June 25, 2004

Saudi Flights After 9/11 - How well does Michael Moore's film Farenheit 9/11 corollate with these facts, since Moore's premise is that Bush is in bed with everyone from the Saudis to the Bin Laden family? Having not seen the film yet, I'm curious what this does to Moore's central argument.

From page 12 of Staff Statement 10 of the 9/11 Commission:

The Saudi Flights National air space was closed on September 11. Fearing reprisals against Saudi nationals, the Saudi government asked for help in getting some of its citizens out of the country. We have not yet identified who they contacted for help. But we have found that the request came to the attention of Richard Clarke and that each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.
There's more, so read the whole section.
posted by f8xmulder 19 years ago
  • Having not seen the film, I am curious how you know what Moore's central argument is.
  • Well, if the characterization of the event in the film is anything like what he was saying last night on the Daily Show, I'm not sure how it changes anything. MM
  • I'm not implying anything's cut and dried. However, I do wonder if Moore's premise stands after reading through the 9/11 Commission statement. dirtdirt, I read reviews and IMDB.
  • For me, it doesn't really matter if the people on those flights were involved in the attacks. Personally, I don't care how estranged or distantly related you are to someone, I'm guessing if you personally don't know where Osama is, you know someone that knows someone. Even regardless of that, the big issue is just that no one stopped and said, "Hey, maybe it might look bad if we give these people special treatment." The current administration is so arrogant and secretive that they just keep doing things that LOOK really suspicious and they don't really seem to care what anyone thinks of them. Like the whole Haliburton thing. Didn't someone stop and say, "you know this looks really suspicious, maybe we should let other companies bid on this contract?" Even if there isn't anything underhanded involved, why not be upfront about it and remove all doubt? Its like that stuff with the energy commission "It's none of the American people's business." What??? Again, I don't know if there is any underhanded stuff going on, but they are just so arrogant, pompous and smug the whole lot of them makes me sick.
  • My guess is that the truth is somewhere in the middle. amen to that.
  • "dirtdirt, I read reviews and IMDB." Then you know less than nothing. Go and see the movie, do some research of your own, and interpret the facts as they stand for yourself, instead of parroting what a whole bunch of other people say. That's what stupid people do. The IMDB? Weak, man. You're not afraid of the what you might find out, are you? Oh, and you could simply have upped this post as it's exactly the same question. The simple answer is: yes, they will check out because his whole career is riding on it.
  • Nostril, I plan on seeing the movie as soon as it comes to my town. Until then, I'm trying to find out as much as I can about the facts and what the movie is about so I don't just engorge myself on Michael Moore-isms. Have you seen it?
  • jc, I'm in agreement with you there. Why this administration persists in doing things in sneaky fashion tends to look bad, whether it is or not, is beyond me. However, ask yourself this: let's say Bush provided a full disclosure of every document, every scrap of information about everything that's happened in his administration. Would you believe it if it confirmed that nothing was going on "under the table"?
  • "Have you seen it?" Do you always ask silly questions?
  • Be hard to verify if everything was declassified, but answering your hypothetical, it probably would, and even if they didn't, it would go a long way toward getting me to that point, as well as earning a bit of respect from me for transparency (which should be the rule, not the exception).
  • I live in La-la land. It's opened at midnight last night and I and some friends who stayed up late to see it. I'm gonna go today and hope to shed some light on this argument after I see it.
  • A clarification of the facts from an MSNBC transcript. It's funny to watch Michael Isikoff get flustered.
  • Okay, so we execute Clark. Got it.
  • Ok, here's a silly question for f8xmulder: Do you actually think it is possible that the Bush administration ever *would* provide a full disclosure of every document, scrap of information, note, minute and text on everything that's happened during their tenure? And here's another one: Do you actually think it is possible that such information *actually would* confirm that they were not dishonest and/or traitorously illegal in their activities? Do ya? Huh? Based on what we've seen so far of their sterling work? Given that the answer to the first question would have to be "no" based on established secrecy laws, it would be absurd to pose the question you asked jccalhoun in the first place.
