Did you see it: Fahrenheit 9/11 ?

[Joe Eccleston]

And if you can not get it verified, and the only sources seem to be conspiracy theory nuts, are you going to treat what Moore said as a lie, or as the truth?

It is very interesting to me that none of the "liberal" media seems to want to touch these accusations by Moore with a ten foot pole. It seems easy to believe that maybe they know that there are explinations for what superficially seems to be unflattering of the president and do not want to jepordize their reputations even if there is the chance of higher ratings and more money.

Then you suspend judgment until you get more information.

 

[Joe Eccleston]

And if you can not get it verified, and the only sources seem to be conspiracy theory nuts, are you going to treat what Moore said as a lie, or as the truth?

It is very interesting to me that none of the "liberal" media seems to want to touch these accusations by Moore with a ten foot pole. It seems easy to believe that maybe they know that there are explinations for what superficially seems to be unflattering of the president and do not want to jepordize their reputations even if there is the chance of higher ratings and more money.

Then I suspend judgement until I get it verified, but I would become very suspicious as to why the questions I am asking are hard to answer, since they are after all very basic.

Why aren't your "conservative" media sources countering these points? It's very easy to call someone fat, greedy or a liar, but when someone asks you important questions that need answers, then it becomes difficult. Watch the movie so you can join the discussion.

 

[Don Roley]

First off, Mr. Roley, it's not, "deception and lies," to have a different interpretation of facts.

When you know that what you say is not the whole truth, that there is evidence that blows your theory out of the water and you fail to even mention it, that is lies and deception.

Secondly, are you arguing that the President has no ties to the house of Sa'ud? Appears that he does...or were the photos made up? Then too, there's the point that you seem very upset that Presidents Clinton and Carter negotiated with such folks...and yet when Bush does it, it's just a-OK. This suggests that you haven't yet identified a problem with facts; you've identified your disagreement over interpretations.

Of course Bush, Carter, Clinton had ties with the house of Saud. So what is wrong with that since it is part of their job to deal with other nations heads? So why is Moore making such big deal about pictures taken with Bush, but not letting the world know that every president has had such pictures taken.

Third...last time I checked, I was under the impression that our leaders were supposed to be pragmatic--you know, as in aware of reality about our committments, and wary about committing our troops beyond what was possible.

Yep. When possible. And sometimes things force our hands. We shoudl never have agreed to things like Kosovo with our troops stretched as thing as they were.

Fourth, last time I checked, Bill Clinton did not order our troops into Afghanistan. Nor did he order support and training for the Taliban, or Bin Laden, or (for that matter) Saddam Hussein. Who in this country did? One brief hint---the name of their political party begins with an, "R."

Oh, you really do not know the subject matter do you? Same old story told a thousand times but with no basis in facts. For a guy who likes to intimidate that others are not as well read as you, you don't bother finding out the facts before making a post.

Here is the facts, the best, independent investigations into the matter say that the US never had any dealings with the Taliban or Bin Laden. During the war, there were groups who would have nothing to do with the infidels. People like Bin Laden doled out his money to keep them independent and not answerable to the US in return for money. The Taliban was founded in Pakistan, not America after the Soviet Union pulled out of Kabul and the US lost interest due to infighitng in the goverment. And the founding of the Taliban was a source of great friction between the US and Pakistan.

But remember what you tried to say about world leaders being "pragmatic"? So if we could still deal with Pakistan instead of making them a totally commited enemy, we did what we could. Same goes for just about every nation. Right now, we are still trying to deal with nations like Syria that are not the best friends, but are not complete enemies like Iran.

Nice little slur about, "Jews," by the way, nice little offhand attempt at an accusation of anti-Semitism. Generally speaking, of course, you might want to check out Freud's, "metapsychological," essays, written 1914-1918. As he put it, apropos of such accusations, generally speaking the one who smelt it dealt it.

Got you! I mentioned that because a while back you accused Ayn Rand of being an anti-semite. Turns out that she was a jew. I guess you kind of gave your reasonings for making that accusation a while back.
:asian:

 

[Don Roley]

Why aren't your "conservative" media sources countering these points?

There probably is some counters to the points out there that I am not aware of. Unfortunately, they probably involve long explinations detailing the whole picture instead of nice little sound bites like what Moore likes to use that more people are able to listen to.

