Fahrenheit 9/11: Details and Accuracy

[PeachMonkey]

The other threads on Moore's latest film have pretty much degraded into acrimony, so I thought I'd launch a new thread where we analyze individual points of the film for accuracy, and where possible, fairness.

I'd prefer if anyone participating in this thread focus on the details of the film, using references to highlight their accuracy. We've got at least two other threads to tear into one another over the politics of the movie, Moore's "general" credibility, etc etc.

I think it's only fair for people who bring up claims of Moore's facts/statements to have actually *seen* the film. Supporting or refuting those statements is a separate issue.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Maybe this is a nitpick, but it struck me while watching the movie yesterday and has stuck in my head ever since.

One of Moore's narrative points for launching into a discussion of the links between the Bush family and the House of Saud and the bin Ladens is triggered by Bush's service record.

Moore shows a copy of a discipline record released in the recent past by the Bush administration alongside a copy Moore himself claims to have received in 2000. The record lists the suspension of flight status for Bush and another individual. Moore points out that the Bush administration redacted (with black marker) the portion of the service record that shows the other individual's name; in Moore's copy, the name is Jim Bath. Moore then goes into Jim Bath's history as a financial manager for the bin Ladens and other Saudis, his support and investments in Bush's various failed businesses, etc. (For more details on Bath and Bush, see http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=241778&postcount=56)

Moore implies that the Bush administration redacted Jim Bath's name to prevent the American public from making the link between Bush, Bath, and the Saudis.

I am perfectly willing to believe that this was a motive in redacting Jim Bath's name from the record; however, the Federal Privacy Act of 1974 makes it illegal for the government to release personal details of third parties in a Freedom of Information Act request. Jim Bath was not the subject of the requests for Bush's record. The Bush administration, presumably, would be required to protect that personal information as well.

This leads one to wonder how Michael Moore recieved a copy of an unredacted document.

The information about the links between Bath, the Saudis, and the Bushes has been available in many forums for years, so I'm not sure the administration would be accomplishing anything ulterior by redacting Bath's name (although, given US Media's short attention span, maybe this did stop a certain amount of digging).

 

[DavidCC]

I think this is one of the core problems people have with this film: he takes what are substantiated facts (for the most part), then makes unprovable connections between them. For example, assigning a motive (explicitly or implied) to something like the redaction of data on a FOIA document.

 

[Phoenix44]

He didn't assign a motive. He pointed it out. You are free to make your own deduction. Or not.

 

[PeachMonkey]

I think this is one of the core problems people have with this film: he takes what are substantiated facts (for the most part), then makes unprovable connections between them. For example, assigning a motive (explicitly or implied) to something like the redaction of data on a FOIA document.

David,

That's a good point, but please read the first post of this thread and stay with the topic. We've got other threads arguing about Moore's general credibility and whether or not the movie is worth seeing, regardless.

 

[Phoenix44]

Most of Michael Moore's movie did not surprise me, and that's because I'd read about it in numerous sources. The beauty of Moore's film is that he's done the research, and laid it out in a movie format for the masses to see, and it's really hard to argue the actual footage. That's if you don't want to research it yourself, which is fine.

But if you DO want to research it yourself, I'd suggest you read about it, for starters, in the following books:

House of Bush, House of Saud by Unger
Against All Enemies by Clarke
Plan of Attack by Woodward

These books--especially Unger's book--give references for the information they offer, so you can even dig deeper to find out if it's factual enough for you.

There have also been some good articles by investigative journalists--a rare breed, evidentally--in The New Yorker and on Salon.com.

If you don't do the reading, that's fine, but then in my opinion you're just speculating. I don't need other people's speculation and I certainly don't lend any weight to it.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Phoenix,

I was in a similar position when watching "Fahrenheit".

Given the ridiculous nature of the Moore-attack sites, the levels of debate in other threads, and the research and footage presented in "Fahrenheit", I feel that the only real issues that can be taken with the film are nitpicks such as what I posted above.

However, in the cause of intellectual honesty and fostering genuine debate, I felt that this thread would still be valuable. We'll see if that proves to be the case.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

PeachMonkey

Great idea. I have yet to see the film, so I will wait to comment, but I will be checking this thread to read about the different points.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Alright, so we can now question how Moore got his hands on an unredacted copy, when the names should have been blurred out. I do wonder why, if privacy's an issue, ALL names weren't blacked out on the later copy.

