Almost no one is willing to identify with the GOP these days
Harry Hope
http://www.alternet.org/politics/145005/you_know_you're_a_conservative_when.../
January 7, 2010
You Know You're a Conservative When...
By Ken Kupchik
10 quick questions to tell if you're a 21st Century right-winger.
Since almost no one is willing to identify with the GOP these days, it
can be difficult to diagnose conservatism.
Here are some tips to help determine if you are a conservative:
10) You refused to share your toys in kindergarten, saying it would
put you on a dangerous path to socialism.
9) You get angry when there are choices for languages on an automated
call because you still don't have a good grasp on English.
8) You hate those "elite Hollywood liberals" but refuse to cancel your
Netflix account.
7) You go to tea bagger rallies because you have no job thanks to the
recession that "started under Obama."
6) You watch Fox News, but unlike most people actually take it
seriously.
5) You become absolutely livid about imaginary tax increases.
4) You are against wasteful programs like Medicare, but also against
cutting waste from programs like Medicare.
3) You criticize Michael Moore for his weight, without being able to
refute a single claim that he makes in his documentaries.
2) You can enter any collective noun into the following sentence "The
______ are screwing everything up" except for the correct ones.
1) You find yourself saying "no" even to things that you actually
want, like ice cream, and health care.
_____________________________________________________
Harry
Rich
news:2uqck5lpaocoq4jrn...@4ax.com:
>
> http://www.alternet.org/politics/145005/you_know_you're_a_conservative_
> when.../
>
But that's from some wacko alternate political site. Almost no one wants
to be branded liberal in this day and age and that is almost universal.
bvallely
> http://www.alternet.org/politics/145005/you_know_you're_a_conservativ...
>
> January 7, 2010
>
> You Know You're a Conservative When...
>
> By Ken Kupchik
>
> 10 quick questions to tell if you're a 21st Century right-winger.
>
> Since almost no one is willing to identify with the GOP these days, it
> can be difficult to diagnose conservatism.
>
> Here are some tips to help determine if you are a conservative:
>
> 10) You refused to share your toys in kindergarten, saying it would
> put you on a dangerous path to socialism.
No, I refused to let my toys be taken by bullies, who insist THEY
deserved them more. Were you proud to be a pussy pushover?
.
> 9) You get angry when there are choices for languages on an automated
> call because you still don't have a good grasp on English.
What is it about the left and their desperate insecurity about their
intelligence?
.
> 8) You hate those "elite Hollywood liberals" but refuse to cancel your
> Netflix account.
Conservatives are able to enjoy films which espouse liberal points of
view. Why do you find that baffling?. Are you saying that the Left is
so insecure that they can't tolerate alternate views - even for two
hours in a movie? If so, it may be time for the Left to do a little
60s' style "agonizing reappraisal."
BTW, Netflix? Who still uses Netflix? Get with the 2010s and
download some films.
.
> 7) You go to tea bagger rallies because you have no job thanks to the
> recession that "started under Obama."
.
When the Democrats took over both Houses in 2006, unemployment was
4.6%. In the three years since they've controlled the economy,
unemployment has more than doubled. Let's blame Bush.
.
> 6) You watch Fox News, but unlike most people actually take it
> seriously.
.
FOX News has just celebrated its 20th Anniversary. While the
Lamestream Media cooed soothing ballads about Obama's moderation, FN
warmed the American people that Barry had the most liberal voting
record in the Senate. While the New York Times celebrated Obama's
ability to bring people together, Sean Hannity walked about Obama's
habit of playing hard ball Chicago politics. While CNN spoke of how
the Stimulus Bill was going to save the US economy, Glen Beck warned
that it would actually DESTROY millions of jobs.
Time and time again, the dinosaur media has missed the important
stories, while FOX hits one home run after the other.
Anyone who doesn't take FOX News seriously at this late date are
emotionally in the same basked as Nixon supporters who insisted that
Woodward and Bernstein were just making shit up about Milhouse.
.
> 5) You become absolutely livid about imaginary tax increases.
.
The last budget written by the Republicans had a deficit of 187
billions dollars - an amount the Democrats (and the American people)
found outrageous. In the three years that the Democrats have written
and passed the budgets, that amount has increased a TEN FOLD. As of
this writing, this excess spending has been "paid" for by increased
borrowing and printing money.
This - can - not - last.
The longer the Democrats and Obama kick the deficit can down the road,
the more painful it will be when it is finally dealt with.
.
> 4) You are against wasteful programs like Medicare, but also against
> cutting waste from programs like Medicare.
.
A case could be made for making cuts to Medicare, if the savings were
plowed back into the ailing system to make it solvant. But it's not.
The money will be taken from old people who paid into the system their
entire working careers and given to people who never bothered to get
Health Insurance.
.
> 3) You criticize Michael Moore for his weight, without being able to
> refute a single claim that he makes in his documentaries.
.
The movie lauds an anti-Bush riot that took place in Washington, D.C.,
on the day of Bush’s inauguration. He claims that protestors "pelted
Bush's limo with eggs." Actually, it was just one egg, according to
the BBC. According to Moore, "No President had ever witnessed such a
thing on his inauguration day. " According to CNN, Richard Nixon faced
comparable protests in 1969 and 1973. According to USA Today, the anti-
Bush organizers claimed that they expected 20,000 protesters to show
up, whereas the anti-Nixon protest in 1973 drew 60,000 people. (USA
Today, Jan. 20, 2001).
Moore says, "The plan to have Bush get out of the limo for the
traditional walk to the White House was scrapped. But according to the
BBC, "Mr. Bush delighted his supporters by getting out of his
limousine and walked the last block of the parade, holding hands with
his wife Laura."
Moore continues: "And for the next eight months it didn’t get any
better for George W. Bush. He couldn’t get his judges appointed; he
had trouble getting his legislation passed; and he lost Republican
control of the Senate. His approval ratings in the polls began to
sink."
Part of this is true. Once Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords left the
Republican party, Democrats controlled the Senate, and stalled the
confirmation of some of the judges whom Bush had nominated for the
federal courts.
Congress did enact the top item on Bush’s agenda: a large tax cut.
During the summer, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives
easily passed many of Bush’s other agenda items, including the bill
whose numbering reflected the President’s top priority: H.R. 1, the
Bush "No Child Left Behind" education bill. The fate of the Bush bills
in the Democratic-controlled Senate, as of August 2001, was uncertain.
The Senate later did pass No Child Left Behind, but some other Bush
proposals did not pass.
Moore says that Bush's "approval ratings in the polls began to sink."
This is not entirely accurate, although I haven't counted this issue
as a "deceit." From January 2001 to September 2001, Bush's approval
ratings in almost all polls fluctuated pretty narrowly in a 50-59%
range. Moore accurately cites a Christian Science Monitor poll with 45
percent approval for Bush on September 5, 2001, but the low result
here is an outlier compared to the overall poll trend. What really
changed for Bush, pollwise, was not that his approval ratings were
sinking, but that his disapproval ratings had risen. The national
polls showed that the approve/disapprove gap for Bush was much larger
in January 2001 than in the late summer of 2001. So Moore is correct
that Bush's polls numbers had deteriorated, although Moore's phrasing
is not correct.
"He was already beginning to look like a lame duck President." Maybe
in Moore's imagination. No serious political commentator made such a
claim in 2001.
Bush is quoted as saying, "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot
easier, there's no question about it." What Moore fails to note,
though, is that the quote, from July 26, 2001, is a facetious joke,
like Moore's claim in Dude, Where's my Country? that he did not have
sex until age 32.
Another Bush joke is presented as an obvious joke, although important
context is missing. Near the end of the movie, Bush speaks to a
tuxedoed audience. He says, "I call you the haves and the have-mores.
Some call you the elite; I call you my base." The joke follows several
segments in which Bush is accused of having started the Iraq war in
order to enrich business. As far the movie audience can tell, Bush is
speaking to some unknown group of rich people. The speech actually
comes from the October 19, 2000, Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation
Dinner. The 2000 event was the 55th annual dinner, which raises money
for Catholic hospital charities in New York City. Candidates Bush and
Gore were the co-guests of honor at the event, where speakers
traditionally make fun of themselves.
Gore joked, "The Al Smith Dinner represents a hallowed and important
tradition, which I actually did invent." Lampooning his promise to put
Social Security in a "lock box," Gore promised that he would put
"Medicare in a walk-in closet," put NASA funding in a "hermetically
sealed Ziploc bag" and would "always keep lettuce in the crisper."
Mary Ann Poust, "Presidential hopefuls Gore and Bush mix humor and
politics at Al Smith Dinner," Catholic New York, Oct. 26, 2000. So
although Fahrenheit presents the joke as epitomizing Bush's
selfishness, the joke really was part of Bush helping to raise $1.6
million for medical care for the poor. Although many a truth is said
in jest, Bush's joke was no more revealing than was Gore's claim to
have founded the dinner in 1946, two years before he was born. (CBS
News story on the same event.)
[Moore response: Cites articles predicting that Bush would have
trouble with Congress on Arctic drilling, campaign finance, and faith-
based charity. Cites a California poll in which Bush's disapproval
rating equaled his approval rating. Cites a couple of additional
polls, selecting Bush's worst results. No response on the distortion
of the Alfred E. Smith Dinner. Although Moore claims that his website
provides line-by-line citations for the movie, there is no citation
for the quote from the Al Smith Dinner, even though it would be easy
to cite newspapers which reported the dinner. Apparently Moore fails
to provide citations because any citation would show that Bush was
speaking at a charity fund-raiser.]
Bush Vacations
Deceits 6-7
Fahrenheit 9/11 states, "In his first eight months in office before
September 11th, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the
Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time."
Shortly before 9/11, the Post calculated that Bush had spent 42
percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route, including all
or part of 54 days at his ranch. That calculation, however, includes
weekends, which Moore failed to mention.
Tom McNamee, "Just the facts on ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ Chicago Sun-Times,
June 28, 2004. See also: Mike Allen, "White House On the Range. Bush
Retreats to Ranch for ‘Working Vacation’," Washington Post, August 7,
2001 Many of those days are weekends, and the Camp David stays have
included working visits with foreign leaders. Since the Eisenhower
administration, Presidents have usually spent many weekends at Camp
David, which is fully equipped for Presidential work. Once the Camp
David time is excluded, Bush's "vacation" time drops to 13 percent.
Much of that 13 percent was spent on Bush's ranch in Texas. Reader
Scott Marquardt looked into a random week of Bush's August 2001
"vacation." Using public documents from www.whitehouse.gov, here is
what he found:
Monday, August 20
Spoke concerning the budget while visiting a high school in
Independence, Missouri.
Spoke at the annual Veteran's of Foreign Wars convention in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Signed six bills into law.
Announced his nominees for Chief Financial Officer of the
Department of Agriculture, Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Financial Management, member of the Federal Housing Finance Board,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Disabled Employment Policy, U.S.
Representative to the General Assembly of the U.N., and Assistant
Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development for the
Bureau of Humanitarian Response.
Spoke with workers at the Harley Davidson factory.
Dined with Kansas Governor Bill Graves, discussing politics.
Tuesday, August 21
Took press questions at a Target store in Kansas City, Missouri.
Spoke with Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien on the matter of
free trade and tariffs on Canadian lumber.
Wednesday, August 22
Met with Karen Hughes, Condi Rice, and Josh Bolten, and other
staff (more than one meeting).
Conferenced with Mexico's president for about 20 minutes on the
phone. They discussed Argentina's economy and the International
Monetary fund's role in bringing sustainability to the region. They
also talked about immigration and Fox's planned trip to Washington.
Communicated with Margaret LaMontagne, who was heading up a series
of immigration policy meetings.
Released the Mid-Session Review, a summary of the economic outlook
for the next decade, as well as of the contemporary economy and
budget.
Announced nomination and appointment intentions for Ambassador to
Vietnam, two for the Commission on Fine Arts, six to serve on the
Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry,
three for the Advisory Committee to the Pension Benefits Guaranty
Corporation, one to the Board of Directors of the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting, and one to the National Endowments for the Arts.
Issued a Presidential Determination ordering a military drawdown
for Tunisia.
Issued a statement regarding the retirement of Jesse Helms.
Thursday, August 23
Briefly spoke with the press.
Visited Crawford Elementary School, fielded questions from
students.
Friday, August 24
Officials arrived from Washington at 10:00 AM. Shortly thereafter,
at a press conference, Bush announced that General Richard B. Myers
will be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and General Pete Pac will
serve as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He also announced 14 other
appointments, and his intentions for the budget. At 11:30 AM these
officials, as well as National Security Council experts, the Secretary
of Defense, and others, met with Bush to continue the strategic review
process for military transformation (previous meetings have been held
at the Pentagon and the White House). The meeting ended at 5:15.
Met with Andy Card and Karen Hughes, talking about communications
issues.
Issued a proclamation honoring Women's Equality Day.
Saturday, August 25
Awoke at 5:45 AM, read daily briefs.
Had an hour-long CIA and national security briefing at 7:45
Gave his weekly radio address on the topic of The Budget.
Having shown a clip from August 25 with Bush explaining how he likes
to work on the ranch, Moore announces "George Bush spent the rest of
the August at the ranch." Not so, as Scott Marquardt found by looking
at Bush's activity for the very next day.
Sunday, August 26
Speaks at the Little League World Series in Williamsport,
Pennsylvania.
Speaks at the U.S. Steel Group Steelworkers Picnic at Mon Valley
Works, southeast of Pittsburgh. He also visits some employees still
working, not at the picnic.
Marquandt looked up Bush's activities for the next three days:
Declared a major disaster area in Ohio and orders federal aid.
This affects Brown, Butler, Clermont and Hamilton counties.
Sent a report on progress toward a "solution of the Cyprus
question" to the Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations.
Announced his intention to nominate Kathleen Burton Clarke to be
Director of the Bureau of Land Management (Department of the
Interior).
Spoke at the American Legion's 83rd annual convention in San
Antonio, discussing defense priorities. Decommissioned the Air Force
One jet that flew 444 missions, from the Nixon administration to
Bush's retirement ceremony for the plane in Waco, Texas.
Attended the dedication ceremony of the San Antonio Missions
National Historical Park in San Antonio.
Announced appointment of 13 members of the Presidential Task Force
to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nations Veterans.
It is true in a sense that the Presidency is a "24/7" job. But this
does not mean that the President should be working every minute. A
literal "24/7" job would mean that the President should be criticized
for "sleeping on the job 33 percent of the time" if he slept for eight
hours a day.
Christopher Hitchens notes:
[T]he shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side
with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-
screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won’t recognize the
other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom,
or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.
The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a
golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism
and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that’s what
you get if you catch the president on a golf course.