For example, it is easy to put on a bunch of complaints and listings of the problems we had because we had less than a division in Afghanistan. It takes a lot more time to detail all the problems with international commitments, logistics and such in a way that people are not going to have their eyes glaze over. Heck, you need to talk about things as complex as the air field requirements for a plane able to carry an M1 Abrams, number and commitments of those assests, fuel consumption, etc just for ONE part of the problem.

The truth is sometimes complicated, but you can make false accusations short and sexy if you are not bound by facts.

 

[Joe Eccleston]

So, basically you have no answers and cannot provide me to links that might have answers. You're unable to provide counters to Moore's points, except for calling them lies. But, you go on pissing on the movie and the film maker. Seems rather unproductive to me. The best way to disprove Moore, is to offer undisputable facts that counter his claims. So, far you have just succeeded on saying, these are lies, and the truth is much more complicated. Tell us why they are "lies", enlighten us. Because with a $21M plus opening weekend in just a handful of theatres around the country, this film's here to stay and it's changing a lot of people's minds about the current administration.

 

[Marginal]

Documentary or propaganda? I would think that documentary would need some semblance of impartiality.

I expect the same from the phrase "Fair and balanced reporting" but you don't always get things as advertised.

 

[Don Roley]

So, basically you have no answers and cannot provide me to links that might have answers.

I think I should remind you that you are looking for facts that support what Moore says and can not seem to be able to find any.

No responsible media source seems to want to support him and add details to his accusations. That should be somewhat telling in itself.

It really should be on the people like Moore that spawn conspiracy theories to back them up and not for others to prove that somehow the guys from the Illuminati did not replace Donald Trump with a clone. But Moore in himself has proven that he is willing to play loose with the facts to meet his agenda. Without any independent media source, why bother considering what he accuses? If 60 Minutes does a story on the subject one way or another, THAT I would like to see. But if they do, then why bother seeing the film beforehand?

 

[michaeledward]

Anyone care to talk about the massive amounts of logistics needed to field even one soldier? How about the difficulties in supplying troops when there is no friendly port? How about the geo-political problems of placing troops in, or moving supplies through, Pakistan? Anyone care to remember just how long it took to build up enough troops to invade Iraq and the problems with terrorist attacks on out troops in Kuwait?

"Anyone care to talk about .... " .... Well, not really as part of this discussion. These are all excellent questions concerning the operation of the US Military. Seems to me that President Bush has declared an unending war against 'Terrorism' (whatever that means), and these questions would be good in the effectiveness of Bush's execution of that war.

Oddly, the invasion of Afghanistan actually had something to do with combatting Terrorists.

Invading Iraq, because we have pre-positioned supplies, was rather silly, if it had nothing to do with Terrorism, don't you think?

Mike

P.S.

(including what Hussein might do if he thought American was too busy to deal with him)

If you review what is known about the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (It's only about 80 pages, and neither President Bush or National Security Advisor Rice were able to read any more than the 'Executive Summary') you will learn that, according to the best sources, Saddam Hussein was not going to take any action to provide terrorists with weapons of mass destruction unless he felt it was a last resort measure ... from, let's say, an invasion by US forces.

Thefore, by Invading Iraq, President Bush increased the likelyhood of Hussein hooking up with terrorists, and making the United States less safe.

 

[michaeledward]

Well, in case you missed it the first few times it has been mentioned... Moore tries to stick in people's minds the idea that Bush intervened to let the Saudis and Bin Laden family go.

You know, On September 13, 2001, I was DRIVING A RENTAL CAR from Newark, NJ to Nashua, NH because I could not get a seat on a plane. My scheduled flight was cancelled (Continental 1089 - Depart 7:50 PM).

At the time, I didn't know there were other planes in the air. Apparently, on the 13th, a few flights that were quickly grounded on the 11th, were allowed to complete their travel and several empty planes were allowed to fly to different airports.

And the Bin Laden family could assemble from various points around the country and leave. Regardless of what Moore tried to stick into some peoples' minds, it kind of irks me that they could get on a plane and I couldn't.

Mike

 

[Don Roley]

Invading Iraq, because we have pre-positioned supplies, was rather silly, if it had nothing to do with Terrorism, don't you think?

