Who has seen Fahrenheit 911? - DPChallenge Forums

08/01/2004 10:44:47 AM · #76

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Basically the movie is a waste of time like I knew it would be. :)

Its a shame you allready were firmly footed in your oppinion of the movie, of course you came out of it thinking what you allready figured it would be.

The moving scenes of Lila didnt do anything to you? The whole second part of the movie? It was not just a "political rant".

08/01/2004 10:50:21 AM · #77

Originally posted by thelsel:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

That article has no credability. It referes to "An Illinois newspaper" as its source.

You think this isnâ��t creditable but you believe all the BS sources on Michael Mooreâ��s site? Use an open mind and review Mooreâ��s sources again. Youâ��ll find itâ��s full of fluff. Like I pointed out in my previous posts, the â��factsâ�� are either frivolous, undisputed, unsupported or chronologically incorrect. Why would Moore need to prove Bush slept on French linens or air traffic was grounded for days after 911? None of these items are smoking guns and seem to be nothing more than filler for an already weak database. The rest of the sources read like the six degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon.

I didnâ��t give that article its just time, my apologies in this case.

You my friend thelsel, for someone who hates Moore, surely do use his "editing tactics" to attempt to make your point. Refer to my post on page 2.

08/02/2004 03:52:14 AM · #78

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by thelsel:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

That article has no credability. It referes to "An Illinois newspaper" as its source.

You think this isnâ��t creditable but you believe all the BS sources on Michael Mooreâ��s site? Use an open mind and review Mooreâ��s sources again. Youâ��ll find itâ��s full of fluff. Like I pointed out in my previous posts, the â��factsâ�� are either frivolous, undisputed, unsupported or chronologically incorrect. Why would Moore need to prove Bush slept on French linens or air traffic was grounded for days after 911? None of these items are smoking guns and seem to be nothing more than filler for an already weak database. The rest of the sources read like the six degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon.

I didnâ��t give that article its just time, my apologies in this case.

You my friend thelsel, for someone who hates Moore, surely do use his "editing tactics" to attempt to make your point. Refer to my post on page 2.

What are you talking about? What editing tactics? Apparently weâ��re not on the same page here. Iâ��ve repeated over and over that his sources donâ��t support his statements or his statements are worded in ways that make the sources completely pointless. I followed up with numerous examples to prove my point. Go back and read all my posts and give me some indication of what it is you disagree with.

08/02/2004 08:33:58 AM · #79

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by thelsel:

Originally posted by bdobe:
And after you've read the incredibly contrived and hair-splitting website mentioned above, visit Fahrenheit 9/11 Notes + Sources -- where every issue raised in the film is documented.

...and while reading Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 Notes + Sources pay careful attention to what the source actually says. I've read them all and almost every one doesn't actually support what Moore said or they support absolutely nothing. Some go as far to refute what Moore said. Just read the sources word for word and you'll see what I mean.

For instance:

"Was it that group of religious fundamentalists who visited my state when I was governor?"

Moore's sources state that a Taleban delegation visited Unocal in Texas. Where does it state they were invited by Bush? Where does it say he even knew they were there?

"On Sept. 10, 2001 , Bush joined his brother in Florida where he slept the night in "a bed made of fine French linens."

Moore's sources didn't actually state the President slept on anything. But even if he did, so what?

Read them all carefully and you'll see they're all total BS.

Dude...

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: â��Was it that group of religious fundamentalists who visited my state when I was governor?â��

â��A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.â�� â��Taleban in Texas for talks on Gas Pipeline,â�� BBC News, December 4, 1997 (Sugarland is 22 miles outside Houston.)

