TK, Grandpa and PP, I'm sure that the anticipation of this movie's release is just killing you, but don't forget, its not too late to get your tickets.....


Michael Moore

I'm looking forward to it actually. Sounds like it will go over like a lead balloon and I look forward to watching it crumble.

Even most in the liberal press are hating it:

MSN Slate:
"fighting words A wartime lexicon.


Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT



Moore: Trying to have it three ways

One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.

Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery."


"Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet. "

Full article:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

"The company distributing filmmaker Michael Moore's Bush-bashing movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" says it won't reject an offer of help from Middle East terrorist organization Hezbollah. "

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39079

Michael Moore VS Richard Clarke??


By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
June 01, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - One of the central charges made by left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore in his upcoming, Bush-bashing film is being undermined by another critic of the president -- former White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke.

Moore's upcoming film, Fahrenheit 911, points to President Bush's rumored relationship with Saudi officials as the motivating factor in the president allegedly allowing relatives of terror mastermind Osama bin Laden to fly out of the country following the Sept.11, 2001 terror attacks.

But Clarke recently admitted that he alone approved the exit of the bin Laden kin -- damaging the key premise of Moore's film.

Chris Horner, a GOP strategist, finds irony in the fact that the credibility of Moore's film is being undermined by one of Bush's biggest critics even before the film is released in the United States.

"When self-promoting, Bush-hating conspiracy theorists collide," Horner said of Moore and Clarke.

"One self-promoting, Bush-hating conspiracy theorist (Clarke) proves the undoing of another Bush-hating conspiracy theorist (Moore)," Horner told CNSNews.com.

Moore has alleged in interviews promoting the film that Bush and his father, former president George H.W. Bush, had close ties to the Saudis, which led to the decision to help bin Laden's family leave the country following the terrorist attacks.

Clarke's sworn testimony before the 9/11 Commission in March, describing how the FBI approved the flights for the bin Ladens and other Saudis to leave the U.S., may have strengthened that premise. But Clarke's interview with The Hill newspaper, published on May 26, contradicted that previous testimony.

The decision to approve the flights, Clarke admitted last week, had been his own. The request "didn't get any higher than me," he told The Hill .

"On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn't get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI," Clarke said of the plane flight carrying bin Laden's relatives.

"I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I'd do it again," he added. The Saudis and bin Laden's relatives were flown from the U.S. out of fear for their safety following the terror attacks.

Clarke turned against the Bush administration and became a darling of the left earlier this year when he criticized the government's anti-terror policies. His book Against All Enemies : Inside America's War on Terror , detailed his frustrations working in the administration, and news clips of Clarke appear in Moore's documentary, according to film critics who have screened the movie.

But Moore's film relies in part on Clarke's original comments, the ones he has now contradicted.

According to a movie review by the BBC, one of the film's "chief accusations is Bush allowed planes to pick up 24 members of the bin Laden family and fly them out of the U.S. in the days following the attacks - when all other aircraft were grounded."

The BBC review states that the movie explores "the relationships between the Bush and bin Laden dynasties."

Fahrenheit 911 received a 10-minute standing ovation and the top award at the Cannes Film Festival in France in May. It is expected that the film will be released in the U.S. in July.

While promoting the documentary, Moore has not been shy in linking Bush's alleged "relationship" with the bin Laden family to the flight that took the bin Ladens and other Saudis from the U.S. following Sept. 11, 2001.

"So here is Bush trying to deal with everything on Sept. 11, 12 13th, you know. You remember, everybody remembers the total state of chaos and people, just everyone, all of us, discombobulated by the whole thing, and he had the time to be thinking -- what can I do to help the bin Ladens right now," Moore told Pacifica radio last October.

"And all of these elaborate plans were made, because [the Saudis] were spread out throughout the country, to be able to pick them up, get them to Boston and then get them to Paris," Moore said.

"While we are being told that the hunt is on for Osama bin Laden, what is really going on is when you got 24 bin Ladens here, (a disputed number) you know, none of them are asked for any kind of help. None of them are interrogated, and they are given the royal red carpet treatment in the days after September 11th. My question is why? What is really going on here?" Moore asked.

But Horner believes Moore's film will eventually be discredited.

