6 Sep 01
'President Discusses Economy at Teamsters Barbecue in Detroit, Michigan' -- White House website -- 3 Sep 01
'President Discusses Defense Priorities at American Legion' {San Antonio, Texas} -- White House website -- 29 Aug 01
'Remarks by the President to Families Gathered at the Target Retail Store, Kansas City, Missouri' -- White House website -- 21 Aug 01
'Remarks by the President to Workers at Harley Davidson Factory' {Menomonoee Falls, WI} -- White House website -- 21 Aug 01
'Remarks by the President to Students and Teachers in Back to School Event' {Albuquerque, NM} -- White House website -- 15 Aug 01
'Remarks by the President to YMCA Picnic' {Rocky Mountain National Park, CO} -- White House website -- 14 Aug 01
'Remarks by the President In Independence Day Celebration' {in Philidelphia} -- White House website -- 4 Jul 01
'Remarks by the President in Visit to White House Staffer' {staffer gave birth in Virignia hospital} -- White House website -- 3 Jul 01
That is only a couple months worth, from July through early September, but you get the idea. Moore claims all of these events as 'vacation' time. This 42% 'vacation' figure also includes weekend visits to Crawford, which GW does frequently. Do you consider your weekends 'vacation time'? Moore apparently does. And as you can see from the list above, when at his Crawford ranch he frequently travels to events in the southwest region to appear.
So again we see that the claim that Bush spent all this time 'on vacation' is false.
==================================================
Inference: From the idyllic pictures of Iraqi children playing in parks before we attacked, and the civilian casualties after we attacked, Moore clearly infers that Iraqi would have been better off if we just left them alone.
Do I even need to go into how ridiculous this claim is? We know what Saddam did.
Halabja chemical attack on Kurdish civilians -- 1988 & chemical attack on Shia civilians in southern marshlands -- 1993
Massacre of Shia civilians at Kerbala -- 1991
400,000 found in mass graves in Iraq so far
Comprehensive list of Saddam's atrocities
Just check out these links, and you will clearly see just how false Moore's implication really is.
==================================================
Please post your own refutations of Moore's claims. And if you see these already-refuted claims repeated on other threads here, you can simply link to this thread and point out that they are wrong.
==========================================
<center>THREAD RULES</center>
- Clearly state what Moore's specific claim or inference is, then provide the counterargument and supporting material. Please try to be succinct and to stay on topic.
- Provide a good logical argument to back up your criticism of Moore's points. Just saying that it is BS is not a valid argument; say *why* it is BS. Back up your argument with facts, references and/or links wherever possible.
- Do not spam the thread with dozens of paragraphs of cut & paste. Posting whole articles is fine if all the material is directly relevant to your argument. If not, then excerpt out only the relevant part and post just that.
- If you just want to make some personal comment about Moore, there are several other threads here where you can do that. Please do not do it on this one. This thread is for factual debunking.
- Challenging any debunking info posted here with facts or logic is fair, but please do not post here just to make an ideological statement or to snipe at people. I will ask the moderators to remove any extraneous or off-topic posts and warn any members who do this.
==================================================
Claim: The war in Afghanistan was primarily undertaken to secure a route for an oil pipeline from former Soviet Turkic republics south to the Indian Ocean.
-----
Afghanistan: the pipeline war?
BBC News
Monday, 29 October, 2001
By BBC Eurasia Analyst Malcolm Haslett
Some attractively original theories have been going the rounds about the real reasons for the Afghan war.
It is obviously much more, some columnists and political theorists suggest, than a simple effort to stamp out terrorism.
Apart from the popular theory (in some parts of Europe as well as the Middle East) that this is a war on Islam, there is also the theory that it is a war motivated mainly - or even purely - by long-term economic and political goals.
The importance of Central Asian oil and gas has suddenly been noticed.
The valuable deposits of fossil fuels in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan, previously discussed only by regional experts and international energy companies, are now being mulled over on the opinion pages of popular dailies.
Economic imperatives
The Afghan war, it has been discovered, has an economic side to it.
Some writers, indeed, have gone further, suggesting that economic considerations provide the main, or at the very least a major, motivation for US and western involvement in Afghanistan.
If one discounts the more extreme and emotional versions of this theory, the argument boils down to this:
- Afghanistan has been proposed by more than one western oil company (the US-based Unocal is often mentioned, but it is not the only one) as the best route by which to export the Central Asian republics' important output of oil and gas
- Given the increasing importance of finding and exploiting new sources of fossil fuel, governments like those of the US and the UK are enormously keen to gain influence in the Central Asian region in order to secure those supplies for the West
- In order to achieve that, and get those energy supplies moving out of Central Asia, they need to set up a pro-western government in Afghanistan.