Hmmâ�¦

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: On Sept. 10, 2001 , Bush joined his brother in Florida where he slept the night in â��a bed made of fine French linens.â��

Bush has not been bashful about visiting Florida, ground zero in the vote-recount battle that followed last year's election. On this trip, he was spending a good deal of time with his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush. " President to Push Congress on Education in Fourth Florida Visit,â�� Associated Press, September 10, 2001; See also, CNN Inside Politics, September 10, 2001.
Two individuals prepared the presidentâ��s room â��and made the bed with some of the family's fine French linens.â�� Tom Bayles, â��The Day Before Everything Changed, President Bush Touched Locals' Lives,â�� Sarasota Herald-Tribune, September 10, 2002.

If your calling someone else a liar, donâ��t do exactly that in the same breath.

As you can see here Thelsel, you did not correctly quote his sources in an attempt to show them as you want them seen, not as they are.

08/02/2004 02:43:28 PM · #80

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by thelsel:

Originally posted by bdobe:
And after you've read the incredibly contrived and hair-splitting website mentioned above, visit Fahrenheit 9/11 Notes + Sources -- where every issue raised in the film is documented.

...and while reading Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 Notes + Sources pay careful attention to what the source actually says. I've read them all and almost every one doesn't actually support what Moore said or they support absolutely nothing. Some go as far to refute what Moore said. Just read the sources word for word and you'll see what I mean.

For instance:

"Was it that group of religious fundamentalists who visited my state when I was governor?"

Moore's sources state that a Taleban delegation visited Unocal in Texas. Where does it state they were invited by Bush? Where does it say he even knew they were there?

"On Sept. 10, 2001 , Bush joined his brother in Florida where he slept the night in "a bed made of fine French linens."

Moore's sources didn't actually state the President slept on anything. But even if he did, so what?

Read them all carefully and you'll see they're all total BS.

Dude...

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: â��Was it that group of religious fundamentalists who visited my state when I was governor?â��

â��A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.â�� â��Taleban in Texas for talks on Gas Pipeline,â�� BBC News, December 4, 1997 (Sugarland is 22 miles outside Houston.)

Hmmâ�¦

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: On Sept. 10, 2001 , Bush joined his brother in Florida where he slept the night in â��a bed made of fine French linens.â��

Bush has not been bashful about visiting Florida, ground zero in the vote-recount battle that followed last year's election. On this trip, he was spending a good deal of time with his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush. " President to Push Congress on Education in Fourth Florida Visit,â�� Associated Press, September 10, 2001; See also, CNN Inside Politics, September 10, 2001.
Two individuals prepared the presidentâ��s room â��and made the bed with some of the family's fine French linens.â�� Tom Bayles, â��The Day Before Everything Changed, President Bush Touched Locals' Lives,â�� Sarasota Herald-Tribune, September 10, 2002.

If your calling someone else a liar, donâ��t do exactly that in the same breath.

As you can see here Thelsel, you did not correctly quote his sources in an attempt to show them as you want them seen, not as they are.

I had no intension of presenting any facts as I wanted them seen. I clearly stated for people to read the sources for themselves. Your link was still present in the top of my post. I was merely pointing out examples of my disagreement with Mooreâ��s statements without using a half a screen of rant real estate. I assumed most people would have taken the initiative to compare my comments against Mooreâ��s sources and comment accordingly. Now, you can keep dodging the issue if you like, but Iâ��d really like to argue the validity of some statements and sources.

BrennanOB

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/02/2004 03:16:06 PM · #81

The saddest part of the whole movie was when some stranger came up to a mother greiving over the loss of her son in Iraq, and this stranger accuses her of lying about her son's death. We have become so fixed in our positions that anything that might cause sympathy for the other side is attacked or denied. Our common civility has eroded to the point where we see our fellow citizens as the enemy, and will grant them neither quarter nor humanity. I wish we could disagree without demonizing.

08/02/2004 04:07:39 PM · #82

Originally posted by thelsel:

I assumed most people would have taken the initiative to compare my comments against Mooreâ��s sources and comment accordingly.

That is the problem. That is what the whitehouse counts on us NOT doing. That is why 45% of Americans still say they will vote Bush.