Christopher Hitchens, "Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore,"
Slate.com, June 21, 2004. (Some of Moore's defenders have denounced
Hitchens as a member of the vast-right wing conspiracy. Hitchens,
however, wrote an obituary of Ronald Reagan recalling his lone meeting
with Reagan, when he asked a question which made Reagan angry: "The
famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was
looking at a cruel and stupid lizard." Hitchens also wrote a book and
produced a movie, The Trials of Henry Kissinger, urging that Kissinger
be tried for war crimes.)
By the way, the clip of Bush making a comment about terrorism, and
then hitting a golf ball, is also taken out of context, at least
partially:
Tuesday night on FNC’s Special Report with Brit Hume, Brian Wilson
noted how "the viewer is left with the misleading impression Mr. Bush
is talking about al-Qaeda terrorists." But Wilson disclosed that "a
check of the raw tape reveals the President is talking about an attack
against Israel, carried out by a Palestinian suicide bomber."
"Cyberalert," Media Research Center, July 1, 2004, item. 3.
Interestingly, as detailed in Bill Clinton's autobiography My Life, in
November 1995. when President Clinton learned that Israel's Prime
Minister Yitzhak Rabin had been shot, Clinton went out to the White
House lawn and hit golf balls while he waited to learn if Rabin would
live. That Clinton played golf after learning of a terrible crime in
Israel obviously does not mean that he did not care about the crime.
If a television station had recorded some footage of Clinton hitting
golf balls that awful night, it would have easy for a hyper-partisan
film-maker to use the footage against Clinton unfairly.
Moore wraps up the vacation segment: "It was a summer to remember. And
when it was over, he left Texas for his second favorite place." The
movie then shows Bush in Florida. Actually, he went back to
Washington, where he gave a speech on August 31.
[Moore response: Accurately quotes the Washington Post: "if you add up
all his weekends at Camp David, layovers at Kennebunkport and assorted
to-ing and fro-ing, W. will have spent 42 percent of his presidency
'at vacation spots or en route.'" Does not attempt to defend
Fahrenheit's mischaracterization of the Post's meaning. Does not
explain why the Israeli context was removed from the Bush quote. Does
not defend the claim that Bush went from Texas to Florida.]
September 11
Moore's changing positions
Fahrenheit presents a powerful segment on the September 11 attacks.
There is no narration, and the music is dramatic yet tasteful. The
visuals are reaction shots from pedestrians, as they gasp with
horrified astonishment.
Moore has been criticized for using the reaction shots as a clever way
to avoid showing the planes hitting the buildings, and some of the
victims falling to their deaths. Even if this is true, the segment
still effectively evokes the horror and outrage that every decent
human being still feels about September 11.
But as New York’s former Mayor Edward Koch reported, Moore says, "I
don't know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three
times more likely that you will be struck by lightning than die from
an act of terror." If there is some additional context which would
explain Moore's remarks, he has not supplied such context on his
website. It seems unlikely that Moore's "war room" is unaware of the
highly critical review written by former NYC Mayor Koch.
Moore's first public comment about the September 11 attacks was to
complain that too many Democrats rather than Republicans had been
killed: "If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by
killing thousands of people who did not vote for him! Boston, New
York, DC, and the planes' destination of California--these were places
that voted against Bush!" (The quote was originally posted as a
"Mike's Message" on Moore's website on September 12, but was removed
not long after. Among the many places where Moore's quote has been
repeated is The New Statesman, a leftist British political magazine.)
A person might feel great personal sympathy for the victim of a
lightning strike, but the same person might feel that, overall, the
"lightning problem" is not worth making a big fuss over. Fahrenheit
presents September 11 as a terrible tragedy (in which Moore lost one a
professional colleague, and many other people lost loved ones), and as
something worth making a big fuss. On this latter point, Fahrenheit's
purported view does not appear to be the same as Moore's actual view.
[Moore response: none.]
Bush on September 11
Cheap Shot
Fahrenheit mocks President Bush for continuing to read the book My Pet
Goat to a classroom of elementary school children after he was told
about the September 11 attacks. Actually, as reported in The New
Yorker, the book was Reading Mastery 2, which contains an exercise
called "The Pet Goat." The title of the book is not very important in
itself, but the invented title of My Pet Goat makes it easier to
ridicule Bush.
What Moore did not tell you:
Gwendolyn Tose’-Rigell, the principal of Emma E. Booker Elementary
School, praised Bush’s action: "I don’t think anyone could have
handled it better." "What would it have served if he had jumped out of
his chair and ran out of the room?"…
She said the video doesn’t convey all that was going on in the
classroom, but Bush’s presence had a calming effect and "helped us get
through a very difficult day."
"Sarasota principal defends Bush from ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ portrayal,"
Associated Press, June 24, 2004. Also, since the President knew he was
on camera, it was reasonable to expect that if he had suddenly sped
out of the room, his hasty movement would have been replayed
incessantly on television; leaving the room quickly might have
exacerbated the national mood of panic, even if Bush had excused
himself calmly.
Moore does not offer any suggestion about what the President should
have done during those seven minutes, rather than staying calm for the
sake of the classroom and of the public. Nor does Moore point to any
way that the September 11 events might have turned out better in even
the slightest way if the President had acted differently. I agree with
Lee Hamilton, the Vice-Chair of the September11 Commission and a
former Democratic Representative from Indiana: "Bush made the right
decision in remaining calm, in not rushing out of the classroom."
Moreover, as detailed by the Washington Times, Ari Fleischer was in
the back of the classroom, holding up a legal pad with the words,
"DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET." The Secret Service may well have been
cautious about moving Bush, not only because of hijackings, but also
because on the morning of September 11, a Middle Eastern man had tried
to gain personal access to the President by falsely claiming that he
was a journalist with a scheduled interview, and by asking for a
Secret Service agent by name
[Moore response: Defends the factual accuracy of the segment, which no
one has ever disputed, except regarding the book's title.]
The Wolfowitz Comb
Another cheap shot
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is shown
surreptitiously licking his comb in preparation for Congressional
testimony under the cameras. I know: Eeeuuww! Moore's point is that
this proves Wolfowitz is a low life, a sleazy guy whose policy
opinions should be devalued accordingly. And, of course, it's funny to
see the famous and powerful embarrass themselves. Yet not one among us
hasn't had dozens of questionable hygiene moments that we would be
mortified to have witnessed by anyone, not to mention see featured in
a nationally released documentary. Moore knows that Wolfowitz's
desperate act in attempting to tame unruly hair for a public
appearance will look much worse on movie screen than it really is, and
he must know that periodic hygiene failings are not any kind of proof
of depravity: after all, we're talking about a director here who
habitually appears in public unshaven and sloppily dressed. To Moore's
likely retort that Wolfowitz deserves to be gratuitously ridiculed for
doing nothing worse than any member of his audience could easily
recall doing himself, the answer is that nobody deserves to be treated
this way. It is cruel and hypocritical, and violates basic ethical
reciprocity. Doing so is wrong, and far more wrong, and infinitely
more harmful to others, than licking one's own comb.
Jack Marshall, "Fahrenheit 911," Ethics Scoreboard, June 30, 2004.
Pre-9/11 Briefing
Deceits 8-10
Castigating the allegedly lazy President, Moore says, "Or perhaps he
just should have read the security briefing that was given to him on
August 6, 2001 that said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack
America by hijacking airplanes."
Moore supplies no evidence for his assertion that President Bush did
not read the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief. Moore’s
assertion appears to be a complete fabrication.
Moore smirks that perhaps President Bush did not read the Briefing
because its title was so vague. Moore then cuts to Condoleezza Rice
announcing the title of the Briefing: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike
in U.S." Here, Moore seems to be playing off Condoleezza Rice's
testimony of the September 11 Commission that the contents of the memo
were vague.
However, no-one (except Moore) has ever claimed that Bush did not read
the Briefing, or that he did not read it because the title was vague.
Rather, Condoleezza Rice had told the press conference that the
information in the Briefing was "very vague." National Security
Advisor Holds Press Briefing, The White House, May 16, 2002.
The content of the Briefing supports Rice’s characterization, and
refutes Moore’s assertion that the Briefing "said that Osama bin Laden
was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes." The actual
Briefing was highly equivocal:
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational
threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998
saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the
release of "Blind Shaykh" ‘Umar’ Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-held
extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns
of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations
for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent
surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
(Some readers have wondered how this short segment qualifies as three
deceits: 1. that Bush did not read the memo, 2. that the memo's title
was offered as an excuse for not reading the memo, 3. omitting that
the memo was equivocal, and that the hijacking warning was something
that the FBI said it was "unable to corroborate.")
[Moore response: Tacitly acknowledges that Bush had read the August 6
PDB: "he (unlike the rest of America) was already aware that Osama bin
Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes, per the
August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB)." Does not directly
address Fahrenheit's lie that Bush hadn't read the PDB, or the lie
that Bush had used the "vague" PDB title as an excuse for not reading
it. Accurately quotes the PDB, without acknowledging that the PDB was
much more equivocal than Fahrenheit claims.]
Saudi Departures from United States
Deceits 11-14
Moore is guilty of a classic game of saying one thing and implying
another when he describes how members of the Saudi elite were flown
out of the United States shortly after 9/11.
If you listen only to what Moore says during this segment of the
movie—and take careful notes in the dark—you’ll find he’s got his
facts right. He and others in the film state that 142 Saudis,
including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave
the country after Sept. 13.
The date—Sept. 13—is crucial because that is when a national ban
on air traffic, for security purposes, was eased
But nonetheless, many viewers will leave the movie theater with
the impression that the Saudis, thanks to special treatment from the
White House, were permitted to fly away when all other planes were
still grounded. This false impression is created by Moore’s failure,
when mentioning Sept. 13, to emphasize that the ban on flights had
been eased by then. The false impression is further pushed when Moore
shows the singer Ricky Martin walking around an airport and says, "Not
even Ricky Martin would fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one.
Except the bin Ladens."
But the movie fails to mention that the FBI interviewed about 30
of the Saudis before they left. And the independent 9/11 commission
has reported that "each of the flights we have studied was
investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior
to its departure."
McNamee, Chicago Sun-Times. (Note: The Sun-Times article was correct
in its characterization of the Ricky Martin segment, but not precisely
accurate in the exact words used in the film. I have substituted the
exact quote. On September 13, U.S. airspace was re-opened for a small
number of flights; charter flights were allowed, and the airlines were
allowed to move their planes to new airports to start carrying
passengers on September 14.)
Tapper: [Y]our film showcases former counter-terrorism czar
Richard Clarke, using him as a critic of the Bush administration. Yet
in another part of the film, one that appears in your previews, you
criticize members of the Bush administration for permitting members of
the bin Laden family to fly out of the country almost immediately
after 9/11. What the film does not mention is that Richard Clarke says
that he OK’d those flights. Is it fair to not mention that?
Moore: Actually I do, I put up The New York Times article and it’s
blown up 40 foot on the screen, you can see Richard Clarke’s name
right there saying that he approved the flights based on the
information the FBI gave him. It’s right there, right up on the
screen. I don’t agree with Clarke on this point. Just because I think
he’s good on a lot of things doesn’t mean I agree with him on
everything.
Jake Tapper interview with Michael Moore, ABC News, June 25, 2004. In
an Associated Press interview, Clarke said that he agreed with much of
what Moore had to say, but that the Saudi flight material was a
mistake. Clarke testified to the September 11 Commission, on September
3, 2003, that letting the Saudis go "was a conscious decision with
complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the
FBI and the White House." It's possible to read Clarke's 2003
statement as consistent with his 2004 statements; if you believe that
what Clarke is saying now contradicts what he said in 2003, then
Clarke is a liar, and all other claims he makes in Fahrenheit are
discredited. Although he really did not make those claims for
Fahrenheit; according to National Public Radio:
"I think Moore's making a mountain of a molehill," he said.
Moreover, said Mr. Clarke, "He never interviewed me." Instead, Mr.
Moore had simply lifted a clip from an ABC interview.
Fahrenehit includes a brief shot of a Sept. 4, 2003, New York Times
article headlined "White House Approved Departures of Saudis after
Sept. 11, Ex-Aide Says." The camera pans over the article far too
quickly for any ordinary viewer to spot and read the words in which
Clarke states that he approved the flights.
Like Clarke, most of the political figures in Fahrenheit 9/11 were not
filmed by Moore; he used footage which had been shot by news
organizations. The Internet Movie Database lists 40 public figures in
the "cast" of Fahrenheit; of these, 37 are listed as from "archival
footage."
Some Saudis left the U.S. by charter flight on September 14, a day
when commercial flights had resumed, but when ordinary charter planes
were still grounded. When did the bin Ladens actually leave? Not until
the next week, as the the 9/11 Commission staff report explains:
Fearing reprisals against Saudi nationals, the Saudi government
asked for help in getting some of its citizens out of the country….we
have found that the request came to the attention of Richard Clarke
and that each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the
FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.
No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were
permitted to fly into, out of, or within the United States until
September 13, 2001. After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights
with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the
United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called
Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26
passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. We have found
no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian
nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national
airspace.
The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials,
primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose
a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI
with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the
country. Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by
the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private
security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed
questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent
contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist
activity.
The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the
Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear
whether the TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request,
the Terrorist Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals
on the flight manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current
TIPOFF watchlist. There are no matches.
The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on
these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with
the 9/11 attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement
in those attacks. To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict
this conclusion.
The final Commission Report confirms that Clarke was the highest-
ranking official who made the decision to let the Saudis go, and that
Clarke's decision had no adverse effect on September 11
investigations. See pages 328-29 of the Report.
Finally, Moore's line, "But really, who wanted to fly? No one. Except
the bin Ladens," happens to be a personal lie. Stranded in California
on September 11, Michael Moore ended up driving home to New York City.
On September 14, he wrote to his fans "Our daughter is fine, mostly
frightened by my desire to fly home to her rather than drive." Moore
acceded to the wishes of his wife and daughter, and drove back to New
York. It is pretty hypocritical for Moore to slam the Saudis (who had
very legitimate fears of being attacked by angry people) just because
they wanted to fly home, at the same time when Moore himself wanted to
fly home.
(Deceits: 1. Departure dates for Saudis, 2. Omission of Richard
Clarke's approval for departures, 3. Lying to Jake Tapper about
whether Clarke's role was presented in the movie, 4. Moore himself
wanted to fly when he says only the bin Ladens did.)
[Moore response: Provides citations showing that "the White House"
approved the Saudi departures; does not cite or acknowledge Clarke's
statement that he was the guy in the White House who approved the
departures. Does not respond to Clarke's statement that the Saudi
departures segment in Fahrenheit is "a mistake." Provides accurate
citations for the dates of Saudi departures; does not address how the
film misled viewers about when the departures took place. Cites the
September 11 Commission (which says that the pre-departure interviews
were "detailed" and other sources, including National Review, which
say they were not).
