" [...] Moore shows the billions of dollars made by the Bush family due to its connections with the Saud family."

This isn't true. The Bush family is not worth "billions" (unlike the Kerry family, which is apparently worth at least one billion).

Earlier in the article, I had written about the Bush family and friends making billions from the Sauds and I left out "friends" in the part of my review you comment on. Thanks for taking the time to point that out and I'm going to correct it; however, I wrote "made" and you write about the Bush family's "worth," which are two different things. After all, the current President Bush has made over a billion dollars from his presidental salary, and since you point out that the Bush family isn't worth a billion, I think you can see that both statements can be true and not be in conflict with each other. I'm not sure why you bring up the Kerry family. The sequence in the film does not talk about how much money someone has. It's about how they made it.

El Bicho,
Last time I checked the POTUS salary was $400K per year. How can you contend that "After all, the current President Bush has made over billion dollars from his presidential salary..."?

I was going to ask the same question, Doug. Thanks. :]

In my haste of doing too many things at once and not focusing on anything, I mistated the amount the President makes. I knew full well that it was 400k a year yet I still mispoke(miswrote) that the President made over a billion from his salary when it is only over a million. That was completely foolish on my part and I appreciate you pointing out my error.

This time I am deferring to someone who has done the proper research in regards to the amount of money made by the Bush family and their friends.

In his book "House of Bush, House of Saud" Craig Unger writes about how the two groups "conferred on war, oil, funding for Osama bin Laden's Afghan Arabs supporting the mujahideen in the Afghanistan War, illegal arms deals, banking, private matters, and much more. By the time George W. Bush was elected, the House of Saud had transferred an astonishing sum of money to the House of Bush in deals involving dozens of companies. The total? At least $1.4 billion in investments and contracts went to companies in which the Bushes and their allies held prominent positions." Some of the examples given are Saudi banking billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz's "financing of the Houston skyscraper for James Baker's family bank" and "the Saudi bailout of Harken Energy that helped George W. Bush make his fortune."

You can learn more at http://www.houseofbush.com/index.php

This is the billions of dollar I originally referred to in my review when I wrote "that the Bushes and friends have made off their Saudi relationships."

Here is the actual quote from House of Bush/House of Saud:

Never before in history has a president of the United States had such a close relationship with another foreign power as President Bush and his father have had with the Saudi royal family, the House of Saud. I have traced more than $1.4 billion in investments and contracts that went from the House of Saud over the past 20 years to companies in which the Bushes and their allies have had prominent positions -- Harken Energy, Halliburton, and the Carlyle Group among them.

I got that quote from this page:
http://www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm

Also, there is a detailed history, complete with sources and facts, that explain the entire history of the Bush/Saud houses on that page. It's a VERY interesting page that should be required reading for everybody.

I had no idea George Bush Sr.'s father did business with Hitler until he was ordered to stop.

Down at the bottom of the page there's also updates, including one revealing that Bush's uncle is an executive at Riggs Bank where one of the Saudi princesses was laundering money to terrorists.

There's also a good story in there about George and Laura entertaining the Prince and Princess of Saudi Arabia in their Crawford Ranch for a royal gala, AFTER they had come up with information that the Princess was funding terrorism.

BCB, just because something appears in print doesn't mean that it is a "fact". I've read House of Bush House of Saud and found it to be very shoddy from a journalistic standpoint. It is full of opinions and innuendo that are labeled "facts" by the author. It has been shown that two of his most "damning" bits of evidence are not true. The first (that he starts the book off with) regarding the bin Ladens mysterious flight out of the country a couple of days after the 9/11 attacks(which Moore used in F*9/11)is the easies to fisk. First of all they flew out AFTER the grounding of flights was lifted and secondly there departure was approved by Richard Clarke, the counter terrorism Czar. Clarke himself admits that he approved there departure. The second is the claim that money from the Carlyle Group is directly related to both Bush 41 and Bush43. Again, the major donations in question happened BEFORE Bush 41 joined the Board of Carlyle, as well as the defense firm that got the big contract was divested by Carlyle before either Bush was involved. I think it is quite telling that Unger's book will not be published in Great Britain where the libel and slander laws are much more stringent than here in the U.S..