"In his rush to ensure that no credit goes un-annexed, Clarke exposes Moore's rant as based on paranoia and the presumptions common among fever-swamp liberals that never survive the slightest encounter with facts," he said.

Horner sees Clarke's admission and its impact on the credibility of Fahrenheit 9/11 as just the latest setback for what he calls the "conspiratorial left" in the past year.

"First [former Democratic presidential candidate] Howard Dean implodes in a fury. Then Clarke bombs, and then the [Al] Franken/[Al] Gore political MoveOn-ment (MoveOn.org) lashes itself to the hilariously hapless [global warming disaster film] The Day After Tomorrow . And then there is the collective failure of [the liberal] Air America radio," Horner explained.

"Now Moore's movie's premises are revealed to be nothing more than huffing liberal anger. Every weapon in the pacifist arsenal has proven, fittingly, a dud," Horner charged.

His work is mildly entertaining. Only the severe whacko's take it serious. It is so full of holes and leading conclusions according to the reviews.

Love it or hate it PP, my money says it'll be the blockbuster of the summer, if for no other reason than the brilliantly controversial marketing strategy used to drum up hype for the film.

Liberals will go to cheer it on, Conservatives will go just to see how contentious it really is.

Documentary, Mockumentary, Op-Ed film... whatever you want to call it, if it's as good as "Bowling for Columbine", look for a sequel.

What a slimeball!

He capitalized on the job loses in Flint, MI when the GM shut down.

He capitalized on the dead children at Columbine.

And now on 911

If lies and mistated facts can be considered good.

Obviously you haven't even seen "Roger and Me" or "Bowling for Columbine" eh slappy?

p.s. I mean good in an entertainment sense King... more so than an actual un-biased account of history. It's no secret where Moore's political affiliations lie, but if you can get past all of that, he actually makes some pretty good movies.

watched as much of both as I could stomach

Mel Gibson capitalized on the persecution, torture, and death of Jesus. What a slimeball. :rolleyes:

"my money says it'll be the blockbuster of the summer"

I'll take that bet.

I bet these movies smoke it:
Spiderman 2
The Village
The Manchurian Candidate
I,Robot
Shrek 2
... and plenty others...

I doubt it will even be in the top 10.

"Mel Gibson capitalized on the persecution, torture, and death of Jesus. What a slimeball. "

LOL. Comparing moore to gibson is a crazy stretch of the imagination. Comparing the 2 films is even a bigger stretch, but one that I was expecting to see sooner or later...

Moore's movie is targeted AT somebody in a very nasty and political way. Nobody is knocking capitilasim and the ability to make a few bucks (or millions) from a well made and\or well hyped movie.

Besides, you left out the most important part of Mel's movie - the Resurection. Sure, it only got a few seconds of screen time, but without those few seconds, the point of the entire movie is lost.

Essentially, Gibson was promoting his religious beliefs via a graphic and 'artistic' depiction of a well known event. Moore is promoting his political agenda via a personal and political smear campaign.

Anyway, I'm sure many people will see it, but I really doubt it will come close to 'block buster' status as did the "Passion of Christ" or many of the other great flics coming out this summer...

You missed my point, or rather tried to embellish the hell out of it.

Two men used historical events on which to base a documentary from which they profited. Simple.

"Two men used historical events on which to base a documentary from which they profited. Simple."

LOL. Give me a break...

Neither was a documentary by a long shot. Mel's was a movie - a historically based drama.

Moore's was a mockumentary - or maybe even a new genre called something like "political activism".

I haven't seen the movie and am not endorsing or critiquing it yet (don't know how some of you have such a strong opinion when it hasn't even been released yet), but it appears to me, for better or for worse--based on Moores comments and interviews regarding the movies release, that Moore is trying to carry the mail for the liberal left and even leveling the playing field a bit from the right wing attack dogs who looked in every corner of Clinton's life in order to smear him and used tax payer $$$'s to do it. Granted, Clinton left quite a few corners to peak under, but this is nothing short of payback. He has admitted that this movie is not an objective documentary, but rather a politically motivated movie to serve the cause of removing this president.

The slate article above gives another view as to why this 'work' is not a documentary and why moore is clearly just a slime ball as noted above:

"So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage."

