Democrats don't want people to know......
The Great Infidel
By DAVID BAUDER
AP Television Writer
AP Photo/PETER STRANKS
Entertainment Video
A
NEW YORK (AP) -- ABC faced growing pressure Friday about its planned
miniseries on the buildup to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Former
Clinton administration officials, historians and a Democratic petition
with nearly 200,000 signatures urged the network to scrap the five-hour
drama...............
Besides Clinton, two terribly incompetent fools want the series pulled.
Sandy Burger the thief who stole classified documents to cover up his
inadequacies, and Madeline Albright who is just a stupid old lady.
mrmcafee(nospam)
The Great Infidel wrote:
The alternative to to air a pack of lies and half truths. We can guess
what you prefer.
--
*******************
Michael R. McAfee
Mesa, AZ
*******************
The Great Infidel
Which of the leftys are
really lying? Sandy Berger, the classified document thief, who stole
documents so that he couldn't be caught perjuring himself? Bill Clinton,
impeached President and disbarred for lying under oath? ad nauseum.
mrmcafee(nospam)
The Great Infidel wrote:
You chose the lies. See, I can pick them!
Larry in AZ
(nospam)"@cox.net> said:
> The alternative to to air a pack of lies and half truths. We can guess
> what you prefer.
The lefties didn't utter a peep about fat slob Michael Moores hatchet job,
other than to give him an Oscar.
Frauds...
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
"I've come here to enjoy nature. Don't talk to me
about the environment!" - 'Denny Crane'
mrmcafee(nospam)
Larry in AZ wrote:
> Waiving the right to remain silent, "mrmcafee(nospam)" <"mrmcafee
> (nospam)"@cox.net> said:
>
>
>>The alternative to to air a pack of lies and half truths. We can guess
>>what you prefer.
>
>
> The lefties didn't utter a peep about fat slob Michael Moores hatchet job,
> other than to give him an Oscar.
And Moore's film was in error just where?
>
> Frauds...
mrmcafee(nospam)
Larry in AZ wrote:
> Waiving the right to remain silent, "mrmcafee(nospam)" <"mrmcafee
> (nospam)"@cox.net> said:
>
>
>>The alternative to to air a pack of lies and half truths. We can guess
>>what you prefer.
>
>
> The lefties didn't utter a peep about fat slob Michael Moores hatchet job,
> other than to give him an Oscar.
>
> Frauds...
Moore made errors? Here. Here is a link to the facts presented by Moore
in Fahrenheit 911
http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16
Please back up your lip and point out the errors (be sure to include
creditable proof).
Seth Hammond
"mrmcafee(nospam)" <"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cox.net> wrote in message
news:sZEMg.9113$c07.3008@fed1read04...
>
>
> Larry in AZ wrote:
>
>> Waiving the right to remain silent, "mrmcafee(nospam)" <"mrmcafee
>> (nospam)"@cox.net> said:
>>
>>
>>>The alternative to to air a pack of lies and half truths. We can guess
>>>what you prefer.
>>
>>
>> The lefties didn't utter a peep about fat slob Michael Moores hatchet
>> job, other than to give him an Oscar.
>
> And Moore's film was in error just where?
Perhaps the critics think all the video footage was computer generated.
Here I thought it was real....
Len Tropy
<"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cox.net> wrote:
>The alternative to to air a pack of lies and half truths.
We already had F-911 thanks...
Larry in AZ
<"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cox.net> said:
> Larry in AZ wrote:
>
>> Waiving the right to remain silent, "mrmcafee(nospam)" <"mrmcafee
>> (nospam)"@cox.net> said:
>>
>>
>>>The alternative to to air a pack of lies and half truths. We can guess
>>>what you prefer.
>>
>>
>> The lefties didn't utter a peep about fat slob Michael Moores hatchet
>> job, other than to give him an Oscar.
>
> And Moore's film was in error just where?
Beginning to end...
Larry in AZ
<"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cox.net> said:
> Larry in AZ wrote:
>
>> Waiving the right to remain silent, "mrmcafee(nospam)" <"mrmcafee
>> (nospam)"@cox.net> said:
>>
>>
>>>The alternative to to air a pack of lies and half truths. We can guess
>>>what you prefer.
>>
>>
>> The lefties didn't utter a peep about fat slob Michael Moores hatchet
>> job, other than to give him an Oscar.
>>
>> Frauds...
>
> Moore made errors? Here. Here is a link to the facts presented by Moore
> in Fahrenheit 911
> http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16
> Please back up your lip and point out the errors (be sure to include
> creditable proof).
http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/
mrmcafee(nospam)
Larry in AZ wrote:
> Waiving the right to remain silent, "mrmcafee(nospam)"
> <"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cox.net> said:
>
>
>>Larry in AZ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Waiving the right to remain silent, "mrmcafee(nospam)" <"mrmcafee
>>>(nospam)"@cox.net> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The alternative to to air a pack of lies and half truths. We can guess
>>>>what you prefer.
