Michael Moore Distortions
Click here: MSNBC - More Distortions From Michael Mooreâ€”not to mention his logic. Moore derives the $1.4 billion figure from journalist Craig Ungerâ€™s book, â€œHouse of Bush, House of Saud.â€ Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990â€™s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the countryâ€™s military and National Guard. Whatâ€™s the significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group, the powerhouse private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board has included the presidentâ€™s father, George H.W. Bush.Leave aside the tenuous six-degrees-of-separation nature of this â€œconnection.â€ The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman, is that former president Bush didnâ€™t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998â€”five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm. True enough, the former president was paid for one speech to Carlyle and then made an overseas trip on the firmâ€™s behalf the previous fall, right around the time BDM was sold. But Ullman insists any link between the former presidentâ€™s relations with Carlyle and the Saudi contracts to BDM that were awarded years earlier is entirely bogus. â€œThe figure is inaccurate and misleading,â€ said Ullman. â€œThe movie clearly implies that the Saudis gave $1.4 billion to the Bushes and their friends. But most of it went to a Carlyle Group company before Bush even joined the firm. Bush had nothing to do with BDM.â€In light of the extraordinary box office success of â€œFahrenheit 9/11,â€ and its potential political impact, a rigorous analysis of the filmâ€™s assertions seems more than warranted. Indeed, Moore himself has invited the scrutiny. He has set up a Web site and â€œwar-roomâ€ to defend the claims in the movieâ€”and attack his critics. (The war-roomâ€™s overseers are two veteran spin-doctors from the Clinton White House: Chris Lehane and Mark Fabiani.) Moore also this week contended that the media was pounding away at him â€œpretty hardâ€ because â€œtheyâ€™re embarrassed. Theyâ€™ve been outed as people who did not do their job.â€ Among the media critiques prominently criticized was an article in Newsweek.In response to inquiries from NEWSWEEK about the Carlyle issue, Lehane shot back this week with a volley of points: There were multiple Bush â€œconnectionsâ€ to the Carlyle Group throughout the period of the Saudi contracts to BDM, Lehane noted in an e-mail, including the fact that the firmâ€™s principals included James Baker (Secretary of State during the first Bush administration) and Richard Darman (the first Bushâ€™s OMB chief). Moreover, George W. Bush himself had his own Carlyle Group link: between 1990 and 1994, he served on the board of another Carlyle-owned firm, Caterair, a now defunct airline catering firm.But unmentioned in â€œFahrenheit/911,â€ or in the Lehane responses, is a considerable body of evidence that cuts the other way. The idea that the Carlyle Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of some loosely defined â€œBush Inc.â€ concern seems hard to defend. Like many similar entities, Carlyle boasts a roster of bipartisan Washington power figures. Its founding and still managing partner is David Rubenstein, a former top domestic policy advisor to Jimmy Carter. Among the firmâ€™s senior advisors is Thomas â€œMackâ€ McLarty, Bill Clintonâ€™s former White House chief of staff, and Arthur Levitt, Clintonâ€™s former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. One of its other managing partners is William Kennard, Clintonâ€™s chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Spokesman Ullman was the Clinton-era spokesman for the SEC.As for the presidentâ€™s own Carlyle link, his service on the Caterair board ended when he quit to run for Texas governorâ€”a few months before the first of the Saudi contracts to the unrelated BDM firm was awarded. Moreover, says Ullman, Bush â€œdidnâ€™t invest in the [Caterair] deal and he didnâ€™t profit from it.â€ (The firm was a big money loser and was even cited by the campaign of Ann Richards, Bushâ€™s 1994 gubernatorial opponent, as evidence of what a lousy businessman he was.)