Updated Moore response: In an impressively brazen display of
mendacity, Moore claims that the September 11 Commission finding that
Clarke approved the Saudi departures and that the decision went no
higher proves that Fahrenheit is factually accurate.]
Bush and James Bath
Deceits 15-16
Moore mentions that Bush’s old National Guard buddy and personal
friend James Bath had become the money manager for the bin Laden
family, saying, [that after the bin Ladens invested in James Bath,]
"James Bath himself in turn invested in George W. Bush." The
implication is that Bath invested the bin Laden family’s money in
Bush’s failed energy company, Arbusto. He doesn’t mention that Bath
has said that he had invested his own money, not the bin Ladens’, in
Bush’s company.
Matt Labash, "Un-Moored from Reality," Weekly Standard, July 5, 2004.
See also: Thomas Frank, "Film offers limited view," Newsday, June 27,
2004; Michael Isikoff & Mark Hosenball, "More Distortions From Michael
Moore. Some of the main points in ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ really aren’t very
fair at all," MSNBC.com, June 30, 2004.
Moore makes a big point about the name of James Bath being blacked out
from Bush National Guard records which were released by the White
House. The blackout might appear less sinister if Moore revealed that
federal law (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act,
HIPAA) required the National Guard to black out the names any
Guardsmen whose medical information was on the same pages as the
records which the Guard released regarding George Bush's health
records. In Bath's case, he had been suspended for failing to take an
annual physical exam. So what Moore presents as a sinister effort to
conceal the identity of James Bath was in fact the legally-required
compliance with federal law.
Moore gloats: "What Bush didn't know was that I already had a copy of
his military records--uncensored--obtained in the year 2000." Moore
creates the impression that he is an investigative sleuth. Actually,
the records had been released in 2000. The privacy regulations for the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) went into
effect on April 14, 2003, and so did not apply when the National Guard
records were released in 2000.
[Moore response: Shows that Bath and Bush were friends, a fact which
was never disputed. Does not address the fact that the black-out of
Bath's name was required by new federal law. Does not defend the
insinuation that Bath used bin Laden money to invest in Bush. Does not
address the fact that Craig Unger's book House of Bush, House of Saud
reports that there is no evidence that Bath used bin Laden money for
the Arbusto investment.]
Bush and Prince Bandar
Deceit 17
Moore points out the distressingly close relationship between Saudi
Arabia’s ambassador, Prince Bandar, and the Bush family. But Moore
does not explain that Bandar has been a bipartisan Washington power
broker for decades, and that Bill Clinton repeatedly relied on Bandar
to advance Clinton’s own Middle East agenda. (Elsa Walsh, "The Prince.
How the Saudi Ambassador became Washington’s indispensable operator,"
The New Yorker, Mar. 24, 2003.)
President Clinton’s former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Wyche Fowler,
has been earning a lucrative living as a Saudi apologist and serving
as Chairman of the Middle East Institute—a research organization
heavily funded by Saudi Arabia. (Joel Mowbray, "Feeding at the Saudi
Trough," Townhall.com, Oct. 1, 2003.) Former President Clinton
received $750,000 for giving a speech in Saudi Arabia, and the Saudis
have donated a secret sum (estimated between $1 million and $20
million) to the Clinton Library.
Former President Carter (who sat next to Moore at the 2004 Democratic
Convention) met with 10 bin Laden brothers in 2000, and came away with
a $200,000 donation from the bin Ladens to the Carter Center in
Atlanta.
I am not suggesting that Mr. Fowler or former President Carter are in
any way corrupt; I’m sure that they are sincere (although, in my view,
mistaken) in their pro-Saudi and anti-Israel viewpoint. Nor is there
anything illegal about former President Clinton's receipt of huge
Saudi largesse. What is misleading is for Moore to look at the web of
Saudi influence in Washington only in regard to the Republican Bushes,
and to ignore the fact that Saudi influence and money are widespread
in both parties.
Harken Energy
Deceits 18-19
Bush once served on the Board of Directors of the Harken Energy
Company. According to Fahrenheit:
Moore: Yes, it helps to be the President’s son. Especially when
you’re being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
TV reporter: In 1990 when M. Bush was a director of Harken Energy
he received this memo from company lawyers warning directors not to
sell stock if they had unfavorable information about the company. One
week later he sold $848,000 worth of Harken stock. Two months later,
Harken announced losses of more than $23 million dollars.
Moore:…Bush beat the rap from the SEC…
What Moore left out: Bush sold the stock long after he checked with
those same "company lawyers" who had provided the cautionary memo, and
they told him that the sale was all right. Almost all of the
information that caused Harken’s large quarterly loss developed only
after Bush had sold the stock.
Despite Moore’s pejorative that Bush "beat the rap," no-one has ever
found any evidence suggesting that he engaged in illegal insider
trading. He did fail to file a particular SEC disclosure form on time.
(Byron York, "The Facts About Bush and Harken. The president’s story
holds up under scrutiny," National Review Online, July 10, 2002.) For
a detailed factual timeline, see James Dunbar, "A Brief History of
Bush, Harken and the SEC," Center for Public Integrity, Oct. 16, 2002.
Carlyle Group
Deceits 20-22
Moore’s film suggests that Bush has close family ties to the bin
Laden family—principally through Bush’s father’s relationship with the
Carlyle Group, a private investment firm. The president’s father,
George H.W. Bush, was a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group’s Asian
affiliate until recently; members of the bin Laden family—who own one
of Saudi Arabia’s biggest construction firms—had invested $2 million
in a Carlyle Group fund. Bush Sr. and the bin Ladens have since
severed ties with the Carlyle Group, which in any case has a
bipartisan roster of partners, including Bill Clinton’s former SEC
chairman Arthur Levitt. The movie quotes author Dan Briody claiming
that the Carlyle Group "gained" from September 11 because it owned
United Defense, a military contractor. Carlyle Group spokesman Chris
Ullman notes that United Defense holds a special distinction among
U.S. defense contractors that is not mentioned in Moore’s movie: the
firm’s $11 billion Crusader artillery rocket system developed for the
U.S. Army is one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush
administration.
Michael Isikoff, "Under the Hot Lights. Moore’s movie will make waves.
But it’s a fine line between fact and fanaticism. Deconstructing
‘Fahrenheit 9/11." Newsweek, June 28, 2004. (Isikoff appears to be
wrong on one fact; the Crusader uses a self-propelled gun, and does
not fire rockets.)
Moore claims that refusing to mention the Crusader cancellation was
all right because the cancellation came after the United Defense
initial public offering (stock sale to the public). But the
cancellation had a serious negative financial impact on Carlyle, since
Carlyle still owns 47% of United Defense.
Moore tells us that when Carlyle took United Defense public, they
made a one-day profit of $237 million, but under all the public
scrutiny, the bin Laden family eventually had to withdraw (Moore
doesn’t tell us that they withdrew before the public offering, not
after it).
Labash, Weekly Standard.
There is another famous investor in Carlyle whom Moore does not
reveal: George Soros. (Oliver Burkeman & Julian Borger, "The Ex-
Presidents’ Club," The Guardian (London), Oct. 31, 2000.) But the fact
that the anti-Bush billionaire has invested in Carlyle would detract
from Moore’s simplistic conspiracy theory.
Moore alleges that the Saudis have given 1.4 billion dollars to the
Bushes and their associates.
Moore derives the $1.4 billion figure from journalist Craig
Unger’s book, "House of Bush, House of Saud." Nearly 90 percent of
that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in
the early to mid-1990’s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a
U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country’s military and
National Guard. What’s the significance of BDM? The firm at the time
was owned by the Carlyle Group, the powerhouse private-equity firm
whose Asian-affiliate advisory board has included the president’s
father, George H.W. Bush.
...The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle
spokesman Chris Ullman, is that former president Bush didn’t join the
Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998—five months after Carlyle had
already sold BDM to another defense firm.
Isikoff & Hosenball, MSNBC.com. (The full text of the article contains
the counter-argument by Moore's "war room" and the replies by Isikoff
and Hosenball. Moore's staff points out that at the time of the bin
Laden $1.18 billion investment, Carlyle included some Bush
associates).
Craig Unger points out that George H.W. Bush still receives daily
C.I.A. briefings. As Unger points out, Bush has the right to do, but
he is the only former President who does. The suggestion is made that
Bush uses the C.I.A. information for personal business purposes. We
have no way of knowing, and it is possible the Bush does so. On the
other hand, this segment of Fahrenheit omits a very relevant fact
which would supply an alternative explanation: Bush served as C.I.A.
Director in 1976. It would not be surprising for him to want to follow
C.I.A. activities in retirement. Earlier in the film, however, Moore
does state, in passing, that "Bush’s dad was head of the CIA."
[Moore response: Provides extensive citations for facts about Carlyle
which were never disputed. Does not address the fact that Democrats
and George Soros are also involved in Carlyle. Does not address how
Bush administration severely harmed Carlyle by cancelling the
Crusader. Reiterates the points made in response to Isikoff &
Hosenball, that Bush friends were involved in Carlyle before George
H.W. Bush was.]
Saudi Investments in the United States
Deceit 23-24
Moore asks Craig Unger: "How much money do the Saudis have invested in
America, roughly?"
Unger replies, "Uh, I've heard figures as high as $860 billion
dollars."
What is the basis of Unger's claim? The $860 billion figure appears on
page 28 of Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud. He cites two sources:
The Saudi Ambassador's 1996 speech to the U.S.-Saudi Arabian Business
Council. In that speech, Prince Bandar discussed the Saudi economy,
but said nothing about the size of Saudi investment in the U.S.
Unger's other cited source is a February 11, 2002, Washington Post
story, titled "Enormous Wealth Spilled Into American Coffers." The
$860 billion figure does not appear there, either. The article states:
After nearly three decades of accumulating this wealth, the group
referred to by bankers as "high net worth Saudi individuals" holds
between $500 billion and $1 trillion abroad, most of it in European
and American investments. Brad Bourland, chief economist of the Saudi
American Bank (one-quarter owned by Citibank), said in a speech in
London last June that his bank's best estimate of the total is about
$700 billion, with the possibility that it is as much as $1 trillion.
Raymond Seitz, vice chairman of Lehman Brothers in London and a
former U.S. ambassador to Britain, gave a similar estimate. Seitz said
Saudis typically put about three-quarters of their money into the
United States, the rest in Europe and Asia. That would mean that Saudi
nationals have invested perhaps $500 billion to $700 billion in the
American economy.
In short, Unger's cited sources do not support his $860 billion
figure. He may have "heard" the figure of $860 billion dollars, but
only from people who were repeating the factoid which he invented.
According to the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy (a pro-
Saudi think tank which tries to emphasize the importance of Saudi
money to the United States), in February 2003 total worldwide Saudi
investment was at least $700 billion, conservatively estimated. Sixty
percent of the Saudi investments were in the United States, so the
Saudis had at least 420 billion dollars invested in the U.S. (Tanya C.
Hsu , "The United States Must Not Neglect Saudi Arabian Investment,"
Sept. 23, 2003.)
Unger is asked "what percentage of our economy is that?" (Meaning the
supposed $860 billion.)
He replies, "Well, in terms of investments on Wall Street, American
equities, it's roughly six or seven percent of America. They own a
fairly good slice of America." A little bit later, Moore states that
"Saudi Prince Bandar is perhaps the best protected ambassador in the
US...Considering how he and his family, and the Saudi elite own seven
percent of America, it's probably not a bad idea."
According the Census Bureau, the top countries which own U.S. stocks
and bonds are the United Kingdom and Japan. Foreign investors owned
$1,690 billion in corporate bonds in 2002. The Census Bureau lists the
major national holders, and then groups all the minor holders--
including Saudi Arabia--into "Other Countries." All of these other
countries combined (including Saudi Arabia) account for only 6 percent
of total foreign ownership of U.S. corporate bonds. Likewise, all
"Other Countries" combined account for only 7 percent of total foreign
ownership of corporate stocks. (And of course the large majority of
U.S. corporate stocks and bonds are owned by Americans.) Bureau of the
Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, table 1203.
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, total foreign investment
in the United States in 2003 was $10,515 billion dollars. This means
that even if the figure that Unger "heard" about Saudis having $860
billion is correct, then the Saudis would only have about 8 percent of
total foreign investment in the United States. Unless you believe that
almost all American assets are owned by foreigners, then it cannot
possibly be true that Saudis "own seven percent of America."
[Moore response: Cites Unger's book, and a lawyer who filed an anti-
Saudi lawsuit and repeated the Unger figure. Does not address the fact
that Unger's sources do not support his claim. Points out that the
capitalization of the New York Stock Exchange composite is $12
trillion and that $860 billion amounts to approximately 7 percent of
that. But even if the Saudis owned 7% of the stocks on the New York
Stock Exchange, the NYSE does not include all of America's wealth--
which includes real estate, businesses which are not traded on the
NYSE because they are privately owned, and so on. The data show that
the Saudis own between 4% (420 billion) and 7% (700 billion) of total
foreign investment in the U.S. Moore's assertion that Saudis "own
seven percent of America" is completely false.]
Special Protection for Saudi Embassy
Deceit 25
Moore shows himself filming the movie near the Saudi embassy in
Washington, D.C.:
Moore as narrator: Even though we were nowhere near the White
House, for some reason the Secret Service had shown up to ask us what
we were doing standing across the street from the Saudi embassy….
Officer: That’s fine. Just wanted to get some information on what
was going on.
Moore on camera: Yeah yeah yeah, I didn’t realize the Secret
Service guards foreign embassies.
Officer: Uh, not usually, no sir.
But in fact:
Any tourist to Washington, DC, will see plenty of Secret Service
Police guarding all of the other foreign embassies which request such
protection. Other than guarding the White House and some federal
buildings, it’s the largest use of personnel by the Secret Service’s
Uniformed Division.
Debbie Schlussel, "FAKEN-heit 9-11: Michael Moore’s Latest Fiction,"
June 25, 2004.
According to the Secret Service website:
Uniformed Division officers provide protection for the White House
Complex, the Vice-President's residence, the Main Treasury Building
and Annex, and foreign diplomatic missions and embassies in the
Washington, DC area.
So there is nothing strange about the Secret Service protecting the
Saudi embassy in Washington—especially since al Qaeda attacks have
taken place against Saudi Arabia. According to Article 22 of the
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, an international agreement
which has been ratified by the United States, every host country
(including the United States) is obliged to protect every embassy
within its borders.
[Moore response: None.]
Alleged Bush-Saudi Conspiracy
Deceit 26
Moore asks, "Is it rude to suggest that when the Bush family wakes
up in the morning they might be thinking about what's best for the
Saudis instead of what's best for you?" But his Bush/Saudi conspiracy
theory is contradicted by very obvious facts:
…why did Moore’s evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the
Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its
regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-
Saud dynasty live in each other’s pockets…then how come the most
reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from
demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad? The
Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq’s recuperated oil
industry might challenge their[s]....They fear the liberation of the
Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points is to
collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film’s "theory."