08/02/2004 05:17:40 PM · #83

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by thelsel:
I assumed most people would have taken the initiative to compare my comments against Mooreâ��s sources and comment accordingly.

That is the problem. That is what the whitehouse counts on us NOT doing. That is why 45% of Americans still say they will vote Bush.

And MadMordegon unsuccessfully dodges the issue AGAIN! Iâ��ll give a specific topic (again) and you tell me how Mooreâ��s sources support it.

Moore says:
"Make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote countin' woman..."

I say:
Show me a specific quote in Mooreâ��s sources where it states Katherine Harris "counted" anything. I see a source that seems to support the fact that she â��certifiedâ�� what was submitted to her from each precinct. Including the Democrat controlled precincts that were hotly contested in 2000. I believe Mooreâ��s statement was meant to deceive people into thinking Katherine Harris personally manipulated the count. I see nothing in Mooreâ��s sources to lead me to agree with his point of view. It seems funny to me that a site that is supposed to defend his comments has sources that donâ��t even come close. Would you agree?

bdobe

08/02/2004 05:47:22 PM · #84

Originally posted by thelsel:

Moore says:
"Make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote countin' woman..."

I say:
Show me a specific quote in Mooreâ��s sources where it states Katherine Harris "counted" anything. I see a source that seems to support the fact that she "certified" what was submitted to her from each precinct. Including the Democrat controlled precincts that were hotly contested in 2000.

Wow, talk about extreme literalism! I thought Mr. Moore's use of satire was pretty obvious, but I guess I was mistaken.

At any rate, isn't it enough that while Katherine Harris was Bush's Florida campaign chairperson, she was also the State Secretary (in charge of overseeing the conduct of the election), and therefore should have recused herself (given the apparent conflict of interests) from anything having to do with the certification of a closely contested election?

Here's what I know, my employer requires me to recuse myself from any business transaction whenever there's even the appearance of impropriety -- much less a conflict of interest regarding a third party.

08/02/2004 07:18:01 PM · #85

Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by thelsel:

Moore says:
"Make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote countin' woman..."

I say:
Show me a specific quote in Mooreâ��s sources where it states Katherine Harris "counted" anything. I see a source that seems to support the fact that she "certified" what was submitted to her from each precinct. Including the Democrat controlled precincts that were hotly contested in 2000.

Wow, talk about extreme literalism! I thought Mr. Moore's use of satire was pretty obvious, but I guess I was mistaken.

At any rate, isn't it enough that while Katherine Harris was Bush's Florida campaign chairperson, she was also the State Secretary (in charge of overseeing the conduct of the election), and therefore should have recused herself (given the apparent conflict of interests) from anything having to do with the certification of a closely contested election?

Here's what I know, my employer requires me to recuse myself from any business transaction whenever there's even the appearance of impropriety -- much less a conflict of interest regarding a third party.

Iâ��m not arguing what Katherine Harris should or shouldnâ��t have done. Iâ��m arguing that what is present to be a â��Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11â�� is neither factual nor backed up by the sources presented. Instead I find that many items are undisputed, frivolous or so completely vague itâ��s hard to make the stretch. Silly old me expected that a â��Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11â�� would actually be full of some substance. Instead I get the impression itâ��s nothing more then fluff to deceive people into thinking there was a lot of info here.

bdobe

08/02/2004 08:15:24 PM · #86

Originally posted by thelsel:

I'm not arguing what Katherine Harris should or shouldn't have done. I'm arguing that what is present to be a "Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11" is neither factual nor backed up by the sources presented. Instead I find that many items are undisputed, frivolous or so completely vague it's hard to make the stretch. Silly old me expected that a "Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11" would actually be full of some substance. Instead I get the impression it's nothing more then fluff to deceive people into thinking there was a lot of info here.

I strongly disagree with your characterization of the facts used to support Mr. Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. After reading some of your previous posts, it's clear that we'll not agree on this point either. Though you may object Mr. Moore's conclusions, the facts presented in F-9/11 have been thoroughly vetted:

[Mr. Moore] also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine's legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film."

and...

