WorldThreats.com Response to Michael Moore
WorldThreats.com | June 28, 2004 | Ryan Mauro
First off, we must admit that Mr. Moore is a great filmmaker. On the other hand, he plays off emotions and manipulation rather than fact. However, he must be applauded for being a great artist, and not pretending that “Fahrenheit 9-11” is a “fair and balanced” movie. He is entitled to his opinions and demonstrates them in a unique, emotional, and very effective way. Saying that, WorldThreats.com feels that we must respond to his false claims in the movie and other things he says. He has no credentials or experience in international geopolitics, but we do. He is entitled to his opinion, and he should not be held responsible for the lack of a counter-force to his “facts” and opinions. However with various websites and now our own article, any responsible person will look at both sides of the issue. This is WorldThreats.com’s response to Michael Moore’s claims:
1) The war was about oil. First of all, oil prices were much, much cheaper before the war. Anyone thinking that this has made oil more affordable is living in a fantasy world. Additionally, oil was cheaper for US oil companies and the world as a whole under the UN’s Oil-for-Food program. Now that Saddam is gone, this program no longer exists. If this war was about oil, you’d see either an extension of the program, or even sanctions lifted (in return for secret deals to use Iraq’s oil). Yet, neither happened. Anyone with sources on the ground in Iraq can also tell you that the Iraqis are becoming more and more in control of the oil industry. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t be seeing US companies losing contracts to companies that opposed the war like Germany, France, Russia or even Iran. Yet it is naïve to say that the war didn’t have a strategic value because of its oil. We had no power over the Saudis. Now finally, with more oil sources being developed, we can bargain. Oil prices, and thus the wealth of the elite in Saudi Arabia, can be dropped (and thus drop terrorist financing). Additionally, this allows us to bargain. As time goes on, and we become less and less dependent on Saudi Arabia, the more and more cooperative they will become.
2) Saudi Arabia should have been attacked instead of Iraq. This shows a complete misunderstanding of geopolitics. First off, attacking Saudi Arabia was militarily impossible, and would likely result in an Arab-Israeli war, not to mention a global economic meltdown. Saudi Arabia has one of the most radical populations on earth, and all hell would break lose if we invaded the Muslim holy lands. Not only would casualties be massive, and extremely counter-productive to the War on Terror, but we’d create a new state sponsor of terrorism. The fragile Royal Family government could easily be toppled. By who would replace it? No one. Military occupation is impossible. There are no real democratic opposition groups. The only alternative would literally be Al-Qaeda. Additionally, diplomacy is not done with in regards to the Saudis. Diplomacy was conducted with Iraq for over a decade with no effect. Already, international pressure is forcing the Saudis to act. The Saudis exported their problems for years, but now the monster they’ve created is threatening their rule. The Saudi government has begun trying to de-radicalize its security forces and to act against Al-Qaeda. Although WorldThreats.com is not a fan of the Royal Family, it would be our best option to work with them, while pushing democratic reforms. Not surprisingly, this all started to happen in the weeks after the Iraq War began.
3) The Saudis are being protected by Bush. This is another false claim. Last week, according to many reports, subtle threats to abandon the Saudis were given after Al-Qaeda beheaded Americans. Virtually all intelligence newsletters are showing that there are secret talks involving extreme pressure on the Saudis. If the Saudis were being protected by Bush, institutions extremely close to the Royal Family wouldn’t be shut down in America. They’d be protected. And Saudi state-run publications wouldn’t be openly calling for him to lose the next election, and the Saudis would be doing more to keep oil prices down.
4) Only the Saudi embassy is protected by the FBI. This is a total fabrication. Any observer on the ground can tell you that any foreign embassy has American protection if requested. Go to the embassies and you’ll see.
5) The Bush-Bin Laden connection. Again, total misunderstanding on the facts. Bin Laden has over 50 siblings, and the Bin Laden family has massive power in the Gulf. There are reportedly thousands of family members all over the globe. First of all, it must be understood that simple meetings with the Bin Laden family doesn’t mean you’re connected to Osama. This family has rejected Bin Laden and even disowned him. Additionally, all major oil companies have some sort of deals or talks. It’s the business. No money was given to the Bin Laden family. And no, Bush didn’t finance Al-Qaeda.
6) Bush let 9-11 happen. Again, a total misunderstanding of the facts. All the warnings about the 9-11 plot were non-specific. People say, “Well they were talking about crashing hijacked airliners into buildings”. This is ridiculous. That is not actionable intelligence. The intelligence communities receive regular threats and “chatter” of use of nukes, chemical weapons, poisons, truck bombs, suicide boats, etc., against every type of target imaginable. Success in fighting terror is not measured by the absence of terrorist attacks, it’s by the frequency. You throw enough darts at the dartboard and you’ll hit. That’s the nature of this beast. As for Bush, he is presented with intelligence. All these thousands of tips received weekly are compiled into daily reports, and he is presented with the threat briefing. Only ignorant people think he sees every threat that comes in, knows what everyone says, and knows everything that the intelligence communities are doing.