Hitchens, Slate. This isn't to say that concerns about the wishes and
interests of the Saudi rulers play too large a role in American
foreign policy--especially in the U.S. State Department, which has
been notoriously supportive of pro-U.S. Arab dictatorships for many
decades. I would much prefer that the State Department and other
American foreign policymakers spent less time worrying about friendly
relations with the governments of Saudi Arabia, China, and other
dictatorships, and more time supporting the aspirations of people who
want to free themselves from dictatorship. But complaining about the
historic pro-Saudi tilt in U.S. foreign policy, a tilt which is partly
the result of extensive business relations between the two countries,
is not the same as propounding a tin-hat conspiracy theory that George
Bush is a servile tool of the bin Laden family.
Interestingly, Fahrenheit omits one of the leading evildoers in
Moore's grand conspiracy theory. As he told an audience in Liverpool,
England, "It’s all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil
companies, Israel, Halliburton." The oil companies and Halliburton are
prominent villains in Fahrenheit, but there is no mention at all of
Israel. Indeed, a Bush quote about terrorism in Israel is chopped to
remove the Israel reference. That Moore ignores Israel in Fahrenheit
makes sense, given Moore's stated intention of using the movie to
defeat George Bush in November. Most American Jews are Democrats; if
they found out what Moore believes about Israel they might be
considerably more skeptical about Moore's claims regarding other
alleged global conspirators. (Moore is strongly anti-Israel; he has
called for the U.S. to cut off all aid to Israel, and to use the money
to buy weapons for the Palestinians. His latest book, Dude, Where's My
Country, is dedicated to the memory of Rachel Corrie, an American who
traveled to Israel, burned an American flag for some Palestinian
children, and served as an activist for a terrorist support group
called the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). The ISM which is
run by the Palestinian Communist Party and which advocates the
extermination of the state of Israel. She died trying to prevent an
Israeli bulldozer from removing some shrubbery which was thought to
cover tunnels used by terrorist bombers to enter Israel. Thus Moore
dedicated his book to someone who deliberately sought to assist the
terrorist murder of civilians in Israel.)
[Moore response: None]
Proposed Unocal Pipeline in Afghanistan
Deceits 27-30
This segment is introduced with the question, "Or was the war in
Afghanistan really about something else?" The "something else" is
shown to be a Unocal pipeline.
Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while Bush was
governor, over a possible pipeline deal with Unocal. But Moore doesn’t
say that they never actually met with Bush or that the deal went bust
in 1998 and had been supported by the Clinton administration.
Labash, Weekly Standard.
Moore asserts that the Afghan war was fought only to enable the
Unocal company to build a pipeline. In fact, Unocal dropped that idea
back in August 1998.
Jonathan Foreman, "Moore’s The Pity," New York Post, June 23, 2004.
In December 1997, a delegation from Afghanistan’s ruling and
ruthless Taliban visited the United States to meet with an oil and gas
company that had extensive dealings in Texas. The company, Unocal, was
interested in building a natural gas line through Afghanistan. Moore
implies that Bush, who was then governor of Texas, met with the
delegation.
But, as Gannett News Service points out, Bush did not meet with
the Taliban representatives. What’s more, Clinton administration
officials did sit down with Taliban officials, and the delegation’s
visit was made with the Clinton administration’s permission.
McNamee, Chicago Sun-Times.
Whatever the motive, the Unocal pipeline project was entirely a
Clinton-era proposal: By 1998, as the Taliban hardened its positions,
the U.S. oil company pulled out of the deal. By the time George W.
Bush took office, it was a dead issue—and no longer the subject of any
lobbying in Washington.
Isikoff & Hosenball, MSNBC.com.
Moore claims that "Enron stood to benefit from the pipeline." To the
contrary, Enron was not part of the consortium which expressed
interest in working with Unocal on the pipeline.
On December 9, 2003, the new Afghanistan government did sign a
protocol with Turkmenistan and Pakistan to facilitate a pipeline.
Indeed, any Afghani government (Taliban or otherwise) would rationally
seek the revenue that could be gained from a pipeline. But the
protocol merely aims to entice corporations to build a new pipeline;
no corporation has has agreed to do so. Nor does the new proposed
pipeline even resemble Unocal's failed proposal; the new pipeline
would the bring oil and gas from the Caspian Sea basin, whereas
Unocal's proposal involved deposits five hundred miles away, in
eastern Turkmenistan.
Fahrenheit showed images of pipeline construction, but the images have
nothing to do with the Caspian Sea pipeline, for which construction
has never begun. Nor do they have anything to do with the Unocal
pipeline, which never existed except on paper.
According to Fahrenheit, Afghanistan's new President, Hamid Karzai,
was a Unocal consultant. This is false. Sumana Chatterjee and David
Goldstein, "A lowdown on the facts behind the allegations in
'Fahrenheit 9/11'," Knight-Ridder newspapers, July 2, 2004. The origin
of the claim appears to be a December 6, 2001 story in the center-left
French newspaper Le Monde. The story does not cite any source for its
claim. (The story is available on-line from Le Monde's website;
registration and payment are required.) Unocal has denied that Karzai
was ever a consultant.
(Deceits: 1. Governor Bush never met the Taliban; 2. The Unocal
pipeline idea was abandoned; 3. The new pipeline is different from the
Unocal proposal; 4. Construction has not begun. Bonus deceit: Enron.)
[Moore response: Regarding Karzai, cites the article in Le Monde, and
two later articles which appear to use Le Monde's information. Moore's
translation is: "He was a consultant for the American oil company
Unocal, while they studied the construction of a pipeline in
Afghanistan." The actual sentence was "Après Kaboul et l'Inde ou il a
étudié le droit, il a parfait sa formation aux Etats-Unis ou il fut un
moment consultant de l'enterprise pétrolière américaine Unocal, quand
celle-ci étudiant la construction d'un oléduc en Afghanistan."
Translated: After Kabul and India where he had studied law, he
completed his training in the United States where he was briefly
(literally: "for a moment") a consultant for the American petroleum
business Unocal, when it was studying the construction of a pipeline
in Afghanistan." Neither Le Monde nor Moore has provided any evidence
to substantiate the claim about Unocal and Karzai.
Regarding Enron, Moore cites a 1997 speech a professor, in which the
professor said that Enron would be interested in helping to build the
Unocal pipeline. There is no reason to doubt the professor, but the
fact is that Enron was not among the companies which Unocal chose to
work with. There is no evidence supporting Moore's assertion that
Enron would benefit from the new Caspian Sea basin pipeline.
Moore does not attempt to defend the other falsities which are
detailed in this section: that Unocal had abandoned the project in
1998, that the 2003 Protocol involves an entirely different pipeline,
and that the pipeline footage in the movie has nothing to do with
either the 1998 or 2003 proposals.]
Bush Administration Relationship with the Taliban
Deceit 31
Moore also tries to paint Bush as sympathetic to the Taliban,
which ruled Afghanistan until its overthrow by U.S.-led forces shortly
after Sept. 11. Moore shows a March 2001 visit to the United States by
a Taliban envoy, saying the Bush administration "welcomed" the
official, Sayed Hashemi, "to tour the United States to help improve
the image of the Taliban."
Yet Hashemi’s reception at the State Department was hardly
welcoming. The administration rejected his claim that the Taliban had
complied with U.S. requests to isolate Osama bin Laden and affirmed
its nonrecognition of the Taliban.
"We don’t recognize any government in Afghanistan," State
Department spokesman Richard Boucher said on the day of the visit.
Frank, Newsday.
[Moore response. Quotes some articles showing that the Taliban visited
the U.S. in 2001 to appeal for the lifting of sanctions on their
government. Shows no evidence that the Taliban were "welcomed" by the
Bush administration. Does not explain why Fahrenheit omits the fact
that the Bush administration rebuffed all the Taliban's requests.]
Moore Claimed that Osama bin Laden Might be Innocent and Opposed the
Afghanistan War
Deceit 32
Fahrenheit 9/11 attempts in every way possible to link Osama bin Laden
to George Bush. Moore even claims that Bush deliberately gave bin
Laden "a two month head start" by not putting sufficient forces into
Afghanistan soon enough. (On HBO, Moore explicitly claimed that the
U.S. is protecting bin Laden in order to please the Saudis.) However,
Moore has not always been so fierce demanding that the Afghanistan War
be prosecuted with maximal power in order to get bin Laden:
In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American
society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride
Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that
Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan,
he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—
I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since
apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell.
Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other
discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the
fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this
late conversion.
Hitchens, Slate. That Osama, if captured and tried in an American
court, would be entitled to a presumption of innocence (in the sense
that the prosecution would have to prove guilt) does not mean that the
U.S. should be morally foreclosed from destroying Osama's base in
Afghanistan and attempting to capture or kill Osama based on facts
demonstrating his guilt.
Three days after September 11, Moore demanded that no military action
be taken against Afghanistan:
"Declare war?" War against whom? One guy in the desert whom we can
never seem to find? Are our leaders telling us that the most powerful
country on earth cannot dispose of one sick evil f---wad of a guy?
Because if that is what you are telling us, then we are truly screwed.
If you are unable to take out this lone ZZ Top wannabe, what on earth
would you do for us if we were attacked by a nation of millions? For
chrissakes, call the Israelis and have them do that thing they do when
they want to get their man! We pay them enough billions each year, I
am SURE they would be happy to accommodate your request....
But do not declare war and massacre more innocents. After bin
Laden's previous act of terror, our last elected president went and
bombed what he said was "bin Laden's camp" in Afghanistan -- but
instead just killed civilians.
Michael Moore, "War on Whom?" AlterNet, Sept. 14, 2001.
The next day he wrote:
Trust me, they are talking politics night and day, and those
discussions involve sending our kids off to fight some invisible enemy
and to indiscriminately bomb Afghans or whoever they think will make
us Americans feel good.
...I fear we will soon be in a war that will do NOTHING to protect
us from the next terrorist attack.
"Mike's Message," Sept. 15, 2001. Although Moore vehemently opposed
the Afghanistan War, Fahrenheit criticizes Bush for not putting more
troops into Afghanistan sooner.
Are we any safer because the U.S. military eliminated the al Qaeda
training camps in Afghanistan, removed a government which did whatever
al Qaeda wanted, and killed or captured two-thirds of the al Qaeda
leadership? Fahrenheit's thesis that the Afghanistan War was solely
for the pipeline and to distract attention from Saudi Arabia is
inconsistent with the well-known results of the war. A sincere patriot
could have opposed the Afghanistan War for a variety of reasons, such
as fear that the invasion might stir up even more anti-American
sentiment. But the only reason which Fahrenheit offers for opposing
the war is the claim that not enough force was used in the early
stages (a criticism contrary to Moore's 2001 opposition to the use of
any force), and the factually indefensible claim that the results of
the war did not help American security or harm terrorists.
[Moore response: none.]
Afghanistan after Liberation
Deceit 33
[When] we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we
discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is
now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the
broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution
and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and
that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted
to return….[A] highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against
warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion
with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the
Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are
strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of
irony in which Moore chooses to deal.
Hitchens, Slate.
[Moore response: none]
Cooperation with 9/11 Commission
Deceit 34
Moore: But when Congress did complete its own investigation, the
Bush White House censored twenty-eight pages of the report.
Reporter: The President is being pressed by all sides to
declassify the report. US officials tell NBC news most of the secret
sources involve Saudi Arabia.
President Bush: We have given extraordinary cooperation with
Chairmen Kean and Hamilton.
Commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean: We haven't gotten the
materials we needed, and we certainly haven't gotten them in a timely
fashion. The deadlines we set have passed.
Bravo to Moore for raising the point about censorship of the 28 pages.
It's possible that all the censorship was necessary to protect
confidential sources, but it's also possible that at least some of the
censorship was unnecessary, and was the result of the White House
being overprotective of the Saudis. As I've said before, Moore is
right to call attention to excessive Saudi influence in the U.S.; he's
just wrong with many of his claims about particular issues, and is
ridiculous in his claim that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq
were undertaken for the benefit of the Saudis.
The second part of the quoted dialogue, however, is deceptive. The
sequencing makes it appear that Kean was rebutting Bush's claim of
extraordinary cooperation. In fact, Kean complained on July 9, 2003,
that several "government agencies" (Justice and Defense) were not
being cooperative.
On February 8, 2004, Bush told MSNBC that his administration had given
extraordinary cooperation. So rather than rebutting Bush's claim,
Kean's complaint helped spur the administration to, belatedly, fulfill
the Committee's requests. Kean stated that the Commission had been
given "unprecedented" access to records. Frank, Newsday.
John Ashcroft
Deceit 35
Moore mocks Attorney General John Ashcroft by pointing out that
Ashcroft once lost a Senate race in Missouri to a man who had died
three weeks earlier. "Voters preferred the dead guy," Moore says,
delivering one of the film’s biggest laugh lines.
It’s a cheap shot. When voters in Missouri cast their ballots for
the dead man, Mel Carnahan, they knew they were really voting for
Carnahan’s very much alive widow, Jean. The Democratic governor of
Missouri had vowed to appoint Jean to the job if Mel won.
McNamee, Chicago Sun-Times.
When Mel Carnahan was alive, polls showed him to be tied with
Ashcroft.
[Moore response: Provides a newspaper quote: "Sen. John Ashcroft on
Wednesday graciously conceded defeat in his re-election campaign
against the late Gov. Mel Carnahan and urged fellow Republicans to
call off any legal challenges." Does not address the fact that voters
knew that if they voted the late Mel Carnahan, his widow Mrs. Jean
Carnahan would become their Senator.]
FBI and Department of Justice
Deceits 36-37
Much worse than Moore's petty slam of Senate candidate Ashcroft is
Moore's false charge that Attorney General Ashcroft ignored warnings
about the September 11 attacks:
[A]fter suggesting that Ashcroft was unconcerned about terrorism
before September 11, Moore uses phrasing that exaggerates how
widespread knowledge of the Al Qaeda plot was before the attacks
inside the FBI and Justice Department:
[Ashcroft's] own FBI knew that summer that there were Al Qaeda
members in the US and that Bin Laden was sending his agents to flight
schools around the country. But Ashcroft's Justice Department turned a
blind eye and a deaf ear.
This implies far more prior knowledge about flight school activity
than actually existed. As the 9/11 Commission found in a staff
statement (72K Adobe PDF), the so-called "Phoenix memo" from an FBI
agent in Arizona suggesting a possible effort by Bin Laden to send
agents to flight schools was not widely circulated within the FBI and
did not reach Ashcroft's desk:
His memo was forwarded to one field office. Managers of the
Osama Bin Laden unit and the Radical Fundamentalist unit at FBI
headquarters were addressees, but did not even see the memo until
after September 11. No managers at headquarters saw the memo before
September 11. The New York field office took no action. It was not
shared outside the FBI.