"We have gone through every single word of this film -- literally every word -- and verified its accuracy," said Joanne Doroshow, a public interest lawyer and filmmaker who shared in a 1993 Oscar for documentaries and who joined the fact-checking effort last month. Ms. Doroshow is responsible for preparing what she calls a "fact-checking bible," with material ranging from newspaper and magazine articles to copies of the Federal Register, that will allow the film's lawyers and publicists to provide backup for its allegations.

As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, F-9/11 is an "opinion piece," heavily supported with corroborating facts. That said, even Mr. Moore's fact-checker concedes that many will not agree with his conclusions:

"This is an Op-Ed piece, it's not a news report," said Dev Chatillon, the former general counsel for The New Yorker. "This is not The New York Times, it's not a network news report. The facts have to be right, yes, but this is an individual's view of current events. And I'm a very firm believer that it is within everybody's right to examine the actions of their government."

To outright dismiss F-9/11, and its corroborating facts, is to forfeit our right to question our representatives.

You may read the full article here...

BrennanOB

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/02/2004 08:35:40 PM · #87

The scary thing about this thread is when we start talking about who is a "loyal American" and decide that "they" are traitors. How would the framers of the constitution feel about a populace that timidly followed their leaders, unquestioning and docile? If you don't care for Mr. Moore's pointed humor, can you bear to read Mr. Franklin's little jabs?

The fact is that our nation has long been politically divided, unity is not the natural state of our union. Our government was set up to do battle with itself. At the moment all 3 branches of the government are in the hands of one political philosophy, this does not mean that there are no other legitimate voices. When retoric becomes so heated that you can not listen to an oposing view point, you risk losing touch with reality and swerving off into a private fantasy.

If you hold that the film is all lies, you did not hear what he was saying. If you think all of it's assertions are true, you have misunderstood the art of muckraking.

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

08/02/2004 11:32:06 PM · #88

Read Washington Post story:

Pre-9/11 Acts Led To Alerts
Officials Unsure Spying On Buildings Continued
By Dan Eggen and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 3, 2004; Page A01

Most of the al Qaeda surveillance of five financial institutions that led to a new terrorism alert Sunday was conducted before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and authorities are not sure whether the casing of the buildings has continued since then, numerous intelligence and law enforcement officials said yesterday.

More than half a dozen government officials interviewed yesterday, who declined to be identified because classified information is involved, said that most, if not all, of the information about the buildings seized by authorities in a raid in Pakistan last week was about three years old, and possibly older.

There is nothing right now that we're hearing that is new," said one senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the alert. "Why did we go to this level? . . . I still don't know that."

One piece of information on one building, which intelligence officials would not name, appears to have been updated in a computer file as late as January 2004, according to a senior intelligence official. But officials could not say yesterday whether that piece of data was the result of active surveillance by al Qaeda or came instead from information about the buildings that is publicly available.

Several officials also said that much of the information compiled by terrorist operatives about the buildings in Washington, New York and Newark was obtained through the Internet or other "open sources" available to the general public, including some floor plans.

Many administration officials stressed yesterday that even three-year-old intelligence, when coupled with other information about al Qaeda's plans to attack the United States, justified the massive security response in the three cities. Police and other security teams have been assigned to provide extra protection for the surveilled buildings, identified as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank headquarters in Washington; the New York Stock Exchange and Citigroup Center in New York; and the Prudential Financial building in Newark.

Intelligence officials said that the remarkably detailed information about the surveillance -- which included logs of pedestrian traffic and notes on the types of explosives that might work best against each target -- was evaluated in light of general intelligence reports received this summer indicating that al Qaeda hopes to strike a U.S. target before the November presidential elections.

But the characterization of the age of the intelligence yesterday cast a new light on Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge's announcement Sunday that the terrorism threat alert for the financial services sectors in the three cities had been raised. Ridge and other officials stressed Sunday the urgency of acting on the newly obtained information, but yesterday a range of officials made clear how dated much of the intelligence was.