In regards the the web page you reference...again I see no facts. There is a lot of innuendo and many unnamed sources, also tons of speculation but no facts. For example in the final paragraph "There is irrefutable evidence that highly-placed Saudis aided and supported the terrorists..." yet nowhere in the article did I find any evidence that could be categorized as irrefutable.

Finally, regarding the "good story" about entertaining the Prince and Princess at the Crawford ranch: Maybe you skipped some important parts of the article? The paragraph you mention starts off with these words: "Mark Stein speculates about the recent visit..." Again, speculation does not equal fact.

I am NOT arguing that there are no connections between the Bush and Saud families, I am simply pointing out that if read from an objective standpoint the book and the article fall short of stating fact. As usual I think the truth of the matter lies somewhere between the opinions of the Bush Haters and the Bush Lovers. Unfortunately, no one will ever write a book that contains the full truth because it wouldn't contain enough sensationalism to sell.

Peace.
Doug

I forwarded this thread to the author of the article, so I will let her respond to if it is factual or not. (If she reads my email). So I'll just add one comment myself.

BCB, just because something appears in print doesn't mean that it is a "fact".

Damn, conservatives are awfully selective about how they apply this sentence, aren't they? The Bible, the Word of God, appears in print, completely devoid of any facts, proof, evidence or logical explainations for 99.99% of it's content, yet not only is it widely accepted as fact, and not only do conservatives what to live their lives by it, but they want all of society to as well!

BCB, You seem to have a fixation with the Bible...I've noticed you referring to it in other posts quite frequently and frankly it has nothing to do with this post. I also resent being labeled a Conservative...is that just because I happen to point out the flaws in an article that you are posting about? Should I label you a "flaming liberal" Just for the record, I don't adhere to one particular notion, conservative or liberal. Instead I try and do my own research and vetting on issues that are up for a vote. I read the major U.S. newspapers as well as The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, St. Petersburg Times, South China Post, El Pais, ABC and El Mundo...to name a few. I listen to the BBC, and PBS as well as Fox News, CNN and the networks. Rather than just blindly accept what is written by one person and stated as "fact" I try and find the facts for myself. I'm sorry that you feel so persecuted that you feel it necessary to launch an ad hominem attack on someone who points out the faults in your alleged logic.

I don't know what your hang up is with the Bible, or why you feel it necessary to attempt to use it to attack me...but get over it. We aren't talking about religon or spirituality here...it's politics.

Okay, let me try this again, because I do have a point. First, let me say sorry you saw it as an attack. If you go back and look at my comment, I spoke in the perspective 'conservatives' and 'they' and not the word 'you'. I was speaking of a group, collectively and sorry if you took it personally. I don't know you to speak of you.

I've noticed you referring to it in other posts quite frequently and frankly it has nothing to do with this post.

When I bring it up, it is usually to point out a double standard. If you think about society and the direction we are heading, you'd probably agree with me that it becomes possible to bring it up often. And I should also state for the record that, while I disagree with the direction Bush is taking this country, I do not feel persecuted in any way. Discriminated against, yes, persecuted no.

I also am not sure how one can in 2004, talk about politics but want to keep religion out of it, as being off topic. Catholic leaders are denying communion based on voting preference. The government is now funneling millions to specific religions tax-free (faith based charities), state, and federal amendments are being sponsored defining equality for families, a suspended judge and some senators (Judge Roy Moore and others in Alabama) are proposing state amendments limiting the power of the judicial system in regards to church/state matters, and even now the Republican Party is seeking church membership records in order to recruit voters, a clear violation of church and state (are they seeking Hare Krishna's records? No..)

I could go on Doug, but this isn't a personal vendetta against religion. I'd have better success messing with the ocean currents by throwing pebbles in the bay. I love this country very much and I want people to see the wrong direction it is going. This goes beyond just me.

Your dismissal of the article, based on 'lack of facts', IS a conservative viewpoint, and my comment was addressed to the application of that viewpoint. You might not be a conservative but in this regard, you do hold a conservative viewpoint. Honestly, it's not personal, and if you go back and look at the perspective (they instead of you) used, hopefully you will agree with that.

Rather than just blindly accept what is written by one person and stated as "fact" I try and find the facts for myself.