Before Sept. 11, the Minneapolis FBI also investigated Zacarias
Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, who was enrolled in a flight
school there, but no Al Qaeda connections were discovered until after
the attacks. Again, saying the FBI "knew" of a plot to send agents to
flight schools is overstated.
Brendan Nyhan, "Fahrenheit 9/11: The temperature at which Michael
Moore's pants burn," Spinsanity.org, July 2, 2004.
Moore claims that Bush "cut terrorism funding from the FBI." Not so.
In 2001, the Department of Justice was operating under the budget
established in the last year of the Clinton administration, so any
proposed change in future budgets obviously could not have prevented
September 11. For the 2002 budget, the Bush administration did not
propose cutting the FBI counter-terrorism budget. The relevant
documents are collected at the website for the Center for American
Progress, a self-declared "progressive" think tank which is scathing
in denouncing Ashcroft for not agreeing (before September 11) to
various FBI proposals for increasing FBI counter-terrorism funding.
Rejecting an increase is not the same as imposing a cut.
Fahrenheit shows a document highlighting the one significant cut which
Ashcroft proposed (in a Sept. 10 memo; see p. 25). Contrary to
Fahrenheit's claim, that cut was not for the FBI budget. The funding
was for grants to states to buy equipment; as the memo detailed, the
equipment fund already had more than two years worth of money which
had not been spent, because states had not yet complied with grant
requirements that the states produce state-wide preparedness plans in
order to receive funding.
There was also a cut in a special Attorney General fund which had been
set up to pay Department of Justice field offices for costs related to
the Oklahoma City Bombing. The Senate had voted to eliminate this
fund.
[Moore response: Cites the Phoenix Memo warning about al Qaeda
trainees in flight schools. Does not attempt to rebut the evidence
that the memo was "not widely circulated within the FBI and did not
reach Ashcroft's desk." Cites a Chicago Tribune article summarizing
September 11 Commission hearings in which former acting FBI Director
Thomas Pickard claims that Ashcroft told Pickard he did not want to
hear any more about terrorism. Omits Ashcroft's denial of Pickard's
claim--and the possibility that Pickard might have been attempting to
shift blame away from the FBI. Claims that the September 11 Commission
supports Pickard's claim; actually, the Commission said that it could
not determine whether Pickard or Ashcroft's versions were correct.
Moore's response does not attempt to defend the false claim about
budget cuts.]
Rep. Porter Goss
Deceit 38
Defending the USA PATRIOT Act, Representative Porter Goss says that he
has an "800 number" for people to call to report problems with the
Act. Fahrenheit shoots back with a caption "Not really true." The
ordinary telephone number (area code 202) for Goss’s office is then
flashed on the screen.
You’d never know by watching Fahrenheit, but Rep. Goss does have a
toll-free number to which USA PATRIOT Act complaints can be reported.
The number belongs to the Committee which Goss chairs, the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The number is (877)
858-9040.
Although the Committee’s number is toll-free, the prefix is not "800,"
and Moore exploits this trivial fact to create the false impression
that Goss lied about having a toll-free number.
As far as I can tell, the slam on Rep. Goss is the only factual error
in the segment on the misnamed USA PATRIOT Act. While there are a few
good things in the Act, Moore's general critique of the Act is valid.
The Act does contain many items which had long been on the FBI wish-
list, which do not have real relation to the War on Terror, and which
were pushed through under the pretext of 9/11. Similar critiques are
also valid for the Clinton "terrorism" bill which was pushed through
Congress in 1996.
[Moore response: None.]
Update (April 4, 2005): Several people e-mailed me to let me know that
the House Committee web page which provides the toll-free number only
does so (according to web archives files, which are not comprehensive,
but which are usually reliable) on versions of the page from June 2004
or later. Accordingly, it is possible that Fahrenheit, which finished
production before June 2004, was accurate when it was made. I called a
secretary at the House Committee to find out if there was additional
information about when the toll-free number was created. I never
received a response. Accordingly, I do not believe that clear and
convincing evidence shows that Moore was deceptive on this matter, and
I withdraw the charge.
Oregon Troopers
Bonus Deceit
There are several scenes involving Oregon state troopers who patrol
coastal areas in the state. The Troopers are presented as underfunded
and spread far too thinly.
But this has nothing to do with Fahrenheit's claim that the Bush
administration is not sincerely interested in homeland security. The
Oregon State Police are paid by the Oregon state government (which has
been suffering from a budget crisis). Whatever the problems with
Trooper funding, the problems are the responsibility of the Oregon
state government, not the federal government. Moore's point makes no
more sense than blaming the Oregon state government for shortages of
FBI personnel in Eugene.
Moreover, the job of protecting the Oregon coastline from foreign
invaders is not a job of the Oregon State Police. That job is the
responsibility of the United States Coast Guard and the United States
Navy. For the Oregon-Washington coast, the Coast Guard has 1,287
personnel on active duty, 459 Coast Guard Reserves, and 1,600
volunteer in the Coast Guard Auxiliary.
[Moore response: Cites an article about Oregon state budget cuts.
Continues to ignore the fact that the Oregon State Police budget is
not the responsibility of the federal government.]
Saddam Hussein Never Murdered Americans
Deceits 39-40
Fahrenheit asserts that Saddam’s Iraq was a nation that "had never
attacked the United States. A nation that had never threatened to
attack the United States. A nation that had never murdered a single
American citizen." Each of these assertions is false.
Jake Tapper (ABC News): You declare in the film that Hussein’s
regime had never killed an American …
Moore: That isn’t what I said. Quote the movie directly.
Tapper: What is the quote exactly?
Moore: "Murdered." The government of Iraq did not commit a
premeditated murder on an American citizen. I’d like you to point out
one.
Tapper: If the government of Iraq permitted a terrorist named Abu
Nidal who is certainly responsible for killing Americans to have Iraq
as a safe haven; if Saddam Hussein funded suicide bombers in Israel
who did kill Americans; if the Iraqi police—now this is not a murder
but it’s a plan to murder—to assassinate President Bush which at the
time merited airstrikes from President Clinton once that plot was
discovered; does that not belie your claim that the Iraqi government
never murdered an American or never had a hand in murdering an
American?
Moore: No, because nothing you just said is proof that the Iraqi
government ever murdered an American citizen. And I am still waiting
for you to present that proof.
You’re talking about, they provide safe haven for Abu Nidal after
the committed these murders, uh, Iraq helps or supports suicide
bombers in Israel. I mean the support, you remember the telethon that
the Saudis were having? It’s our allies, the Saudis, that have been
providing help and aid to the suicide bombers in Israel. That’s the
story you should be covering. Why don’t you cover that story? Why
don’t you cover it?
Note Moore’s extremely careful phrasing of the lines which appear to
exonerate Saddam, and Moore’s hyper-legal response to Tapper. In fact,
Saddam provided refuge to notorious terrorists who had murdered
Americans. Saddam provided a safe haven for Abu Abbas (leader of the
hijacking of the ship Achille Lauro and the murder of the elderly
American passenger Leon Klinghoffer), for Abu Nidal, and for the 1993
World Trade Center bombmaker, Abdul Rahman Yasin. By law, Saddam
therefore was an accessory to the murders. Saddam order his police to
murder former American President George Bush when he visited Kuwait
City in 1993; they attempted to do so, but failed. In 1991, he ordered
his agents to murder the American Ambassador to the Philippines and,
separately, to murder the employees of the U.S. Information Service in
Manila; they tried, but failed. Yet none of these aggressions against
the United States "count" for Moore, because he has carefully framed
his verbs and verb tenses to exclude them.
According to Laurie Mylroie, a former Harvard professor who served as
Bill Clinton's Iraq advisor during the 1992 campaign (during which
Vice-Presidential candidate Gore repeatedly castigated incumbent
President George H.W. Bush for inaction against Saddam), the
ringleader of the World Trade Center bombings, Ramzi Yousef, was
working for the Iraqi intelligence service. Laurie Mylroie, The War
Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks: A
Study of Revenge (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2d rev. ed. 2001).
Also, Saddam's military constantly shot at (and therefore attempted to
kill) American and British pilots enforcing the "no-fly zone" over
portions of Iraq. The no-fly zone was created to prevent Saddam's air
force from being able to mass murder Iraqis; Saddam agreed to the no-
fly zone as a condition of the ceasefire in the 1991 Gulf War, but
then refused to abide by the ceasefire conditions. (As he likewise
refused to abide by the conditions requiring him to prove that he had
destroyed all his weapons of mass destruction.) One could argue about
whether it is attempted "murder" to break the terms of a ceasefire and
to attempt to kill foreign soldiers who are attempting to prevent you
from perpetrating mass murder.
But even with Moore’s clever phrasing designed to elide Saddam’s
culpability in the murders and attempted murders of Americans, Tapper
still catches him with an irrefutable point: Saddam did perpetrate the
premeditated murder of Americans. Every victim of every Palestinian
terrorist bomber who was funded by Saddam Hussein was the victim of
premeditated murder—including the American victims. Because Saddam's
reward system for the families of deceased terrorists was known and
publicized, the reward system amounted to a before-the-fact inducement
for additional terrorist bombings.
So what does Moore do? He tries to change the subject. Moore makes the
good point that the U.S. media should focus more attention on Saudi
financial aid to Palestinian terrorists who murder Americans in
Israel. On NRO, I’ve pointed to Saudi terror funding, as have other
NRO writers. But pointing out Saudi Arabia’s guilt does not excuse
Moore’s blatant lie about Saddam Hussein’s innocence.
[Moore response: Quotes a think tank writer: "Iraq has never
threatened nor been implicated in any attack against U.S. territory
and the CIA has reported no Iraqi-sponsored attacks against American
interests since 1991." The statement does not address Iraqi payments
to the families of terrorists who murdered Americans in Israel. Nor
does it address the undeniable fact that Iraq was providing a hide-out
for terrorists who had murdered Americans.]
Saddam’s Threats
Deceit 41
Moore’s pro-Saddam allegation that Saddam "never threatened to attack
the United States" is true in the narrow sense that Saddam never gave
a speech in which he threatened to, for example, send the Iraqi navy
and army to conduct an amphibious invasion of Florida. But although
Saddam never threatened the territorial integrity of America, he
repeatedly threatened Americans. For example, on November 15, 1997,
the main propaganda organ for the Saddam regime, the newspaper Babel
(which was run by Saddam Hussein's son Uday) ordered: "American and
British interests, embassies, and naval ships in the Arab region
should be the targets of military operations and commando attacks by
Arab political forces." (Stephen Hayes, The Connection: How al Qaeda's
Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America (N.Y.:
HarperCollins, 2004), p. 94.) On November 25, 2000, Saddam declared in
a televised speech, "The Arab people have not so far fulfilled their
duties. They are called upon to target U.S. and Zionist interests
everywhere and target those who protect these interests."
On the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks, a weekly
newspaper owned by Uday Hussein said that Arabs should "use all means-
and they are numerous-against the aggressors...and considering
everything American as a military target, including embassies,
installations, and American companies, and to create suicide/martyr
[fidaiyoon] squads to attack American military and naval bases inside
and outside the region, and mine the waterways to prevent the movement
of war ships..."
Moreover, the Saddam regime did not need to make verbal threats in
order to "threaten" the United States. The regime threatened the
United States by giving refuge to terrorists who had murdered
Americans, and by funding terrorists who were killing Americans in
Israel. Saddam gave refuge to terrorists who had attacked the United
States by bombing the World Trade Center. In addition:
In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the
hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a
long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed
quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the
meantime and having threatened to kill many more…
….Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft
that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the
north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped
mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then
skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the
overthrow of Saddam….On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and
the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly
negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret
meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North
Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the
shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of
Baghdad, the coalition’s presence having meanwhile put an end to the
negotiations.)
Hitchens, Slate. The cited article is David E. Sanger & Thom Shanker,
"A Region Inflamed: Weapons. For the Iraqis, a Missile Deal That Went
Sour; Files Tell of Talks With North Korea, New York Times, Dec. 1,
2003.
As French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin stated on November
12, 2002, "The security of the United States is under threat from
people like Saddam Hussein who are capable of using chemical and
biological weapons." (Hayes, p. 21.) De Villepin's point is
indisputable: Saddam was the kind of person who was capable of using
chemical weapons, since he had actually used them against Iraqis who
resisted his tyrannical regime. As de Villepin spoke, Saddam was
sheltering terrorists who had murdered Americans, and was subsidizing
the murder of Americans (and many other nationalities) in Israel.
[Moore response: Cites a column by Maureen Dowd and an article for a
former Australian Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs And
Trade asserting that Iraq never threatened the United States. Does not
address the extensive threats detailed in this section.]
Iraq and al Qaeda
Deceit 42-43
Moore declares that George Bush fabricated an Iraq/al Qaeda connection
in order to deflect attention from his Saudi masters. But consider the
facts presented in Stephen F. Hayes's book, The Connection : How al
Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America
(N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2004). The first paragraph of the last chapter
(pp. 177-78) sums up some of the evidence:
Iraqi intelligence documents from 1992 list Osama bin Laden as an
Iraqi intelligence asset. Numerous sources have reported a 1993
nonaggression pact between Iraq and al Qaeda. The former deputy
director of Iraqi intelligence now in U.S. custody says that bin Laden
asked the Iraqi regime for arms and training in a face-to-face meeting
in 1994. Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer al Iraqi met with Iraqi
intelligence officials in 1995. The National Security Agency
intercepted telephone conversations between al Qaeda-supported
Sudanese military officials and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons
program in 1996. Al Qaeda sent Abu Abdallah al Iraqi to Iraq for help
with weapons of mass destruction in 1997. An indictment from the
Clinton-era Justice Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda
"weapons development" in 1998. A senior Clinton administration
counterterrorism official told the Washington Post that the U.S.
government was "sure" Iraq had supported al Qaeda chemical weapons
programs in 1999. An Iraqi working closely with the Iraqi embassy in
Kuala Lumpur was photographed with September 11 hijacker Khalid al
Mihdhar en route to a planning meeting for the bombing of the USS Cole
and the September 11 attacks in 2000. Satellite photographs showed al
Qaeda members in 2001 traveling en masse to a compound in northern
Iraq financed, in part, by the Iraqi regime. Abu Musab al Zarqawi,
senior al Qaeda associate, operated openly in Baghdad and received
medical attention at a regime-supported hospital in 2002. Documents
discovered in postwar Iraq in 2003 reveal that Saddam's regime
harbored and supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who mixed the
chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attack...
Hayes is a writer for The Weekly Standard and much of his writing on
the Saddam/Osama connection is available there for free; simply use
the search engine and look for articles by Hayes.