One senior intelligence official said the information is still being evaluated.

A number of other buildings were mentioned in the seized computer files, but only in vague references, so officials decided not to issue alerts about them, an intelligence official said. They included the Bank of America building in San Francisco; the Nasdaq and American Stock Exchange buildings in New York, as well as two other sites in that city; and an undisclosed building in Washington and another in New Jersey.

"We chose not to release it because we decided they weren't anywhere near the same level of danger as the others," the official said.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney said in separate appearances yesterday that the new alert underscores the continuing threat posed by al Qaeda. At a news conference announcing his proposed intelligence reforms, Bush said the alert shows "there's an enemy which hates what we stand for."

"It's serious business," Bush said. "I mean, we wouldn't be, you know, contacting authorities at the local level unless something was real."

Employees at announced targets in New York and New Jersey arrived at work yesterday with a mix of defiance and jitters. Some said they wanted to send a message that terrorists could not deter them from living their lives as usual. Others were visibly shaken by the presence of heavily armed police officers and new barricades.

Linktext

Message edited by author 2004-08-02 23:34:41.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/03/2004 12:15:38 AM · #89

Full Text Here

Open Letter To Thomas Kean
Â Â Â Â - Chairman Of The 9/11 Commission -
Â Â Â Â From FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds

Â Â Â Â August 1, 2004

Â Â Â Â Thomas Kean, Chairman
Â Â Â Â National Committee on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
Â Â Â Â 301 7th Street, SW
Â Â Â Â Room 5125
Â Â Â Â Washington, DC 20407

Â Â Â Â Dear Chairman Kean:

Â Â Â Â It has been almost three years since the terrorist attacks on September 11; during which time we, the people, have been placed under a constant threat of terror and asked to exercise vigilance in our daily lives. Your commission, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, was created by law to investigate "facts and circumstances related to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001" and to "provide recommendations to safeguard against future acts of terrorism", and has now issued its "9/11 Commission Report". You are now asking us to pledge our support for this report, its recommendations, and implementation of these recommendations, with our trust and backing, our tax money, our security, and our lives. Unfortunately, I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I am aware of, which have been confirmed, and which as a witness to the commission, I made you aware of. Thus, I must assume that other serious issues that I am not aware of were in the same manner omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations. Considering what is at stake, our national security, we are entitled to demand answers to unanswered questions, and to ask for clarification of issues that were ignored and/or omitted from the report.

Six specific instances of serious "problems" omitted from the "911 Report" are described in (unclassified) detail.

08/04/2004 11:44:32 PM · #90

Originally posted by GeneralE:

****
It's amazing to me that no one has yet read and commented about this letter to the 9/11 commission that was posted above by GeneralE a few days ago. This letter is one of the most important documents that have come out about the 9/11 attacks and our intelligence failures and is an outrage! Yet most remain silent about it. Sibel Edmonds is putting her life on the line here and may wind up going to jail for it. She is very courageous. After reading it you have to ask what other coverups are going on about these attacks and just how safe are we from further attack.

08/05/2004 08:20:48 AM · #91

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Full Text Here

Open Letter To Thomas Kean
Â Â Â Â - Chairman Of The 9/11 Commission -
Â Â Â Â From FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds

Â Â Â Â August 1, 2004

Â Â Â Â Thomas Kean, Chairman
Â Â Â Â National Committee on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
Â Â Â Â 301 7th Street, SW
Â Â Â Â Room 5125
Â Â Â Â Washington, DC 20407

Â Â Â Â Dear Chairman Kean:

Â Â Â Â It has been almost three years since the terrorist attacks on September 11; during which time we, the people, have been placed under a constant threat of terror and asked to exercise vigilance in our daily lives. Your commission, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, was created by law to investigate "facts and circumstances related to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001" and to "provide recommendations to safeguard against future acts of terrorism", and has now issued its "9/11 Commission Report". You are now asking us to pledge our support for this report, its recommendations, and implementation of these recommendations, with our trust and backing, our tax money, our security, and our lives. Unfortunately, I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I am aware of, which have been confirmed, and which as a witness to the commission, I made you aware of. Thus, I must assume that other serious issues that I am not aware of were in the same manner omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations. Considering what is at stake, our national security, we are entitled to demand answers to unanswered questions, and to ask for clarification of issues that were ignored and/or omitted from the report.