Key word, "if". Some of us still believe that this action put some nations on notice that playing around with terrorists and saying that you could not be responsible was not going ot go over very well with the US. We have seen Lybia take the final few steps away from sponsering terrorism, Syria give some serious changes in policy, etc. Of course, this is not the type of thing a president would be able to say in the open without a lot of diplomatic flack and trouble with the world.

If you review what is known about the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (It's only about 80 pages, and neither President Bush or National Security Advisor Rice were able to read any more than the 'Executive Summary') you will learn that, according to the best sources, Saddam Hussein was not going to take any action to provide terrorists with weapons of mass destruction unless he felt it was a last resort measure ... from, let's say, an invasion by US forces.

One source. There are others with different opinions. Among other things, there is the problem of Hussein wanting to continue to terrorize the rest of the middle east if given a chance. In essence, he tied down a lot of forces that could have been used in places like Afghanistan because if we moved them out of the area, he could have at least threatened to attack Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Oh, and such estimates have been wrong before. And govermental policy like thoseof Hussein can change. So, it is kind of like saying that you trust Hussein to do the right, logical thing at any time in the future.

Personally, I think the guy is nuts enough to do anything. And we still do not know what he did with things like his anthrax.

Regardless of what Moore tried to stick into some peoples' minds, it kind of irks me that they could get on a plane and I couldn't.

It irks me that certain diplomats and foriegn nationals get out of parking tickets and such while I can not in America. But they do have their privlidges. And trying to keep some diplomats and such in a country beyond what we can prove to be needed is a sure fire way to cause massive international diplomatic melt down.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Tell ya what...

I'll read every posted critique of Moore's film listed here by Phil, Dan Roley, and whomever. I promise I will.

I am also going to go see Moore's flick.

If I am so easily seduced by Moore's work, than the critiques posted here will not save me. On the other hand, if the critiques posted here are sound and well reasoned, they may pull me back from that intellectual void...and I will not fall into the pit of woe and despair.

OR, on the other hand...it might be that I am not so easily influenced by either side of the argument, and possessing a reasonably sound mind I just might be able to judge for myself the merits or demerits of Moore's work, with input from the sources provided in this thread, of course, and others listed elsewhere.

But to do any of that, I HAVE TO SEE THE FLICK.




Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

Don,


I will make two points here.

1. Cause & Effect. You are positing that because the Invasion of Iraq happened before Libia's change of stance concerning support of terrorism, that one had to do with the other. This is a logical falacy. Because A preceeds B, it does not follow that B was caused by A. Some with more knowledge than I have said Libia's change of position was brought about by years of diplomatic work by European countries eager to commerce with this oil rich Mediterrainian state.

2. I would say that the United States National Intelligence Estimate is not just 'One Source', but rather, THE DEFINATIVE SOURCE. If we are going to trust any information concerning the motives and activities of foreign countries, don't you think our primary input for policy decisions should be the best information the Government can provide? Who better than the CIA could provide our policy makers with appropriate information?

Mike

 

[Don Roley]

Don,


I will make two points here.

1. Cause & Effect. You are positing that because the Invasion of Iraq happened before Libia's change of stance concerning support of terrorism, that one had to do with the other. This is a logical falacy. Because A preceeds B, it does not follow that B was caused by A. Some with more knowledge than I have said Libia's change of position was brought about by years of diplomatic work by European countries eager to commerce with this oil rich Mediterrainian state.

No, I said that the last push was pretty much the invasion. And the things that are starting now with countries like Syria shutting down several terrorist offices are partly because of the invasion. Along with a whole lot of other things that we do not see so much of.

2. I would say that the United States National Intelligence Estimate is not just 'One Source', but rather, THE DEFINATIVE SOURCE.

But still a source among many. And we do not know what other sources that are classified may have had.

And there is still the matter of what else did Bush want to accomplish and th emessage he wanted to send that has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. But not ones he can talk about without causing problems. Heck, he got in trouble for just using the words "axis of evil," can you imagine what a real honest account of the world could do?

For instance, a while back in the Daily Yomiuri, Putin (not a fried of the war in Iraq) said that Russian intelligence services had warned the US that they had learned that Iraqi forces were still exploring terrorist strikes in the US after 9-11. That is not a US report, but not one you seem to hear a lot of.