The preliminary staff report of the September 11 Commission states,
"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on
attacks against the United States." Some critics, including the chief
prosecutor of the World Trade Center bombers, have argued that the
staff report inexplicably ignores substantial evidence of Iraqi
involvement in the September 11 attacks. The final Commission Report
finds that there were "friendly contacts" between Al Qaeda and the
Saddam regime. The Commission does not find that there was a
"collaborative operational relationship" for "carrying out attacks
against the United States." Whether you agree with the preliminary
staff report, the staff's critics, or the final commission report,
there is no dispute that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with al
Qaeda, an organization whose only activity was terrorism. Fahrenheit
dishonestly pretends that there was no relationship at all.
Fahrenheit shows Condoleezza Rice saying, "Oh, indeed there is a tie
between Iraq and what happened on 9/11." The audience laughs
derisively. Here is what Rice really said on the CBS Early Show, Nov.
28, 2003:
Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.
It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime
involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the
rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into
buildings in New York. This is a great terrorist, international
terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has
perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call
on it for violence. And they're all linked. And Iraq is a central
front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq
to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart
of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East....
Moore deceptively cut the Rice quote to fool the audience into
thinking she was making a particular claim, even though she was
pointedly not making such a claim. And since Rice spoke in November
2003, her quote had nothing to do with building up American fears
before the March 2003 invasion, although Moore implies otherwise.
[Moore response: None.]
Iraq before Liberation
Deceit 44
Moore shows scenes of Baghdad before the invasion (read:
liberation) and in his weltanschauung, it’s a place filled with
nothing but happy, smiling, giggly, overjoyed Baghdadis. No pain and
suffering there. No rape, murder, gassing, imprisoning, silencing of
the citizens in these scenes. When he exploits and lingers on the
tears of a mother who lost her soldier-son in Iraq, and she wails,
"Why did you have to take him?" Moore does not cut to images of the
murderers/terrorists (pardon me, "insurgents") in Iraq…or even to God;
he cuts to George Bush. When the soldier’s father says the young man
died and "for what?", Moore doesn’t show liberated Iraqis to reply, he
cuts instead to an image of Halliburton.
Jeff Jarvis, "Watching Michael Moore," Buzz Machine weblog, June 24,
2004.
The most offensive sequence in "Fahrenheit 9/11"’s long two hours
lasts only a few minutes. It’s Moore’s file-footage depiction of happy
Iraq before the Americans began their supposedly pointless invasion.
You see men sitting in cafes, kids flying kites, women shopping. Cut
to bombs exploding at night.
What Moore presumably doesn’t know, or simply doesn’t care about,
is that the building you see being blown up is the Iraqi Ministry of
Defense in Baghdad. Not many children flew kites there. It was in a
part of the city that ordinary Iraqis weren’t allowed to visit—on pain
of death.
…Iraq was ruled by a regime that had forced a sixth of its
population into fearful exile, that hanged dissidents (real
dissidents, not people like Susan Sontag and Tim Robbins) from
meathooks and tortured them with blowtorches, and filled thousands of
mass graves with the bodies of its massacred citizens.
Yes, children played, women shopped and men sat in cafes while
that stuff went on—just as people did all those normal things in
Somoza’s Nicaragua, Duvalier’s Haiti and for that matter Nazi Germany,
and as they do just about everywhere, including in Iraq today.
Foreman, New York Post. For more, see the weblog of Iraqi Sarmad Zanga
(part of which cites this report).
Fahrenheit points out, correctly, that the Saudi monarchy is "a regime
that Amnesty International condemns as a widespread human rights
violator." Fahrenheit does not mention that the Saddam regime was
likewise condemned by Amnesty International. As AI's 2002 annual
report noted, in April 2002 "the UN Commission on Human Rights adopted
a resolution strongly condemning 'the systematic, widespread and
extremely grave violations of human rights and of international
humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq, resulting in an all-
pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based
discrimination and widespread terror.'''
[Moore response: None.]
Invasion of Iraq
Deceits 45-46
According to the footage that ensues, our pilots seem to have hit
nothing but women and children.
Labash, Weekly Standard.
Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American
imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I
can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers
getting the treatment…I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was
or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and
he doesn’t now, either. I’ll just say that the "insurgent" side is
presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year
record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not
mentioned once. (Actually, that’s not quite right. It is briefly
mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when
Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah
Khomeini.)
Hitchens, Slate.
A National Public Radio reporter describes a scene in which an Iraqi
woman wails about the death of a loved one:
reporters who were taken around to see the sites of civilian
deaths during the bombing of Baghdad also observed that some of those
errant bombs were fired by Iraqi anti-aircraft crews. Mr. Moore
doesn't let the audience know when and where this bomb was dropped, or
otherwise try to identify the culprit of the tragedy.
Fahrenheit includes some material in which American soldiers explain
what kind of music they listen to. Seventeen selections in Fahrenheit
are taken from the an Australian war documentary, Soundtrack to War,
and were used against the objection of film-maker George Gittoes:
"I was concerned of course for my soldiers because their
interviews were taken out of context," Mr Gittoes told the Nine
Network.
"There are about 17 scenes from my documentary in his film. I
wouldn't go so far as to say he lifted (them). Michael got access to
my stuff and assumed that I would be happy for it to be in 9/11. I
would actually have been quite happy for it not to be in 9/11."...
Mr Gittoes said he had some contact with a company Westside
Productions associated with Michael Moore but had no idea his work was
in Fahrenheit 9/11 until it was screened at the Cannes film festival.
Fahrenheit shows Bush giving a speech on the aircraft carrier, with
the famous "Mission accomplished" banner in the background. Bush says,
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq,
the United States and our allies have prevailed." The scene
immediately shifts to an explosion in Iraq. But Bush never promised
that all fighting was over. His next words were "And now our coalition
is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country." He also
stated, "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order
to parts of that country that remain dangerous."
[Moore response: none.]
Major Coalition Partners Ignored
Deceit 47
Q: You mock the "coalition of the willing" by only showing the
tiny countries that have voiced support. But you leave out England,
Spain, Italy and Poland. Why?
Moore: "This film exists as a counterbalance to what you see on
cable news about the coalition. I’m trying to counter the Orwellian
nature of the Big Lie, as if when you hear that term, the ‘coalition,’
that the whole world is behind us."
Patrick Goldstein, "Truth teller or story stretcher?" Los Angeles
Times, June 22, 2004.
If it is a "Big Lie" to mention only the powerful and important
members of the Coalition (such as the United Kingdom and Australia),
then it is an equally "Big Lie" to mention only the small and
insignificant members of the Coalition.
[Moore response: Provides a citation showing that the small countries
which Fahrenheit mocks were part of the Coalition. Does not attempt to
justify omission of other countries.]
Major Gregory Stone and Reservist Peter Damon
Exploitation and Invasion of Privacy
The family of U.S. Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone was shocked to
learn that video footage of the major's Arlington National Cemetery
burial was included by Michael Moore in his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11."
Maj. Stone was killed in March 2003 by a grenade that officials
said was thrown into his tent by Sgt. Hasan K. Akbar, who is on trial
for murder.
"It's been a big shock, and we are not very happy about it, to say
the least," Kandi Gallagher, Maj. Stone's aunt and family spokeswoman,
tells Washington Times reporter Audrey Hudson.
"We are furious that Greg was in that casket and cannot defend
himself, and my sister, Greg's mother, is just beside herself," Miss
Gallagher said. "She is furious. She called him a 'maggot that eats
off the dead.'"
The movie, described by critics as political propaganda during an
election year, shows video footage of the funeral and Maj. Stone's
fiancee, Tammie Eslinger, kissing her hand and placing it on his
coffin.
The family does not know how Mr. Moore obtained the video, and
Miss Gallagher said they did not give permission and are considering
legal recourse.
She described her nephew as a "totally conservative Republican"
and said he would have found the film to be "putrid."
"I'm sure he would have some choice words for Michael Moore," she
said. "Michael Moore would have a hard time asking our family for a
glass of water if he were thirsty."
John McCaslin, "Inside the Beltway," Washington Times, July 13, 2004.
Sgt. Stone was killed by an American Muslim soldier, who threw a
grenade in his tent while he was sleeping.
Fahrenheit shows an interview in Walter Reed Army Medical Center with
Massachusetts National Guardsman Peter Damon. Damon lost parts of both
his arms in Iraq, and is learning how to use prosthetic arms. The
footage comes from an interview Damon granted to NBC Nightly News.
Damon's wife says that he never granted Moore permission to use the
footage, was never asked, and strongly objects to being used in the
film. As of July 15, it is not clear whether Moore's usage of the
footage was illegal. But it hardly seems ethical for a film-maker who
dedicates his film to the soldiers in Iraq to put a double-amputee
veteran into the film without even bothering to ask for permission.
Damon complained, "The whole movie makes soldiers look like a bunch of
idiots...I'm not a child. We sent ourselves over there...It was all
our own doing. I don't appreciate him calling us children...."I agree
with the President 100%. A lot of the guys down at Walter Reed feel
the same way."
Media Attitudes
Deceit 48
In very selectively edited clips, Moore poses the absurd notion
that the main news anchors—Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, and Ted Koppel—
wholeheartedly support Bush and the War in Iraq….Has Moore forgotten
the hour-long Saddam softball interview Rather did just prior to the
war, [or] Jennings’ condescending coverage…?
Schlussel.
Jennings is shown delivering a broadcast in which he says, "Iraqi
opposition has faded in the face of American power." But Jennings was
simply stating an undeniable fact, as he stood next to a map showing
that Saddam’s army had collapsed everywhere, and all Iraqi cities were
in Coalition hands. Despite what Moore implies, Jennings strongly
opposed the liberation of Iraq. (Tim Graham, "Peter’s Peace Platoon.
ABC’s Crusade Against ‘Arrogant’ American Power," Media Research
Center, March 18, 2003.)
[Moore response: None.]
Abuse of Iraqi Captives
Deceit 49
Long before Fahrenheit was released, Moore promised that he had videos
of Iraqi prisoner abuse. Fahrenheit presents a video of making fun of
a prostrate Iraqi. To the audience, it seems like another Abu Ghraib.
Moore told an audience, "You saw this morning the first footage of
abuse and humiliation of Iraqi detainees." Fahrenheit claims: "Immoral
behavior breeds immoral behavior. When a President commits the immoral
act of sending otherwise good kids into a war based on a lie, this is
what you get."
Not really. As reported in the (Toronto) Globe and Mail:
He revealed that a scene in which American soldiers appear to be
desecrating a corpse beneath a blanket may be misleading. In fact, the
soldiers had picked up an old man who had passed out drunk and they
poked at his visible erection, covered by a blanket.
It's not very respectful to make fun of a drunk who has passed out on
a street. But such teasing has nothing to do with the kind of bizarre
sexual abuse perpetrated at Abu Ghraib. All over the world, law
enforcement officers make fun of comatose drunks.
Such teasing is an abuse of power. (Although it's a relatively
harmless abuse of power, since the only victim can't hear the
disrespectful words.) Insulting a drunk who can't hear you is not like
torturing a conscious victim. And such insults are not the result of
"sending otherwise good kids into a war based on a lie"; the insults
are the result of the fact that law enforcement personnel all over the
world have to remove comatose drunks from the streets, and law
enforcement personnel sometimes make fun of the drunks.
[Moore response: None.]
Support for Soldiers and Veterans
Deceits 50-52
Bush "supported closing veterans hospitals" says Moore. The Bush
Department of Veterans Affairs did propose closing seven hospitals in
areas with declining populations where the hospitals were
underutilized, and whose veterans could be served by other hospitals.
Moore does not say that the Department also proposed building new
hospitals in areas where needs were growing, and also building blind
rehabilitation centers and spinal cord injury centers. (For more, see
the Final Report of the independent commission on veterans hospitals,
which agrees with some of the Bush proposals, and with some of the
objections raised by critics.)
According to Moore, Bush "tried to double the prescription drug costs
for veterans." What Bush proposed was raising the prescription co-pay
from $7 to $15, for veterans with incomes of over $24,000 a year.
Prescription costs would have remained very heavily subsidized by
taxpayers. Some, not all, veterans would have faced a doubling of
their prescription co-pay, but only to a level which is common for
many people with prescription insurance, and hardly a large enough
increase to make a great difference in most cases.
Bush, announces Moore, "proposed cutting combat soldiers’ pay by 33%."
Not exactly. In addition to regular military salaries, soldiers in
certain areas (not just combat zones) receive an "imminent danger"
bonus of $150 a month. In April 2003, Congress retroactively enacted a
special increase of $75, for the fiscal year of Oct. 1, 2002 through
Sept. 30, 2003. At first, the Bush administration did not support
renewing the special bonus, but then changed its position.
Likewise, Congress had passed a special one-year increase in the
family separation allowance (for service personnel stationed in places
where their families cannot join them) from $100 to $250. Bush's
initial opposition to extending the special increase was presented by
Moore as "cutting assistance to their families by 60%." (Edward
Epstein, "Pentagon reverses course, won’t cut troops’ pay," San
Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 15, 2003.)
Even if one characterizes not renewing a special bonus as a "cut,"
Fahrenheit misleads the viewer into thinking that the cuts applied to
total compensation, rather than only to pay supplements which
constitute only a small percentage of a soldier’s income. An enlisted
man with four months of experience receives an annual salary more than
$27,000. (Rod Powers, "What the Recruiter Never Told You: Military
Pay." The figure includes the value of health care, housing, and so
on.) So allowing the $75 per month supplemental bonus to expire would
have amounted to a "cut" of only about 3 percent of total
compensation, even at the lowest levels. So Moore claim of a "33%" cut
is a ten-fold exaggeration.
Although Moore presents Bush as cutting military pay, Bush did the
opposite: in 2003, Congress enacted a Bush administration proposal to
raise all military salaries by 3.7%, with extra "targeted" pay
increases for non-commissioned officers. NCOs are lower-ranking
officers who typically join the military with lower levels of
education than commissioned officers. (Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample,
"Defense Department Targets Military Pay Increases for 2004," American
Forces Press Service.)
(Deceits: 1. Closing veterans hospitals without mentioning of opening
of veterans hospitals, 2. Cutting combat soldiers' small bonus as if
it were a cut in total salary, 3. Omission of Bush pay increase for
military. Prescription drugs not counted as deceit, although important
context is missing.)
[Moore response: Quotes the movie as referring to "combat soldiers'
bonus pay." The theatrical movie I have seen does not include the word
"bonus." On other matters, Moore provides citations which are
consistent with my explanation of the facts, and does not attempt to
explain or justify the deceits or omissions.]
Congressional Children in War
Deceits 53-56
Early in this segment, Moore states that "out of the 535 members of
Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq." The action of the
segment consists of Moore accosting Congressmen to try to convince
them to have their children enlist in the military. At the end, Moore
declares, "Not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their
child for the war in Iraq."