Those unwilling to do the work to reasearch the facts or devlop an informed opinion will love it much like they did Bowling . Moores dilevery is engaging and his storytelling ability is there. Do a little work to peel the layers and you find all the mistakes half truths etc. Most Americans are too lazy and it easy to accept it as fact or out right deny it has any merit. But hey Leo Dicaprio liked it and fully supports it's conclusions that has to account for something as he is as deep as a teaspoon of water.

Kinda like the press and 65% of Americans buying into Bush's assertions that Iraq was behind 9/11.....

Refresh my memory, please

For those of you that hate openly Christian President Bush along with capitalism and are easily manipulated by Michael Moore's pablum--you'll love Fahrenheit 9/11--the rest of us are smart enough to recognize it for the pornography that it is.

For those of you who are unaware about what Mr. Moore thinks about America and capitalism and wonder what his motive are--

Keep in mind that in referring to the United States and her form Government and economic system self proclaimed Socialist Michael Moore said in his in his 1998 movie The Big One,

"one evil empire down--one to go." --MM


Patriotic Sportsmen for Bush '04


-----------------------------------------------------------


"Kiss my a$$--I'm an American."--Ted Nugent '99

He will most likely not keep any of his evil capitalistic profits for himself

Neocons. So damn predictable.

Apologize, excuse, spin, wheeeeeeeee ...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by goharley:


"Neocons. So damn predictable.

Apologize, excuse, spin, wheeeeeeeee ..." --GH
------------------------------------------------------------


Isn't there anything on the Lifetime Network you could be watching?


.

Harley I wasn't going to comment on this idiotic thing until your last post.....so predictable....What? Of course! and You are too. I bet you applauded the Michael Moore movie before even hearing about it since you could "predict" that it would bash Bush and bash America and bash capitalism and laud terrorism and celebrate killing of Americans....etc etc....This has nothing to do with Neocons...helllooooo.... Michael Moore is a hero to some like you and a fool to some like me. He is self absorbed and gives himself way too much credit. He is right up there with Al Franken on my list of entertainers who are not entertaining at all. They are both their own biggest fans.

Just goes to show that it is the view of the world that we have. To your crowd Michael Moore is an icon. To me Michael Moore is a representative of everything that is wrong with the left in our country...everything that is ugly and wrong. Michael Moore and his followers seem to me to be one of the causes for the spread of terrorism. He encourages it. He wants the America that the majority of its inhabitants want and cherish to come crashing down in flames. Out of the ashes he and his followers seem to want a system that many hundreds of thousands of American soldiers have died to overcome and overthrow. That view of the world is repulsive to me as is Michael Moore.

I can honestly say I cannot find a way to understand those who advocate garbage propaganda like this as I cannot find it in my heart to understand the philosophy of the left. Predictable? of course....Right? I think so.

Amazing. :rolleyes:

I make a couple of off-handed posts and now I'm a huge Moore fan.

I borrowed the "predictable" line from your archives, GP2.

I've never seen a Moore film. Didn't even know who he was until he won that Academy Award. I doubt I'll even go see this flick. I don't make enough to go to theaters anyway. Videos are in my price range.

Why are you guys getting so emotionally involved about this guy? He's simply an American exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. And he's making money doing it - entrepeneurship. Isn't that what Reagan advocated? Since he's producing a product, selling it to the public, and increasing cash flow throughout the economy, I wonder how he does feel about capitalism?

So what if he attempts to bash Bush. The intelligent and informed can separate the fact and fiction. I mean, it's not like the ditto-heads are going to be watching it.

GP,

I'd rate Michael Moore by his actions rather than by anything he says. It appears that he's found a way to editorialize his opinion at a profit to himself. That doesn't look to me like someone who hates capitalism. I don't doubt that he hates Bush, but looking at his movie success, I doubt he hates capitalism; it's making him rich.

You disagree with his opinions, but it looks like he's behaving according to your values. He develops a product and markets it to willing buyers, and makes a profit for himself. Isn't that what you do? Isn't that what you would have all those welfare leeches do? Or is it only OK if you approve of the product they make and market?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo and GH - so you like the idea of "the ends justifies the means"?

Making a profit is no crime for sure. But there is something to the 'how' you make that money in my book. I think that is the part about mm we don't care for.

MM is like Jerry Springer. He has an audience, he makes money, and to some, could be considered 'successful'. But they are nothing but classless dirt bags....