This line of argument falls down on a number of points.
It is undeniably true that the Central Asian republics do have very significant reserves of gas and oil, and that they have been having difficulty in getting them on to the world market on conditions favourable to them.
Until recently Russia had an almost total monopoly of export pipelines, and was demanding a high price, in economic and political terms, for their use.
But it simply is not true that Afghanistan is the main alternative to Russia.
On the contrary, very few western politicians or oil companies have taken Afghanistan seriously as a major export route - for the simple reason that few believe Afghanistan will ever achieve the stability needed to ensure a regular and uninterrupted flow of oil and gas.
There have been exceptions, of course, like Unocal and the Argentine company Bridas.
The main proponents of the Afghan pipeline idea, however, apart from the Taleban regime itself and its backers in Pakistan, was the government of the eccentric Turkmen President Saparmyrat Niyazov, known as "Turkmenbashi".
Caucasus route
The West, in contrast, and particularly the US, has put almost all its efforts into developing a major new route from the Caspian through Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Black Sea.
This had the potential advantage (from a western point of view) of bypassing Russia and Iran, and breaking their monopoly of influence in the region - allowing the states of the Caucasus (Georgia, Azerbaijan and possibly Armenia) and Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan) to develop a more balanced, independent foreign policy.
That, of course, worries many in Russia, and to a lesser degree in Iran.
They also now fear that the Central Asians' willingness to entertain US forces on their territory could substantially increase US influence in the region.
Such a scenario, however, is far from certain.
The western powers have caused considerable annoyance among the authoritarian regimes of Central Asia by harping on human rights abuses - particularly, incidentally, against Muslims - and the need for greater democratisation.
It seems highly unlikely, moreover, that the US-led "Coalition against Terrorism" has any illusions about how "pro-western" any potential new Afghan Government would be.
The main prerequisite for the survival of a new administration in Kabul, is that it win wide acceptance among the various ethnic and political groupings in Afghanistan itself.
No US stooges
And very few of those groups are exactly pro-western.
Western influence in Afghanistan would, at best, remain shaky.
In addition, if peace and stability were to return to Afghanistan, and a new pipeline to Central Asia was to be built, the principal beneficiaries would undoubtedly be the Afghans, as well as Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and the other Central Asians.
In brief, then, considerations of economic and political influence will undoubtedly play a part in western strategies in Afghanistan.
It would be strange if they did not. But the argument that these are the main motivations behind US actions, not the desire to stamp out international terrorism, will probably find support mainly among those who already have a fondness for conspiracy theories.
+++++
We all know that BBC News is the farthest thing from a neocon, Bush-loving conservative media outlet, yet even they can see that this conspiracy theory is total BS. The idea of an Afghan pipeline makes no sense, and it never did.
You can find more on this here:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020412.html
And here is another bit confirming what I have already said:
+++++
Book: 'Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man'
NewsMax.com
Thursday, June 24, 2004
>*snip*<
"Moore claims President Bush invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban so he could get an oil pipeline built. You've probably heard others parrot this allegation. A master of propaganda knows that if you repeat a lie often enough, people start to believe it.
"In reality, Bush had supported Enron's plan to run pipes under the Caspian Sea and avoid Afghanistan. "Clinton was the one backing the rival Unocal plan to put them through Afghanistan," Hardy and Clarke observe."
>*/snip*<
+++++
Clinton only supported the pipeline idea early-on because the Taliban had not really taken full hold of Afghanistan at that time, and revealed its true nature. Once that became known, the dubious pipeline idea became completely untenable, which is why GW did not support the idea.
==================================================
Claim: The FBI was not allowed to interview bin Laden family members before they were flown out of the country.
Inference: The bin Ladens were 'friends of Bush', and were flown out of the country when all other flights were grounded as a personal favor from GW.
-----
Clarke claims responsibility for bin Ladens' flight
Contradicts 9-11 panel testimony about depature of Osama's relatives
WorldNetDaily.com
May 26, 2004
Former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke says he is solely responsible for allowing members of Osama bin Laden's family to flee the United States immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I'd do it again," Clarke told The Hill newspaper yesterday.
The Hill said a political controversy has been brewing over who approved the six controversial flights that carried 140 Saudi citizens.
At the time the members of the Saudi elite were allowed to leave, the Bush administration was preparing to detain Muslims in the U.S. as material witnesses to the attacks.
