Michael Moore vs. George W. Bush for real?

Caught this snippet on The Tonight Show so I don't know how accurate it is, but as Jay said there is a "fear" that Michael Moore will be invited to the White House Correspondents dinner where the president will give a speech. Now, I do not condone what Moore did during the Oscars (using a worldwide platform for a political statement on a day when the nation was mourning), but I'd be very interested to see Moore and the president in a civil debate. I'd like to see Bush be forced to respond to several key issues that Moore and other Bush oppenents have raised:

* Why was Dick Cheney trying to negotiate with the Taliban to run an oil-pipeline through Afghanistan back in 2000?

* Why wasn't the order given to shoot down the hijacked airliners on 9-11 until after the first three planes hit their targets? And, in a related vein, as a former Air National Guardsmen himself, perhaps Mr. Bush could explain why the F-16s that were scrambled to intercept the hijacked airliners did not fly at top speed?

* Why did the president order, over the objections of John Ashcroft and Robert Mueller, the members of the bin Ladin family be flown out of the US on a government flight during the FAA's imposed flight ban?

* Why did bin Ladin escape from Tora Bora despite being surrounded by US and Afghan soldiers?

* Why is Zacharias Moussoui being denied access to evidence, as is his right in a US trial court?

* Why are only companies that contributed heavily to the Republican Party being considered for contracts to rebuild Iraq?

* Why isn't there a push to deploy UN Peacekeepers in Iraq in order to bring our men and women in uniform home?

* Why, all of a sudden, is Syria of such great interest despite not being ever mentioned until the war on Iraq was practically considered over nor was Syria even mentioned as a member of the Axis of Evil?

I would love to see these questions answered in a straightforward manner by Bush and the Administration.

I would not like to see Micheal Moore be the one asking the questions. He is entertaining, and a jackass (which I dont think is a bad thing) but I dont think he should be the one who tries to get answers out of Bush. Bush on 60 minutes talking about this stuff? Yeah Id love to see that. Micheal Moore standing up in the middle of a White House dinner yelling at the President? I wouldnt like to see that.

I would, because I know we won''t hear those questions being asked by any networks anytime soon!

You might want to fact check things first:

http://66.165.133.65/index.html:

Claim: Two days after September 11 -- while all other planes were grounded -- a secret flight arranged by George W. Bush flew Osama bin Laden''s relatives out of the USA.
Status: False.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002]

BIN LADEN FAMILY ALLOWED TO FLY DURING GROUND STOPPAGE? Michael Moore was on the Daily Show on Comedy Central and alleged that when all the nation''s planes were grounded for 3 days after 9/11, the Bush Administration gave permission for a private Saudi jet to visit 5 cities to pick up around 20 members of the bin Laden family, over the objections of the FBI.

Origins: This just goes to show what a little bit of fact flipped onto its side and then spewed by a public figure can do. Yes, a couple of flights arranged by the Saudi government did collect a number of Osama bin Laden''s America-based relatives and whisk them to Saudi Arabia in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, but this didn''t take place during the FAA-imposed ban on air travel in the US. The two flights in question took wing on September 18 and 19, days after the ban on air travel was lifted.

The Federal Aviation Administration ordered all flights in the United States grounded immediately following the terrorist attacks, and that ban stayed in effect until September 13. (Even then, for that first day commercial carriers were either completing the interrupted flights of September 11 or were repositioning empty aircraft in anticipation of the resumption of full service. New passenger flights did not resume until the 14th.) During that two-day period of full lock-down, only the military and specially FAA-authorized flights that delivered life-saving medical necessities were in the air. The enforcement of the empty skies directive was so stringent that even after the United Network for Organ Sharing sought and gained FAA clearance to use charter aircraft on September 12 to effect time-critical deliveries of organs for transplant, one of its flights carrying a human heart was forced to the ground in Bellingham, Washington, 80 miles short of its Seattle destination, by two Navy F/A-18 fighters. (The organ completed its journey after being transferred to a helicopter.)