>>>
>>>
>>>The lefties didn't utter a peep about fat slob Michael Moores hatchet
>>>job, other than to give him an Oscar.
>>>
>>>Frauds...
>>
>>Moore made errors? Here. Here is a link to the facts presented by Moore
>>in Fahrenheit 911
>>http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16
>>Please back up your lip and point out the errors (be sure to include
>>creditable proof).
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/
That's your "proof"? An opinion piece that doesn't even bother to refute
one fact presented in Moore's film? This represents your standard of
proof? No wonder you are a right winger!
Larry in AZ
(nospam)"@cox.net> said:
> That's your "proof"? An opinion piece that doesn't even bother to refute
> one fact presented in Moore's film? This represents your standard of
> proof? No wonder you are a right winger!
And you give us Moore's site.
Bwahahaha..!
Len Tropy
<"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cox.net> wrote:
>And Moore's film was in error just where?
59 places, LOL!
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
This report was first posted on the web on the morning of July 1.
Since then, I've revised several sections in response to reader
requests for clarifications, and have added additional deceits which
have been pointed out by readers or journalists. As a result, the
number of listed deceits has been raised from 56 to 59. As of October
2, 2004, there have been 1,036,219 page views of the full report.
Thanks to the readers who have written to point out additional deceits
or to point out items which need clarification. Also thanks to the
readers who have written in defense of Moore. Many such readers have
been rational and civil. Moore's reasonable defenders have made two
main points:
First, notwithstanding the specific falsehoods, isn't the film as a
whole filled with many important truths?
Not really. We can divide the film into three major parts. The first
part (Bush, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) is so permeated with lies that
most of the scenes amount to lies. The second, shortest part involves
domestic issues and the USA PATRIOT Act. So far, I've identified only
one clear falsehood in this segment (Rep. Porter Goss's toll-free
number). So this part, at least arguably, presents useful information.
The third part, on Iraq, has several outright falsehoods--such as the
Saddam regime's murder of Americans, and the regime's connection with
al Qaeda. Other scenes in the third part--such as Iraqi casualties,
interviews with American soldiers, and the material on bereaved mother
Lila Lipscomb--are not blatant lies; but the information presented is
so extremely one-sided (the only Iraqi casualties are innocents,
nobody in Iraq is grateful for liberation, all the American soldiers
are disillusioned, except for the sadists) that the overall picture of
the Iraq War is false.
Second, say the Moore supporters, what about the Bush lies?
Well there are lies from the Bush administration which should concern
everyone. For example, the Bush administration suppressed data from
its own Department of Health and Human Services which showed that the
cost of the new Prescription Drug Benefit would be much larger than
the administration claimed. This lie was critical to passage of the
Bush drug benefit bill. Similarly, Bush's characterization of his
immigration proposal as not granting "amnesty" to illegal aliens is
quite misleading; although the Bush proposal does not formally grant
amnesty, the net result is the same as widespread amnesty. As one
immigration reform group put it, "Any program that allows millions of
illegal aliens to receive legal status in this country is an amnesty."
Readers who want a scathing, and factually reliable, critique of the
Bush administration might enjoy James Bovard's new book The Bush
Betrayal (Palgrave MacMillan, 2004). (Free excerpt here.) Another good
choice is All the President's Spin: George W. Bush, the Media, and the
Truth, by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer, and Brendan Nyhan (Touchstone,
2004).
But two wrongs don't make a right, and the right response to
Presidential lies is not more lies from his political opponents.
Moreover, regarding the issues presented in Fahrenheit 9/11, the
evidence of Bush lies is extremely thin. Moore shows Bush claiming
that a particular day at the ranch in Crawford, Texas, was a working
vacation, but Bush appears to be dissembling. Later, after Osama bin
Laden was driven into hiding but was not captured, Bush unconvincingly
claims not to spend much time thinking about bin Laden. Within
Fahrenheit 9/11, most of the rest of alleged Bush administration lies
actually involve Moore's fabrications to create the appearance of a
lie--such as when Moore chops a Condoleezza Rice quote to make her say
something when she actually said the opposite.
The one significant Bush administration lie exposed in the film
involves the so-called USA PATRIOT Act; as Fahrenheit accurately
claims, at least some of the material in the USA PATRIOT Act had
nothing to do with 9/11, and instead involved long-sought items on the
FBI agenda which had previously been unable to pass Congress, but
which were enacted by Congress under Bush administration assurances
that they were essential to fighting terrorism.
If you look up the noun "deceit" in the dictionary, you will find that
the definitions point you to the verb "deceive." According to
Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary, the main (non-archaic or
obsolete) definition of "deceive" is "to cause to accept as true or
valid what is false or invalid." Although the evidence in this report
demonstrates dozens of plain deceits by Moore, there are some
"deceits" in this report regarding which reasonable people may
disagree. So if you find me unpersuasive on, for example, three
alleged deceits, consider this article to have identified "Fifty-six
Deceits" rather than fifty-nine. Whether or not you agree with me on
every single item, I think you will agree that the evidence is
undeniable that Fahrenheit 9/11 is filled with deceit.
