Posted on 07/17/2004 10:52:20 PM PDT by BJungNan
This letter appeared in our local paper that will remain nameless since they don't want us linking to them. The letter writer raises three points.
It’s time to face the facts, folks
I am fed up with reading letters which criticize Michael Moore as an un-American socialist but never bother to rebut the specific points he makes in his film:
1) Why did the Bush family show such incredibly poor judgment by having cozy business dealings with the family of terrorist Osama bin Laden in Saudi Arabia over a period of many years?
2) Why did the Bush administration fall all over itself to get 142 Saudi nationals flown out of this country two days after 9/11? Why weren’t these Saudi nationals subjected to an intense checkup by the FBI over a period of weeks before being allowed to leave? What was the big rush to get them out of the country?
3) Congress and the White House have been gung-ho about the war in Iraq; so why is it that only one congressman out of 535 has a son fighting in that war?
These “patriots” are all for the war as long as someone else’s son or daughter risks death or serious injury.
Your last point is an important one. You have to be an adult to serve in the Armed Forces. 18 or older. I do believe that 18-year-olds make their own decisions. Daddy can't FORCE Junior to enlist just because he's a Congressman. Junior still has Free Will.
IIRC there are 3-4 in the military
It might also be interesting to include in your letter the fact that John Ashcroft's son is or was in Iraq. Someone have the latest on his son's status? It's hard to search for anything related to Ashcroft, since you have to wade through so much leftist hate to do it.
I would call John Kerry a weak minded populist who has never taken a stand for anything that might require any type of risk or sacrifice from him.
John Kerry does not possess what it takes to be Commander-in-Chief period. He is a puppet for the special interest who lead him, just this past week he had to buckle under to the pressure he was under to include Hillary as a speaker.... He is weak!!!!!!
No less than SEVEN current members of Congress have children in the US Military and therefore at risk.
Sen. Tim Johnson, D-SD
Son Brooks Johnson, 31, is in Iraq, a staff sergeant with the Army's 101st Airborne Division.
Rep. John Kline, R-MN
Son, Dan Kline, is training reserve units in Georgia that are about to be sent to Iraq.
Rep. Todd Akin, R-MO
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-CA
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-CO
Rep. Ed Schrock, R-VA
Rep. Joe Wilson, R-SC
Three sons in service... one may be sent to Iraq.
Notice that six of the seven are Republicans... while the congress is about 47% Democrat.
1) Why did the Bush family show such incredibly poor judgment by having cozy business dealings with the family of terrorist Osama bin Laden in Saudi Arabia over a period of many years?
Michael Isikoff provides the debunking of Moore on this one in a Newsweek article... hardly a right-wing source.
Wow, good stat work
And also active in the gay community here in San Diego. – Gary L. Vyne
Not sure why but there seems to be a network gateway error trying to get to the Isikoff Newsweek article. Had you checked the link recently? I tried from a couple of others links and get the same result.
It is indeed very worthwhile reading. Here is the link.
The author tells the reader that the prose is going to contain "facts", and then goes on to posit questions.
Treason in the White House.
Illegal campaign contributions from the Chinese military.
Rape by a president.
Impeachment and the impeached-Evidence that democrat senators refused to view.
I'm sure Freepers can add additional subjects to a list as long as your arm.
If you are going to see the movie, you should first know many of the key points in the movie are false. You can read this for your self in a Newsweek article by Isikoff.
Here are a few key falshoods of the film.
1. Moore claims the Bush family had cozy business dealings with the family of terrorist Osama bin Laden in Saudi Arabia over a period of many years? This because the Saudis did business with the Carlyle Group company. The problem with this claim is that former president Bush didn’t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998—five months after Carlyle had already sold the subsidiary that had these business dealings with the Saudis.
More interesting, the Carter and Clinton administration had far more ties to Carlyle than did the Bush administration. Carlyle's founding and still managing partner is David Rubenstein, a former top domestic policy advisor to Jimmy Carter. Among the firm’s senior advisors is Thomas “Mack” McLarty, Bill Clinton’s former White House chief of staff, and Arthur Levitt, Clinton’s former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. One of its other managing partners is William Kennard, Clinton’s chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.
2. Moore's suggestion is that oil-company interest in building a pipeline through Afghanistan influenced early Bush administration policy regarding the Taliban.
Unocal was the company that wanted to build the pipeline. Unocal executives met repeatedly with Clinton administration officials throughout the late 1990s in an effort to promote the project—in part by getting the U.S. government to take a more conciliatory approach to the Taliban.
The Unocal pipeline project was entirely a Clinton-era proposal: By 1998, as the Taliban hardened its positions, the U.S. oil company pulled out of the deal. By the time George W. Bush took office, it was a dead issue—and no longer the subject of any lobbying in Washington.
3. Moore says the the Bush administration fall all over itself to get 142 Saudi nationals flown out of the U.s. two days after 9/11? Why weren’t these Saudi nationals subjected to an intense checkup by the FBI over a period of weeks before being allowed to leave?
The answer is, they were not allowed to leave two days after and they were subjected to FBI scrutiny. The bipartisan 9/11 commission found that the FBI screened the Saudi passengers, ran their names through federal databases, interviewed 30 of them and asked many detailed questions. Nobody of interest to the FBI was allowed to leave the country. The flight that supposedly scurried them out of the country two days after 9/11 was from Tampa to Lexington, Kentucky, not out of the United States. And it was Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism czar originally appointed during the Clinton administration and now a fierce Bush critic that gave the green light - pending approval by the FBI - for these Saudi nationals to leave the country.
Folks, propoganda is clever. The way to deal with it, if you are going to subject yourself to it - is to do additional research. The information above is not from conservative sources. The distortions in Moore's 9/11 film are well documented by several leading and liberal leaning journalists.
HUH? Why are you afraid to state the name of the paper? Geez!
1). I was just attempting a little humor. 2). I if put the paper's name in the link information, FR will not accept the post.
For the record, the name of the paper is The Desert Sun and you can find it at thedesertsundotcom.
This argument is so dishonest. Like any job, if someone is expected to be able to put forth 100% of themselves, the best product will be put out. If the head and the heart is not there on the job, it will bring the team down. We are all meant for various walks of life...some find they can put their all into civilian life while others find they can put their 100% in by serving in the military. However, asking why one did not serve in the military is like asking why someone did not do any job he or she felt they weren't right for. And why would anybody want anyone on their , staff, team, military unit, etc... who didn't want to be there in the first place? Let's not forget...It was a Democrat who brought back the draft during Vietnam and a Republican who got rid of it.
"Because the children of most of the Congress Critters are wussies"
Silly statement. You may think less of congressmen because they are in the public eye, but refrain from assaulting children. . .it's unmanly.
". . .and with an all volunteer Army, none have volunteered to serve."
See Post 25. You are not looking very good here. . .newbie.
"many don't have children in the 18-40 year old range to even be in the military."
The only smart thing you said in your post.
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.