Whether bin Laden''s relatives left of their own accord, whether they were urged to leave by the Saudi government, or whether they were told to leave by the FBI is a bit murky, as officials issued conflicting statements:

A spokesman for the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington denied claims yesterday that the bin Ladens had been told by the FBI and the Saudi government to return. He said: ""There was no official warning from the government that they should go but maybe they thought it would be better if they went home.""1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. . . many US-based relatives of Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born terrorist who is accused of masterminding the hijackings, returned to Saudi Arabia on chartered jets. A Saudi diplomat said his government and the FBI advised the bin Ladens to leave for their own safety . . . He said all Saudi citizens who flew home were first interviewed by the FBI and that none who wanted to go home were detained. 2

Whether bin Laden family members left voluntarily or at the urging of the FBI or the Saudi government, they clearly did not depart on a ""secret flight"" a mere ""two days"" after the September 11 terrorist attacks, while all other air traffic was grounded. The September 18 flight was a Boeing 727 privately chartered by the bin Laden family, which left Boston with a mere five passengers on board. The September 19 flight, arranged and paid for by the Saudi government, collected about 20 passengers from a number of cities, including Los Angeles, Orlando, and Boston. Neither flight was paid for or arranged by the U.S. government, took off ""secretly,"" or departed during the FAA-imposed ban on air travel.

How Michael Moore could have spun all of this into the tale he now spouts is beyond us. Yet spout it he does, as in this excerpt from a 2 January 2002 interview with Al D''Amato and Alan Colmes of the FOX Network:

Why don''t we look at the connections between the Bush family and Saudi Arabia, why this country will not really go after where the money probably came from? Why did this country allow the bin Laden jet?
Let me ask you this, Al. Why did this country allow the bin Laden family, two days after -- two days after September 11 -- to fly around America and pick up all the bin Laden relatives, about 24 of them, and take them to Europe? Not a single one of them was interrogated by the FBI. Do you think, if your brother was accused of killing somebody, and they couldn''t find him, that they might come and talk to you, maybe ask you a few questions? 5

The sum total of the evidence Moore cites is a 30 September 2001 New York Times article, most of which negates what he claims:

In his first interview since the attacks, Saudi Ambassador Bandar bin Sultan, also said that private planes carrying the kingdom''s deputy defense minister and the governor of Mecca, both members of the royal family, were grounded and initially caught up in the F.B.I. dragnet. Both planes, one jumbo jet carrying 100 family members, and the other 40, were eventually allowed to leave when airports reopened and passports were checked.3

Note that these planes were grounded, they were ""caught up in the F.B.I. dragnet,"" and they were not allowed to leave until ""airports reopened and passports were checked."" This is hardly evidence of ""secret flights"" taking off ""two days"" after the attacks ""over the objections of the FBI.""

Moore seems to have fixated on a single sentence in that article:

The young members of the bin Laden clan were driven or flown under F.B.I. supervision to a secret assembly point in Texas and then to Washington from where they left the country on a private charter plane when airports reopened three days after the attacks.1

Note that this is a single-source item, that it is wrong about the date on which the flight it describes took place, and that even if it were literally true, it still belies Moore''s claim that bin Laden family members were ferried out of the country before the FBI had a chance to question them -- as do other news accounts:

Dozens of Saudi citizens were flown back to Saudi Arabia at their government''s expense, while the bin Ladens are believed to have paid their own way, according to a Saudi diplomat. All of those who took up the Saudi government''s offer to fly home were reportedly questioned by the FBI before being allowed to board the flights.4

So, to summarize:

No flights took bin Laden family members out of the USA ""two days"" after the September 11 attacks. The flights Moore decries took place a week after the attacks, and they left only after the FAA had allowed regular passenger air travel to resume.

Bin Laden family members were not allowed to slip out of the USA ""over the objections of the FBI"" or before the FBI had an opportunity to ""interrogate"" them, as nearly every news account of these flights mentions that the FBI questioned the departing Saudis, grounded their planes, and supervised their departures.

The flights which carried bin Laden family members back to Saudi Arabia were not ""secret,"" as the press reported on them within days of their occurrence. (One could hardly expect that either the U.S. or the Saudi government was going to provide the world with advance notice about the departure of planes carrying people who had good reason to fear for their lives.)
Of course it was reasonable for the members of the bin Laden family to fear retaliation and to seek the asylum of their own country, especially in those first dark weeks following the attacks when Americans were frustrated about having no one within their grasp whom they could punish for the horrors visited upon New York and Washington: just consider the September 16 stabbing of a 20-year-old Saudi man who was studying at Boston University, an assault the police and the community believed had been motivated merely by the victim''s nationality. And of course it was reasonable that the Saudi goverment would be concerned for their safety, and that the U.S. government would allow them to travel to a more safe location once it was feasible for them to do so.

Some folks play fast and loose with the facts when they''ve an axe to grind, however, and in Moore''s case his axe is ""the dastardly Republicans and how they''re responsible for every ill ever visited upon the USA."" In this case, inventing a bin Laden jet that secretly flew out of the country while the rest of us were barred from the skies, and peopling it with folks who were spirited out of the FBI''s grasp by a U.S. president intent upon paying back some unnamed (but darkly hinted at) favor, is a handy way of reinforcing the stereotype of Republicans as callous and greedy politicians whose paramount values involve money, not people.

