ScrmnPeeler wrote:Michael Moore...funny.
I hope you zealously persue the whole story, after you see moore's biased movie. Hopefully, his movie will make you soooooo mad that you desperately need to find out all of the facts. You will not get all of the facts from one source, especially if your source is a Michael Moore movie. ((out to make a buck))
If you compare how much Moore is motivated by money (not much) to how much Rupert Murdoch is motivated by money (totally) it will tell you a lot about whom you should trust more. Murdoch is, of course, the owner of the Fox News(ish) Chanel in the US. It is a mouthpiece of the American Right Wing and closely coordinates it's spin on the "news" with the current, Far-Right administration. (Remember, Dr. Rice was too busy to meet with the 9/11 commision, but she had hours and hours to brief executives at the FNC) Here in the US, the FNC runs countless pieces slamming the awful, abusive COMMUNIST (shock! horror!) regieme in Beijing. Such an obviouis affront to right thinking Americans everywhere! A hard line must be taken!
Funny thing - Murdoch also owns something called "Star TV". It's a satellite TV system. Star TV serves a huge population. This population isn't very rich now, but is experiencing rapid economic growth, and will represent a huge profit potential in the comming years. The problem is that the government that rules over those soon-to-be well off Star TV viewers is a bit totalitarian. They like to control the news that is shown to their people. Did the valiant, principles-driven Murdoch stand up to this government by providing "complete and accurate" news, but risking having that government block his satellite signals? Or did Murdoch roll over and modify what is run on the system to remove any potentially 'embarassing' news coverage?
What do you think? He rolled over. The country is, of course, China. Murdoch went so far as to remove all BBC news coverage from Star TV. Not only did he alter the programming on Star TV to please the Chinese Communist Party, he invested millions of dollars in the main government newspaper, the People's Daily.
Personally, I'll trust the overtly biased work of an individual who isn't getting rich over the self-proclaimed "fair and balanced" reporting of an individual who goes with whatever bias will make him more money.
Frankly, the "whole story" in Moore's film is that Bush personally, and a vast chunk of his administration*, have extremely close ties with Saudi Arabia, the House of Saud and the bin Laden family. Those ties lead to the US being blindsided on September 11 and to the botched war in Iraq. Like it or not, Moore's "whole story" is accurate.
* Bush and Cheney's links are obvious, but the oil-industry (and, thus, Saudi) links go much, much deeper. Dr. Rice had a tanker named after her when she was on the board of directors of Chevron, Commerce Secretary Donald Evans ran an oil-services company. Rumsfeld owned more than $10 million in oil-industry stock. And on and on. More than 40 major administration figures have close ties to the industry. One of my favorite phrases is that "the White House has been marinated in oil."