Quite obviously, there are many patriotic Americans who oppose George
Bush and who think the Iraq War was a mistake. But Moore's deceitful
movie offers nothing constructive to help people form their opinions.
To use lies and frauds to manipulate people is contrary to the very
essence of democracy, which requires people to make rational decisions
based on truthful information. It's wrong when a President lies. It's
wrong when a talk radio host lies. And it's wrong when a film-maker
lies.
July 11 update: Moore's response.
Moore's "War Room" has published a lengthy point-by-point defense of
the movie. Some of the points relate to issues I've raised; others do
not. For each item below, I'll provide a link to Moore's response,
when there is one. On two issues (Afghanistan's President Karzai; John
Ashcroft's pre-9/11 attitude towards terrorism) Moore's response makes
some valid points; not necessarily that Fahrenheit is right on these
facts, but at least the facts are disputable. On one issue (the
unemployment rate in Flint), Moore is clearly right. On the rest of
the items I've identified, Moore's responses are extremely
unconvincing, mainly because they so often evade the evidence.
The key to Moore's response, and to the movie itself, is summarized by
Boston University Law Professor Randy Barnett:
...I was struck by the sheer cunningness of Moore's film. When you
read Kopel, try to detach yourself from any revulsion you may feel at
a work of literal propaganda receiving such wide-spread accolades from
mainstream politicos, as well as attendance by your friends and
neighbors.
Instead, notice the film's meticulousness in saying only (or
mostly) "true" or defensible things in support of a completely
misleading impression. In this way, Kopel's care in describing Moore's
"deceits" is much more interesting than other critiques I have read,
including that of Christopher Hitchens. Kopel's lawyerly description
of Moore's claims shows the film to be a genuinely impressive
accomplishment in a perverse sort of way (the way an ingenious crime
is impressive)--a case study in how to convert elements that are
mainly true into an impression that is entirely false--and this leads
in turn to another thought.
If this much cleverness was required to create the inchoate
"conspiracy" (whatever it may be, as it is never really specified by
Moore), it suggests there was no such conspiracy. With this much care
and effort invested in uncovering and massaging the data, if there
really was a conspiracy of the kind Moore suggests, the evidence would
line up more neatly behind it, rather than being made to do cartwheels
so as to be "true" but oh-so-misleading. If the facts don't fit,
shouldn't we acquit?
(By the way, a reader responding to Barnett's July 4 post criticized
some aspects of my report. In subsequent drafts, I've revised the
article in response to some of those criticisms.)
Table of Contents
1. 2000 Election
2. Bush Presidency through Sept. 11
3. Saudis.
4. Afghanistan
5. Domestic issues
6. Iraq
7. The man from Flint and terrorists
There are many articles which have pointed out the distortions,
falsehoods, and lies in the film Fahrenheit 9/11. This report compiles
the Fahrenheit 9/11 deceits which have been identified by a wide
variety of reviewers. In addition, I identify some inaccuracies which
have not been addressed by other writers.
The report follows the approximate order in which the movie covers
particular topics: the Bush family, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and
Iraq. This report focuses solely on factual issues, and not on
aesthetic criticism of the film.
To understand the deceptions, it helps to understand Moore’s
ideological position. So let us start with Moore’s belief that the
September 11 attacks on the United States were insignificant.
Edward Koch, the former Democratic Mayor of New York City, writes:
A year after 9/11, I was part of a panel discussion on BBC-TV’s
"Question Time" show which aired live in the United Kingdom. A portion
of my commentary at that time follows:
"One of the panelists was Michael Moore…During the warm-up before
the studio audience, Moore said something along the lines of "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."…I mention this exchange because it was not televised,
occurring as it did before the show went live. It shows where he was
coming from long before he produced "Fahrenheit 9/11."
Edward Koch, "Moore’s propaganda film cheapens debate, polarizes
nation," World Tribune, June 28, 2004. [Moore response: none.]
By the way, I don't disagree with the point that it is reasonable to
consider the number of deaths from any particular problem, including
terrorism, in assessing how serious the problem is. Moore's point,
however, was willfully oblivious to the fact that al Qaeda did not
intend 9/11 to be the last word; the organization was working on
additional attacks, and if the organization obtained the right
weapons, millions of people might be killed. More fundamentally, even
if Moore's argument in London is conceded to be legitimate, it
contradicts Fahrenheit 9/11's presentation of Moore as intensely
concerned about the September 11 attacks.
As we go through the long list of lies and tricks in Fahrenheit 9/11,
keep in mind that Michael Moore has assembled a "war room" of
political operatives and lawyers in order to respond to criticism of
Fahrenheit 9/11 and to file defamation suits. (Jack Shafer, "Libel
Suit 9/11. Michael Moore’s hysterical, empty threats," Slate.com, June
12, 2004.) One of Moore's "war room" officials is Chris Lehane;
Lehane, as an employee of Democratic presidential candidate Wesley
Clark (who was also supported by Moore), is alleged to have spread
rumors to the press about John Kerry's alleged extra-marital affair,
although Lehane denies doing so.
