The link to what Matthews said (video included at the MSNBC site)
that I just referred to in the previous post:
MSNBC – Dean hopeful about Dem ticket

MATTHEWS: It also has stuff in there that suggests that President Bush is involved with bin Laden. He’s running with him. He’s part of the problem. He’s part of the terrorist family. I mean, it’s incredible the charges made in the movie. Do you believe that George Bush is involved with terrorism?

No, what’s incredible, is the charge you just made about the movie (see my previous post). The one question: “He’s part of the problem” could be true, in the sense that the “political/economic” pressures to “tread lightly” if at all, is part of the problem of why we haven’t perhaps apprehended Bin Laden (if, in fact, we haven’t already—-but given the “disadvantges” of having to jeapordize our cozy relationship with the Saudi family, this is deterring us from pursuing the terorists (all but 3 of whom were Saudis).

Americans need to wake up and ask ourselves what Moore asks us: Why don’t we demand more answers about why the US turned right to Iraq (after a rather quick and abbreviated , but obviously neccessary stint in Afganistan, to Saudi Arabis, where it was OBVIOUSLY and GLARINGLY eveident that the breeding ground for the group was THERE. If people are so dead set against the very suggestion that oil has much to do with what we do or don’t do as a nation, then why is there such an obvious DISCONNECT and LACK OF ACTION against Saudi Arabia. With Iraq, we warned, and then we massaged evidence (and the lack of it — as Joseph Wilson charged) into warnings of the “act now before it is too late” — when we now know that the administration was seeking “evidence” against Iraq from the very first week they were in offcie (and by implication, it was a plan of the new administration all along)