Last updated: 19 March 2002

You seem to be missing the point. They were given special treatment. Why? What did they do to warrent their own planes? There is a connection between the Bush family and the bin Ladin family which no one seems to want to discuss. And I have yet to hear a satisfying explanation over Tora Bora or any of the other issues I brought up.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

You seem to be missing the point. They were given special treatment. Why? What did they do to warrent their own planes? There is a connection between the Bush family and the bin Ladin family which no one seems to want to discuss. And I have yet to hear a satisfying explanation over Tora Bora or any of the other issues I brought up.

The whole family is ruined because of one person?

They are linked to the Bushes. H-dub did business with Papa bin Ladin. Dubya allowed this as a favor.

Hey, Ulairi, consider this a request, but I would like to see any answers you have to any question up there other than the one about bin Laden''s family. I sorta agree with you, all of them should be ruined because of one asshole uncle/cousin? But the rest of the questions are far more interesting to me, so if you have any insight Id like to hear it.

""* Why was Dick Cheney trying to negotiate with the Taliban to run an oil-pipeline through Afghanistan back in 2000?""

He was a a Private citizen and doing the work of a private company.

""* Why wasn''t the order given to shoot down the hijacked airliners on 9-11 until after the first three planes hit their targets? And, in a related vein, as a former Air National Guardsmen himself, perhaps Mr. Bush could explain why the F-16s that were scrambled to intercept the hijacked airliners did not fly at top speed?""

This is just nutty. People who believe this think FDR new about Pearl Harbour and every other nutty thing.

""* Why did the president order, over the objections of John Ashcroft and Robert Mueller, the members of the bin Ladin family be flown out of the US on a government flight during the FAA''s imposed flight ban?""

I proved this to be false.

""* Why did bin Ladin escape from Tora Bora despite being surrounded by US and Afghan soldiers?""

Because there was a cease fire in hopes of having a surrendor. It was a mistak but not some deep, dark, conspiracy.

""* Why is Zacharias Moussoui being denied access to evidence, as is his right in a US trial court?""

He''s asking for evidence he has no right to have.

""* Why are only companies that contributed heavily to the Republican Party being considered for contracts to rebuild Iraq?""

Can you link me to a source that proves this?

""* Why isn''t there a push to deploy UN Peacekeepers in Iraq in order to bring our men and women in uniform home?""

Because the UN can''t do the job. We did the work and it''s very important for the Iraqi people to see British and American troops feeding, fixing, helping, etc. The U.N. has a horrible record of re-building and peace keeping.

""* Why, all of a sudden, is Syria of such great interest despite not being ever mentioned until the war on Iraq was practically considered over nor was Syria even mentioned as a member of the Axis of Evil?""""

They''re on our state sponsering terrorist lists. Syria, Iran, and Iraq should have been the Axis of Evil.

There are only two points in there which I''d disagree with you on. 1) That Moussoui has no right to due process. I don''t believe any country has the right to hold prisoners without access to some form of legal recourse, regardless of the crime of which they are accused, or the supposed securuty issues associated with the evidence. This, in my book, is clearly a road to injustice. And 2) that Syria should have been included in the Axis of Evil in the first place. Not that I''m backing Syria, but the entire concept of an Axis of Evil is such a bungling foeign policy fumble, that I cringe every time someone mentions it. It has all the diplomatic tact of a schoolyard insult.

"Elysium" wrote:

There are only two points in there which I''d disagree with you on. 1) That Moussoui has no right to due process. I don''t believe any country has the right to hold prisoners without access to some form of legal recourse, regardless of the crime of which they are accused, or the supposed securuty issues associated with the evidence. This, in my book, is clearly a road to injustice. And 2) that Syria should have been included in the Axis of Evil in the first place. Not that I''m backing Syria, but the entire concept of an Axis of Evil is such a bungling foeign policy fumble, that I cringe every time someone mentions it. It has all the diplomatic tact of a schoolyard insult.

We agree on something! The world is ending!

"Ulairi" wrote:

He was a a Private citizen and doing the work of a private company.

A private company that he still has ties to. And don''t you think he should explain why he tried to negotiate with a government that was giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States?

This is just nutty. People who believe this think FDR new about Pearl Harbour and every other nutty thing.