Of course if there are any genuine errors in this report, the errors
will be promptly corrected. On July 5, I removed a complaint about a
Presidential approval poll number, which I had wrongly thought was not
supported by data.
In this report, I number Moore’s deceits. Some of them are outright
lies; some are omissions which create a false impression. Others
involve different forms of deception. A few are false statements Moore
has made when defending the film. Judge for yourself the credibility
of Michael Moore's promise, "Every single fact I state in 'Fahrenheit
9/11' is the absolute and irrefutable truth...Do not let anyone say
this or that isn't true. If they say that, they are lying."
2000 Election Night
Deceits 1-2
Fahrenheit 9/11 begins on election night 2000. We are first shown Al
Gore rocking on stage with famous musicians and a high-spirited crowd.
The conspicuous sign on stage reads "Florida Victory." Moore creates
the impression that Gore was celebrating his victory in Florida.
Moore's voiceover claims, "And little Stevie Wonder, he seemed so
happy, like a miracle had taken place." The verb tense of past perfect
("had taken") furthers the impression that the election has been
completed.
Actually, the rally took place in the early hours of election day,
before polls had even opened. Gore did campaign in Florida on election
day, but went home to Tennessee to await the results. The "Florida
Victory" sign reflected Gore’s hopes, not any actual election results.
("Gore Campaigns Into Election Day," Associated Press, Nov. 7, 2000.)
The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. According to
the narrator, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the
election in favor of the other guy….All of a sudden the other networks
said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'"
We then see NBC anchor Tom Brokaw stating, "All of us networks made a
mistake and projected Florida in the Al Gore column. It was our
mistake."
Moore thus creates the false impression that the networks withdrew
their claim about Gore winning Florida when they heard that Fox said
that Bush won Florida.
In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in
the evening—before polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle,
which is part of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at
7:49:40 p.m., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in
the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for
Gore. And at 7:52 p.m., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never lets
the audience know that Fox was among the networks which made the error
of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at 8:02 p.m., ABC called
Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were
closed.
About an hour before the polls closed in panhandle Florida, the
networks called the U.S. Senate race in favor of the Democratic
candidate. The networks seriously compounded the problem because from
6-7 Central Time, they repeatedly announced that polls had closed in
Florida--even though polls were open in the panhandle. (See also Joan
Konner, James Risser & Ben Wattenberg, Television's Performance on
Election Night 2000: A Report for CNN, Jan. 29, 2001.)
The false announcements that the polls were closed, as well as the
premature calls (the Presidential race ten minutes early; the Senate
race an hour early), may have cost Bush thousands of votes from the
conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that
their state had already been decided; some last-minute voters on their
way to the polling place turned around and went home. Other voters who
were waiting in line left the polling place. In Florida, as elsewhere,
voters who have arrived at the polling place before closing time often
end up voting after closing time, because of long lines. The
conventional wisdom of politics is that supporters of the losing
candidate are most likely to give up on voting when they hear that
their side has already lost. Thus, on election night 1980, when
incumbent President Jimmy Carter gave a concession speech while polls
were still open on the west coast, the early concession was blamed for
costing the Democrats several Congressional seats in the West, such as
that of 20-year incumbent James Corman. The fact that all the networks
had declared Reagan a landslide winner while west coast voting was
still in progress was also blamed for Democratic losses in the West;
Congress even held hearings about prohibiting the disclosure of exit
polls before voting had ended in the any of the 48 contiguous states.
Even if the premature television calls affected all potential voters
equally, the effect was to reduce Republican votes significantly,
because the Florida panhandle is a Republican stronghold. Most of
Central Time Zone Florida is in the 1st Congressional District, which
is known as the "Redneck Riviera." In that district, Bob Dole beat
Bill Clinton by 69,000 votes in 1996, even though Clinton won the
state by 300,000 votes. So depress overall turnout in the panhandle,
and you will necessarily depress more Republican than Democratic
votes. A 2001 study by John Lott suggested that the early calls cost
Bush at least 7,500 votes, and perhaps many more. Another study
reported that the networks reduced panhandle turn-out by about 19,000
votes, costing Bush about 12,000 votes and Gore about 7,000 votes.
At 10:00 p.m., which networks took the lead in retracting the
premature Florida win for Gore? They were CNN and CBS, not Fox. (The
two networks were using a shared Decision Team.) See Linda Mason,
Kathleen Francovic & Kathleen Hall Jamieson, "CBS News Coverage of
Election Night 2000: Investigation, Analysis, Recommendations" (CBS
News, Jan. 2001), pp. 12-25.)
In fact, Fox did not retract its claim that Gore had won Florida until
2 a.m.--four hours after other networks had withdrawn the call.
Over four hours later, at 2:16 a.m., Fox projected Bush as the Florida
winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 a.m.