I'll watch it and draw my own conclusions. I've had the same suspicions that the movie supposedly tries to create so we'll see where it goes. Since I trust Richard Clarke fairly implicitly I'll be researchiong his comments to juxtapose against those points the movie tries to make.

But, since I enforce a self-imposed boycott of movie theatres....I'll wait til it hits the DVD market.

"I'll wait til it hits the DVD market."

Shouldn't be a long wait...

Gee, grandpa...........looks like you and MM have the same relationship with the truth.

I would get it on DVD if I could figure out how to wipe my butt with it! Do you think Blockbuster would be offended when I returned it?

Phreak,

No. Absolutely, I don't believe the ends justify the means. I don't agree with the means a lot of people use to make money, but if it's legal there's not much I can do about it except not buy the product. I don't like the way Enron made money, or several other major Republican contributors, for example.

I have no idea whether Moore is a dirtbag or not. I don't have enough information to inform that opinion. And the information I glean from this forum doesn't meet the threshold test for reliability.

It appears Moore thinks Bush is the dirtbag, and he'll probably make a lot of money with his editorial film. I have a low opinion of Bush, and I'm not going to make a dime from my opinion.

The only Moore movie I've seen was the Bowling for Columbine on video. That wasn't a documentary, either. It was editorial. But nonetheless, I thought it was interesting, and a couple parts were really entertaining, and then there were the school shootings. He didn't really tie it all together, in my opinion, but he offered food for thought. If that was his intention, he was successful. I'll probably go see this movie, since Bush bashing can be so very entertaining - and I expect to see and hear truths, half-truths, and outright lies.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

If Moore gets people to the polls, regardless of their party affiliation, then he will likely have done more than all this poop-flinging we do here on this BB.

I always find criticism of a movie before it's released kinda funny..........they were calling The Passion of the Christ anti-semitic before it was released..........and by "they" I don't mean movie critics that had seen advanced screenings, I'm talking the self-appointed critics who hadn't.

Funny stuff, that.

Well GH I am a Moore fan! Seen all his movies and read most of his books.
Funny that his films get awards and are critically acclaimed isn't it.
Moore stands behind everything he says, films and writes.
What is also funny is that the same people who religiously follow Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh and others are so offended by what Moore does.
I will definately be attending his movie! Most people that bash Moore have never seen any of his work. They take their opinion from what others tell them
I've taken the time to at least read and listen to what the righties have to say before slamming them.

I honestly don't know anything about Moore other than what I've read by critics, and I haven't seen any of this movies.

However, my impression is that he's the opposite end of the spectrum from Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, et al.

If for no other reason the nation needs him for a sense of balance against the far radical right ditto-heads mentioned above.

Good point, Stew, about his work receiving awards and acclaim. I haven't noticed those mentioned above on any awards stage. I wonder how many times Moore's been through re-hab and divorce?

Here is the most current news on the movie. For Bush supporters things don't look good and for the rest of the world there is a new dawn.
June 20th, 2004 2:00 pm
The New York Times: Will Michael Moore's Facts Check Out?


By PHILIP SHENON / The New York Times


Michael Moore is not coy about his hopes for "Fahrenheit 9/11," his blistering documentary attack on President Bush and the war in Iraq. He wants it to be remembered as the first big-audience, election-year film that helped unseat a president.

"And it's not just a hope," the Oscar-winning filmmaker said in a phone interview last week, describing focus groups in Michigan in April at which, after seeing the movie, previously undecided voters expressed eagerness to defeat Mr. Bush. "We found that if you entered the theater on the fence, you fell off it somewhere during those two hours," he said. "It ignites a fire in people who had given up."

The movie's indictment of the president is nothing if not sprawling. Mr. Moore suggests that Mr. Bush and his administration jeopardized national security in an effort to placate Bush family cronies in Saudi Arabia, that the White House helped members of Mr. bin Laden's family to flee the United States after Sept. 11 and that the administration manipulated terrorism alert levels in order to scare Americans into supporting the invasion of Iraq.

Mr. Moore's previous films generated a cottage industry of conservative commentators eager to prove sloppiness and exaggeration in his films; a handful of mainstream critics have also found flaws. But if "Fahrenheit 9/11" attracts the audience Mr. Moore and his distributors are predicting, Mr. Moore may face an onslaught of fact-checking unlike anything he ? or any other documentary filmmaker ? has ever experienced. After all, White House officials and the Bush family began impugning the film even before any of them had seen it.

