More From Moore

[Seawolf]

http://entertainment.msn.com/news/article.aspx?news=118712

More From Moore
Michael Moore, who shocked the Oscar audience when he cried out, "Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you..." will raise even more eyebrows with his next project. According to Variety, his next film will depict the relationship between George Bush Sr. and the family of Osama bin Laden!

What's the dealio? Moore is slated to work with Mel Gibson's Icon Productions to finance Fahrenheit 911, a documentary that will trace why the U.S. has become a target for hatred and terrorism. "It certainly does deal with the Bush and bin Laden ties," Moore said. "It asks a number of questions that I don't have the answers to yet, but which I intend to find out."

How successful could he be? Very. His Oscar-winning Bowling for Columbine (which cost him a mere $3 million to make) was not only hailed by critics, but also grossed $40 million at the box office.

While Moore has already put a year's worth of research into the film, he told Variety that he'll finish it in time for Cannes 2004, and release it in time for the presidential election that fall.

This is disappointing. I always considered Mel Gibson one of the good guys.

 

[Russ]

I hate to see a guy like Mel Gibson whom I thought was a conservative, be associated with a total boob like Mikey Moore. Maybe all the success will cause him to over-eat all the more and they will find him dead of a heart attack in the near future.

 

[TallPine]

"It asks a number of questions that I don't have the answers to yet, but which I intend to find out."

corrected to read ...

"It asks a number of questions that I don't have the answers to yet, but which I intend to make up."

 

[CZ-75]

he'll finish it in time for Cannes 2004, and release it in time for the presidential election that fall.

This says all you need to know.

If it was objective and even-handed, why should the timing of it's release be so important that it must be before the '04 election?

We can only hope Gibson is trying to co-opt this clown. I see production and release delays.

 

[Harold Mayo]

Tallpine, you are ABSOLUTELY correct in your statement. The hog will make up or misconstrue something and it will, in effect, be a lie, just like "Bowling for Columbine".

 

[WonderNine]

*hork*

 

[MeekandMild]

I hate to see a guy like Mel Gibson whom I thought was a conservative

He's an actor. Actors pretend. Its good for business. Come to think about it so is betting on Moore, sort of like putting your money on the No Pass line in craps.

 

[Justin Moore]

I'll preface this by saying: I have ZERO use for Micheal Moore.

However

Here's a chronology of the Carlyle Group stories. To ward off
unwanted spam, please delete my address before forwarding.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back in January when the administration was new, the Washington
Monthly noted (2nd last item)the Bush family business:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/tilting/2001/0104.tilting.html
The NYT ran a front-page photo of former President Bush with Saudi
King Fahd on a trip to Saudi Arabia as part of his work for the
Carlyle Group. The ice-breaking story by Leslie Wayne quoted Charles
Lewis: "In a really peculiar way, George W. Bush could, some day,
benefit financially from his own administration's decisions, through
his father's investments. The average American doesn't know that and,
to me, that's a jaw-dropper."
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/05/politics/05CARL.html

Judicial Watch commented that the senior Bush's association with the
Carlyle Group was a "conflict of interest (which) could cause problems
for America's foreign policy in Middle East and Asia". Judicial Watch
called on the President's father to resign.

Without saying 'revolving door, it was noted that the former FCC chair
was joining the telecom and media section at Carlyle:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/02/business/02KENN.html
On May 7, European Venture Capital Journal identified the Carlyle
Group as heavy hitters with "an all-star roster of professionals
(that) just got stronger":

http://www.evcj.com/evcj/ZZZW91V8LKC.html
On May 13 when another conservative world leader cashed in his chips
and traded on his former government insider status and knowledge of
the regulatory system, the BBC ran a story headlined: Major to chair
private equity house
The London Times followed on May 26, noting that "The employment of
Bush Sr has attracted attention, mainly because his son is ultimately
responsible for awarding US arms contracts":
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,37-2001180089,00.html

In late September The Wall Street Journal touched on salient
aspects of the story last month by highlighting the bin Laden family
investments in the Carlyle Group, then dropped it like a hot 'tater.
"Bin Laden Family Could Profit From a Jump In Defense Spending Due
to Ties to U.S. Bank", by Daniel Golden, James Bandler, and Marcus
Walker, The Wall Street Journal, 9/28/01
After the WSJ story, Judicial Watch spokesman Larry Klayman posted
a release uppping the ante. He was again ignored by the mainstream
when he said, "This conflict of interest has now turned into a scandal.
The idea of the President's father, an ex-president himself, doing
business with a company under investigation by the FBI in the terror
attacks of September 11 is horrible. President Bush should not ask,
but demand, that his father pull out of the Carlyle Group."