  • let's say Bush provided a full disclosure of every document, every scrap of information about everything that's happened in his administration. Would you believe it if it confirmed that nothing was going on "under the table"? Unfortunately, no. Because it's a case of too little, to late. They should have been more forthright from go. Anything and everything they do now is seen in the light of their secretive, "change the facts to fit the situation", style now. I'd love to give them the benefit of the doubt, but due to their actions, I simply can't.
  • "let's say Bush provided a full disclosure of every document, every scrap of information about everything that's happened in his administration. Would you believe it if it confirmed that nothing was going on "under the table"?" Personally, I really don't think that any of the stuff that the current administration is accused of could be considered a security risk or anything of the sort. The decisions that I KNOW have been made under their tenure (Iraq, patriot act, "enemy combatants," "indecency" crackdown, tax cuts, deficit spending, department of homeland surveillance...) are enough for me to want to vote for someone else. That being said, I think Kerry is one of the lamest choices the Democratic party could have made. Oh goody another boring rich white guy! Meet the new boss,same as the old boss...
  • surlyboi, I can accept that. It seems that many people who dislike Bush consider him to be a kind of fox among the grapes kind of president. Do you actually think it is possible that the Bush administration ever *would* provide a full disclosure of every document, scrap of information, note, minute and text on everything that's happened during their tenure? Unlikely, and IMHO, shouldn't be necessary. Does your local mayor or town council release everything they do to the general public? I would guess not. Do you actually think it is possible that such information *actually would* confirm that they were not dishonest and/or traitorously illegal in their activities? Do ya? Huh? Based on what we've seen so far of their sterling work? I honestly don't know. I would tend to doubt that any presidential administration has been completely honest about every single action taken while in office (or before or after, for that matter). So I imagine that Bush has wheeled and dealed (dealt doesn't quite work...) through some things, and full disclosure would confirm that.
  • I was listening to NPR a little while ago, and they had a movie critic on giving a capsule-sized snarky review of F9/11. Aside from rehashing Newsweek's arguments (which were bitchslapped to my satisfaction in the Atrios link I posted above), he went on to say something along the lines of, "Michael Moore's biggest problem is that he never changed anyone's politics." * To which I say, "So. Frigging. What?" I think the end result of this movie is not going to be the wholesale conversion of millions (although a friend saw it last night and says it's pretty persuasive). Rather, I think it'll get some fence-straddlers to vote Dem, and will serve to "fire-up" the liberal/moderate Dem base. I have a hard time believing that Ann Coulter/Michael Savage/Rush Limbaugh et. al. have ever changed anyone's politics. Their function is to put blood in the water for the conservatives. I think it's pretty damned disingenuous for the right to flip out about the fact that we liberals have our own popular polemicist, given the preponderance of prominent conservative commentators who have, for years, been doing the same thing on their own side. * On preview: I'm not sure I agree with this statement. I've loaned Downsize This! and Stupid White Men to friends who were vaguely liberal but essentially nonpolitical, only to have them go "Oh, my God! These people suck!" At least two have become fairly politically engaged as a result.
  • Tampa International Airport confirmed to the St. Petersburg Times that they allowed Saudi nationals to fly out two days after 9/11. Former law enforcement officials Dan Grossi and Manuel Perez both confirmed that they escorted the men. The Times has a copy of the 9/11 Commission request. Note: the Bush administration has denied, in the past, that this flight ever took place. I think people should pay less attention to Michael Moore and more to what is going on in the White House.
  • I live in La-la land. David Lee Roth's house?
  • Gah, I'm getting so sick of the hype I'll probably skip the movie and just get Craig Unger's book, which is the source of Moore's claims about the Saudis.
  • But homonculus, that's just what they want! [/tinfoilhelmet]
  • I'm going to see the movie tonight, and while the question of the Saudis is intriguing to me, it was -- for the record -- raised long ago in AfterMath. What I'm most interested in -- and hopeful for center-stage focus -- is Bush's use of 9/11 fears and related disinformation to illegally invade Iraq and causing the deaths of hundreds of US soldiers and thousands of Iraqi civilians.