But ultimately, unless the unredacted copy implies that Moore typed up a copy with the name in it, then questioning how Moore got his hands on that copy means nothing to whether the name is on there or not. So he got an unredacted copy, so what? The name's still on there. And with all the attention being paid to this film, it would be political suicide for Moore to type up a false copy with the Baker (that was the name on there, right?) name in order to make the necessary connection and prove his point.

So in short, I don't see how Moore's acquiring an unredacted copy has anything to do with whether his point is still valid.

 

[PeachMonkey]

So in short, I don't see how Moore's acquiring an unredacted copy has anything to do with whether his point is still valid.

I couldn't agree more. I'm just trying to, as the kids say, "keep it real".

 

[michaeledward]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/


As usual, Michael Isikoff has put together a thoughtful article. This specific article is about those premises put forward in F911 in which the validity might legitimately be brought into question.

1) 1.4 Billion from Saudi Arabia to Bush & Company - Much of that money went to the Carlyle Group - Isikoff questions the strenth of the Bush & Company-Carlyle Group connections.

2) Unocal's Taliban connections to build a pipeline through Afghanistan.

3) The Bin Laden - Bath - Bush money connection related to Arbusto Oil.

4) The flights that allowed 140 Saudi's to leave the country shortly after September 13.

Isikoff challenges these four Unger / Moore assertions. I think the challenges he puts forth are as thoughtful. I also think that the arguments he puts forth are not convincing; they do not entirely dispel the notions Moore puts forward.

Is there any specific, or implied, influence available to 'Company X' because the son of a sitting President of the United States is on the board of directors?
Or is it just as Rand posited in her books, and Robert's discussion on other threads have put forward, that "Great Men" are the only ones who accomplish anything, and that all of those involved here are in that 'Great Men' group and are just naturally going to be involved with each other?

I have my personal opinions and beliefs and Isikoff does not succeed in changing my mind oth these subjects. Maybe it is just the secret nature of the Bush-Cheney administration; but with all the things going on behind closed doors (and I am not talking about Jeri Ryan's trips to NYC - or Clinton), in this government, I can't quite accept the 'It's all innocent - Trust Us' propositions.

Certainly, the ties are stronger here than anything concerning V. Fosters' suicide.

Thanks ...

Mike

 

[MA-Caver]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/MichaelMoore/main.asp?GT1=4244

 

[michaeledward]

Here is a detail I want to check again.

Moore states that the US State Department under Bush/Powell met with a senior representative of the Afghan ruling party, the Taliban, in the spring of 2001. Moore states this meeting took place even though we knew the Taliban was offering support for Osama Bin Laden, who, he goes on to say, we knew was responsible for the African Embassy Bombings and the Bombing of the USS Cole.

I am curious about the inclusion of the Cole in the filmmakers statement. I believe it is true that we knew Bin Laden was responsible for the African Embassy bombings by the time this meeting took place. I am curious if the US Intelligence Agencies had yet determined that Al Qaeda was responsible for the bombing of the Cole by the time this meeting took place.

Of course, the edits in the beginning of the film came at an MTV pace, so I don't recall the date of the Taliban meeting to check against the other published information.

Mike

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Mike,

I wasn't able to verify this, but I believe that Clinton knew by the time he left office that Bin Laden was responsible for the Cole bombing. The Cole was nailed mid-October, and the meetings you refer to took place the following Spring. That's a chunk of time.

I do not, however, have anything to back this up...and am working off recollection. I seem to recall Al Qaeda being the terrorist buzz shortly after that attack. I could be wrong.

Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

Steve,

According to Richard Clarke, in Against All Enemies;

"neither CIA or FBI would state the obvious: al Qaeda did it.
... ...
in the Principals discussions, it was difficult to gain support for a retaliatory strike when neither FBI nor CIA would say that alQaeda did it."
pg.223

There was apparently some discussion about the Egyptian group Islamic Jihad, and how they might have been involved with the Cole. Clarke states that the CIA would only agree that al Qaeda was involved months later.

Clarke does go on to point out that Clinton, in the waning days of his presidency was focused on trying to get an Israeli - Palestinian peace plan in place.

So, even though, every body knew al Qaeda bombed the Cole, the intelligence community would not give them the evidence ... or so posits Clarke.

Thanks. Mike

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Thanks Mike.