Actually the article had over a dozen sources, all listed throughout the text. I watch a lot of the news shows you watch too, and I've seen a great many of them discuss a Bush/Saudi connection that raises more questions than it answers, as well as pointing to quite a few dubious and coincidental incidents.

Bush is trying to take this country in a moral direction. It's one of his campaign strategies, his moral, righteous, character. And if he is doing shady deals with people who fund terrorism against the U.S., to me, this is a far greater 'moral' outrage than somebody getting a hummer.

We'll have to disagree about this, because I find it very on topic.

BCB,
Refreshing...thanks for clarifying your position and views. I'll just say that I took it personally because it seemed to be a direct response to my post and many people use "they" as a semantic cover up for their true target...I stand corrected.

I disagree that dismissing this article (or any article) based on a lack of facts is a "conservative" view. I think it would be more appropriate to call it a "rational" view. I think it is part of the problem with our country, that too many people accept what they read as fact instead of questioning and finding out if there is any truth. My view is to read all sides (as much as is humanly possible), cull out the BS and then see if what's left has any bearing on the issues. In this case, since the article and book are deemed "liberal" and I am pointing out the lack of actual facts, you take my view to be conservative...which is not true. If the article and book happened to be conservative and I did the same thing (which I do) by your logic, I would be a liberal. Again, not true. I honestly just hate to see speculation and innuendo bruited about as fact...whichever side is doing it (and they both due with disgusting regularity).

I don't disagree that there is a Bush/Saudi connection, as you can see from my first post, I have just found that the connection is not as sensational and earth-shattering as the article and book would have the public believe.
In following up on the sources for the article, you will find (as I did) that the sources are merely more speculation written by someone else...or at the very best an occasional "fact" that has been interpreted one way to suit the premise of the article...but upon further research is either patently not true or isn't presented in its entirety or in relation to other "facts" that might not suit the author's purpose.

There are plenty of reasons to not like Bush and/or his policies, I would much rather see a properly researched and documented article that shows these reasons and facts and presents them as such. IMO, using speculation and opinion and presenting them as facts merely gives the conservative machine more ammo to paint dissenters as "illogical wackos", which doesn't help the liberal cause...or the cause of those independents who are merely trying to find the truth amid the flotsam.

BTW, Catholic leaders are NOT denying communion based on voting preferences. One Bishop, and some Priests have voiced that opinion...and were smacked down by their peers and superiors...not to mention their congregations. I certainly concede your point about politicians attempting to use religon as a platform (Bush foremost among them)...and of the different religous denominations of trying to influence politics. I tend to be more laid back on this issue...maybe its because I have lived through the "Moral Majority" era. I don't know if you are old enough to remember that era of a couple of decades ago...but basically they pissed off so many people that they quickly ceased to exist. As a matter of fact, one of my favorite bumper stickers of all time (and the only one I have ever actually put on a vehicle that I owned) was "The Moral Majority is NEITHER!". I don't countenance doing nothing in response to the increasing religosity, I just have seen enough that I feel the American public will push the pendulum the other way very quickly when things get to out of hand. So, it appears we actually have some things in common...cool.

I disagree that dismissing this article (or any article) based on a lack of facts is a "conservative" view.

I believe selectively applying standards or the selective dismissal of things (while not dismissing other things that meet the same criteria) is a trademark of conservatism, while liberals may do it too.

I don't disagree that there is a Bush/Saudi connection, as you can see from my first post, I have just found that the connection is not as sensational and earth-shattering as the article and book would have the public believe.

Sounds like you are looking for a smoking gun. I think if there was one, there would be some legal maneuvers going on publicly right now, so when I read stuff like these books when they came out, I already knew it wasn't going to reveal anything illegal. It sounds like you feel that the only reporting of any Bush/Saudi connection is via Unger's book though. There's so many different accounts of so many different instances, not just from Unger, but from major newspapers with their own investigative reporting, as well as cable news. I think one single instance might keep me from speculating, but I'm not a reporter, just an average voter who's allowed to form an opinion based on numerous sources of information.

Another factor to consider is time. If something is false, it tends to fade away over time. But like any Halliburton/Cheney relationship, if it never ever goes away, that tells me something too. Like an old rumor about Rock Hudson's sexuality that never went away until finally settled. So I form my opinion, and 90% of the time it turns out to be correct.