Democrat leaders, including Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, had been pressing members of the 9-11 Commission to find out, "Who authorized the flight
A Democrat who attended a May 6 closed-door meeting of the panel quoted a panel member, former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., as saying: "We don’t know who authorized it. We've asked that question 50 times."
Most of the 26 passengers aboard a Sept. 20, 2001, fight were relatives of Osama bin Laden, whom intelligence officials blamed for the attacks almost immediately after they happened, The Hill said.
Clarke told the paper responsibility for the Saudis' departure "didn't get any higher than me."
"On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn't get any higher than me," he said. "I decided it in consultation with the FBI."
But this new account of the events seemed to contradict Clarke's sworn testimony before the Sept. 11 commission at the end of March, The Hill said.
"The request came to me, and I refused to approve it," Clarke testified. "I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the – at the time – No. 2 person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved … the flight."
Panel member Tim Roemer said yesterday in response: "That's a little different than saying, 'I claim sole responsibility for it now.'"
Moreover, the FBI has denied approving the flight, according to the Capitol Hill paper.
FBI spokeswoman Donna Spiser said, "We haven't had anything to do with arranging and clearing the flights."
"We did know who was on the flights and interviewed anyone we thought we needed to," she said. "We didn’t interview 100 percent of the [passengers on the] flight. We didn't think anyone on the flight was of investigative interest."
The Hill said when Roemer asked Clarke during the commission's March hearing, "Who gave the final approval, then, to say, 'Yes, you’re clear to go, it's all right with the United States government,'" Clarke seemed to suggest it came from the White House.
"I believe after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we ran it through the decision process for all these decisions that we were making in those hours, which was the interagency Crisis Management Group on the video conference," Clarke testified. "I was making or coordinating a lot of the decisions on 9-11 in the days immediately after. And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don't know. The two – since you press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State or the White House chief of staff's office."
Clarke told the Washington newspaper yesterday the furor over the flights is a "tempest in a teapot," arguing that since the attacks the FBI has never said any of the passengers should not have left.
"It's very funny that people on the Hill are now trying to second-guess the FBI investigation," Clarke said.
The 9-11 commission released a statement last month declaring the chartered flights were handled properly by the Bush administration, the Hill reported.
----------
The whole idea that GW had let the bin Laden family members go came from Clarke's orginal testimony, which he later denied. This direct self-contradiction not only discredits the original claim, it also totally discredits Clarke and any other claims he makes. And even in his original testimony, Clarke never said or even implied that GW okayed the release of the bin Laden family. So contrary to Moore's claim that Bush personally ordered the release of the bin Laden family members, this idea is wholly without foundation, whether you believe Clarke before or now. Apparently Bush was never even notified of the request before Clarke made his decision and okayed the flight. So this inference made in the film is false.
Also, it is clear from FBI testimony that they interviewed bin Laden family members they wished to and were fully aware who they were, and that they were leaving the country. So this claim made in the film is false.
==================================================
Inference: Moore implies that because the Bush family has a business relationship with the bin Laden family, and most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, somehow Bush was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
-----
Michael Moore: Propaganda Artist
by Amber Pawlik
Men's News Daily
June 26, 2004
>*snip*<
What follows next, after complaining that some from the bin Laden family rode on a plane and flew out of America without being stopped and questioned by the U.S. government, is a painfully forced attempt to connect President Bush to the bin Laden family. Not to bin Laden. To the bin Laden family. Bin Laden is considered a black sheep in his family, so this connection is really pointless – unless you are of the racist and tribal belief that because you are related to someone, you share their moral guilt. But, even so, Moore assures us that bin Laden is really tied to his family. His proof: a guy on film said that at bin Laden’s son’s wedding, a “few family members showed up.” Bin Laden’s father fathered 50 children alone. A few relatives showing up at – not bin Laden’s – but bin Laden’s son’s wedding is pathetic at best.
Moore then shows a piece of paper, Bush’s military records, which shows that Bush and a man named James Bath both failed to show up for a medical exam. The name was blacked out on the copy that the Bush administration released to the press. You see; their names were on the same paper, right next to each other even. Moore then explains the connection: Bush received money from Bath and Bath received money from the bin Laden family. Not from bin Laden. From the bin Laden family. Not that Bush received the money. But that a guy he knew did. And, remember, their names were on the same piece of paper! See the connection?
Moore also uses an utterly racist (along with the typical, “The Bush family gets money from the Saudis so therefore he must be loyal to him”) argument in trying to prove a Bush-terrorist link. Moore points out that 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudis, and also that Bush visited with the Saudi royal family after 9-11. Therefore, you see, Bush is completely responsible for 9-11.
