1
   

Farenheit 9/11 trailer (link inside)

 
 
Radikal
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 04:33 am
Farenheit 9/11 trailer (link inside)

Here's the link: http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer /

There will be a red terra alert that day Exclamation Exclamation Exclamation
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,269 • Replies: 37
No top replies

 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 05:16 am
Let the debunking another bogus Moore film begin.

Quote:
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.


Source
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 09:07 am
I don't see how MoveOn could be called a failure?

Of course, the Busheep need to make sure they protect their shepherd:)
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 09:44 am
It's the nature of politics.

Every time we point to something as a truth, they point to it as a lie. Every time they point to something as a truth, we point to it as a lie.

All this pointing makes me tired.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 10:09 am
Why don't we watch the movie and then debate it?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 10:13 am
Screw that! Let's fight about it now! Come on! Put 'em up, put 'em up . . .
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 01:56 pm
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040531/ramirez.gif
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 05:28 pm
Clarke still does not say he made the decision alone. He testified he called the State Department or the FBI and got approval. If one wants to believe neither of those agencies had any communication with the President of the United States that day, they are the ones who need cognitive therepy. If you bothered to use the link the to The Hill article, you will see Clarke still states he made the decision upon consultation with the FBI. I find it hard to believe Bush didn't have constant contact with the FBI that day.

Granted, this may turn out to be circumstantial evidence and what one wants to believe but it would be admissable in a court. Actually, I don't see where anyone has actually seen the film to state what the wording is on the film.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 05:29 pm
(Oh, goody, maybe we'll see a big ole lawsuit from the Bush administration if they dispute Bush ultimately oked the order. That would be grand fun).
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 07:41 pm
Jer wrote:
Why don't we watch the movie and then debate it?


I'm game for this!
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 11:42 pm
Some prefer the pre-emptive strike 'cause it's fashionable.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 12:05 am
Lightwizard wrote:
Some prefer the pre-emptive strike 'cause it's fashionable.
Very Happy
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 12:08 am
Wait, did I, IronLionZion, just shamelessly substitute a smiley for a meaningfull comment?

I'm slipping. But riding the irony tidal wave wouldn't be fun without the risk...
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 12:10 am
LET IT BE SHOWN THAT IN THIS THREAD, I, IRONLIONZION, USED A SMILEY. WHEN THE WALLS COME DOWN, WHEN RIVERS RUN UPHILL, WHEN ALL STAND BEFORE ME AND CURSE, THEN WILL THEY FALTER, THERE IN THE END. FOR I USED A SMILEY, ONCE.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 12:12 am
0 Replies
 
the prince
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 01:52 am
This link does not work !
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 07:15 am
Lightwizard wrote:
Clarke still does not say he made the decision alone. He testified he called the State Department or the FBI and got approval. If one wants to believe neither of those agencies had any communication with the President of the United States that day, they are the ones who need cognitive therepy. If you bothered to use the link the to The Hill article, you will see Clarke still states he made the decision upon consultation with the FBI. I find it hard to believe Bush didn't have constant contact with the FBI that day.

Granted, this may turn out to be circumstantial evidence and what one wants to believe but it would be admissable in a court. Actually, I don't see where anyone has actually seen the film to state what the wording is on the film.


Oh, really?

Quote:
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.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 08:47 am
You didn't read the The Hill which still states he consulted with the FBI. The article you read does what they accuse Moore of doing -- leaving out something in order to prove their statement. Not only that but this is one journalist writing what they heard in an interview. Quite frankly I trust journalist about as much as I trust politicians from personal experience. A reputable newspaper editor would ask for three sources that vertify that something occured or something was said. In addition, an intereview is not under oath. He gave his original testimony so isn't it curious he would alter it in a magazine intereview? That could also be construed that your can't trust Clarke's memory. Does this mean you can't trust Clarke's book? No, because what he wrote has been cooberated more than enough. Sorry - strike out.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 08:54 am
You're also ignoring that we haven't seen the film and so do not know the wording. Please refer to the wording of the Moore's bin Laden family statement above.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 08:57 am
"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."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Farenheit 9/11 trailer (link inside)
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 05:27:33