Six specific instances of serious "problems" omitted from the "911 Report" are described in (unclassified) detail.

****
It's amazing to me that no one has yet read and commented about this letter to the 9/11 commission that was posted above by GeneralE a few days ago. This letter is one of the most important documents that have come out about the 9/11 attacks and our intelligence failures and is an outrage! Yet most remain silent about it. Sibel Edmonds is putting her life on the line here and may wind up going to jail for it. She is very courageous. After reading it you have to ask what other coverups are going on about these attacks and just how safe are we from further attack.

That is quite the letter.
I think ive just been getting burned out on all this. I have so much proof, so many references, this is not the only place I try to spark political conversation and debate, while trying to inform people of what I consider, a dire issue.. All you have to do is search for info, keep your ears/eyes open, and dont listen to obviously one sided sources, like Fox news.

Yet no matter how much I present proof, how many facts I present and no matter how I present it all, VERY few people ive engaged, who allready had a prefernce of partisan, have not changed their mind or even considered my information, in the light of overwhelming evidence, and instead bash me or laugh at me for my "liberal" and "far left" propaganda.

However, those who ive presented my information to that did NOT allready have a party affiliation, MOST of them have listened to me with open ears and questioned my information, not me, to which I am able to show proof, instead of having to defend myself.

I wish this cycle could change, its bad for my soul and my mental state.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

08/05/2004 10:29:46 AM · #92

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

I think ive just been getting burned out on all this. I have so much proof, so many references, this is not the only place I try to spark political conversation and debate, while trying to inform people of what I consider, a dire issue.. All you have to do is search for info, keep your ears/eyes open, and dont listen to obviously one sided sources, like Fox news.

Yet no matter how much I present proof, how many facts I present and no matter how I present it all, VERY few people ive engaged, who allready had a prefernce of partisan, have not changed their mind or even considered my information, in the light of overwhelming evidence, and instead bash me or laugh at me for my "liberal" and "far left" propaganda.

However, those who ive presented my information to that did NOT allready have a party affiliation, MOST of them have listened to me with open ears and questioned my information, not me, to which I am able to show proof, instead of having to defend myself.

I wish this cycle could change, its bad for my soul and my mental state.

Journalist Orson Scott Card says here "The only differences between Fox News and all the other news media are (1) they admit that on some issues they take sides, and (2) they allow the conservative side to be heard--without contempt." Fox is not one-sided - it just seems that way because they present the conservative viewpoint, unlike most of the rest of the media.
Sorry that you feel ineffective, but, in my opinion, you do not present very much in the way of either "proof" or "facts". What you do is post excerpts and links to articles that are filled with a geat deal of inuendo, opinion, conjecture, and accusations, but very little in the way of "facts". Perhaps that's why you fail to sway beliefs. If you could weed out the rhetoric and such and present "real facts" you might be more successful - though I know that that is a tall order.

To Olyuzi, and GeneralE: Didn't mean to make you feel ignored. I read the entire Sibel Edmonds letter, and, if even a small part of her accusations are true, it does raise serious concerns about the thoroughness of the 9/11 Commissions investigation and Report, and about the integrity of the FBI, itself, both before and since the 9/11 attacks. I agree that her accusations should be thoroughly investigated - but I feel that no one will have the guts to buck the politics of self-preservation to press for such an investigation.
I do thank you, GeneralE, for posting the link and excerpt - I would probably not have stumbled across it in the normal course of my day.