I don’t want to have to remind leftists about the problem of racism – it just feels like they should already know (well, ok, no it doesn’t) – but just because some of the terrorists on the flight were Saudis doesn’t mean all Saudis are terrorists. Maybe some Saudis are; maybe some aren’t; or maybe all of them are. But you still need proof. The only proof offered in the movie of why a Saudi is inherently guilty of terrorism is that 15 of the 19 hijackers were also Saudis. We’ve heard repeatedly from the left that we cannot blame all Muslims for 9-11, and 19 of the 19 hijackers were Muslim. So why does Michael Moore get the liberty to label all Saudis as terrorists, and smear George Bush for talking to a Saudi?
>*/snip*<
----------
That covers it pretty well.
==================================================
Claim: Moore says that Bush spent 42% of his first year 'on vacation'. The truth is that Bush spent 42% of his time in office prior to September 11th, 2001 away from the White House (that claim originated from The Washington Post). The false and baseless assumption is that when GW goes to Camp David for policy sessions, or to his Crawford, Texas ranch, he is just enjoying himself and doing no work for the nation whatsoever.
The truth is that much of the time spent at Camp David & Crawford were not vacation at all, but meetings with foreign leaders and policy planning sessions, but to Moore this is all 'vacation'.
'Bush calls world leaders from Camp David' -- CNN -- 3 Feb 01
'Bush, Blair discuss Iraq sanctions' {at Camp David} -- AP -- 23 Feb 01
'Bush To Receive Musharraf At Camp David' -- Pakistan New Service -- 7 Jun 01
'Bush, Japanese prime minister forge relationship at Camp David' -- CNN -- 30 Jun 01
'A White House On the Range; Bush Retreats to Ranch For 'Working Vacation' ' -- Washington Post -- 7 Aug 01
And some of the time spent away from the White House was spent on trips involving foreign policy, but to Moore this is also all 'vacation'.
'THE PRESIDENT IN EUROPE' -- PBS -- 24 Jul 01
'Bush rallies Kosovo troops' -- BBC News -- 24 Jul 01
Other days away from the White House were for domestic events, but to Moore, this is also all 'vaction'.
'President Visits Elementary School in Jacksonville - Urges Quick Passage of Education Plan' -- White House website -- 10 sep 01
'Presidents Bush, Fox Conclude State Visit {Toledo, Ohio} -- White House website -- 6 Sep 01
'President Discusses Economy at Teamsters Barbecue in Detroit, Michigan' -- White House website -- 3 Sep 01
'President Discusses Defense Priorities at American Legion' {San Antonio, Texas} -- White House website -- 29 Aug 01
'Remarks by the President to Families Gathered at the Target Retail Store, Kansas City, Missouri' -- White House website -- 21 Aug 01
'Remarks by the President to Workers at Harley Davidson Factory' {Menomonoee Falls, WI} -- White House website -- 21 Aug 01
'Remarks by the President to Students and Teachers in Back to School Event' {Albuquerque, NM} -- White House website -- 15 Aug 01
'Remarks by the President to YMCA Picnic' {Rocky Mountain National Park, CO} -- White House website -- 14 Aug 01
'Remarks by the President In Independence Day Celebration' {in Philidelphia} -- White House website -- 4 Jul 01
'Remarks by the President in Visit to White House Staffer' {staffer gave birth in Virignia hospital} -- White House website -- 3 Jul 01
That is only a couple months worth, from July through early September, but you get the idea. Moore claims all of these events as 'vacation' time. This 42% 'vacation' figure also includes weekend visits to Crawford, which GW does frequently. Do you consider your weekends 'vacation time'? Moore apparently does. And as you can see from the list above, when at his Crawford ranch he frequently travels to events in the southwest region to appear.
So again we see that the claim that Bush spent all this time 'on vacation' is false.
==================================================
Inference: From the idyllic pictures of Iraqi children playing in parks before we attacked, and the civilian casualties after we attacked, Moore clearly infers that Iraqi would have been better off if we just left them alone.
Do I even need to go into how ridiculous this claim is? We know what Saddam did.
Halabja chemical attack on Kurdish civilians -- 1988 & chemical attack on Shia civilians in southern marshlands -- 1993
Massacre of Shia civilians at Kerbala -- 1991
400,000 found in mass graves in Iraq so far
Comprehensive list of Saddam's atrocities
Just check out these links, and you will clearly see just how false Moore's implication really is.
==================================================
Please post your own refutations of Moore's claims. And if you see these already-refuted claims repeated on other threads here, you can simply link to this thread and point out that they are wrong.
Last edited: