The business dealing with the House of Saud was not supposed to show any relation to Osama Bin Laden. If it was, then that is not how I interpreted it. It was supposed to show that a country which is harboring just as many, if not more, terrorists as either of the countries we attacked as a result of 9/11 has a large amount of money invested in this country. A sizable chunk of that money has gone into the Bush family's hands. It is interesting to note that we did not attack Saudi Arabia despite this fact.
My opinion of the House of Saud should have been clarified from the business dealings of the Bin Laden family. If you remember the pilot friend of George W. was reputed to have been the money manager for the Bin Laden family at one time. It was also reputed that the Bin Ladens invested in Bush's companies on the advice of that money manager. I found this to be a case of grasping at straws. Wealthy people invest in the startups of companies all the time. The significance of it being Bush, is that his money manager friend probably convince them to do so. I'm not sure what this correlation was supposed to prove. That rich people divest their money in numerous sources? Moore also fabricated an argument that an Oil Sheik and his family wouldn't invest in Texas oil. This is a complete falsehood as some of those companies Bush ran had foreign properties/workers in the Middle East. I do actually believe that some might have been in Saudi Arabia, but I'm unable to find a source at this time.
Regardless -- investments hardly show a "payoff" or conflict of interest. The wealthy in the world divest their interest into a multitude of venues, and that is how they typically weather the shock of an economic collapse of a certain sector. I also question Moore's suggestion that George W's incompetence led to the failure of his companies, and that his father or the Saudis bailed him out. Anyone familiar with the oil market of the 80's would be familiar with the total oil bust in Texas, and ESPECIALLY in Houston. I have little doubt that all but the largest and best run companies suddenly found themselves deep in debt and on the brink of collapse. Moore's position here is one of ignorance. He tries to show that Bush was bought out via the Saudis, and that he and his Dad profited numerous times from business relationships. You have to remember that the wealthy and the rich do sweet-heart deals with each other all the time, and politics is rarely the motive. I'd have to say that Moore didn't do a very good job with this segment. He did not prove anything other than a business relationship, and his attempts to prove something sinister were simply attempts that were ignorant of economy at that time.
Finally, I felt that his attempt to prove a relationship with Bush and Bin Laden was completely out of place. What was this supposed to prove? He never gave any idea of where his discourse was going, but simply presented it with some half-truths and said "there." I was almost in shock that he didn't tie any of it together. Ok, a former buddy in the National Guard was a trustee of sorts for the Bin Laden family. Ok... and? This isn't really anything that piques my interest, because he never gave any sort of info on what Bush's buddy did for a living after the war other than very vague details. He could have been a financial adviser, or a consultant in oil. In any case he steered the Bin Ladens toward Bush's companies because he knew Bush. That's a typical way deals are done in business. I'm sure the finances were glossed over some, but buddy-buddy deals are simply that. I don't see how a business relationship in the 80's connected anything as far as the Bin Ladens were concerned. I also felt the Administration's and the Saudi ambassador's rationalizations made much sense. Knowing how emotional things were going to become -- and the possible of anti-Arabic sentiment, it made sense to allow the Bin Ladens to leave. It isn't as if they aren't ALL highly visible, and we also
had a good relationship at that time. I wouldn't have expected anything but casual questioning anyway. They'd been estranged over the years numerous times.
I'm sorry to hear that this is the case. I don't really have a rebuttal for this, as I don't agree with this tactic. Granted, not the entire length of any interview is going to be shown. However, if it was edited in such a way as to distort the message, then that is something different entirely. Which congressman was it?
I do believe it was the younger congressman. He said he told Moore that he did have family overseas, but Moore ignored it. I believe it was the younger congressman that looked "shocked" in the film.
Here's a link to what the Congressman complains about. This isn't the only time Moore has been attacked for using this kind of technique. Terry Nichol's Uncle also complained of the same thing in BFC.
Could you be more specific and point out certain instances? It seems to me like this is not really a separate point from #2 that you presented. #2 is merely an example of this.
I'm trying to remember actual incidents, but I'd have to see the film again to be 100% sure. It did look like he took footage(that I remember) from Bush talking about one event, and then pushed it as his comments on another event. He did that in several cases, and I know it was done in BFC as well. It is typical for Moore, because he did the same thing in Roger and Me.
This may be true, but the point is the Saudis have quite a large sum of money invested in this country.
I was asked to point out distortions, lies, and inaccuracies. A 10 minute fact checking session could have revealed the figures to be wrong. Regardless of their investments, there is a huge difference in 7% of the economy, and about 2.5% of the household wealth. Moore tried to pass it off as if 7% of our economy was built on them. Not true. Their impact on the GDP can't be ignored, but it isn't 7% in that case either.
Where did he make it appear as though no one thought they might be called in for duty? I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I can't recall specifics that would make someone think this way. It didn't prompt me to think this way. Obviously the volunteers realized that this was a risk of joining armed forces.
