rather than addressing the points he raises? surely these are far more important to be addressed, the film or moores one sidedness are irrelevant compared with the importantness of some of the issues mentioned, issues that have not been addressed elsewhere.
One suspects that to avoid answering very embarrising issues that it is in peoples interest to rubbish the film instead.
In olivers stone film JFK. a similar criticism of the film was that it was a conspiricy theory buffs dream......whereas it is totally sane to believe in a conspiracy, because one issue I wish they would address from this was .......kennedies brain went missing.....why? where did it go? if someone cocked up then they should have admitted to it, if all the authorities do is shrug their shoulders and say. 'they cant find it' then it is not 'airy fairy' and unrealistic to start pondering conspiracies.....it is logical and sane and likely that if authorities lie to cover up about 'ambarissing things that would jeapardise re-election that this secrecy and duplicity will give rise to conspiracies of an even more sinister nature than probably those that actually occured (possibly)
Rather than attacking Moores film. if instead the republicans had addressed the issues
1) bush had spent 42% of his time before sept 11th as president 'on vacation' (answer.....'hes a bit dim..his advisors mostly run the show')
2) Bush's freind Bath had leant him dosh for his unsucessful oil ventures. Bath was money manager for Bin Ladens.
Bush Senior was on board of arms company with Osamas half brother.
Saudis have paid 1.4 billion $ to bush family and freinds over 3 decades......answer 'politicians are out for themselves as well, they are greedy and corrupt but you have to be to deal effectively with the saudis who do business through family networks, there are many bin ladens and osama is renegade form most, he actually reacts bdly because he does not like the close relationships between rich men from different countries sharing out the favours amongst themselves, osama is more nationalist, there is no connection. Osama would happily topple the saudis that gave the bushs the money'
Because that is more the truth. Of course I dont believe that the Bush's are in fact in cahoots with Osama. I do think that the Bushs will want to have freindly people in charge of afghanistan.......if that president does have outside gas pipeline interests then it makes him more easy for the US to deal with, because he is also not isolationalist. THere are many reasons why the conspiracy might not be as dark as Michael moore paints it, yet the republicans are adament in giving full credence to anything he says by refusing to address any of the issues that he raises. (of course Michael might be right in all the worst things he hints at....but I cannot demonstrate that to anyone on here)