I just went out today and bought "House of Bush, House of Saud", given that much of Moore's movie was based on it. I saw the film the day before yesterday.

I hope this thread bears fruit. I'd be interested in seeing what people have to say concerning the film.


Regards,


Steve

 

[hardheadjarhead]

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9069433.htm

The article questions Hamid Karzai's links to Unocal, among other things.


Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

Well, Mr. Moore sure has received some publicity this week. He is on the cover of Time Magazine, I understand. His movie made almost as much money this past weekend, as it did in its first weekend; I guess not everybody could get in to see Spiderman.

On his Web Site, Mr. Moore states that the facts stated in his film are all verified, and have been verified by a team of fact checkers. He does go on to say that the opinions in the movie are his own; the conclusions he makes on such facts are his own.

So, I would perhaps look for other sources to verify or deny Unocal's intentions in Afghanistan in the 90's. I would also look to confirm or deny whether or not Karzai was a consultant with Unocal.

It will be interesting to watch this play out over the next few weeks.

Mike

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I only hope one of two things for this movie, either that it remain in theatres for a long time, or get released in video sometime before the election. Despite all the controversy and attention the movie is receiving right now, I fear that the public's attention span will have quickly forgotten it by election time. Or perhaps I'm just of little faith, but it's still a concern.

 

[michaeledward]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/

As usual, Michael Isikoff has put together a thoughtful article. This specific article is about those premises put forward in F911 in which the validity might legitimately be brought into question.

1) 1.4 Billion from Saudi Arabia to Bush & Company - Much of that money went to the Carlyle Group - Isikoff questions the strenth of the Bush & Company-Carlyle Group connections.

2) Unocal's Taliban connections to build a pipeline through Afghanistan.

3) The Bin Laden - Bath - Bush money connection related to Arbusto Oil.

4) The flights that allowed 140 Saudi's to leave the country shortly after September 13.

Isikoff challenges these four Unger / Moore assertions. I think the challenges he puts forth are as thoughtful. I also think that the arguments he puts forth are not convincing; they do not entirely dispel the notions Moore puts forward.

Is there any specific, or implied, influence available to 'Company X' because the son of a sitting President of the United States is on the board of directors?
Or is it just as Rand posited in her books, and Robert's discussion on other threads have put forward, that "Great Men" are the only ones who accomplish anything, and that all of those involved here are in that 'Great Men' group and are just naturally going to be involved with each other?

I have my personal opinions and beliefs and Isikoff does not succeed in changing my mind oth these subjects. Maybe it is just the secret nature of the Bush-Cheney administration; but with all the things going on behind closed doors (and I am not talking about Jeri Ryan's trips to NYC - or Clinton), in this government, I can't quite accept the 'It's all innocent - Trust Us' propositions.

Certainly, the ties are stronger here than anything concerning V. Fosters' suicide.

Thanks ...

Mike

There have been some changes to the original article linked above. It appears that Mr. Isikoff had much of the factual information published by Newsweek incorrect. Apparently, Mr. Isikoff's article was not as thoughtful as I originally supposed.

There is a statement of refutation published by the author of 'House of Bush, House of Saud', Craig Unger.

I apologize for posting the entire article here, but I do think it is relevant.

Mike

The Newsweek-Fahrenheit Wars, Part 3

July 3, 2004

How Many Mistakes Can Newsweek's Michael Isikoff Make?

by Craig Unger



How many mistakes can Michael Isikoff make? In his zealous campaign to discredit Fahrenheit 9/11, Newsweek's star investigative reporter has already made at least seven errors, distortions and selective omissions of crucial information.

Let's take them one by one.

1) In his first Newsweek piece attacking the movie, "Under the Hot Lights," which appeared in theJune 28 issue of the magazine, Isikoff asserts that I claim "that bin Laden family members were never interviewed by the FBI." Isikoff proceeds to attack me for that claim. Unfortunately for him, I never made it. Isikoff's assertion is a complete fabrication.

2) The same article also erroneously reports that the Saudi evacuation "flights didn't begin untilSept. 14—after airspace reopened." As House of Bush, House of Saud notes, however, the first flight actually took place a day earlier, on September 13, when restrictions on private planes were still in place. Isikoff knew this. I even gave him the names of two men who were on that flight-- Dan Grossi and Manuel Perez-- and told him how to get in touch with them. Earlier, Jean Heller, a reporter for the St. Petersburg Times, took the time to follow up on my reporting. She called Grossi, and in her subsequent article wrote, "Grossi did say that Unger's account of his participation in the flight is accurate."