At 3:59 a.m., CBS took the lead in retracting the Florida call for
Bush. All the other networks, including Fox, followed the CBS lead
within eight minutes. That the networks arrived at similar conclusions
within a short period of time is not surprising, since they were all
using the same data from the Voter News Service. (Mason, et al. "CBS
News Coverage.") As the CBS timeline details, throughout the evening
all networks used VNS data to call states, even though VNS had not
called the state; sometimes the network calls were made hours ahead of
the VNS call.
Moore’s editing technique of the election night segment is typical of
his style: all the video clips are real clips, and nothing he says is,
narrowly speaking, false. But notice how he says, "Then something
called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other
guy…" The impression created is that the Fox call of Florida for Bush
came soon after the CBS/CNN calls of Florida for Gore, and that Fox
caused the other networks to change ("All of a sudden the other
networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'")
This is the essence of the Moore technique: cleverly blending
half-truths to deceive the viewer.
[Moore response: On the Florida victory celebration, none. On the
networks calls: provides citations for the early and incorrect Florida
calls for Gore, around 8 p.m. Eastern Time, and for the late-evening
network calls of Florida for Bush around 2:20 a.m. Doesn't mention the
retraction of the Florida calls at 10 p.m., or that CBS led the
retraction.]
2000 Election Recount
Deceit 3
How did Bush win Florida? "Second, make sure the chairman of your
campaign is also the vote count woman." Actually Florida Secretary of
State Katherine Harris (who was Bush's Florida co-chair, not "the
chairman") was not the "vote count woman." Vote counting in Florida is
performed by the election commissioners in each of Florida's counties.
The Florida Secretary of State merely certifies the reported vote. The
office does not count votes.
A little while later, Fahrenheit shows Jeffrey Toobin (a sometime
talking head lawyer for CNN) claiming that if the Supreme Court had
allowed a third recount to proceed past the legal deadline, "under
every scenario Gore won the election."
Fahrenheit shows only a snippet of Toobin's remarks on CNN. What
Fahrenheit does not show is that Toobin admitted on CNN that the only
scenarios for a Gore victory involved a type of recount which Gore had
never requested in his lawsuits, and which would have been in
violation of Florida law. Toobin's theory likewise depends on
re-assigning votes which are plainly marked for one candidate (Pat
Buchanan) to Gore, although there are no provisions in Florida law to
guess at who a voter "really" meant to vote for and to re-assign the
vote.
A study by a newspaper consortium including the Miami Herald and USA
Today disproves Fahrenheit's claim that Gore won under any scenario.
As USA Today summarized, on May 11, 2001:
"Who would have won if Al Gore had gotten manual counts he
requested in four counties? Answer: George W. Bush."
"Who would have won if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the
hand recount of undervotes, which are ballots that registered no
machine-readable vote for president? Answer: Bush, under three of four
standards."
"Who would have won if all disputed ballots — including those
rejected by machines because they had more than one vote for president
— had been recounted by hand? Answer: Bush, under the two most widely
used standards; Gore, under the two least used."
Throughout the Florida election controversy, the focus was on
"undervotes"--ballots which were disqualified because the voter had
not properly indicated a candidate, such as by punching out a small
piece of paper on the paper ballot. The recounts attempted to discern
voter intentions from improperly-marked ballots. Thus, if a ballot had
a "hanging chad," a recount official might decide that the voter
intended to vote for the candidate, but failed to properly punch out
the chad; so the recounter would award the candidate a vote from the
"spoiled" ballot. Gore was seeking additional recounts only of
undervotes. The only scenario by which Gore would have won Florida
would have involved recounts of "overvotes"--ballots which were
spoiled because the voter voted for more than one candidate (such as
by marking two names, or by punching out two chads). Most of the
overvotes which were recoverable were those on which the voter had
punched out a chad (or made a check mark) and had also written the
candidate's name on the write-in line. Gore's lawsuits never sought a
recount of overvotes, so even if the Supreme Court had allowed a
Florida recount to continue past the legal deadline, Bush still would
have won the additional recount which Gore sought.
A separate study conducted by a newspaper consortium including the New
York Times and Wall Street Journal found that if there had been a
statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes, Gore would have won
under seven different standards. However, if there had been partial
recounts under any of the various recounts sought by Gore or ordered
by the Florida Supreme Court, Bush would have won under every
scenario.
A very interesting web widget published by the New York Times allows
readers to crunch the data any way they want: what standards for
counting ballots, whose counting system to apply, and how to treat
overvotes. It's certainly possible under some of the variable
scenarios to produce a Gore victory. But it's undeniably dishonest for
Fahrenheit to assert that Gore would win under any scenario.
Moore amplifies the deceit with a montage of newspaper headlines,
purporting to show that Gore really won. One article shows a date of
December 19, 2001, with a large headline reading, "Latest Florida
recount shows Gore won Election." The article supposedly comes from
The Pantagraph, a daily newspaper in Bloomington, Illinois. But
actually, the headline is merely for a letter to the editor--not a
news article. The letter to the editor headline is significantly
enlarged to make it look like an article headline. The actual printed
letter looked nothing like the "article" Moore fabricated for the
film. The letter ran on December 5, not December 19. The Pantagraph
contacted Moore's office to ask for an explanation, but the office
refused to comment.