"Outrageously false," said Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, last month when told about the film's assertion of a sinister connection between Mr. Bush and the family of Osama bin Laden. The former president George H. W. Bush was quoted in The New York Daily News calling Mr. Moore a "slime ball" and describing the documentary as "a vicious personal attack on our son."

So how will Mr. Moore's movie stand up under close examination? Is the film's depiction of Mr. Bush as a lazy and duplicitous leader, blinded by his family's financial ties to Arab moneymen and the Saudi Arabian royal family, true to fact?

Mr. Moore and his distributors have refused to circulate copies of the film and its script before the film's release this Friday; his production team said that as of last Wednesday, there was no final script because the film was still undergoing minor editing ? for clarity, they said, not accuracy.

After a year spent covering the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, I was recently allowed to attend a Hollywood screening. Based on that single viewing, and after separating out what is clearly presented as Mr. Moore's opinion from what is stated as fact, it seems safe to say that central assertions of fact in "Fahrenheit 9/11" are supported by the public record (indeed, many of them will be familiar to those who have closely followed Mr. Bush's political career).

Mr. Moore is on firm ground in arguing that the Bushes, like many prominent Texas families with oil interests, have profited handsomely from their relationships with prominent Saudis, including members of the royal family and of the large and fabulously wealthy bin Laden clan, which has insisted it long ago disowned Osama. Mr. Moore spends several minutes in the film documenting ties between the president and James R. Bath, a financial advisor to a prominent member of the bin Laden family who was an original investor in Mr. Bush's Arbusto energy company and who served with the future president in the Air National Guard in the early 1970's. The Bath friendship, which indirectly links Mr. Bush to the family of the world's most notorious terrorist, has received less attention from national news organization than it has from reporters in Texas, but it has been well documented.

Mr. Moore charges that President Bush and his aides paid too little attention to warnings in the summer of 2001 that Al Qaeda was about to attack, including a detailed Aug. 6, 2001, C.I.A. briefing that warned of terrorism within the country's borders. In its final report next month, the Sept. 11 commission can be expected to offer support to this assertion. Mr. Moore says that instead of focusing on Al Qaeda, the president spent 42 percent of his first eight months in office on vacation; the figure came not from a conspiracy-hungry Web site but from a calculation by The Washington Post.

The most valid criticisms of the film are likely to involve the artful way that Mr. Moore connects the facts, and whether he has left out others that might undermine his scalding attack. A great many statistics fly by in the movie ? such as assertions that 6 percent to 7 percent of the United States is owned by Saudi Arabians, and that Saudi companies have paid more than $1.4 billion to Bush family interests. But Mr. Moore doesn't explain how he arrived at them, or what these vague interests comprise. Mr. Moore and his team say they have news reports and other evidence to back up the numbers and that it will be posted on his Web site (www.michaelmoore.com) after the film's release.

Mr. Moore may also be criticized for the way he portrays the evacuation of the extended bin Laden family from the United States after Sept. 11. As the Sept. 11 commission has found, the Saudi government was able to pull strings at senior levels of the Bush administration to help the bin Ladens leave the United States. But while the film clearly suggests that the flights occurred at a time when all air traffic was grounded immediately after the attacks ("Even Ricky Martin couldn't fly," Mr. Moore says over video of the singer wandering in an airport lobby), the Sept. 11 commission said in a report this April that there was "no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace" and that the F.B.I. had concluded that no one aboard the flights was involved in Sept. 11.

In conversation, Mr. Moore defended the scene, saying his goal was to show how the White House was eager to bend and break the rules for Saudi friends ? in this case, the extended family of the terrorist who had just brought down the twin towers and attacked the Pentagon. And as reporters have found, the White House still refuses to document fully how the flights were arranged.

"I don't want to get lost in the forest because of a single tree," Mr. Moore said. "The main point I want people to go away with is that these people got special treatment because they were bin Ladens or Saudi royals, and you and I would never have been given that treatment."

Mr. Moore may also have to defend his portrayal of Mr. Bush's presidency as sinking prior to Sept. 11, citing an inability to win support for his legislation. But he fails to mention that in May, Congress agreed to Mr. Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut, the centerpiece of his legislative agenda. Mr. Moore said that his review of news coverage before Sept. 11 shows that, with or without the tax cut, the Bush presidency was floundering before the terrorist attacks. Mr. Moore said, "I've read what other people wrote and said at the time, and he was definitely on the ropes."