Moore’s second statement is technically true, but duplicitous. Of
course no-one would want to "sacrifice" his child in any way. But the
fact is, Moore's opening ("only one") and his conclusion ("not a
single member") are both incorrect. Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son
of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st
Airborne Division and fought in Iraq in 2003. The son of California
Republican Representative Duncan Hunter quit his job after September
11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery unit was deployed in
the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004. Delaware Senator
Joseph Biden's son Beau is on active duty in the Judge Advocate
General Corps; although Beau Biden has no control over where he is
deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and therefore does not "count"
for Moore's purposes. Seven members of Congress have been confirmed to
have children in the military.
How about Cabinet members? Fahrenheit never raises the issue, because
the answer would not fit Moore’s thesis. Attorney General John
Ashcroft’s son is serving on the U.S.S. McFaul in the Persian Gulf.
Why not count Duncan Hunter's son? Note the phrasing: "only one had an
enlisted son in Iraq." Although Hunter's son "enlisted" in the
Marines, he is a Second Lieutenant, which means that he is above the
rank of an "enlisted man." But why hide from the viewers how many
Congressmen really have sons serving in the military in Iraq?
The editing of the Congressional scenes borders on the fraudulent:
….Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in
Fahrenheit 9/11, was censored by Michael Moore.
According to the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune, Kennedy, when
asked if he would be willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by
stating that he had a nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went
on to inform Moore that his son was thinking about a career in the
navy and that two of his nephews had already served in the armed
forces. Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the
film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive.
What was Michael’s excuse for trimming the key segment?
Kennedy’s remarks didn’t help his thesis: "He mentioned that he had a
nephew that was going over to Afghanistan," Moore recounted. "So then
I said ‘No, no, that’s not our job here today. We want you to send
your child to Iraq. Not a nephew.’"
Kennedy lambasted Moore as a "master of the misleading" after
viewing the interview in question.
Fahrenheit Fact.
George Stephanopoulos, of ABC News, asked Moore about the selective
cuts in the Kennedy footage:
Stephanopoulos: You have a scene when you’re up on Capitol Hill
encountering members of Congress, asking them if they would ask their
sons and daughters to enlist … in the military. And one of those
members of Congress who appears in the trailer, Mark Kennedy, said you
left out what he told you, which is that he has two nephews serving in
the military, one in Afghanistan. And he went on to say that, "Michael
Moore doesn’t always give the whole truth. He’s a master of the
misleading."
Moore: Well, at the time, when we interviewed him, he didn’t have
any family members in Afghanistan. And when he saw the trailer for
this movie, he issued a report to the press saying that he said that
he had a kid in—
Stephanopoulos: He said he told you he had two nephews.
Moore:… No, he didn’t. And we released the transcript and we put
it on our Web site. This is what I mean by our war room. Any time a
guy like this comes along and says, "I told him I had two nephews and
one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan," he’s lying.
And I’ve got the raw footage and the transcript to prove it. So any
time these Republicans come at me like this, this is exactly what
they’re going to get. And people can go to my Web site and read the
transcript and read the truth. What he just said there, what you just
quoted, is not true.
This Week followed up with the office of Rep. Kennedy. He did
have two nephews in the military, but neither served in Iraq.
Kennedy’s staff agrees that Moore’s Website is accurate but insists
the movie version is misleading. In the film, Moore says,
"Congressman, I’m trying to get members of Congress to get their kids
to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq." But, from the transcript,
here’s the rest:
Moore: Is there any way you could help me with that?
Kennedy: How would I help you?
Moore: Pass it out to other members of Congress.
Kennedy: I’d be happy to — especially those who voted for the war.
I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.
This Week, ABC News, June 20, 2004.
So while Fahrenheit pretended that Kennedy just stupidly looked at
Moore, Kennedy agreed to help Moore.
Notice also how Moore phrased his reply to Stephanopoulos: "Any time a
guy like this comes along and says, 'I told him I had two nephews and
one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan,' he’s lying."
But Kennedy never claimed that he had a nephew going to Iraq. The
insinuation that Kennedy made such a claim is a pure fabrication by
Moore.
Fahrenheit shows Moore calling out to Delaware Republican Michael
Castle, who is talking on a cell phone and waves Moore off. Castle is
presented as one of the Congressmen who would not sacrifice his
children. What the film omits is that Rep. Castle does not have any
children.
Are Congressional children less likely to serve in Iraq than children
from other families? Let’s use Moore’s methodology, and ignore members
of extended families (such as nephews) and also ignore service
anywhere except Iraq (even though U.S. forces are currently fighting
terrorists in many countries). And like Moore, let us also ignore the
fact that some families (like Rep. Castle’s) have no children, or no
children of military age.
We then see that of 535 Congressional families, there are two with a
child who served in Iraq. How does this compare with American families
in general? In the summer of 2003, U.S. troop levels in Iraq were
raised to 145,000. If we factor in troop rotation, we could estimate
that about 300,000 people have served in Iraq at some point. According
to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000 households in the United
States in 2000. (See Table 1 of the Census Report.) So the ratio of
ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service personnel is 104,705,000 to
300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1.
In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service
personnel is 535:2. This reduces to a ratio of 268:1.
Stated another way, a Congressional household is about 23 percent more
likely than an ordinary household to be closely related to an Iraqi
serviceman or servicewoman.
Of course my statistical methodology is very simple. A more
sophisticated analysis would look only at Congressional and U.S.
households from which at least one child is legally eligible to enlist
in the military. Moore, obviously, never attempted such a comparison;
instead, he deceived viewers into believing that Congressional
families were extremely different from other families in enlistment
rates.
Moore ignores the fact that there are 101 veterans currently serving
in the House of Representatives and 36 in the Senate. Regardless of
whether they have children who could join the military, all of the
veterans in Congress have personally put themselves at risk to protect
their country.
During the segment, Moore is accompanied by Corporal Abdul Henderson,
a Marine Corps Reservist. Corporal Henderson wears several ribbons and
medals on his uniform; interestingly, a Good Conduct ribbon or medal,
which is awarded "for the successful completion of a prescribed period
of time of service without incident," is not among them.
(Deceits: 1. number of Congressional children in Iraq, 2. Mark
Kennedy, 3. Michael Castle, 4. False impression that Congressional
families are especially unlikely to serve in Iraq.)
[Moore response: Cites a May 11, 2003 article in the St. Louis Post-
Dispatch that only Brooks Johnson had a son who had fought in Iraq.
The article was accurate at the time, since Duncan Hunter's son, who
had already enlisted, had not yet been sent to Iraq. But Fahrenheit
premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2004--two months after it
had been reported that Duncan Hunter's son had been sent to Iraq. At
the least, Moore could apologize that his claim about "only one" child
is inaccurate, and blame the error on his having not noticed the news
about Hunter while the movie was in its final production stages. But
instead, Moore continues to repeat the "only one" claim, which is
indisputably false. Moore offers no defense for the other falsehoods
in this section.]
Lila Lipscomb and Military Casualties
Misleading
Fahrenheit spends a much time on the grief of Lila Lipscomb, the
mother of Sgt. Michael Pederson, who died in Iraq in April 2003. Sgt.
Pederson was a child from Mrs. Lipscomb's first marraige. He enlisted
in the military in 1996, and was 26 years old when he was killed.
There is no room in Fahrenheit for bereaved families who feel
different from Mrs. Lipscomb. Not even room for the widow Sgt. Michael
Pederson, who believes that "Hating President Bush is not going to
bring Michael back." Ben Schmitt, "Flint woman spotlighted in Moore's
latest movie," Detroit Free Press, May 29, 2004. (The widow was
separated from Sgt. Pederson, and their child was living with the
widow at the time of his death.)
Mrs. Lipscomb reads for the camera an angry letter which Sgt. Pederson
wrote castigating President Bush. Not shown on camera is the fact that
Pederson apologized for the letter shortly afterward.
Moore films Mrs. Lipscomb in Washington, D.C., where she tearfully
walks to the White House, where she will, in her words, "put all my
pain and all my anger and to release it." On the way, Fahrenheit shows
Mrs. Lipscomb arguing with a passerby who says that the whole thing is
staged. What Fahrenheit does not show is that the passerby talked with
Mrs. Lipscomb, heard her side of the story, and apologized on the
spot.
Moore has been paying Mrs. Lipcomb's travel expenses to help promote
the movie and criticize President Bush. According to the St.
Petersburg Times,
She has been so critical of the Bush administration that she
wouldn't be surprised if her house is bugged. When she gets dressed,
she sometimes acts as if they are watching and listening, giving a
play-by-play as she dons her clothing.
"Look guys," she says. "I'm putting on my bra."
Fahrenheit Fahrenheit wallows in pity for Mrs. Lipscomb. "I was tired
of seeing people like Mrs. Lipscomb suffer," Moore claims. Yet Moore’s
website is not quite so sympathetic:
I’m sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once
it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children
until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and
the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.
Michael Moore, "Heads Up... from Michael Moore," MichaelMoore.com,
April 14, 2004.
Fahrenheit is correct in pointing out that people who enlist in the
military are less likely to be college graduates and more likely to be
black than is the general U.S. population. However, Moore's portrayal
of the socioeconomics of the U.S. military is false is several
respects. First, people who are at the lowest end of the economic
spectrum--people who have failed to graduate from high school or to
obtain a G.E.D.--are not over-represented in the military. Like
college graduates, they are under-represented. In the case of high
school drop-outs, the reason is that the all-volunteer military can be
selective, and generally prefers not to enlist high-school drop-outs.
Although blacks are about twice as likely to serve in the military as
is the general U.S. population, black people do not suffer
disproportionate casualties in Iraq. Official casualty statistics for
Operation Iraqi Freedom report that--as of June 26, 2004--blacks
suffered 111 of the 850 U.S. fatalities (13%). The Census Bureau
estimates that blacks comprise 12.3% of the U.S. population. The
reason that black enlistment is disproportionate but black fatalities
are not is that many blacks in the military serve in support roles
(such as providing supplies) which are unlikely to suffer high rates
of casualties. Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr., "The Fallen: A profile of
U.S. troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan," GovExec.com, May 28,
2004.
Flint
Deceit 57
Mrs. Lipscomb is from Flint, Michigan, which Moore calls "my
hometown." In fact, Moore grew up in Davison, Michigan, a suburb of
Flint. Davison is much wealthier than Flint. According to the Census
Bureau, 6 percent of children in the Davison public schools are from
families living in poverty, whereas in Flint, 31 percent of children
are. Calling Flint your "hometown" when you really grew up in Davison
is like calling the Bronx "my hometown" when you really grew up in
Westchester County.
Flint is working class, industrial, down-at-heel, where the
majority of the population is black or Latino. It's where the
factories are.
Davison, where Moore grew up and attended Davison High School, is
comfortable middle class, suburban, and white. Overwhelmingly white.
It's where the managers and professionals live. While many of the
children of Flint go on to work at the factories...the normal
trajectory for the children of Davison is university. Michael Moore
went to university (though didn't stick long). Unusually, he also went
to Flint and tried his hand on the blue-collar front line with a job
on the Buick assembly line for General Motors. He found the conditions
under which the working class actually worked so appalling he quit the
job after one day.
"Less is Moore," Sydney Morning Herald, July 10, 2004.
Discussing unemployment rates, Mrs. Lipscomb states, "But you have to
take into account as well that when your unemployment runs out you're
no longer counted." (Presumably she means that when your "unemployment
insurance benefits" run out, you're no longer counted.) There is no
reason to doubt her sincerity, but she is incorrect in this regard.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment rate counts all "Persons
16 years and over who had no employment during the reference week,
were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made
specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period
ending with the reference week." The rate has nothing do with whether
the person is receiving unemployment insurance payments. (For more,
see the detailed BLS explanation of how unemployment rates are
calculated.)
A curious reader of this article wrote to the Michigan Dept. of Labor
& Economic Growth/Bureau of Labor Market Information & Strategic
Initiatives. An official with the Michigan Bureau sent back a document
(which is apparently not on the Internet) titled "Labor Force,
Employment, Unemployment, Unemployment Rate Estimates For States And
Local Areas." The document explains how unemployment rates are
calculated. In particular, the document explains the calculated rate
specifically includes people who have exhausted their unemployment
insurance benefits, but who are still unemployed. The unemployment
rate includes:
An estimate of the number of individuals who have used up all of
their unemployment benefits, but are determined, through estimation,
to be still unemployed. A formula that utilizes the parallel
relationship between the rate of unemployment and the duration of
unemployment spells, and a quarterly Current Population Survey average
state duration average, yields a survival rate for a particular area
depending on that area's current labor market condition. Thus an area
with high unemployment will have a larger percentage of its
unemployment claims exhaustees included into its jobless total.
(Italics in original.) The Michigan official's letter explained, "In
the official statistics we produce (in cooperation with the BLS) for
the number of unemployed for the state and local areas, current
unemployment claimants account for about 30 to 40 percent of the total
unemployed."
[Moore response: Does not attempt to explain why he calls Flint "my
hometown." No defense of the misstatement about how unemployment rates
are calculated.
In a previous draft, I had cited data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics reporting that Flint's unemployment rate in January 2004
was 10 percent, and said that Fahrenheit's claim about a 17 percent
rate was incorrect. Moore's response cited the Michigan Dept. of Labor
& Economic Growth for a 17 percent rate. The BLS figure (10 percent)
is labeled "Flint," but actually includes all of Genesee Country. The
Michigan DLEG figure (17 percent) is for the city of Flint only. So
Moore was correct, and I was incorrect.]
Moore’s Pro-Saddam Source
Bonus Deceit
Washington Representative Jim McDermott appears in several segments.
The McDermott quotes are, obviously, not like the deceitful quote of
Condoleezza Rice, in which her words were chopped to mean the opposite
of what she really said. McDermott is apparently quite sincere, and
there is no indication that anything he said was taken out of context.
However, McDermott's quotes about the alleged motivations of the Bush
administration are supported by no evidence, and amount to nothing
more than the speculative ravings of one of the very few pro-Saddam
members of Congress--who also worries that bin Laden has already been
captured, and will be brought out at an opportune time before the
election. To rely on McDermott to explain the Bush administration's
alleged secret intentions is akin to relying on a bitter atheist to
describe an alleged secret conspiracy in the Vatican.
In any case, he does make one plain misstatement. McDermott claims,
"Well you make them afraid by creating an aura of endless threat. They
played us like an organ. They raised the le[vel], the orange up to red
than they they dropped it back to orange." To the contrary, the threat
level has never been raised above orange (high risk). It takes a
highly paranoid mind to conclude that because changes were made in the
announced threat levels, the changes must have been for the purpose of
psychological warfare on the American people.
[Moore response: None.]