Rather than try to refute or corroborate my reporting, however, Isikoff omitted it entirely. The facts interfered with his argument.

It is worth noting that Jean Heller was also able to obtain verification of the September 13 flight from other sources as well. Heller reports that the flight from Tampa, Florida to Lexington, Kentucky, has finally been corroborated by authorities at Tampa International Airport--even though the White House, the FBI and the FBI repeatedly denied that any such flights took place.

3) A week after "Under theHot Lights" appeared, Newsweek apologized for fabrication number one in its print edition of the magazine. But the error remains uncorrected online where it continues to be desseminated by other media.

Worse, in its "apology," Newsweek amplified the distortion it made the previous week. This time, the magazine admits that the September 13 flight did take place. But the editors again omit crucial information in order to suggest that the flight is a red herring, asserting that the flight "took off late on Sept. 13 after restrictions on flying had already been lifted," Newsweek says.

In fact, some restrictions had been lifted--but not all. Commercial aviation slowly resumed on September 13, but at 10:57 am that day, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a Notice to Airmen stating that private aviation was still banned. Three planes violated that order and were forced down by American military aircraft that day. (See House of Bush, House of Saud, p. 9) Yet the Saudis were allowed to fly on the ten passenger Learjet. Far from being irrelevant, the Tampa to Lexington flight is vital because it required permission from the highest levels of our government. Once again, all this information is in the book, and Isikoff told me he had read it. This relevant information contradicted Isikoff's thesis.

If you think about it, Isikoff's argument defies logic. Hundreds of thousands of planes fly each day. If the Tampa to Lexington flight was just another normal flight, why would anyone go to a crisis-stricken White House to get permission for the Saudis to fly? Yet thanks to Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 Commission, we know that the White House did grant permission for the Saudis to fly.

4) On June 30, Isikoff was at it again, this time in an online story co-written with Mark Hosenball, "More Distortions from Michael Moore." (link).

If the basics of journalism are important to you, it is worth pointing out that Isikoff's story confuses Carlyle founding partner David Rubenstein with public relations legend Howard Rubenstein. This is just one of three names (William Kennard and Caterair are the others) Isikoff gets wrong in the story. (The article has since been corrected online.)

5)More to the point, Isikoff's chief target is the movie's assertion that $1.4 billion in Saudi funds went to businesses tied to the Bushes and their friends. As Isikoff notes, House of Bush, House of Saud is the chief source for this information.

Most of this figure comes from defense contracts to companies owned by the Carlyle Group in the mid-nineties, and according to Isikoff, therein lies the problem. “The movie clearly implies that the Saudis gave $1.4 billion to the Bushes and their friends,” Carlyle public relations executive Chris Ullman tells Newsweek. “ But most of it went to a Carlyle Group company before [former president George H.W.] Bush even joined the firm.”

Isikoff accepts Ullman's explanation almost uncritically, leaving the reader with the impression that the Bush family and its allies had little or no relationship with the Carlyle Group until 1998. If that were true, he might have a point.

But in fact, the Bush-Carlyle relationship began eight years earlier when the Carlyle Group put George W.Bush on the board of one of its subsidiaries, Caterair, in 1990. In 1993, after the Bush-Quayle administration left office and George H. W. Bush and James Baker were free to join the private sector, the Bush family's relationship with the Carlyle Group began to become substantive.

By the end of that year, key figures at the Carlyle Group included such powerful Bush colleagues as James Baker, Frank Carlucci, and Richard Darman. Because George W. Bush's role at Carlyle had been marginal, the $1.4 billion figure includes no contracts that predated the arrival of Baker, Carlucci and Darman at Carlyle. (These figures are itemized in the appendix of House of Bush.) With former Secretary of Defense Carlucci guiding the acquisition of defense companies, Carlyle finally began making real money from the Saudis, both through investments from the royal family, the bin Ladens and other members of the Saudi elite, and through lucrative defense investments.