...and of the different religous denominations of trying to influence politics. I tend to be more laid back on this issue...maybe its because I have lived through the "Moral Majority" era.

I wish you will give it some more serious thought. Although I was young when the MM was active, I was still old enough to know what they were trying to do. The difference is that now, instead of the MM going down, the actual present agendas have been and/or are close to being achieved. And with Americans losing civil liberties with things like the Patriot Act, a dissolving of church and state is even more dangerous than in a true Democracy. I remember recently all the hoopla about librarians having to give over membership records and whatnot. The response was that 'we haven't had to use that yet'. But what about 10-15 years down the road when hopefully we have beaten terrorism? That kind of stuff will still be on the books and the church and state will be even more meshed.

I remember Ralph Reed said, shortly before he left the leadership of the Christian Coalition, that the Religious Right will win. But that it will happen piecemeal, step by step, until one day America wakes up and it's over, they've won.

"It's like guerrilla warfare. If you reveal your location, all it does is allow your opponent to improve his artillery bearings. It's better to move quietly, with stealth, under cover of night. You've got two choices: You can wear cammies and shimmy along on your belly, or you can put on a red coat and stand up for everyone to see. It comes down to whether you want to be the British army in the Revolutionary War or the Viet Cong. History tells us which tactic was more effective."--Ralph Reed Los Angeles Times, 3/22/92

(yeah, that's good isn't it? The Religious Right wanting to make this a Christian only nation and feeling like it has to resort to guerrilla warfare to do it)

"I want to be invisible. I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag." --Ralph Reed, Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, 11/9/91

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."-- George Bush

Sometimes I wonder, if no smoking gun is ever presented until it is too late, but that circumstantial evidence pops up time and time again, in increments, at what point does speculating become the logical, self-preserving thing to do?

Another factor to consider is time. If something is false, it tends to fade away over time. But like any Halliburton/Cheney relationship, if it never ever goes away, that tells me something too. Like an old rumor about Rock Hudson's sexuality that never went away until finally settled. So I form my opinion, and 90% of the time it turns out to be correct.


We still hear rumors that the Kennedy brothers killed Marilyn. I don't buy it. Elvis isn't alive either.

Yes, Justene, I have 'speculated' the same conclusions you have.

I have speculated on OJ's guilt/innocence as well. Has nobody else?

If OJ ran for President, besides inexperience, would that speculation of guilt/innocence play ANY role in your vote for or against? (That is a rhetorical question, nobody needs to tell me, because everybody will just answer the same way regardless of what they really feel).

I think OJ is guilty. Thought he was when they found her body, before I heard she was murdered, so I am pretty biased. The evidence was overwhelming though, from a legal standpoint. (I have doubts about most other "slam dunk" cases and I can't believe Kobe was even held over).

If I would have ever voted for OJ, I would not now.

The evidence was overwhelming though, from a legal standpoint.

Exactly, Justene. Technically, he was found not guilty, so by the virtue of Lady Justice, we are to treat him as an innocent, yes?

I think OJ is guilty.
If I would have ever voted for OJ, I would not now.

But your speculation is telling you differently, isn't it?

Well, here we disagree about the effect of the jury verdict. He is innocent til proven guilty only in the eyes of a deliberatng jury. All they found was that there was reasonable doubt and we, as a society, cannot jail him. We have every right to decide if he is guilty. Indeed, a civil jury soon after determined that it was more likely than not that he did do it. Hence he lives in Florida protecting as much of his money as possible from the judgment.

On the other hand, I have no clue how he got custody. Family court records are sealed.

All I can tell you is that, you making a decision based on the evidence before you, even when a verdict tells you otherwise...is the same thing I am doing in regards to Bush and his relationships.

Yet in the OJ case, speculation is acceptable. In regards to me forming my opinion as a voter, it apparently is not.

I have no problem with forming your own conclusion on the evidence. I am very suspicious of this reasoning:

Another factor to consider is time. If something is false, it tends to fade away over time. But like any Halliburton/Cheney relationship, if it never ever goes away, that tells me something too

BCB,
**I believe selectively applying standards or the selective dismissal of things (while not dismissing other things that meet the same criteria) is a trademark of conservatism, while liberals may do it too.** If both sides do it how can you say it's a trademark of one side? You are correct, as I have pointed out in previous posts, that both sides (conservative and liberal) are guilty...so what is the argument about? The article you referred to is as fine an example of selectively dismissing things as anything you will see on Fox News...again we seem to agree on this issue.

