USA Today corrects Moore errors
I think that this will be the last time I post anything about Michael Moore. The USA Today did a nice job at pointing out some problems with "Fahrenheit 9/11" in today's issue.
(the following are quotes from an article by Mark Memmott)
REGARDING THE ALLEGED CONNECTION BETWEEN BUSH AND THE TALIBAN:
"In 1997, a delegation of top Taliban officials in the USA at the invitation of officials from Unocal, a California-based oil and gas company...Moore notes that the pipe delegation visited Texas while Bush was governor. He doesn't say that the delegation met with Bush, but it is implied. In fact, Bush did not meet with the Taliban representatives. What Moore doesn't say is that Clinton administration officials at the State Department did sit down with Taliban officials and that their visit was made with the Clinton administration's approval."
THE DECISION TO LET SOME SAUDIS LEAVE THE USA SHORTLY AFTER 9/11 AND ALLEGED CONNECTIONS AMONG THE BUSH FAMILY, SAUDI ROYALTY AND OSAMA BIN LADEN'S FAMILY:
"Moore questions why the Bush administration allowed 142 Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, to fly out of the USA Sept. 14 through Sept. 24, 2001. He suggests that business ties between oil-rich Saudi Arabia and the Bush family might have resulted in special treatment for some Saudi citizens...But the movie does not point out that...The independent 9/11 commission has reported that 'each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to it's departure.'"
MOORE SAYS THAT BUSH SPENT 42% OF HIS FIRST SEVEN MONTHS IN OFFICE "ON VACATION."
"(That) calculation included weekends spent at the presidential retreat in Camp David, MD.,and a month-long 'working vacation' at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Moore doesn't say that the 'vacation' included weekends or that Bush worked part of most of those days. He met, for example, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair."
-----------------------------------------------------------
What this all boils down to is this... 2004 is an election year - liberals are damned angry about losing the 2000 election and they are doing their best to not let it happen again. Thankfully, those trying to make sure that a Republican does not get into office again come across as on-the-fringe lunatics. Have you heard Al Gore in the last few months? Since the Democrats have such little faith in the strength of the most liberal senator, John F. Kerry, their only candidate, they are left with no choice but hyping "F 9/11" and relying on Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and the failing "Air America" radio network to win Kerry votes.
|