The Pantagraph's attorney sent Fahrenheit's distributor a letter
stating that Moore's use of the faked headline and story was
"unauthorized" and "misleading" and a" misrepresentation of facts."
The letter states that Moore infringed the copyright of The
Pantagraph, and asks for an apology, a correction, and an explanation.
The letters asks Moore to "correct the inaccurate information which
has been depicted in your film." Moore's law firm wrote back and
claimed that there was nothing "misleading" about the fabricated
headline.
Richard Soderlund, an Illinois State University history professor, who
wrote the letter to the editor that The Pantagraph published, told the
Chicago Tribune, "It's misrepresenting a document. It's at odds with
history."
[Moore response: Cites articles consistent with my explanation. Fails
to acknowledge that the only scenarios for a Gore victory involved
recounting methods which Gore never requested in his lawsuits. To tell
viewers that Gore would have won "under every scenario" is absurd. No
explanation for The Pantagaph fraud.]
Florida Purge of Convicted Felons from Voter Rolls
Deceit 4
According to Fahrenheit, Bush cronies hired Data Base Technologies to
purge Florida voters who might vote for Gore, and these potential
voters were purged from the voting rolls on the basis of race.
("Second, make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote
count woman. And that her state has hired a company that's gonna knock
voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you. You can
usually tell 'em by the color of their skin.") As explained by the
Palm Beach Post, Moore's suggestion is extremely incomplete, and on at
least one fact, plainly false.
The 1998 mayoral election in Miami was a fiasco which was declared
void by Florida courts, because--in violation of Florida
law--convicted felons had been allowed to vote. The Florida
legislature ordered the executive branch to purge felons from the
voting rolls before the next election. Following instructions from
Florida officials, Data Base Technologies (DBT) aggressively attempted
to identify all convicted felons who were illegally registered to vote
in Florida.
There were two major problems with the purge. First, several states
allow felons to vote once they have completed their sentences. Some of
these ex-felons moved to Florida and were, according to a court
decision, eligible to vote. Florida improperly purged these immigrant
felons.
Second, the comprehensive effort to identify all convicted felons led
to a large number of false positives, in which persons with, for
example, the same name as a convicted felon, were improperly purged.
Purged voters were, in most cases, notified months before the election
and given an opportunity to appeal, but the necessity to file an
appeal was in itself a barrier which probably discouraged some
legitimate, non-felon citizens from voting. According to the Palm
Beach Post, at least 1,100 people were improperly purged.
The overbreadth of the purge was well-known in Florida before the
election. As a result, election officials in 20 of Florida's counties
ignored the purge list entirely. In these counties, convicted felons
were allowed to vote. Also according to the Post, thousands of felons
were improperly allowed to vote in the 20 non-purging counties.
Analysis by Abigail Thernstrom and Russell G. Redenbaugh, dissenting
from a report by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, suggests that about
5,600 felons voted illegally in Florida. (The Thernstrom/Redenbaugh
dissent explains why little credit should be given to the majority
report, which was produced by flagrantly ignoring data.)
When allowed to vote, felons vote approximately 69 percent Democratic,
according to a study in the American Sociological Review. Therefore,
if the thousands of felons in the non-purging 20 counties had not been
illegally allowed to vote, it is likely that Bush's statewide margin
would have been substantially larger.
Regardless, Moore's suggestion that the purge was conducted on the
basis of race was indisputably false. As the Palm Beach Post details,
all the evidence shows that Data Base Technologies did not use race as
a basis for the purge. Indeed, DBT's refusal to take note of a
registered voter's race was one of the reasons for the many cases of
mistaken identity.
DBT's computers had matched these people with felons, though in
dozens of cases they did not share the same name, birthdate, gender or
race...[A] review of state records, internal e-mails of DBT employees
and testimony before the civil rights commission and an elections task
force showed no evidence that minorities were specifically targeted.
Records show that DBT told the state it would not use race as a
criterion to identify felons. The list itself bears that out: More
than 1,000 voters were matched with felons though they were of
different races.
The appeals record supports the Palm Beach Post's findings. Based on
the numbers of successful appeals, blacks were less likely to have
been improperly placed on the purge list: of the blacks who were
purged, 5.1 percent successfully appealed. Of Hispanics purged, 8.7
percent successfully appealed. Of whites purged, 9.9 percent
successfully appealed. John R. Lott, Jr., "Nonvoted Ballots and
Discrimination in Florida," Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 32 (Jan.
2003), p. 209. Of course it is theoretically possible that the appeals
officials discriminated against blacks, or that improperly purged
blacks were not as likely to appeal as were people of other races. But
no one has offered any evidence to support such possibilities.
[Moore response: Cites various articles about the felon purge. Offers
no evidence to support the claim that voters were targeted on the
basis of race.]
