It's certainly not the daming evidence of illegal collusion that Moore would have us believe.
I think it's pretty morally damning. Wouldnt you criticise someone for accepting money from, say, the Nazis? Screw any conspiracy theory crap, accepting money from the Saudi royal family, a family ruling with an iron fist publically beheading criminals left and right and - well, I could go on, the point is, anyone with any sort of integrity or sense of justice would not accept their money.
Of course the Saudis are morally reprehensible. There's no question about that. Accepting money from them is a questionable thing; same for mob money.
However it's not proof of the tin foil shit that Michael Moore wants it to be.
It's certainly not the daming evidence of illegal collusion that Moore would have us believe.
I think it's pretty morally damning. Wouldnt you criticise someone for accepting money from, say, the Nazis? Screw any conspiracy theory crap, accepting money from the Saudi royal family, a family ruling with an iron fist publically beheading criminals left and right and - well, I could go on, the point is, anyone with any sort of integrity or sense of justice would not accept their money.
Of course the Saudis are morally reprehensible. There's no question about that. Accepting money from them is a questionable thing; same for mob money.
However it's not proof of the tin foil shit that Michael Moore wants it to be.
Right - I just think it's a shame that the real and obvious problem has been totally obscured by the conspiracy debate. I wish Michael Moore had simply shown a bit more about the Saudis, some more of those beheadings we witnessed perhaps, and made an issue of accepting money from them. There's no defence against that criticism, it's plain indisputable fact.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
Predator wrote:Right - I just think it's a shame that the real and obvious problem has been totally obscured by the conspiracy debate. I wish Michael Moore had simply shown a bit more about the Saudis, some more of those beheadings we witnessed perhaps, and made an issue of accepting money from them. There's no defence against that criticism, it's plain indisputable fact.
That's the problem, Moore's generally one to go for the most sensational and not necessarily what's defensible and reasonable. The Saudis run a fairly brutal regime and need to be 'encouraged' to behave. That's a far more realistic issue, I totally agree.
The problem isn't merely that Bush accepted money from the Saudis. The problem is that he accepted money from the Saudis, and then looked the other way when we were attacked by Saudi nationals. Bin Ladin is Saudi, and most of the front-line attackers were as well. Bush has done everything possible to divert attention away from this fact, including censoring the 9-11 commission report to obscure Saudi involvement. $ + inapprpriate actions = corruption.