Mr. Moore usually revels in his role as the target of conservative attacks, and his delight in playing the mischievous, little-guy bomb-thrower has brought him fame, wealth and the devotion of fans more interested in rhetorical force than precision. But with "Fahrenheit" he has taken on his biggest and best-defended target yet, and his production staff says that on his orders they have taken no chances in checking and double-checking the film, knowing Bush supporters would pounce on factual mistakes.

Mr. Moore is readying for a conservative counterattack, saying he has created a political-style "war room" to offer an instant response to any assault on the film's credibility. He has retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of "oppo," or opposition research, used to discredit detractors. He also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine's legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film. And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation.

"We want the word out," says Mr. Moore, who says he should have responded more quickly to allegations of inaccuracy in his Oscar-winning 2002 anti-gun documentary, "Bowling for Columbine." "Any attempts to libel me will be met by force," he said, not an ounce of humor in his familiar voice. "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court."

As proof of its scrupulousness, the Moore team cites adjustments it made to the film's portrayal of Attorney General John Ashcroft. The film is brutal to Mr. Ashcroft, depicting him as a glassy-eyed architect of efforts to shred the Constitution, who became Attorney General only after he proved himself so unpopular in his home state of Missouri that he lost a Senate race to a former Democratic governor who died in a plane crash a month before election day. "Voters preferred the dead guy," Mr. Moore deadpans in the film, a line that drew belly laughs at recent preview screenings. (In reality, voters knew they were in effect casting ballots for the governor's widow).

An earlier version of the film, however, included a reference to a widely circulated charge, broadcast by CBS News in July 2001, that Mr. Ashcroft had received warning of threats and stopped flying on commercial airlines. Tia Lessin, supervising producer of "Fahrenheit 9/11," said the reference to the CBS report was cut after Mr. Moore's fact-checking team found evidence that Mr. Ashcroft had flown commercially at least twice that summer.

"We have gone through every single word of this film ? literally every word ? and verified its accuracy," said Joanne Doroshow, a public interest lawyer and filmmaker who shared in a 1993 Oscar for documentaries and who joined the fact-checking effort last month. Ms. Doroshow is responsible for preparing what she calls a "fact-checking bible," with material ranging from newspaper and magazine articles to copies of the Federal Register, that will allow the film's lawyers and publicists to provide backup for its allegations.

That said, Mr. Moore's fact-checkers does not view the film as straight reportage. "This is an Op-Ed piece, it's not a news report," said Dev Chatillon, the former general counsel for The New Yorker. "This is not The New York Times, it's not a network news report. The facts have to be right, yes, but this is an individual's view of current events. And I'm a very firm believer that it is within everybody's right to examine the actions of their government."

Besides, it may turn out that the most talked-about moments in the film are the least impeachable. Mr. Moore makes extensive use of obscure footage from White House and network-news video archives, including long scenes that capture President Bush at his least articulate. For the White House, the most devastating segment of "Fahrenheit 9/11" may be the video of a befuddled-looking President Bush staying put for nearly seven minutes at a Florida elementary school on the morning of Sept. 11, continuing to read a copy of "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren even after an aide has told him that a second plane has struck the twin towers. Mr. Bush's slow, hesitant reaction to the disastrous news has never been a secret. But seeing the actual footage, with the minutes ticking by, may prove more damaging to the White House than all the statistics in the world.

Micahel Moore director of
Fahrenheit 9/11
More Photos...
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Tops North American Box Office
Sunday June 27 11:30 AM PST

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Michael Moore's red-hot documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" earned more in its first three days of release across North America than his Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine" did in its entire run, the film's distributors said on Sunday.

"Fahrenheit 9/11," in which Moore takes aim at President Bush (news - web sites), and the war in Iraq (news - web sites), opened at No. 1 after selling about $21.8 million worth of tickets in the United States and Canada since June 25.

The film opened in two theaters in New York on Wednesday to help build even more media buzz before expanding to a relatively modest 868 theaters two days later. (In contrast, most of the other movies in the top five were playing in more than 2,500 theaters each.)