Tom Daschle
Mistaken Identity
Michael Moore told Time magazine that at the Washington premiere of
Fahrenheit, Tom Daschle "gave me a hug and said he felt bad and that
we were all gonna fight from now on. I thanked him for being a good
sport." Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) told the Rapid
City Journal that he has never even met Moore. Later, an Washington
lawyer who looks like Tom Daschle said that he was the hugee, and that
Moore had sincerely but mistakenly thought the lawyer was Tom Daschle.
[Moore response: None. Speaking to the Washington Post, Moore has
stuck by his claim about Daschle.]
Moore Supports Terrorists
Deceit 58
In Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore claims to support our troops. But in fact,
he supports the enemy in Iraq—the coalition of Saddam loyalists, al
Qaeda operatives, and terrorists controlled by Iran or Syria—who are
united in their desire to murder Iraqis, and to destroy any
possibility of democracy in Iraq. Here is what Moore says about the
forces who are killing Americans and trying to impose totalitarian
rule on Iraq:
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not
"insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION,
the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.
Michael Moore, "Heads Up... from Michael Moore," MichaelMoore.com,
April 14, 2004. Of course if you believe that the people who are
perpetrating suicide bombings against Iraqi civilians and American
soldiers for the purpose of forcing a totalitarian boot onto Iraq are
the moral equivalent of the American Founders, then Moore's claim
about the Iraqi insurgents could be valid. But even if that claim were
valid (and I do not believe that any reasonable person can equate
people fighting for totalitarianism with people fighting for
constitutional democracy), then Moore is still being dishonest in
Fahrenheit when he pronounces his concern for American troops. To the
contrary, he is cheering for the forces which are killing our troops,
as he equates the killers with freedom-fighters. And if you think that
the people who are slaughtering American soldiers, American civilians,
Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi civilians are terrorists rather than
"minutemen," then it is true that Moore supports terrorists. By the
way, the number of Iraqi victims of Moore's "minutemen" outnumbers
American victims by about 10:1.
There are some sincere opponents of the Iraq War who want to "support
our troops" by bringing them home, and thereby getting them out
danger. But it's deceptive to say that you support the troops if
(besides lobbying for troop withdrawal) you are actively recruiting
enemy fighters to kill our troops. Moore is doing so, as the next item
details.
[Moore response: None.]
Terrorists Support Fahrenheit
Deceit 59
As reported in the trade journal Screen Daily, affiliates of the
Iranian and Syrian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah are promoting
Fahrenheit 9/11, and Moore’s Middle East distributor, Front Row, is
accepting the terrorist assistance:
In terms of marketing the film, Front Row is getting a boost from
organizations related to Hezbollah which have rung up from Lebanon to
ask if there is anything they can do to support the film. And although
[Front Row’s Managing Director Gianluca] Chacra says he and his
company feel strongly that Fahrenheit is not anti-American, but anti-
Bush, "we can’t go against these organizations as they could strongly
boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria."
Nancy Tartaglione, "Fahrenheit to be first doc released theatrically
in Middle East," Screen Daily.com, June 9, 2004 (website requires
registration). The story is discussed in Samantha Ellis, "Fahrenheit
9/11 gets help offer from Hezbollah," The Guardian, June 17, 2004; and
"Moore film distributor OK with terror support: Exec says firm doesn’t
want to risk boycott of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' in Mideast,"
WorldNetDaily.com, June 22, 2004.
Salon.com followed up on the story, and reported:
Gianluca Chacra, the managing director of Front Row Entertainment,
the movie’s distributor in the United Arab Emirates, confirms that
Lebanese student members of Hezbollah "have asked us if there's any
way they could support the film." While Hezbollah is considered a
legitimate political party in many parts of the world, the U.S. State
Department classifies the group as a terrorist organization. Chacra
was unfazed, even excited, about their offer. "Having the support of
such an entity in Lebanon is quite significant for that market and not
at all controversial. I think it’s quite natural." (Lions Gate did not
return calls asking for comment.)
John Gorenfeld, "Michael Moore Terrorizes The Bushies!" Salon.com,
June 24, 2004.
According to Screen Daily, Moore’s film will open in mid-July on ten
screens in Lebanon and two screens in Syria. Syria is a terrorist
state which invaded Lebanon in the 1970s and controls the nation
through a puppet government. The main al Qaeda commander in Iraq, Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi, has worked with Hezbollah and has operated out of
Syria.
Moore accuses the United States of sacrificing morality because of
greed: "The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started
the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do
business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those
countries, which will make Americans rich." David Brooks, "All Hail
Moore," New York Times, June 28, 2004; translation of original
Japanese interview with Moore.
Yet it turns out that the self-righteous Moore is the one who is
accepting aid from a terrorist organization which has murdered and
kidnapped hundreds of Americans--and also an organization that works
with Zarqawi and al Qaeda. Just to avoid a boycott on a dozen screens
in a totalitarian terrorist state and its colony?
Moore is, with terrorist assistance, pushing the film in Syria and a
Syrian colony, both of which are places which supply some of the
fighters who are currently killing Americans and anti-totalitarian
Iraqis. Fahrenheit presents the fighters as noble resistance, and the
American presence as entirely evil. It's not that the content of
Fahrenheit is all that different from the propaganda which pervades
the state-controlled Arab media, or on al Jazeera. But Fahrenheit's
may be more persuasive, to at least some of its Arab audience, because
its denunciations of American and praise for the Iraqi insurgents
comes from an American. It is reasonable to expect that such a film,
when shown in Syria and Lebanon, will aid in the recruiting of
additional fighters to kill Americans and Iraqis. In effect, the
presentation of Fahrenheit in Syria and Lebanon--especially with
explicit endorsement from a terrorist organization--amounts to a
recruiting film for terrorists (or, in Moore's terms, "minutemen") to
go to Iraq and kill Americans.
Hezbollah likes the film so much that the terrorist organization has
shown it on one of its television stations:
Anti-American Arab television stations, including one owned by the
Lebanese branch of the Hezbollah, have broadcast chunks of Moore's
attack on Bush with commentaries more virulent than the original.
"We may not be able to drive the Americans out of Iraq," says
Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader in Lebanon. "But we can
drive Bush out of the White House by heating things up in Iraq." Bush
is also seen as too pro-Israel in his Middle East policy.
(New York Post, Aug. 18, 2004). Fidel Castro likewise showed the film
on Cuban state television, because the film fit his own message of the
evil of the United States. (Since Fahrenheit is still in theatrical
release, these broadcasts may not have been specifically authorized by
Moore. But it does say something that Hezbollah and the Cuban tyrant
find Fahrenheit such a congenial movie.)
Because of Syria's oppression of Lebanon and its support for terrorism
in Iraq and other nations, Congress passed and President Bush signed
the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. The
Act authorizes the U.S. government to freeze the assets of individuals
or organizations "who are determined by the Secretary of the Treasury,
in consultation with the Secretary of State, to be or to have been
directing or otherwise significantly contributing to" Syrian
sponsorship of terrorist organizations or the destabilization Iraq.
Theoretically, it might be possible that Moore has no personal
awareness that his Middle East distributor is working with terrorists.
But such ignorance is unlikely for two reasons: First, Moore’s "war
room" staff monitors controversial articles about the film, and there
could hardly be anything more controversial than making common cause
with terrorists. Not only has the Hezbollah relationship been
publicized in a leading film trade on-line newspaper, the Moore-
Hezbollah connection has been reported in one of the very most
significant British newspapers, and in an important American on-line
newspaper.
Second, Moore was personally questioned about the terrorist connection
at a Washington, D.C., press conference. He at first denied the
terrorist connection, but was then confronted with the direct quote
from his distributor. He stonewalled and refused to answer. So the man
who spends so much time getting in other people’s faces with tough
questions is unwilling to explain why he is accepting aid from
Hezbollah.
By way of reply, Moore could have said, "I sold the Middle East
distribution rights to FRE, so I can't legally control what they do.
But I strongly condemn their relationship with Hezbollah, and I've
already told them that if they don't stop cooperating with Hezbollah,
they will never distribute another movie of mine. I think it's
reprehensible for any business to accept terrorist assistance." But
instead, he stonewalls. Likewise, his website has provided no
explanation of Moore's conduct regarding Hezbollah.
Fahrenheit stitches together some scattered lines from the screenplay
of 1984, written by Ralph Gilbert Bettison and William Templeton.
Moore implies that the words are those of George Orwell, although the
quotes do not come from George Orwell's novel 1984. The screenplay
depicts a totalitarian state perpetually at war, and does accurately
capture many of the points made in Orwell's book. As Moore quotes
"Orwell" (actually, Bettison and Templeton): "The war is not meant to
be won, but it is meant to be continuous...A hierarchical society is
only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance... The war is
waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is
not the victory over either Eurasia or east Asia but to keep the very
structure of society intact." The real purpose of war as "to keep the
very structure of society intact." Fahrenheit applies "Orwell’s" words
to the United States of today.
Moore’s purported positions on some issues in Fahrenheit are different
from his previous positions: whether people should have made a big
deal about September 11, whether Osama bin Laden is guilty of the
September 11 attacks, whether American families, including the
Lipscombs, deserve to suffer the deaths of their children because they
supported the war. But throughout Michael Moore’s career, he has
remained true to the central theme of Fahrenheit: capitalist America
is the real terrorist state. Because America is a capitalist society,
American use of force is necessarily evil. (Or as the New Yorker
reported, "He believes that the United States should not take military
action under any circumstances except emergency self-defense.")
Four days after September 11, Moore announced: "We, the United States
of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and
bloodshed that we better get a clue about the culture of violence in
which we have been active participants." (The statement has been
deleted from Moore’s website, but is available through the web archive
service called the Wayback Machine.) This is the view of Fahrenheit
9/11: Iraq under Saddam was fine until America began terrorizing it.
Saddam Hussein agrees; after September 11, his government issued an
official statement declaring, "The American cowboys are reaping the
fruit of their crimes against humanity." Saddam's media showed him
telling his generals, "Those who do not want to harvest evil, should
not plant evil...Despite the contradictory humanitarian feelings on
what happened in America, America is harvesting the thorns that its
rulers have planted in the world...Nobody has crossed the Atlantic
carrying weapons against America, but it has crossed the Atlantic
carrying death and destruction to the whole world."
The Iranian tyranny agrees too. In mid-August,
the mullahs running the Farabi Cinema complex in Tehran scrapped
the season's program to screen Moore's "documentary."
"This film unmasks the Great Satan America," a spokesman said. "It
tells Muslim people why they are right in hating America. It is the
duty of every believer to see [this film] and learn the truth."
For more of Moore's anti-American statements, see the Tacitus weblog
entry "Michael Moore in his own words." One of the posters for the
European release of Fahrenheit features a burning American flag, with
a cloudy death's-head skull in place of the white stripes.
Throughout American history, there have always been patriotic
Americans who criticized particular war-time policies, or who believed
that a war was a mistake and should be promptly ended. Today, there
are many patriotic Americans who oppose some or all aspects of the War
on Terror. I am among them, in that I have strongly opposed the USA
PATRIOT Act from its first days, have denounced the Bush
administration for siding with corporate interests rather than with
public safety by sabotaging the Armed Pilots law, and have repeatedly
stated that the current Saudi tyranny should be recognized as a major
part of the problem in the War on Terror--despite the tyranny's close
relationship with America's foreign policy élite.
In contrast to the large number of patriots who have argued against
particular wars or wartime policies, a much smaller number of
Americans have hated America. They have cheered for the fighters who
were killing Americans. They have belittled America’s right to protect
itself, and they have produced propaganda designed to destroy American
morale and to facilitate enemy victory. To advance their anti-American
cause, they have sometimes feigned love for the nation they despised.
For example, during the Vietnam War, many sincere patriots--such as
George McGovern and Robert Kennedy--opposed the war. But some people
actively collaborated with the totalitarian government of Ho Chi Minh,
and the totalitarian armies of the Khmer Rouge and the Pathet Lao.
These people tried to convince the American public that the soldiers
who were killing American troops were fighting in a just cause. They
were not; they were fighting for Stalinism and genocide.
Do the many falsehoods and misrepresentations of Fahrenheit 9/11
suggest a film producer who just makes careless mistakes? Or does a
man who calls Americans "possibly the dumbest people on the planet"
believe that his audience will be too dumb to tell when he is tricking
them? Viewers will have to decide for themselves whether the extremist
and extremely deceptive Fahrenheit 9/11 is a conscientious work of
patriotic dissent, or the cynical propaganda of a man who gives
wartime aid to America’s murderous enemies, and who accepts their aid
in return.
Dave Kopel is Research Director of the Independence Institute and an
NRO columnist. He has previously written about the deceptions in
"Bowling for Columbine." Like Michael Moore, in 2000 Kopel endorsed
and voted for Ralph Nader.
> 2) You can enter any collective noun into the following sentence "The
> ______ are screwing everything up" except for the correct ones.
.
So, let's see if I've got this straight - you're OK with hysterical
rants, as long as you agree with who's being attacked. Otherwise,
they're out of bounds?
.
> 1) You find yourself saying "no" even to things that you actually
> want, like ice cream, and health care.
.
Now you're just spouting insanity.
Killing, Inc.
[snip crap]
"Almost no one is willing to identify with the GOP these days"
Oh really?!? Hmm, well check this out, knuckledragger:
-------------------------------------------------
January 7, 2010
Conservatives Finish 2009 as No. 1 Ideological Group
Uptick owing largely to more independents calling themselves
conservative
by Lydia Saad
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124958/conservatives-finish-2009-no-1-ideological-group.aspx
PRINCETON, NJ -- The increased conservatism that Gallup first
identified among Americans last June persisted throughout the year, so
that the final year-end political ideology figures confirm Gallup's
initial reporting: conservatives (40%) outnumbered both moderates
(36%) and liberals (21%) across the nation in 2009.
More broadly, the percentage of Americans calling themselves either
conservative or liberal has increased over the last decade, while the
percentage of moderates has declined.
---------------------------------------------------
Who are the 20 percenters NOW, jackass?
Democrats and other leftist wingnuts are still the dumbest creatures
on the planet.
Mitchell Holman
>
> http://www.alternet.org/politics/145005/you_know_you're_a_conservative_
> when.../
>
> January 7, 2010
>
> You Know You're a Conservative When...
>
> By Ken Kupchik
>
> 10 quick questions to tell if you're a 21st Century right-winger.
>
>
> 8) You hate those "elite Hollywood liberals" but refuse to cancel your
> Netflix account.
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time out from
praising the politics of actors Ronald Reagan and Arnold
Schwartzenegger and Fred Thompson to tell us that actors
(Baldwin, Streisand, Sarandon, Robbins, Asner) know nothing
about politics and should keep their mouths shut.
>
> 3) You criticize Michael Moore for his weight,
....while saying nothing about Limbaugh's weight
because that is a "private matter" and "off-topic"
Curly Surmudgeon
Says the poster who assumes Republicans are conservatives...
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republican Values: Torture, Rape and Lies
------------------------------------------------------------------------------