So the Michael Moore fans are backpedaling, and claiming that he doesn’t really say what he really says in Fahrenheit 9/11 about special treatment for the bin Laden family members in the US. See the next post by my Bolshevik co-blogger for a good example of this head-in-the-sand posturing.
I’ve seen Michael Moore on the Letterman show and on This Week with George Stephanopoulos saying that the president was paid-off by the Saudis to give special treatment to them; the figure he quotes is $1.4 billion, the alleged value of a series of business deals. The way he puts it is: “hey, if you paid me $1.4 Billion, I’d give you special treatment too.” In the movie, he uses Craig Unger to make this charge.
So we should be clear that Moore alleges special treatment was given to Saudis in general, and to bin Ladens in particular. This special treatment was in two forms, according to Moore: they were allowed to fly when others weren’t. Moore told Letterman he wanted to fly on Sept. 13th, when a bin Laden did, but that he couldn’t. He alleges that the Saudis weren’t properly screened, and quotes Unger in this connection:
I do argue — accurately — that the bin Ladens and other Saudis were whisked out of the country without being subjected to a serious investigation.
All in all, he alleges that national security was breached by President Bush in order to give special treatment to the bin Ladens, all in the interest of money.
So why is it that Moore and his stooges now want to back away from this charges?
Because they aren’t true, as the staff report (cited below) confirms.
We already KNOW that national security was breached by the Bush regime: witness the Valerie Plame affair.
If anybody has any idea that the Bushies have the interests of the average American in mind as they run the country, I’m afraid they are seriously deluded.
In the interests of balance, though, here’s what Unger said, from Richard’s link:
“In dismissing the Bush-Saudi ties, Isikoff even omits the fact that more than $1.4 billion in investments and contracts went from the House of Saud to companies in which the Bushes and Cheney have been key figures — all of which is itemized in my book.”
Evidently, alot of this furor comes from Michael Isikoff, who blew his credibility, so to sepak, when he made the ridiculous claim that Susan McDougal wouldn’t testify because she had had an affair with Bill Clinton.
That puts him in Jayson Blair and Bill Gertz land, Richard.
What does Valerie Plame have to do with the Arab evacuations, John?