At least one thing where Michael Moore was right


9 comments posted
Moore deception ... it was Bush hater Richard Clarke who ...

authorized the Saudi's to fly post 9.11.

Moore's film is misleading in that it was if Bush himself put OBLs family on the plane. It was Clarke, a hold-over from the Clinton administration who authorized it.

I don't believe everything Clarke says, but he did testify under oath (not that being under oath means much, a'hem) but he stated to the 9.11 commission that those authorizations "did not go higher than himself".

The FBI & the CIA had their hands tied prior to 9.11 due to the "Gorelick wall" for nearly a decade. Bush inherited incompetent & castrated organizations - no wonder there was such confusion in Dubya's first year after such an attack.

iowamf's picture
Posted by iowamf (not verified) on 30 March 2005 - 3:27pm
Yes, there's more to the story

I'm not sure, but I believe that Moore made that point in the film -- that it was Clarke who said for the FBI to vet the passengers.

But the FBI didn't do it.

And there's no denying the cozy relationship not only between the USA and Saudi Arabia (which Frontline did a fabulous job exploring just a month or so ago), but also between the Bush family and the Saudi family. Follow the money.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 30 March 2005 - 4:35pm
well worded - yes the FBI blew it and ...

there's also no denying that dubya is less cozy to the Saudi family than all recent presidents before him - what do you want - war?

And whose FBI on 9.11 was it? At that time, the FBI/CIA could not share info. If one branch found a suspected terrorist taking "turns only" flying lessons they couldn't tell the other branch. The FBI/CIA was set-up to fail ... and fail they did.

Moore's attempts to pin the tail on the elephant are entertaining.

iowamf's picture
Posted by iowamf (not verified) on 30 March 2005 - 7:26pm

Who, pray tell, set up the FBI and CIA to fail?

Who failed was the Bush Administration, who ignored red flags up and down the line, including a top-level memo titled, "Osama bin Laden determined to strike in the US," by Condi's own admission.

You say you won't trust Clarke because he's not a political appointee. To me, that's just plain silly. The man is a professional, with years of experience and expertise working for both parties, and I would believe has more interest in protecting the United States than protecting the reputation of a retired president. Really, you guys need to get over Clinton.

As for Bush not being cozy with the Saudis, well, that's very humorous. He can say what he wants because of his chummy relations with them in his "business" career.

As for war, no, I pass once again. Not that it matters. Our president needs to prove how manly he is, so our national security suffers, our economy suffers, our government programs suffer, our economy suffers. Yeah, there's an elephant in the room, and it's crapping on everything.

Goldwater must be spinning in his grave.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 30 March 2005 - 8:30pm
the Gorelick wall was #1 problem w/ FBI & CIA

The two branches couldn't communicate and they couldn't hire people w/ records for undercover work because of the previous administration - it was set up to fail.

After almost 8 years of tearing down the FBI/CIA - calling Bush a failure for the FBI/CIA 9.11 bungle 8 months after Bush took office is a stretch of epic Hollywood proportions.

I don't trust Clarke because he's got a chip on his shoulder and was/is financially motivated by a smear book.

PS - I'm not an activist - I'm an engineer studying blogs & CMS tools - your web site is great!

iowamf's picture
Posted by iowamf (not verified) on 31 March 2005 - 9:53am
All fine and good, except....

The FBI and CIA did do their jobs. They did report the threat. The Bush administration repeatedly ignored these reports. Condi testified to that herself in her confirmation hearings for her current position.

Now they've just added another layer of beaurocracy to the whole thing. Just wonderful. And they fired the people who said Iraq was not the problem, al Qaeda is.

The separation of the CIA from FBI was done quite a few years before Clinton. In fact, the CIA was established to work outside of our borders -- and they still do. It's in their charter. Their lack of cooperation was and is institutional and cultural, not political. You can't lay that in the lap of Clinton.

And now, after being attacked by foreign nationals -- Saudis, mostly -- we turn up the heat ... on our own citizens. We treat our own citizens like criminals. Guilty until proven innocent. This is smart?

And we go gallavanting on a military advennture in Iraq -- a military campaign planned since the first week Bush was in office. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, no WMD, no capability to do much harm to its neighbors -- remember, we killed 500,000 - 1,000,000 of them in the Gulf War and had bombed the crap out of them since. Didn't matter. "Saddam Hussein is thumbing his nose at us!" Bush cried, and that's the only justification he offered that turned out to be true.

And we go behaving like terrorists ourselves, bombing entire neighborhoods and torturing prisoners. We're still doing it, too.

If anyone has a chip on his shoulder, it's Bush. If anyone is setting us up to fail, it's Bush. If you want to question motives because of finances, look no farther than our president and vice president, who made out will tens of millions from their own tax cuts.

I'm not an "activist" either. I'm just a concerned citizen who's very worried that the radical right wingers are driving this country right into the crapper. Nobody's perfect, but these people are fucking nuts!

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 31 March 2005 - 1:42pm
Thanks for the comments

Your site is helping my research on CMS tools.

Hate to break this to you, but ... your site has ads, sponsors, tip jars & sells shirts - outstanding opportunistic capitalism - I'm impressed.

Ummm, well, here's the bad news: you are an activist.

You made CNN ... and liked it.

With respect to this original thread: "At least one thing where Michael Moore was right" ...

** Michael Moore was right that a Bush hater was able to shuttle a bunch of Saudi elites out of the US 8 months after Bush took office on 9.11 without Bush knowing it.

** You are right there is problem with that.

** I believe I'm correct that the Bush bashing for the Saudi's flying out post 9.11 has little merit.

iowamf's picture
Posted by iowamf (not verified) on 31 March 2005 - 10:28pm
Everyone loves to be on tv

Even though I wasn't really. If I'm an activist, so is Jane Q Public who stands like an idiot outside of the morning show studios, waving a sign that says, "Hi Denver!"

Ahem. I rant as a professional in the media industry. I am not an activist. I am a worker bee with opinions. :p

I still think Bush totally blew it, and is still blowing it. We can't afford to be so stupid with our affairs. The world ain't gonna wait for us to get our shit together.

Thanks for all the complimens on the site.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 31 March 2005 - 11:17pm
no they don't - TV is bad - unless you are an activist

But you are better at what you do than Jane Q - don't deny it ... there's nothing wrong with being an activist unless you are bad at it or have bad intentions.

You've got a successful site with good intentions - good job.

iowamf's picture
Posted by iowamf (not verified) on 1 April 2005 - 12:16am