No, I'm not looking for a smoking gun...simply facts as opposed to speculation and innuendo. The techniques you are discussing are the same ones used by J. Edgar Hoover and McCarthy. As I have stated repeatedly, I am against this no matter which side is doing it. You referred to a specific article, I pointed out the deficiencies in that article...and you labeled me a "conservative"...to which I took offence. If you had pointed to a conservative article with the same level of speculation and innuendo I would have responded in the same manner. Bad journalism is bad journalism no matter who is doing it. I'm no lawyer, but I don't think the speculations in that article even qualify as circumstantial evidence. Yes, I'm aware that there have been other stories...I've read them as I have read the references and sources quoted in both the article and Unger's book...again I haven't found any facts to support their hypothesis...simple so please quit trying to pigeon hole me.

Yes the religous right is absurd in their methods they claim to use to acheive their goals. Like killing abortion Doctors to protest abortion. You will find no arguement from me on this issue either. My faith on this matter is with the American people. I believe there are still enough of us left who will stop the abuses you are afraid of from coming true.

One small nitpicking point...You use a quote from Bush 41 that is over 17 years old, in an election year with Bush 43 running for re-election that is a bit disingenuous...don't you think? Maybe Bush 43 feels the same way...I don't know but you should either attribute the quote to George H.W. Bush or in some way clarify the source. Before you go calling me a conservative again, I would have brought up the same issue if it had been a quote from Bill Clinton's father or John Kerry's father.

BCB,
Regarding the O.J. situation. My personal feeling is this: I wasn't on the jury, I didn't see all of the evidence. The people that were on the jury found him innocent...ie there was a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime. That's the way the system works, so IMO, yes O.J. should be treated as innocent. Civil trials have a different burden of proof and that jury found him financially accountable. Still, unless he confesses that he killed her...or someone else comes forward then he is innocent. The bottom line is that people write books to make money, and the quickest way to make money on a book is to fill it with sensational stories that won't (hopefully) get you sued. I haven't read any of the O.J. books because, for me anyway, that case was closed when the criminal trial was over, so I can't comment on whether they are filled with speculations or facts...I'll leave that to someone else to discuss. Regardless of whether you are talking about politics or a murder trial I feel that basing decisions on other people's speculations is a bad idea. I realize that sometimes the facts are hard or maybe even impossible to find and sometimes we have to make decisions based on the best information we have but that information should never include rumour and speculation...that's whay McCarthyism was all about. The blatant propaganda put out by both political parties this year makes it more important than ever to read between the lines and find the facts for yourself...whatever they may be.

okay, my decision to vote against Bush is not solely based on speculation. There are PLENTY of reasons to vote against him. If my opinion gets reinforced by reports that contain speculation, then I guess that makes me average, all things considered.

Like I said, if there was one report of a Bush/Saudi connection for the purposes of sensationalism, my decision to include it in my vote would probably be different, although my vote would still go the same way. I apparently see far more reports from different, unrelated sources, about it than you all do.

By trademark of conservatism, I mean I see it primarily come from that platform.

I believe there are still enough of us left who will stop the abuses you are afraid of from coming true.

When you see it come true for who? I've seen it already come true.

This has gotten off track. Thanks, both of you, for the discussion.

Before we leave the discussion, this bit will either intrigue or annoy you. Although I am a big Bush supporter, I have been running a series of posts on my blog pushing the notion that Cheney will step down before the election.

I don't think there is much question O.J. Simpson killed two people. Motive. Means. Opportunity. Slam dunk! But, the standards of a criminal case are much more stringent than what it takes to convince me about other matters. I am convinced that the Bushes have a mutually profitable relationship with some very rich Saudis. I also believe that relationship at least partly explains the hands-off policy in regard to Saudi Arabia despite the links of the 9/11 terrorists being to there, not Iraq. One of the things that convinces me is that there is no above board reason for the Saudis to be treated with kid gloves. Therefore, there must be an illicit one.