Be fair please. Several times Moore allowed families or people he interviewed to act as if the National Guard or the military "tricks" people. I remember specifically talk that people thought they'd only be going away for a weekend or two out of the ENTIRE year(it was in the video I believe). It was obvious that the whole video wasn't shown, nor did Moore even attempt to show that people are told that they can be called up at anytime. That's the whole idea of a "reserve" force. Moore attempted to make it look as if people never thought they'd be going overseas.
Also, I think you are exaggerating how easy it is for people to get scholarships. I know plenty of people that don't have money for school, yet they were turned down for a scholarship. Only a certain number of people get scholarships each year. That means a certain portion of people who apply are going to get turned down. I think the main idea behind those statements is that the lower and middle class fight the wars, but the upper class declares the wars.
Grants. I did mention scholarships, but typically you have to be very sold academically and/or be an athlete. If you have a low enough income you can get grants. I'm not overstating my case at all. Pretty much any poor person can qualify for grants or loans. The money is out there -- people just need to fill out the FASFA and document their income.
Finally, someone who actually saw the movie with some valid points.
Same to you. I felt you were being very equitable in your replies.
-It's quite possible that Bush did not deserve to win the election in the first place. It was very sad that the people trying to present their case in relation to the African American voters not being counted in Florida were not able to share their case due to a technicality.
I'm not completely aware of the particulars(the segment with Al Gore, I am familiar with the Florida debacle, but not that segment of it.) of this situation. I saw it in the film, but have little information on what happened. I do know that procedural rules are procedural rules. As for the election: some recounts showed Bush would win, and others showed that Gore would win. Some included the military ballots, and some did not. Regardless we have to deal with the reality of the situation instead of crying over something that was out of our hands. They both "deserved" to win it, but Bush made the best legal argument and/or had the most votes.
-The reaction that Bush had to hearing that this country was under attack was quite the display. I understand that being President in a situation like that is an enormous task. However, I don't think Bush could've handled it too much worst than he did. Also, the fact that Bush ignored the memo from the CIA stating that Bin Laden planned to attack the US with aircrafts (I read this report myself) is not something I appreciate my President doing either.
That's odd. Most people (even hardcore partisans) have always maintained that Bush was very composed during the 9/11 crisis. I've read a little about the memo, but as you saw in the film it was marked as "routine." I'm not sure how many pieces of data has to be reviewed by the President each day, but I do agree it is very aggravating. I don't think that Moore made the case that Bush ignored it, but rather he wasn't told how credible or important it was. I found this to be something I could agree with you on. There should have been more attention paid to Al-Qaida and Bin Laden.
-The name of the man that was removed from the report related to Bush's military records was an interesting thing to note. I'm not sure how conclusive this was in terms of proving some kind of underhanded connection, but I found it very curious nonetheless.
I saw it as a red herring. All Moore had was that the man managed money for the Bin Laden family at one time. He didn't say why this was bad/good, nor did he say why the Bush admin would try to hide this. It was known before the release that Bush had oil dealings with Saudis.
-Although this idea was the overriding theme in Bowling for Columbine, I think it was important to bring it up again: the element of fear tactics. It does seem as though the invention of the terror alert system was nothing more than a device to bring about fear. What good did it, or could it, possibly serve? In fact, I think he could've spent more time on this point.
I absolutely agree with you here.
-No WMDs have been found in Iraq to date, and it has been well over a year since invasion. This was one of the main reasons for our attacking Iraq in the first place.
I absolutely agree with you here.
-He mentioned that Iraq did not attack us first. This is a good point, because what if other countries just started attacking people because they didn't trust them? War is supposed to be a line of self-defense, not an offensive move.
I disagree.
-Iraq had no connection with Al Queda. Period. The 9-11 commission, which Bush appointed, declared this themselves. Once again, another reason we went to war that was proven incorrect.
I've heard varying accounts, but I'll side with you and say the Al-Qaida link was tenuous. However, Saddam did support Carlos the Jackal, Palestinian terrorists, and other Middle Eastern terrorists and/or groups. Read up on Carlos being allowed to live in Iraq or Saddam's rewards for suicide bombers.
-The body count of American soldiers in Iraq as well as footage of Iraqi people dying. This shows how our losses have been very significant, despite quotes from Donald Rumsfeld claiming that this would not be the case. Also, it gives the Iraqi people more of an identity when you see the result of our attacks.
It was very moving to see the "enemy" or the "people" of Iraq as more than just static images or random video. I found this to be very moving, and actually a good piece of cinematic work. I disagree that Rumsfeld insinuated that. I think our losses have still been very low for occupying such a large and well-armed population.
There were plenty of valid points in the movie. However, I do respect your constructive criticism of the movie, because a lot of people simply say, "I hate Michael Moore. He is fat and needs to shave!" I see their point, but it is worthless in connection with the content of the movie.
I dislike Moore because of his dishonesty, and not because of his weight or political views. It is the same reason I dislike Rush Limbaugh or Republican spin-doctors. I see more as their Democrat form, and that turns me off. I will have to say that Moore is very good at what he does, but it won't make a difference to the educated voter. Thanks for playing nice, and I hope my response are adequate.
That in itself tells me that George is absurd as president.
Facebook
Twitter