A down under paper picked it up: Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme
chose.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/state/2001/10/28/FFX262DBATC.htm
l
The confluence of Bush and bin Laden family interests was noted
briefly in the last item at:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.whoswho.html

Along with others in the world press, India and Pakistani newspapers
have either either reported or copied aspects of the perceived
conflicts:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/280901/dLAME27.asp
http://news.indiatimes.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=1197180992

There's been a little but not much editorial comment:
http://baltimorechronicle.com/media3_oct01.shtml

and indignation at the Center for Public Integrity, which was then
strangely attacked by a Washington Post columnist.
http://www.public-i.org/story_01_103100.htm
http://www.public-i.org/commentary_01_042001.htm
http://www.public-i.org/story_01_021201.htm

Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity discusses the
revolving door of the Carlyle Group.
(audio, Democracy, Now!, Pacifica Radio, March 6)

The WSJ story had legs. For a few weeks in October, the mainstream,
including LAT and the Chicago Tribune among others, turned up the heat
on Saudi Arabia, so much so that President Bush felt compelled to call
the Saudi Prince to thank him for "cooperating" with the investigation
to find the perpetrators of the attacks on the Pentagon and Twin
Towers.
On October 25, the NY Times' Elaine Sciolino and Neil MacFarquhar told
of the delicate dance: Naming of Hijackers as Saudis May Further Erode
Ties to U.S. The story ran with a photograph of Saudi foreign minister
Prince Saud al-Faisal with President Bush in the Oval Office, noting
that "the Saudis value such personal contacts highly".
The engine at govexec.com presents and searches tables that sort
and order defense contractors. Among many tables that establish
the Carlyle Group as the 11th and sometimes 12th leading defense
contractor, depending on which branch of the armed forces is the
purchasing agent, there's one table that establishes President Bush's
family business as the 12th largest missile defense contractor:
http://www.govexec.com/top200/01top/catmissiles.htm

But only 32nd in defense contracting of electronics and communications:
http://www.govexec.com/top200/01top/catelectronic.htm

The defense angle was covered by Defense News in August:
http://www.veritascapital.com/view_news.asp?ID=14

After 9 11, the Carlyle Group pulled the plug on its Web pages, which
are still visible in Google's cache but won't be for a lot longer.
Bush AND "Carlyle Group" is one possible search term.
Some U.S. editors are ignoring or downplaying the story while the U.K.
and other international press are interested. A topical example from
a recent week:

A buried one liner in a U.S. newspaper notes with no elaboration the
revolving door relationship between the administration and the Carlyle
Group:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14990-2001Oct30.html

Forty-five days after the dive-bombing at the Twin Towers, another
buried one liner confides that the bin Laden family will no longer
be doing business with the Bush family within the Carlyle Group:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59924-2001Oct26.html

Part of the larger picture is explored at The Ex-President's Club at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,583869,00.html

If this Guardian story is true, then there was not, as was widely
reported, a massive U.S. intelligence failure leading to 9 11.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4293682,00.html

Sydney Morning rewrote the above story, crediting the BBC:
Before 9 11, Bush told agents to back off bin Ladin family
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0111/07/world/world100.html

And, one has to wonder why members of Bin Laden's family were allowed to leave the USA after 9/11.

Something is not right here.

Its too bad its Moore that's doing this, because it will suck ALL the credibility out of a story that needs to be looked into.

In my opinion trying to appoint Kissinger to the 911 comission is like appointing Jeffery Dahmer to investigate canablism in New Guinea. That guy is up to his eyeballs in buisiness dealins in the Middle East. That is why he had to withdraw.