  • I'm no huge Moore fan, but if this movie makes Bush lose in a landslide, I'll send him a bottle of scotch. Moore, not Bush. I send him POOP.
  • Moore, in my opinion and as I have said before, does himself and his point of view a disservice by even allowing the possibility of hyperbole and factual extravagance in his films. By doing so he hands his detractors the ammunition to dismiss him, and patronizes his proponents with idealoguean pandering. I'll not try to refute Moore's claims here; what's the point? From what I can tell*, little or no new ground is razed, and what charred turf the movie explores has been bandied ad infinitum by better debatists than I. But I do wish that the Left had a less belligerent and more exacting champion, for one can only assume that the movie is a sop to those who believe as he does, and the rest of us needn't bother with it, and as such contributes little to any real debate on the Matter of GWB, Iraq, et al. [*opinions and commentary on the as yet unreleased movie taken from the imo trustworthy June 28th edition of The New Yorker]
  • My favorite leftist populist commentator is Jim Hightower. Wry and funny without being cheap, angry without being overblown, can throw out accurate facts and figures without being wonky... throw in a double helping of Texas charm (he was that state's Commisioner of Agriculture for a while), and that's Hightower. I'd start with his first book, which has the unwieldy but cute title There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Lines and Dead Armadillos. I can't recommend him enough; libs will be inspired, conservatives will be impressed with the way in which he makes his argument, if nothing else.
  • There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Lines and Dead Armadillos It goes without saying that there's only one way to make a road.
  • "..and the rest of us needn't bother with it, and as such contributes little to any real debate on the Matter of GWB, Iraq, et al." What a snooty pile of bullshit that post was, eh? Full of hyperbole and half-assed mixed metaphors. I smell blood in the water. Republicans can bitch, whine, moan, use ad hominem, strawmen arguments and trot out rhetoric like nobodies' business, but as soon as someone else starts doing it, they act put-out, as if the tone has been lowered, then run away from the discussion. Fucking hypocrites. You'll try not to refute Moore's claims because you can't, since as has been noted, they aren't his claims in the first place, and the facts are on record. Just wait around, it's only gonna get better from here on in.
  • Nostril, you've got to get outside more. Have a nice morning.
  • You'll try not to refute Moore's claims because you can't ... I predict that the alternate course of action will be to call him "fat."
  • You don't have to be Republican to think he's a fat sack of shit. Gee, I guess I have to vote for Bush this fall. What a disappointment.
  • Ad hominem is proud to announce its 5000th straight year at making society an essentially unnavigable domain. *this message was sponsored by the campaign for strictly parameterizing thinking by labeling people and ideas.
  • ) for freethought. Nice one!
  • You don't have to be Republican to think he's a fat sack of shit. Gee, I guess I have to vote for Bush this fall. What a disappointment. You're gonna vote for Bush because of Michael Moore? What a poorly-formed and unserious political view.
  • Freethought Ad hominem is proud to announce its 5000th straight year at making society an essentially unnavigable domain. Wingnut Debate Dictionary ad hankering: The practice of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of ad hominem attacks, even if what they said had nothing whatsoever to do with an ad hominem. (Pandagon) Ann Coulter does this all the time. When someone dares to point out one of the nigh-on-infinite lies and misrepresentations in her "books", she responds, "Why are you attacking me?"
  • I'd respond to your analysis if I weren't such a fat sack of shit.
  • You're gonna vote for Bush because of Michael Moore? It'll take more than Moore to make me vote for Bush... though it's certainly tempting at times.
  • Bone, i heard Isikoff on NPR. What a frickin putz! I lost a lot of respect for that guy.
  • Officials Detail a Detainee Deal by 3 Countries 60 Minutes did a segment on the guys who were framed in Saudi Arabia, here's the transcript.
  • Grody.
  • Heh.
  • So? 9/11 was done by Saddam...