6) In addition, Isikoff erroneously dismisses the relationship between the Bushes and the House of Saud at the Carlyle Group as a distant one. "Six degrees of separation" is the term he uses. Yet according to a December 4, 2003 email from Carlyle's Chris Ullman, James Baker and George H. W. Bush made four trips to Saudi Arabia on Carlyle's behalf, and that does not include meetings they had with Saudis that took place in the U.S. During the course of these trips, Ullman says, former president Bush sometimes met privately with members of the Saudi Binladen Group. At times, Carlyle officials have characterized these meetings as "ceremonial." But in fact, at least $80 million in investments came from the House of Saud and allies such as the bin Laden family. It would be unseemly-- and unnecessary--for former president Bush or James Baker to actually ask for money from the Saudis at such meetings. Instead, David Rubenstein's team did that after Bush and Baker spoke. For a more complete account of this, see Chapter Ten in House of Bush, House of Saud.

7) In the same article, Isikoff tries to pit me against Michael Moore by asserting that my book, unlike the movie, concludes that the role of James Bath, a Texas businessman who represented Saudis and was close to George W. Bush, was not terribly significant. Isikoff writes,"The movie—which relied heavily on Unger’s book—fails to note the author’s conclusion about what to make of the supposed Bin Laden-Bath-Bush nexus: that it may not mean anything."

Isikoff is wrong again. It is true that no conclusive evidence has yet answered the specific question of whether or not bin Laden money actually went from the bin Ladens to Bath and then into George W. Bush's first oil company, Arbusto. But beyond that unresolved issue, the bin Laden-Bath-Bush nexus is crucial to the birth of the Bush-Saudi relationship. Even if bin Laden money did not go into Arbusto, Bath introduced Salem bin Laden and his good friend Khalid bin Mahfouz to Texas. A host of contacts between them and the House of Bush ensued. Bin Mahfouz shared financial interests with James Baker. His associates bailed out Harken Energy, where George W. Bush made his first fortune. Money from both the bin Ladens and the bin Mahfouzes ended up in Carlyle. This relationship is what House of Bush is about. Isikoff cherry-picks information that suits his agenda and leaves out the rest.

In his assault against Fahrenheit, Isikoff does raise one provocative question, one that many other people have asked. If the Saudi evacuation flights are so wrong, how is it that former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, a fierce critic of the Bush White House,has not had any problems with them. "I thought the flights were correct,”Clarke said. “The Saudis had reasonable fear that they might be the subject of vigilante attacks in the United States after 9/11. And there is no evidence even to this date that any of the people who left on those flights were people of interest to the FBI.”

It is a fair question and it deserves a serious answer.

If there is a hero in House of Bush, it is Richard Clarke, a man who understood Al-Qaeda's new transnational form of terrorism and developed a forceful strategy against it, but who was thwarted in both the Clinton Administration (thanks to the Lewinsky scandal) and in the Bush administration (by being left out of the loop).

But Clarke is also a brilliant and savvy bureaucrat who is unlikely to characterize decisions in which he played a role as stupid or wrong. And much as I admire him, I disagree with him on this issue.

When first interviewed on this subject in 2003, Clarke said that his approval for evacuating the Saudis had been conditional on the FBI’ s vetting them. “I asked [the F.B.I.] to make sure that no one inappropriate was leaving. I asked them if they had any objection to Saudis leaving the country at a time when aircraft were banned from flying.” He noted that he assumed the F.B.I. had vetted the bin Ladens prior to September 11.

Then he added, “I have no idea if they did a good job. I'm not in any position to second guess the FBI.”

And there's the rub. Given the long history of errors made by the FBI in investigating counterterrorism, how can one possibly accept their infallibility as unquestioningly as Isikoff does.I interviewed two FBI agents who participated in the Saudi evacuation and they made it clear that they did not subject the passengers to a formal criminal investigation. One rather astonishing finding of the 9/11 Commission is that though the rubble was still very much ablaze at the World Trade Center a few days after the attacks, the FBI did not even bother to check the Saudi passenger lists against its terror watch lists.

There are many other unanswered questions. "It is clear that the Saudi charities were being used as cover for Al Qaeda, but it is unclear how far up the chain of authority that went," Clarke said. Do we know for certain none of the Saudis on the flights could have shed light on that crucial question? Were any of them tied to the charities in question? Did any of them have any information on bin Laden? Did we let a treasure trove of intelligence leave?

Finally, it is still unclear whether other people in the White House had knowledge. Do the president and his men bear no responsibility for leading a thorough criminal investigation into the worst crime in in American history?

Perhaps we will never know the answers to all these questions. But American journalists have a responsiblity to try to uncover the facts rather than muddy the waters-- and that includes Michael Isikoff.