More Distortions From Michael Moore
Some of the main points in â€˜Fahrenheit 9/11â€™ really arenâ€™t very fair at all
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
ET June 30, 2004
In his new movie, â€œFahrenheit 9/11,â€ film-maker Michael Moore makes the eye-popping claim that Saudi Arabian interests â€œhave givenâ€ $1.4 billion to firms connected to the family and friends of President George W. Bush. This, Moore suggests, helps explain one of the principal themes of the film: that the Bush White House has shown remarkable solicitude to the Saudi royals, even to the point of compromising the war on terror. When you and your associates get money like that, Moore says at one point in the movie, â€œwho you gonna like? Whoâ€™s your Daddy?â€
But a cursory examination of the claim reveals some flaws in Mooreâ€™s arithmetic
Most importantly, the movie fails to show any evidence that Bush White House actually has intervened in any way to promote the interests of the Carlyle Group. In fact, the one major Bush administration decision that most directly affected the companyâ€™s interest was the cancellation of a $11 billion program for the Crusader rocket artillery system that had been developed for the U.S. Army (during the Clinton administration)â€”a move that had been foreshadowed by Bushâ€™s own statements during the 2000 campaign saying he wanted a lighter and more mobile military. The Crusader was manufactured by United Defense, which had been wholly owned by Carlyle until it spun the company off in a public offering in October, 2001 (and profited to the tune of $237 million). Carlyle still owned 47 percent of the shares in the defense company at the time that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeldâ€”in the face of stiff congressional resistanceâ€”canceled the Crusader program the following year. These developments, like much else relevant to Carlyle, goes unmentioned in Mooreâ€™s movie.None of this is to suggest that there arenâ€™t legitimate questions that deserve to be asked about the influence that secretive firms like Carlyle have in Washingtonâ€”not to mention the Saudis themselves (an issue that has been taken up repeatedly in our weekly Terror Watch columns.) Nor are we trying to say that â€œFahrenheit 9/11â€ isnâ€™t a powerful and effective movie that raises a host of legitimate issues about President Bushâ€™s response to the September 11 attacks, the climate of fear engendered by the war on terror and, most importantly, about the wisdom and horrific human toll of the war in Iraq.But for all the reasonable points he makes, on more than a few occasions in the movie Moore twists and bends the available facts and makes glaring omissions in ways that end up clouding the serious political debate he wants to provoke.Consider Mooreâ€™s handling of another conspiratorial claim: the idea that oil-company interest in building a pipeline through Afghanistan influenced early Bush administration policy regarding the Taliban. Moore raises the issue by stringing together two unrelated events. The first is that a delegation of Taliban leaders flew to Houston, Texas, in 1997 (â€while George W. Bush was governor of Texas,â€ the movie helpfully points out) to meet with executives of Unocal, an oil company that was indeed interested in building a pipeline to carry natural gas from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan.
The second is that another Taliban emissary visited Washington in March, 2001 and got an audience at the State Department, leaving Moore to speculate that the Bush administration had gone soft on the protectors of Osama bin Laden because it was interested in promoting a pipeline deal. "Why on earth would the Bush administration allow a Taliban leader to visit the United States knowing that the Taliban were harboring the man who bombed the USS Cole and our African embassies?" Moore asks at one point.This, as conspiracy theories go, is more than a stretch. Unocalâ€™s interest in building the Afghan pipeline is well documented. Indeed, according to â€œGhost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to Sept. 10., 2001,â€ the critically acclaimed book by Washington Post managing editor Steve Coll, Unocal executives met repeatedly with Clinton administration officials throughout the late 1990s in an effort to promote the projectâ€”in part by getting the U.S. government to take a more conciliatory approach to the Taliban. â€œIt was an easy time for an American oil executive to find an audience in the Clinton White House,â€ Coll writes on page 307 of his book. â€œAt the White House, [Unocal lobbyist Marty Miller] met regularly with Sheila Heslin, the director of energy issues at the National Security Council, whose suite next to the West Wing coursed with visitors from American oil firms. Miller found Heslinâ€¦very supportive of Unocalâ€™s agenda in Afghanistan.â€Coll never suggests that the Clintonitesâ€™ interest in the Unocal project was because of the corrupting influence of big oil. Clinton National Security Council advisor â€œBerger, Heslin and their White House colleagues saw themselves engaged in a hardheaded synthesis of American commercial interests and national security goals,â€ he writes. â€œThey wanted to use the profit-making motives of American oil companies to thwart one of the countryâ€™s most determined enemies, Iran, and to contain the longer-term ambitions of a restless Russia.