 

[PeachMonkey]

So, how does the fact that Clarke cleared Bush of what Moore accuses him of, and yet Moore makes not acknowledgement of it, fail to convince you that there will be many, many more twisted distortions of the truth in this film?

I haven't seen the film, and I don't know, therefore, precisely *what* Moore accuses Bush of. He may simply be complaining that the Bin Ladens were allowed to fly out. He may be specifically complaining that the "big, bad, evil Gee Dubya let them fly away while cackling mightily". Unless I actually *see* the film to determine that, and simplky take anti-Moore sites as gospel, I am letting people manipulate me. I try not to do that.

Secondly, I'm not at all unwilling to believe that there are twisted distortions in "Fahrenheit 9/11". However, I *also* know that the Bush Administration *and* the mainstream news media also provide twisted distortions. In this target-rich environment of liars and biased individuals, I feel that I have to gather as many different forms of input as possible and develop my own opinions. This is why I even suffer through the occasional indignity of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. (Fox News, btw, has a very positive review of the movie on their website)

Third, as Joe Eccleston points out so eloquently, to attack the deliverer of the message rather than the message itself is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem. I try to avoid logical fallacies; call me crazy.

Take a look at his complaint about how there was too few troops in Afghanistan. Anyone care to talk about the massive amounts of logistics needed to field even one soldier?

I'll bite. I haven't *seen* the movie, so I don't know what Moore's specific complaints are. Keeping in mind that liberals are often unrealistic and unknowing about the practical issues involved with military operations, I'm willing to believe almost anything.

I will, however, make a few comments about your points re: Afghanistan. I believe the United States fouled up in Afghanistan with insufficient force commitment, but not because we didn't "invade with insufficient troops". We actually sustained a very effective *opening* campaign against the Taliban using airpower, detailed local support of anti-Taliban local forces, and unconventional forces... I'm sure we all recall that the Taliban were spanked like unwanted stepdaughters.

The failure, to my mind, came *after* these initial successes. Once we had the Taliban on the run, and had control of major population centers, we could have deployed more ground forces. We had control over (and the ability to deploy more) airfields. We had also developed a relationship with Uzbekistan (a brutal dictatorship, btw... but that's off topic). The forces needed to do a better job in Afghanistan were *not* heavy... the Soviets demonstrated how useless heavy mechanised forces are in combatting insurgencies. So your comments about M1 Abrams tanks are, to my mind, not at all applicable. The logistics still would not have been simple, but they were *doable*.

But let me guess, the words "logistics" and such never came up in the movie, eh?

I'm totally willing to believe that. I'm also willing to believe that Michael Moore thinks we should have just thrown a massive deployment of forces into Afghanistan on Day One, an understandably difficult matter to accomplish. But without seeing the movie, *I don't know*.

 

[Don Roley]

Secondly, I'm not at all unwilling to believe that there are twisted distortions in "Fahrenheit 9/11". However, I *also* know that the Bush Administration *and* the mainstream news media also provide twisted distortions.

Let me try to put this in context. In Bowling for Columbine, Moore had a scene where he opened a bank account and ran out of the bank with a new rifle he got for opening the account.

This was staged. It was not a case of bias, it was a case of Moore staging and presenting blatently false information as part of his agenda. In reality, there is a waiting period and background check and he would not have been able to leave the bank with the gun on the same day he opened the account as he presented it.

No one in the mainstream media, etc would stage such a thing. No one who got caught pulling that type of thing off would be welcomed at sources like 60 Minutes, CNN, etc.

You have to take that into account when you see the stuff in Moore's stuff and realize that no other source seems to be backing him up. He has proven himself willing to present information he knows to be false in order to damn his opponents. No media source, etc, I know of would dare to do that.

And unless you find credible sources that back up what he says, why should you trust anything a person with his track record says? And how many people are going to bother to try to check each and every one of his accusations in detail?

 

[PeachMonkey]

When you know that what you say is not the whole truth, that there is evidence that blows your theory out of the water and you fail to even mention it, that is lies and deception.

Assuming, of course, that Moore even says what you accuse him of. Which you don't really know, do you?