7) The war in Afghanistan was the result of an oil pipeline deal. Another falsehood. Although there were likely military contingency plans for the event of a war, this is not the result of some oil pipeline deal. In fact, these talks were initiated under the Clinton Administration (a fact Moore omits) and were dropped in 1998 (another fact omitted). The only role Bush ever had in the oil pipeline talks were to suggest a pipeline being built from Pakistan that avoided going through Afghan territory.
8) Moore is a genuine patriotic American looking out for the average middle-class American like himself. Although we respect Moore, this is not true. He is extremely rich, which is not a bad thing, but it does contradict his claims to be Mr. Middle-Class Hero. Additionally, he is not loyal to America. He denounces the US on foreign soil, and openly says he has never bought stock because he “doesn’t believe in the system” because capitalism is “evil” or “wicked”. His socialist ideology is omitted in his presentations. His socialist ideology is why he portrays American troops as boys forced to go to war because they are in the lower classes of society. This is why he loves class warfare, where every bad thing is blamed on the oppression of the wealthy. He is for equal distribution. Time and time again, tax cuts for the “wealthy” have worked, as Reagan’s “trickle down economics” have shown. WorldThreats.com does not have expertise in economics, but we are not ignorant enough to believe that equal distribution or unfair taxation works. Here are two quotes from Moore’s newsletter of April 14 2004: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win." " I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end. "
9) Bush let members of the Bin Laden family and terror-sponsoring Saudis out of the country after 9-11 without interrogation when no one else could leave. This, too, has been debunked. This did not happen until several days after 9-11, when civilian flights were again permitted. There are claims that the family flew within the US borders during this period of time which may or may not be true, but flights to outside America during this timeframe have not. That being said, the flights inside America were for members of the family to meet and be together to prepare for departure (Arab governments worried about an anti-Arab backlash, so people with a family name of Bin Laden had reason to worry). They did not leave during this timeframe. The FBI was allowed the opportunity to interrogate these Saudis but did not. In fact, and this is also omitted, was that the meetings between the Bin Laden family members after 9-11 (it is not clear whether they met via automobile or aircraft) were monitored by the FBI, and only left America once civilian flights resumed. These rumors stem from a Dept. of Homeland Security document that showed that 46 Saudis may have been allowed to leave the US on Sept 13 (right before the ban was lifted) but this document does not say who these Saudis were or who they were affiliated with. These rumors then turned into claims that the US paid for the flights out of the USA, which did not happen either. And the person that authorized the flights? Richard Clarke…the same man who Moore interviews about the case in his movie. Of course, this fact is omitted. And what is also omitted is that Clarke confirmed that the FBI monitored the family’s movements (and interviewed most or all of the Saudis), and gave the go-ahead for the flight. It came from the FBI, not “top-down”, and was checked out by the FBI’s investigators. For there to be some pro-Bin Laden conspiracy would involve hundreds, possibly thousands, of people being forced into silence. In a bureaucracy where there will naturally be political agendas, as well as wealth from telling the press about it, this is highly unlikely.
10) Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. If Bush lied, then tens of thousands of people were in on the conspiracy. And if Bush lied, then so did Kerry, many Democrats, many Republicans and many Independents. The Clinton Administration made the same claims, and anyone looking at the evidence would have to at least think again about the WMD case. I highly doubt that Bush could force the silence of so many people. Any attempt to do so, not only would fail, but the people he was trying to bribe would have significant blackmail on him.
11) No weapons of mass destruction have been found. The average observer expected WMDs to be found in one giant stockpile, which is ridiculous. These weapons are meant to be used on the battlefield. To store them all in one area would be like storing all the guns or tanks in one area. The truth is, WMDs have been found. Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, has confirmed the finding of up to a dozen artillery shells with sarin and mustard gas. Additionally, almost all our pre-war intelligence on ballistic missiles has been confirmed. And the infrastructure to make WMDs has been found. Thousands of things not declared to the UN have been found. It is clear that Iraq had WMD programs. Despite what some of the media may say, the question isn’t did Iraq have WMDs, it’s how far along they got. If readers are interested in the evidence that Iraq had WMDs, click on the following links: “Believe Iraq or Believe the Evidence?”
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iraq-WMD.htm
“Even More Evidence Against Saddam and Iran”
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iraq-Iran.htm
“Iran, Saddam and Osama: A Continued Report”
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Continuation.htm
There are also updates on evidence gathered in each issue of “Monthly Analysis”.
12) Bush lied by saying Iraq was involved in 9-11. This is simply not true. No where did he or any senior officials claim this.
13) Bush lied about Iraqi links to Al-Qaeda and international terrorism. Moore is ignoring the massive amount of evidence here. WorldThreats.com has reported extensively on this: “Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden: A Match Made Up in Propaganda?”
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/iraq_terror.htm
“Even More Evidence Against Saddam and Iran”
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iraq-Iran.htm
“Iran, Saddam and Osama: A Continued Report”
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Continuation.htm
There are also updates on evidence gathered in each issue of “Monthly Analysis”.
For further research (keep in mind that these websites are generally right-wing, and thus may not be as fair as one would like—nonetheless, the points they make about Moore’s “facts” are important):
http://www.MooreLies.com
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com
http://www.moorewatch.com
http://www.mooreexposed.com
“Michael Moore is a Bit Fat Stupid White Man” by David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