Bush Presidency before September 11
Deceit 5
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.]
Len Tropy
<"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cox.net> wrote:
>Moore made errors?
many!
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
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.]
Len Tropy
<lesliese...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Perhaps the critics think all the video footage was computer generated.
>Here I thought it was real....
Yer a fucking MORON!
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
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.]
mrmcafee(nospam)
Larry in AZ wrote:
> Waiving the right to remain silent, "mrmcafee(nospam)" <"mrmcafee
> (nospam)"@cox.net> said:
>
>
>>That's your "proof"? An opinion piece that doesn't even bother to refute
>>one fact presented in Moore's film? This represents your standard of
>>proof? No wonder you are a right winger!
>
>
> And you give us Moore's site.
>
> Bwahahaha..!
If you had looked, you would have noticed that Moore supports each and
every fact his film presented.
Now, let's see you try again.
The Great Infidel
>
>
> Larry in AZ wrote:
>
>> Waiving the right to remain silent, "mrmcafee(nospam)" <"mrmcafee
>> (nospam)"@cox.net> said:
>>
>>
>>> The alternative to to air a pack of lies and half truths. We can
>>> guess what you prefer.
>>
>>
>> The lefties didn't utter a peep about fat slob Michael Moores hatchet
>> job, other than to give him an Oscar.
>
> And Moore's film was in error just where?
>
>>
>> Frauds...
>>
>
it a film in the fiction category. I'll bet you are really moved and
motivated when you watch the Ninja turtle cartoons.
The Great Infidel
The Great Infidel
some money. They'll mail you repayment.
The Great Infidel
>
>
> Larry in AZ wrote:
>> Waiving the right to remain silent, "mrmcafee(nospam)" <"mrmcafee
>> (nospam)"@cox.net> said:
>>
>>
>>> That's your "proof"? An opinion piece that doesn't even bother to
>>> refute one fact presented in Moore's film? This represents your
>>> standard of proof? No wonder you are a right winger!
>>
>>
>> And you give us Moore's site.
>>
>> Bwahahaha..!
>
> If you had looked, you would have noticed that Moore supports each and
> every fact his film presented.
>
> Now, let's see you try again.
>
So do you support it, which means nothing other than you are gullible
and want to be deceived. How much money did you send the Nigerian
Ambassador?
marika
Len Tropy wrote:
>
> Saddam's Threats
>
Today's instructions from the judge
" quack, quack, quack"...
mk5000
'ya smile so pretty n ya face so clean
n y'ean evn had ta do da make up thing
yo hair do right
dem bootz iz tight'--tell em what they want to hear, rashad
Len Tropy
<"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cox.net> wrote:
>That's your "proof"?
Len Tropy
<"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cox.net> wrote:
>Moore supports each and
>every fact his film presented.
>
>Now, let's see you try again.
Len Tropy
>" quack, quack, quack"...
Nah, you ain't replacing the AFLAC duck any time soon.
Lester Mosley
I did not know Ben Afflack had already started in Howard the Duck II
marika
he was on buffy the vampire slayer on yesterday''s episode. howard not
ben
what did giles mean on Buffy when he said
should i be occidental or should i just glare
mk5000
"(Most of the Pennsylvania-
Delaware boundary is the limit of this circle.) South of this circle,
the NJ/Delaware boundary reverts to the middle of the river. However,
there is an area called Artificial Island, where someone's nuclear
power station is. "--m greene
'
Seth Hammond
--
-Seth
"mrmcafee(nospam)" <"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cox.net> wrote in message
news:gMHMg.9129$c07.3477@fed1read04...
Excuse me, but am I mistaken in believing Moore's documentaries always
feature footage and sound of people's speech? If that's the case, how can
the films be considered lies?
I saw only his first one where he pestered General Motors. He seemed a
horse's ass, but I saw no sign of lying. Am I missing something?
mrmcafee(nospam)
The Great Infidel wrote:
No citations. No creditable debate. Typical. BTW, I was more of a "Rocky
and Bullwinkle" fan. There was something about Natasha...
mrmcafee(nospam)
The Great Infidel wrote:
Is this the best you can do?
Len Tropy
<lester...@gmail.com> wrote:
Think Leah Thompson will reprise the crinkle hairdo?
Seth Hammond
--
-Seth
"The Great Infidel" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
news:h8LMg.3422$8J2.2376@fed1read11...
Yo mama wouldn't let me. She has insatiable appetites, plus she needed
another two bits....
marika
Len Tropy wrote:
>
> Think Leah Thompson will reprise the crinkle hairdo?
yeah the blond chick
probably
i would like to see her in a movie where she plays scarlett johannson's
mom
they really favor one another.
i just saw love song for bobby long with scarlett and travolta.
she would have been perfect for flashbacks as a long passed folk rocker
mk5000
'Queen Bee wanna rock the party
Uh, uh, oh (Oh my God)
Yeah (Benzino where you at?)
