Posted on 07/12/2004 10:22:52 AM PDT by NorthDakotaRepublican
U. S. Senate Republican candidate Mike Liffrig again criticized incumbent Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., for his part in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," bringing in two veterans from the Iraq war to share their opinions.
Liffrig and the veterans said Dorgan should apologize for taking part in a movie that demoralizes U.S. troops.
Dorgan appears in the film asking questions about how 142 Saudi citizens got clearance to leave the country shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, before being "properly interrogated."
Dorgan shouldn't apologize for the questions he asked, Liffrig said Friday morning, but for appearing in a film that attacks the Bush administration and the war on terror.
The senator, who hasn't seen the movie, said he wasn't responsible for the rest of the documentary. Dorgan said he was merely asking questions that need to be asked.
"I'm in the movie for about a total of one minute," he said.
Josh Churchill, a specialist in the National Guard, said Dorgan knowingly participated in a film that inaccurately portrays troops as violent and indifferent toward Iraqi citizens.
"We had hands-on interaction with the people of Iraq, and it was positive," said Churchill, who volunteered with Liffrig's campaign. "(Fahrenheit 9/11) doesn't address the true happenings in Iraq."
Specialist Derek Holt, who also spoke Friday, said the movie encourages terrorists and divides the country over the war, putting American and coalition lives at risk. Dorgan should distance himself from the movie, he said.
Filmmakers contacted Dorgan after he publicly questioned safety regulations that allowed butane lighters on airplanes, another topic he brings up in the movie. The senator said the release of Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, is an issue he'll bring up any chance he gets in order to find answers.
"I ask the same questions today," he said.
Dorgan's main concern is that several Saudis, including two Saudis who had been under investigation by the FBI, were reportedly allowed to leave the country in the days following Sept. 11. The senator cited testimony by Richard Clarke, head of counterterrorism at the White House, who said that decision was made with input from the White House and the FBI.
Liffrig said if Dorgan had concerns about the government's actions after Sept. 11, 2001, he should bring them up in other ways. "Fahrenheit 9/11" has assertions that "belong at a cartoon level," but a government official like Dorgan gives the film undue legitimacy by participating in it.
"There are responsible ways to raise questions," Liffrig said.
Dorgan said he had brought these issues up in Senate committee hearings and every venue he could.
"I make no apologies," he said. "Any time I get the opportunity to ask these questions, I do it."
I thought that Richard Clarke has said that he gave the permission himself. This "input from the White House" could mean that he was located in the White House when he gave the permission.
In interview with The Hill yesterday, Clarke said, “I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again.”
Most of the 26 passengers aboard one flight, which departed from the United States on Sept. 20, 2001 [Note: AFTER the flight ban was lifted], were relatives of Osama bin Laden, whom intelligence officials blamed for the attacks almost immediately after they happened.
“It didn’t get any higher than me,” he said. “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.”
“The request came to me, and I refused to approve it,” Clarke testified. “I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the — at the time — No. 2 person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved … the flight.” Clarke said yesterday that the furor over the flights of Saudi citizens is much ado about nothing.
“This is a tempest in a teapot,” he said, adding that, since the attacks, the FBI has never said that any of the passengers aboard the flight shouldn’t have been allowed to leave or were wanted for further investigation.
He said that many members of the bin Laden family had been subjects of FBI surveillance for years before the attacks and were well-known to law-enforcement officials.
I saw this on the local Fargo news. Great!
Isn't he concerned at all that his words may have ben taken out of context in order for Moore to CREATE that al Qaeda recruitment film??
Does he know exactly what's in the film and so hate President Bush that he's willing to watch more Americans die to get him out of office? For instance, IF he hasn't seen it, has he read the script or been briefed by aides who HAVE seen it?
Is he saying he didn't see it so he can use the convenient, "Gee, I didn't know" defense?
Because I know this Saudi/ Bin Laden family thing is nonsense, I have some questions. Has a single one of these individuals ever been identified as a terrorist or as having a terrorist connection? Has the U.S. ever wanted to interrogate or aprehend one of these people and been unable to do so? I'm betting the answers are no. Saying "Saudis" or even "Bin Laden family memebers" were let out of the country is as meaningful as saying some left handed people were let out.
Michael Moore's treason kills American soldiers.
"Treason's First Cousin" Bump!
It's important to note that according to Moore's film, they were allowed to fly out of the country while the ban was still in effect.
Binny has about a thousand family members. Presuming they're all guilty, as the left does, is downright intolorant and divisive.
Thanks, you answered my questions while I was posting. Imagine what scum the democrats are when they know that none of these people were of interest to law enforcement, and that no one "escaped" justice. The dems are pure scum.
As you expected, the answer to your questions is "no"
Feed Moore, watch him sh*t. Good job, Senator.
How does the moron Dorgan keep getting re-elected in North Dakota?
An old April 2004 post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1123655/posts
In a state which went for George Bush in 2000 with 61%, can two young and attractive Republican candidates raise the funds to upset a couple of Democrat incumbents?
Duane Sand, doing well in fund raising, a 1990 Naval Academy graduate with a creditable Senate race behind him is opposing Democratic At-Large Cong. Earl Pomeroy...who in 2002 made it through with just 52%, and was held to 53% in the 2000 election. Sand has a real chance, for information see:
http://www.duanesand.com/index.html
Perhaps a bit more under the radar screen is Mike Liffrig, 45 year old Republican candidate for Senate against incumbent Byron Dorgan. Dorgan has won his last two terms with about 60% against underfunded opponents. Mike Liffrig has a well constructed web page which shows an attractive family and personal story, and a well constructed message.
http://www.mikeliffrig.com/default.asp
If he can speak in public, campaign, and raise money, a "BUSH sweep year" would seem to make a North Dakota Upset possible.
Who can tell us more about how things are going in North Dakota?
Would be nice to have matching weasels bagged in the Dakotas, yes?
North Dakotans vote primarily in economic terms. Conservative win locally because they are perceived to hold down taxes, Democrats win national office because it is (rightly) perceived that they will keep the Federal pork flowing to the state. Of course if strategy wasn't a foreign concept to Republican leadership they'd do something about it.
Is Dorgan running for Senate this year?
Today it's hot and muggy. What else do you want to know?
Why yes, he sends me letters all the time taking credit for all the new Federal programs he is bring to the state.
I can't think of any pork that has been slowed down during the past 3 ½ years. It is a criticism that 'conservatives" have against the current Republican officeholders in DC.
Liffig needs to tell NDans that no one can stop the flow of goodies to "those whose lives depend on it." [AKA every special interest group]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.