Not really. The FAA reported the planes as hijacked relatively quickly. Standard op procedures even back then called for the scrambling of fighters to escort the plane. When Payne Stewart''s private depressurized and went errant back in 1999, F-16s reached his jet within minutes of being called by the FAA. On 9-11, it took anywhere between 10 minutes to 30 minutes before the ANG jets were scrambled, despite the fact they were flying out of bases relatively close to NYC and DC.

And comparing Pearl Harbor to 9-11 is assinine. If anything, the US had more specific warning that the Japanese were preparing for something big than the US did on 9-11.

I proved this to be false.

You offered an interpretation. I still disagree with the motives behind letting them all flee the country when many other people from that same region were locked up on mere suspiscion.

Because there was a cease fire in hopes of having a surrendor. It was a mistak but not some deep, dark, conspiracy.

A mistake that the administration refuses to cop to.

He''s asking for evidence he has no right to have.

Being able to use evidence in trial that can aquit you of grievous charges is the right of every person brought to trial in this justice system. And now there''s talk that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has said that Moussoui was to be involved in another attack on the US and that he was not involved with 9-11 at all, the crime that the US government has charged with.

Can you link me to a source that proves this?

I''d link you to the Wall Street Journal, which has been quoted as saying that leading Iraq contractors Bechtel, KBR, Parsons Corp., Louis Berger Group, and Flour Corp. have donated in excess of $2.8 million to political parties, with two-thirds of it going to the Republican Party. Bechtel led the pack by donating $1.3 million with much of that going to the Republicans which just proves the old addage ""Follow the money."" However, did you happen to pay $79 to have a subscription to the WSJ Online?

I voted for John McCain for president, a man with integrity who actually shed blood for this nation, to avoid bullcrap like this.

Because the UN can''t do the job.

Opinion, not fact.

We did the work and it''s very important for the Iraqi people to see British and American troops feeding, fixing, helping, etc.

Shortsighted. The US and UK need international help to legitimize this entire endeavor.

The U.N. has a horrible record of re-building and peace keeping.

Again, opinion, not fact.

They''re on our state sponsering terrorist lists. Syria, Iran, and Iraq should have been the Axis of Evil.

Prove to me that Syria has killed Americans in the past dozen years, that President Assad has killed millions of his own people, that Syria has used these weapons of mass destruction that they supposedly have, and that Syria has invaded one of its neighbor nations in the past decade. That is the standard laid out for Iraq and I only think it is fair that we should hold a member of the Axis of Evil to that same standard.

Prove to me that Syria has killed Americans in the past dozen years, that President Assad has killed millions of his own people, that Syria has used these weapons of mass destruction that they supposedly have, and that Syria has invaded one of its neighbor nations in the past decade. That is the standard laid out for Iraq and I only think it is fair that we should hold a member of the Axis of Evil to that same standard.

Syria funds and supports Hammas. Hammas has killed Americans through bombings.

So have a lot of people. I don''t hear a big push to dislodge the government of Saudi Arabia. I wonder why...

"Ulairi" wrote:

""* Why wasn''t the order given to shoot down the hijacked airliners on 9-11 until after the first three planes hit their targets? And, in a related vein, as a former Air National Guardsmen himself, perhaps Mr. Bush could explain why the F-16s that were scrambled to intercept the hijacked airliners did not fly at top speed?""

This is just nutty. People who believe this think FDR new about Pearl Harbour and every other nutty thing.

Prove it. Ive read several sources that say the same thing, where did you read that he didnt do these things?

""* Why, all of a sudden, is Syria of such great interest despite not being ever mentioned until the war on Iraq was practically considered over nor was Syria even mentioned as a member of the Axis of Evil?""""

They''re on our state sponsering terrorist lists. Syria, Iran, and Iraq should have been the Axis of Evil.

Again, why are they any different than Saudi Arabia.

Because the UN can''t do the job. We did the work and it''s very important for the Iraqi people to see British and American troops feeding, fixing, helping, etc.

You mean like those several thousand people who protested against them yesterday in Baghdad and other cities? Oh, I guess that might not have been reported on Fox News.

"JD" wrote:
Because the UN can''t do the job. We did the work and it''s very important for the Iraqi people to see British and American troops feeding, fixing, helping, etc.

You mean like those several thousand people who protested against them yesterday in Baghdad and other cities? Oh, I guess that might not have been reported on Fox News.

I don''t watch Fox. It wasn''t on MSNBC.

Apparantly MSNBC also didn''t cover this story, at least as far as the news section on their website indicates (right now). One also might want to take a look at the CNN version of the same incident, which, of course, looks somewhat different.