(Bounce) Yellow City gonna rock the party'-- Petey Pablo
The Rock The Party Remix Lyrics
The Big Infidel
the fat slob and it was hailed as a fiction movie. Not a documentary.
Natasha? You're in the same league as Sanders Kaufman.
The Big Infidel
The Big Infidel
Len Tropy
<lesliese...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Excuse me, but am I mistaken in believing Moore's documentaries always
>feature footage and sound of people's speech? If that's the case, how can
>the films be considered lies?
Are you a fucking jackass Piece of SHIT???
It's called cut and paste and misrepresent!
You scumhole bastard liberal .
Len Tropy
<"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cox.net> wrote:
>No citations. No creditable debate. Typical.
Of you anyway, scummer.
Len Tropy
<"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cox.net> wrote:
>Is this the best you can do?
Have you ever done one positive thing in your whole worthless life?
Siva
>
>
> Larry in AZ wrote:
>> Waiving the right to remain silent, "mrmcafee(nospam)"
>> <"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cox.net> said:
>>
>>> Larry in AZ wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Waiving the right to remain silent, "mrmcafee(nospam)" <"mrmcafee
>>>> (nospam)"@cox.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> guess what you prefer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The lefties didn't utter a peep about fat slob Michael Moores hatchet
>>>> job, other than to give him an Oscar.
>>>
>>> Moore made errors? Here. Here is a link to the facts presented by
>>> Moore in Fahrenheit 911
>>> http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16
>>> Please back up your lip and point out the errors (be sure to include
>>> creditable proof).
>>
>>
>> http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/
>
> one fact presented in Moore's film? This represents your standard of
> proof? No wonder you are a right winger!
>
>
>>
>
Let me just clarify this once and for all. F-9/11 was not *intended* to
be a detailed documentary of anything. It *was* factual, but it
selectively omitted specific facts and included biased, emotionally
charged editorialism because it was created as a form of propoganda.
Moore never intended to make just a plain boring documentary. He
intended the film to make bush look unpopular to the point where he
would lose the election, and it appears he failed in that quest.
However, 6 years after bush took office, the tenacious rebel fighters in
Iraq have completed the job that Moore failed at, and bush's poll
ratings are proof of that.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Warning: Do not use Ultimate-Anonymity
They are worthless spammers that are running a scam.
Larry in AZ
> Let me just clarify this once and for all. F-9/11 was not *intended* to
> be a detailed documentary of anything. It *was* factual, but it
> selectively omitted specific facts and included biased, emotionally
> charged editorialism because it was created as a form of propoganda.
> Moore never intended to make just a plain boring documentary. He
> intended the film to make bush look unpopular to the point where he
> would lose the election, and it appears he failed in that quest.
> However, 6 years after bush took office, the tenacious rebel fighters in
> Iraq have completed the job that Moore failed at, and bush's poll
> ratings are proof of that.
Your poll ratings suck shit, and you're still here...
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
"I've come here to enjoy nature. Don't talk to me
about the environment!" - 'Denny Crane'
mrmcafee(nospam)
If you had looked you might have noticed that Moore included references
to events that backed up his facts. Kinda like footnotes. It is not only
the best that I can do, it is completely adequate for the purpose. Now
about your rebuttal... or lack there of.
mrmcafee(nospam)
Siva wrote:
This being the case does not detract from the truth that Moore presented
in the film.
Len Tropy
<"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cox.net> wrote:
>If you had looked you might have noticed that Moore included references
>to events that backed up his facts.
But not his cut and paste sequence.
Len Tropy
<"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cox.net> wrote:
> the truth that Moore presented
Was cut an pasted together OUT of sequence to present a lie.
Seth Hammond
--
-Seth
"Len Tropy" <m...@men.tum> wrote in message
news:njd9g2p0rs97gn2tg...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:51:42 -0700, "Seth Hammond"
> <lesliese...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Excuse me, but am I mistaken in believing Moore's documentaries always
>>feature footage and sound of people's speech? If that's the case, how can
>>the films be considered lies?
>
> Are you a fucking jackass Piece of SHIT???
No, not that I know of....
>
> It's called cut and paste and misrepresent!
Cut & paste I know. I don't know how it relates to videos. Could you
explain that for me?
Are you misrepresenting by any chance?
>
> Yours,
> scumhole bastard liberal .
I fixed yer sig. No charge this time....
transporter
>>> Excuse me, but am I mistaken in believing Moore's documentaries always
>>> >>feature footage and sound of people's speech? If that's the case, how can
>>> >>the films be considered lies?
>> >
>> > Are you a fucking jackass Piece of SHIT???
>
> No, not that I know of....
Oh well, then now you do!
>> > It's called cut and paste and misrepresent!
>
> Cut & paste I know. I don't know how it relates to videos. Could you
> explain that for me?
Sure, it's called film and video editing to purpose, not fact.
> Are you misrepresenting by any chance?
Nope.
>> >
>> > Yours,
>
>> > scumhole bastard liberal .
>
> I fixed yer sig.
Keep it, it fits you to a t.