"Answers Please, Mr Bush"

[proud2BlibKansan]

I believe it is time to revisit these 7 questions. How many have been answered 2 years later?

Published on Monday, October 6, 2003 by the Guardian/UK

by Michael Moore

In this extract from his new book "Dude, Where's My Country" he asks his old enemy seven awkward questions

I have seven questions for you, Mr Bush. I ask them on behalf of the 3,000 who died that September day, and I ask them on behalf of the American people. We seek no revenge against you. We want only to know what happened, and what can be done to bring the murderers to justice, so we can prevent any future attacks on our citizens.

1. Is it true that the Bin Ladens have had business relations with you and your family off and on for the past 25 years?

2. What is the 'special relationship' between the Bushes and the Saudi royal family?

3. Who attacked the US on September 11 - a guy on dialysis from a cave in Afghanistan, or your friend, Saudi Arabia?

4. Why did you allow a private Saudi jet to fly around the US in the days after September 11 and pick up members of the Bin Laden family and fly them out of the country without a proper investigation by the FBI?

5. Why are you protecting the Second Amendment rights of potential terrorists?

6. Were you aware that, while you were governor of Texas, the Taliban traveled to Texas to meet with your oil and gas company friends?

7. What exactly was that look on your face in the Florida classroom on the morning of September 11 when your chief of staff told you, 'America is under attack'?

http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1006-11.htm

[Erika]

1. Bush gave the taliban millions before the attack

Yes, Bush welcomed the Taliban in Texas.

These 7 questions need to be answered. The Bushbots will once again hide their faces and be mute.

[newswolf56]

2. Agree with every point except #5. The Constitution prohibits...

government from denying rights -- Second Amendment rights included -- to people who have NOT been arrested and NOT been formally charged with a crime. Under the Fifth Amendment, mere suspicion (without formal charges) is not a basis in law for any punitive action -- it doesn't matter whether the people in question are suspected Jihadists, suspected KuKlux Klansmen or SUSPECTED SOCIALISTS OR ANTI-WAR ACTIVISTS. Thus Michael Moore discredits himself: so hysterically anti-gun blind he rabidly demands repeal of a Constitutional principle that protects us ALL -- oblivious to the fact that if this principle is abolished for some of us, IT DAMN WELL IS ABOLISHED FOR ALL OF US. Once again, grotesque proof of how fanatical opposition to the Second Amendment soon morphs into frenzied opposition to the entire Bill of Rights.

Sorry for shouting. But I am sick nearly unto death of self-proclaimed Leftists who aid and abet the cause of fascism by nibbling away at our Constitutional rights.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. The second amendment isn't about giving you a right to CCW

Study your history and particularly the constitution.

The second amendment was written by our forefathers so they could quickly assemble a well-armed militia in the event of an attack by a foreign invader. If you revisit your US history, you wil discover that an invasion by the British was indeed a very real threat 200 years ago. It was also difficult to gather weapons to arm the militia (no WalMarts back then).

I am not advocating denying your right to CCW. Based on what constitutional attorneys and professors have taught me, I see the day when you will lose your right to CCW as long as it is based on the second amendment.

[newswolf56]

4. I said absolutely nothing about CCWs. What Moore and those like him...

object to (this includes all the anti-gun organizations and all the anti-gun zealots in our party) is the granting of right-to-purchase via Instant Check to people who may be under investigation but have not been formally charged with a crime.

The anti-gun position is that mere suspicion (not just of terrorism but of ANY crime) should immediately cancel one's right to purchase and possess: that is, any attempted purchases should be prohibited by Instant Check, and whatever guns one already has should be confiscated too. (Prohibition/confiscation is what happens now when one is formally charged, but the anti-gunners want it to happen as soon as one's name comes up in a case -- as in being on a watch-list of the sort the authorities routinely assemble when they are witch-hunting "subversives": Communists, civil rights workers, labor organizers etc. As of now, such police tyranny is forbidden by the Fifth Amendment; to legalize it, the Fifth Amendment would have to be repealed or suspended.)

Thus once again the well-documented two-facedness of the anti-gunners: vehemently protesting the Patriot Act's suspensions of Constitutional guarantees even as they demand more viciously unconstitutional treatment for firearms owners -- and by extension, everyone else.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. I guess you might call me an anti-gun zealot

I teach. I have seen guns create far more harm than good in the lives of my students. I would like to see them banned entirely in my perfect world.

BUT I am a realist and I am not opposed to responsible gun ownership. As with many other issues in our society, education is the key to protecting our kids. So I would rather see strict gun control with govt oversight than prohibition.

I think it is far too easy to get a gun today. Legalized CCW has been followed by a rapid increase in gun violence in my community. So I don't buy the argument that CCW prevents crime.