Ron

Olympus 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6 M.Zuiko Digital ED

08/05/2004 12:52:56 PM · #93

And now this tid-bit of news:
Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama was found to have leaked classified intercepted messages to Fox and CNN in 2002 when he was chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. One of these messages was intercepted and obtained on 9/10/2001 by the National Security Agency and was not interpreted till the 12th. It read: "The match is about to begin" and "Tomorrow is zero hour." The justice dept has decided not to take any action.

Washington Post article here.

The plot thickens and I smell a coverup.

jonr

Olympus OM-D E-M5

08/05/2004 12:56:15 PM · #94

I'll wait for the DVD, theaters are way too expensive for this kind of movies.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

08/05/2004 01:22:06 PM · #95

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Me too. But here's the way it works - if the Justice Department takes any action on this breach, then, to be fair, they must take action on the Sandy Berger breach. Now, Would you REALLY want that?

08/05/2004 01:43:45 PM · #96

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
And now this tid-bit of news:
Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama was found to have leaked classified intercepted messages to Fox and CNN in 2002 when he was chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. One of these messages was intercepted and obtained on 9/10/2001 by the National Security Agency and was not interpreted till the 12th. It read: "The match is about to begin" and "Tomorrow is zero hour." The justice dept has decided not to take any action.

Washington Post article here.

The plot thickens and I smell a coverup.

Me too. But here's the way it works - if the Justice Department takes any action on this breach, then, to be fair, they must take action on the Sandy Berger breach. Now, Would you REALLY want that?

Ron, I'm not sure exactly what Sandy Berger took and I wouldn't care if he was prosecuted. We don't know if what he took was injurious to the Clinton administration or if it was materials that would prevent the Bush administration from saying certain things about the Clinton admin...Berger would have the proof that it wasn't so. (sorry about the long windedness...lol).

What I'm saying here is that it's not the criminal activity here that's really important, but rather it may say something deeper about what's been going on within the Bush administration. My take on this is that they have decided not to prosecute because Shelby may know alot more than he is letting onto (being that he was chair of the Intelligence committee) and holding that information as trump cards to prevent his prosecution. In other words, maybe a deal has been made that he won't be prosecuted if he doesn't say anything more about what he knows. Same thing could be said of Sandy Berger, as he could have evidence that could be damning to the Bush admin. The fact that Sibel Edmonds letter to the 9/11 Commission has opened up more doors into what's going on within the FBI and possibly within the Bush administration, shows that the 9/11 commission report is very suspect and that there needs to be more investigations.

08/05/2004 01:46:49 PM · #97

Originally posted by RonB:

I believe that is far, far from the truth unfortunately.

I watched the movie //www.outfoxed.org last night. The information in that movie and clips of people like Bill Oreilly throwing guests off his show "The Oreilly Factor" that disagree with him. Telling guests to shut up, intimidation, etc.

Here is a clip of an interview between Jeremy Glick (father died in 911) and Bill Oreilly Jeremy Glick on Bill O'reilly
Unfortunately I donâ��t have the second part of this (which can be seen on Outfoxed). The second part is on the next night of his show where he claims.. actually, ill add this in later, to give people time to watch the 1st part.

Message edited by author 2004-08-05 13:58:56.

08/05/2004 01:48:05 PM · #98

For instance...and this is only speculation on my part...
With all of the information that was being conveyed to the intelligence communities about the impending 9/11 attacks by a lot of reputable sources around the world prior to 9/11 attacks, why was there a delay in interpreting the intercepted message and why wasn't Condileeza Rice more on top of things? Just one of the many questions that could be asked of the current governmental leaders.

08/05/2004 01:50:46 PM · #99

Originally posted by jonr:

I'll wait for the DVD, theaters are way too expensive for this kind of movies.

You can download the movie online from many different places and Michael Moore has no problems with file sharing.

I got my copy from www.suprnova.org