â€Whatever the motive, the Unocal pipeline project was entirely a Clinton-era proposal: By 1998, as the Taliban hardened its positions, the U.S. oil company pulled out of the deal. By the time George W. Bush took office, it was a dead issueâ€”and no longer the subject of any lobbying in Washington. (Vice President Dick Cheneyâ€™s energy task force report in May, 2001, makes no reference to it.) There is no evidence that the Taliban envoy who visited Washington in March, 2001â€”and met with State Department and National Security Council officialsâ€”ever brought up the pipeline. Nor is there any evidence anybody in the Bush administration raised it with him. The envoy brought a letter to Bush offering negotiations to resolve the issue of what should be done with bin Laden. (A few weeks earlier, Taliban leader Mullah Omar had floated the idea of convening a tribunal of Islamic religious scholars to review the evidence against the Al Qaeda leader.) The Taliban offer was promptly shot down. â€œWe have not seen from the Taliban a proposal that would meet the requirements of the U.N. resolution to hand over Osama bin Laden to a country where he can be brought to justice,â€ State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said at the time.The use of innuendo is rife through other critical passages of â€œFahrenheit 9/11.â€ The movie makes much of the presidentâ€™s relationship with James R. Bath, a former member of his Texas Air National Guard who, like Bush, was suspended from flying at one point for failure to take a physical. The movie suggests that the White House blacked out a reference to Bathâ€™s missed physical from his National Guard records not because of legal concerns over the Privacy Act but because it was trying to conceal the Bath connectionâ€”a presumed embarrassment because the Houston businessman had once been the U.S. money manager for the bin Laden family. After being hired by the bin Ladens to manager their money in Texas, Bath â€œin turn,â€ the movie says, â€œinvested in George W. Bush.â€The investment in question is real: In the late 1970â€™s, Bath put up $50,000 into Bushâ€™s Arbusto Energy, (one of a string of failed oil ventures by the president), giving Bath a 5 percent interest in the company. The implication seems to be that, years later, because of this link, Bush was somehow not as zealous about his determination to get bin Laden.Leaving aside the fact that the bin Laden family, which runs one of Saudi Arabiaâ€™s biggest construction firms, has never been linked to terrorism, the movieâ€”which relied heavily on Ungerâ€™s bookâ€”fails to note the authorâ€™s conclusion about what to make of the supposed Bin Laden-Bath-Bush nexus: that it may not mean anything. The â€œBush-Bin Laden â€˜relationshipsâ€™ were indirectâ€”two degrees of separation, perhapsâ€”and at times have been overstated,â€ Unger writes in his book. While critics have charged that bin Laden money found its way into Arbusto through Bath, Unger notes that â€œno hard evidence has ever been found to back up that chargeâ€ and Bath himself has adamantly denied it. â€œOne hundred percent of those funds (in Arbusto) were mine,â€ says Bath in a footnote on page 101 of Ungerâ€™s book. â€œIt was a purely personal investment.â€The innuendo is greatest, of course, in Mooreâ€™s dealings with the matter of the departing Saudis flown out of the United States in the days after the September 11 terror attacks. Much has already been written about these flights, especially the filmâ€™s implication that figures with possible knowledge of the terrorist attacks were allowed to leave the country without adequate FBI screeningâ€”a notion that has been essentially rejected by the 9/11 commission. The 9/11 commission found that the FBI screened the Saudi passengers, ran their names through federal databases, interviewed 30 of them and asked many of them â€œdetailed questions." â€œNobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country,â€ the commission stated. New information about a flight from Tampa, Florida late on Sept. 13 seems mostly a red herring: The flight didnâ€™t take any Saudis out of the United States. It was a domestic flight to Lexington, Kentucky that took place after the Tampa airport had already reopened.(You can read Ungerâ€™s letter to Newsweek on this point, as well as our reply, by clicking here.)It is true that there are still some in the FBI who had questions about the flights-and wish more care had been taken to examine the passengers. But the filmâ€™s basic pointâ€”that the flights represented perhaps the supreme example of the Saudi governmentâ€™s influence in the Bush White House-is almost impossible to defend. Why? Because while the film claimsâ€”correctlyâ€”that the â€œWhite Houseâ€ approved the flights, it fails to note who exactly in the White House did so. It wasnâ€™t the president, or the vice president or anybody else supposedly corrupted by Saudi oil money. It was Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism czar who was a holdover from the Clinton administration and who has since turned into a fierce Bush critic. Clarke has publicly testified that he gave the greenlightâ€”conditioned on FBI clearance.â€œI thought the flights were correct,â€ Clarke told ABC News last week. â€œThe 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.â€ Like much else relevant to the issues Moore raises, Clarkeâ€™s reasons for approving the flightsâ€”and his thoughts on them todayâ€”wonâ€™t be found in â€œFahrenheit 9/11,â€ nor in any of the ample material now being churned out by the film-makerâ€™s â€œwar roomâ€ to defend his provocative, if flawed, movie.
Â© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.