Of course Bush, Carter, Clinton had ties with the house of Saud. So what is wrong with that since it is part of their job to deal with other nations heads? So why is Moore making such big deal about pictures taken with Bush, but not letting the world know that every president has had such pictures taken.

This is such a tedious argument that it's finally time to deal with it. Carter and Clinton may have had *diplomatic* ties with the House of Saud, but they did not have *financial* ties.

In 1978, GW Bush founded an oil company named Arbusto 78. This company received investments exceeding $1 million from Salem bin Laden (older brother to Osama) and Khalid bin Mahfouz (brother-in-law to Osama bin Laden, member of the most powerful banking family in Saudi Arabia, a bank which backs the Saudi royal family) through Jim Bath, the bin Laden's American financial representative.

The Bush/Saudi ties were extensive enough by 1986 that Jim White, a former business partner of Jim Bath, claims he was offered large payoffs to avoid mentioning them.

In 1987, future president GW Bush's oil ventures had failed, and were folded into Harken Energy, a company which received a $25+ million dollar investment from Middle Eastern concern BCCI, due mostly to Bush's influence with the Saudis. Khalid bin Mahfouz is CEO of BCCI. BCCI was later discovered to be a *massive* criminal enterprise, involved in Iran-Contra, petty larceny, the Medellin drug cartel, and supporter of Saddam Hussein, Abu Nidal, and Manuel Noriega. bin Mahfouz was fined $225 million dollars.

In 1992, once out of office, George HW Bush joins the Carlyle Group, and helps strengthen the firms ties to the Saudi royal family *using his connections*. Bush even visits the bin Laden family compound. The bin Ladens invest in Carlyle. Carlyle even buys a company that trains the Saudi royal palace guard.

Khalid bin Mahfouz later serves as a representative of the Saudi royals to al-Qaeda when an agreement is made that al-Qaeda will not attack Saudi royal interests.

On September 11, 2001, HW Bush is in a meeting with the Carlyle Group; a meeting that is also attended by a brother of bin Laden. Two days later, the bin Ladens are flown out of the US.

Now, will you at least concede that the links between the Bushes and the Sauds are more than simple US-Saudi diplomatic relationships? I don't really know what Moore said about the bin Laden escape flight, but I'm willing to believe that these issues made him more willing to question the official story.

See the Canadian Broadcasting Company report: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html

That report is backed up by the resources listed here:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/resources.html

We should never have agreed to things like Kosovo with our troops stretched as thing as they were.

One could certainly make the same argument about the invasion of Iraq.

Here is the facts, the best, independent investigations into the matter say that the US never had any dealings with the Taliban or Bin Laden.

First, while we may not have formed the Taliban or train bin Laden directly, we *did* precipitate the conflict in Afghanistan (under the Carter administration). We *did* provide weapons and training to the mujahedeen, many of whom later joined the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Moreover, we did have dealings with the Taliban. US oil firm Unocal was extremely interested in a pipeline project to bring resources out of Uzbekistan through Afghanistan, and provided educational and material resources to the Taliban in order to further this project. The CIA even believed that, should the Taliban gain control of the entire country, that a US-Saudi-like relationship could be formed.

 

[PeachMonkey]

No responsible media source seems to want to support him and add details to his accusations. That should be somewhat telling in itself.

The US "media" is not in the business of evaluating films on a point-by-point basis. In fact, recent events have shown they can't even be bothered to evaluate the claims of our "elected administration" on a point-by-point basis. I don't use the media's laziness as an excuse to back up the claims of the Bush Administration, nor do I use it as a way to attack the validity of Moore's claims.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Let me try to put this in context. In Bowling for Columbine, Moore had a scene where he opened a bank account and ran out of the bank with a new rifle he got for opening the account.

I haven't seen "Bowling for Columbine", so for the sake of the argument, let's assume that the scene happened exactly as you describe. (btw, have you actually seen the movie, or is this another claim from an anti-Moore resource?)

Michael Moore is a biased individual making polemic films. He is not a journalist. Even "Roger and Me" had a sense of humor. All of his works, whether films or his series "TV Nation", have contained humor and excessive behavior. I've sometimes found his confrontational style distasteful and counter-productive. I've also found that he can exaggerate and distort.

None of this, to my eye, makes "Fahrenheit 9/11" something that should *just not be seen*. I recognize Moore's flaws when I go in, and I know I have to check out everything he claims, just as I have to do with the statements of the Bush Administration, of liberal and conservative think-tanks, and even journalists and media sources.

No one in the mainstream media, etc would stage such a thing. No one who got caught pulling that type of thing off would be welcomed at sources like 60 Minutes, CNN, etc.

Actually, the mainstream media has been caught staging things and distorting facts on many occasions. I'll avoid the dozens and dozens of times that they've lied about the invasion of Iraq and "war on terrorism", and simply point out the time Dateline NBC faked an explosive "fuel tank issue" on a series of American pickup trucks, and the time CNN claimed the DC sniper was using "an assault weapon" and compared it to AK-47's.

You have to take that into account when you see the stuff in Moore's stuff and realize that no other source seems to be backing him up.

Actually, I've already found, and posted, sources that seem to be backing Moore up.

And, at the risk of being nauseatingly self-repetitive, I find it impossible to know what Moore is actually *saying*, and therefore evaluate it, without actually *seeing what he's saying*.

 

[PeachMonkey]

No, I said that the last push was pretty much the invasion. And the things that are starting now with countries like Syria shutting down several terrorist offices are partly because of the invasion. Along with a whole lot of other things that we do not see so much of.

Libya had been involved in a diplomatic process for years and years with European nations and the United States over its role in the Pan-Am bombing that eventually led to it renouncing terrorism support. Moreover, Libya remains on the US list of nations that support terrorism.

Do you have any evidence that any actions by Syria are due to the invasion of Iraq? Or for any of this shadowy list of "other things we don't see"?

But still a source among many. And we do not know what other sources that are classified may have had.

Another tedious argument. We do not know if there were any "shadowy intelligence reports" that can't be shared with us. We *do* know, however, that the Administration used *forged evidence* to justify the invasion of Iraq, and that they *deliberately ordered* that any evidence that countered their argument about invading Iraq be downplayed or ignored. See:

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdf...iraq_nuclear_evidence_knowledge_factsheet.pdf
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108/pdf_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_nuclear_evidence_use_factsheet.pdf

And there is still the matter of what else did Bush want to accomplish and th emessage he wanted to send that has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. But not ones he can talk about without causing problems.

I know this may come as something of a shock, but Bush is an elected official. Elected officials don't get to launch pre-emptive wars based on secret agendas. We have a Constitution that provides the power to wage war to Congress. Say what you will about the resolution that Congress made authorizing action against Iraq, but that resolution was based on the claims of *WMDs*, claims that have been shown to be based on forgery and deception. To take action for other reasons is not just wrong, it is criminal, and treasonous.

For instance, a while back in the Daily Yomiuri, Putin (not a fried of the war in Iraq) said that Russian intelligence services had warned the US that they had learned that Iraqi forces were still exploring terrorist strikes in the US after 9-11. That is not a US report, but not one you seem to hear a lot of.

Yawn. First, when this claim was made, I read it the same day on CNN, the BBC, and the Washington Post. Second, I'll point out that even US officials don't fully believe it:

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040618-042238-4504r.htm

To summarize that article, any Russian intelligence about Iraq did not reach the US State Department. In addition, Putin specifically said that they had no evidence that Iraq was involved in any acts of terrorism.

If this shadowy, vague warning was a reason for invading Iraq, the Bush Administration had an obligation to mention it and back it up. They didn't.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Peach,

I know this may come as something of a shock, but Bush is an elected official.

Bush was not -E-lected, he was -Se-lected. That is a whole different debate however.

Elected officials don't get to launch pre-emptive wars based on secret agendas.

You now can if you are President.

We have a Constitution that provides the power to wage war to Congress.

Changes passed while those responsible for safeguarding our rights were quaking in fear have passed this 'privilage' onto Bush 2.0.

Say what you will about the resolution that Congress made authorizing action against Iraq, but that resolution was based on the claims of *WMDs*, claims that have been shown to be based on forgery and deception.

Yup.

To take action for other reasons is not just wrong, it is criminal, and treasonous.

Many would suggest or state outright that King George, Sir Dick and Lady Rice are all guilty of it. I would state that the current administration, and congress are all guilty of it. Treason and betrayal of public trust.

I think the voters will sentence them to another 4 years 'hard' labor.