Including the sales from the head start in New York, the film's total stands at $21.96 million. Moore's previous movie, "Bowling for Columbine," grossed about $21.5 million during its nine-month run, during which it peaked at about 250 theaters, according to Moore.

"This is a testament to Michael Moore. His voice resonates across the country in what I think we can all now fairly describe as America's movie," said Tom Ortenberg, the president of distribution at Lions Gate (news - web sites) Films, which backed the movie.

He said in a conference call that the film played strongly in both Democrat and Republican states, even drawing sell-out crowds in Republican strongholds like Nassau County, New York and Fayetteville, N.C., home of Fort Bragg.

Lions Gate, a unit of Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., partnered on the film's distribution with IFC Films, a unit of Cablevision Systems Corp.'s Rainbow Media Holdings LLC, and Miramax co-chairmen Harvey and Bon Weinstein. The Weinsteins bought the movie's rights with their own money after Miramax parent Walt Disney Co. refused to let them release it under the Miramax banner.

The movie cost about $6 million to make, according to Moore. Additionally, the distributors spent less than $10 million -- a relatively modest sum -- to market the movie, said Ortenberg.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/...26/103545.shtml

Saturday, June 26, 2004 10:24 a.m. EDT

Moore: Americans are 'The Dumbest People on the Planet'

Americans currently flocking to see Michael Moore's movie "Farenheit 9/11" might be surprised to learn how little respect the Democratic Party's leading propaganda-meister has for them.

''They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet," Moore told Britain's Mirror newspaper recently, referring to his fellow citizens as a whole.

And that's not all Moore had to say about his brother Yanks across the pond. ''We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.'' Turns out, when the Democratic Party's all-but-official filmmaker is speaking at home, he has nice things to say about at least some of his fellow citizens. But according to New York Times columnist David Brooks, when Moore travels abroad it's not just the Bush administration he trashes - but the American people en-masse.

Here's a few more bon mots from the Kerry campaign's leading celluloid supporter, as cited by Mr. Brooks on Saturday:

''That's why we're smiling all the time,'' Moore told a rapturous throng in Munich. ''You can see us coming down the street. You know, 'Hey! Hi! How's it going?' We've got that big [expletive] grin on our face all the time because our brains aren't loaded down.''

To a crowd in Cambridge, Moore intoned: ''You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe.''

Here's Moore's reaction to the 9/11 attacks, offered while the rubble at Ground Zero was still smoldering: ''We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants.''

As for the terrorists currently killing American soldiers in Iraq, Moore compares them to Revolutionary war heroes who fought off British oppression:

''The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.''

Naw not all Americans are dumb...just the less than 50% that voted for Bush in 2000 :p

I agree with what Ed Says.


Koch: Moore's propaganda film cheapens debate, polarizes nation

By Ed Koch SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM Monday, June 28, 2004 It is shocking to me that Americans in a time of war, and we literally are at war with Americans being deliberately killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere by Islamic terrorists, will attack their own country, sapping its strength and making its enemies stronger. I am not a supporter of the xenophobic slogan “My country right or wrong.” But I do believe, when seeking to make it right if it is wrong, that none of us should endanger the country, our military personnel or our fellow citizens.

Disagreeing with America’s foreign policy and seeking to change it, responsibly or irresponsibly, is a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment. Shaming those who do it irresponsibly is our only lawful recourse and rightly so.

Senator John Kerry in criticizing United States’ foreign policy and the incumbent president is acting responsibly, albeit I disagree with many of his views. On the other hand, Michael Moore, writer and director of the film “Fahrenheit 9/11,” crosses that line regularly. The line is not set forth in the criminal statutes, but it is determined by Americans who know instinctively what actions and statements taken and uttered violate the obligations of responsibility and citizenship they deem applicable in time of war.

David Brooks, in a brilliant New York Times column on June 26, collected some of the statements that Michael Moore has been making in other countries which denigrate the U.S. and, in my opinion, cross the line. Brooks writes:

“Before a delighted Cambridge crowd, Moore reflected on the tragedy of human existence: ‘You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe.’ In Liverpool, he paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern world: ‘It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton…We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants...Don't be like us,’ he told a crowd in Berlin. ‘You've got to stand up, right? You've got to be brave.’ In an open letter to the German people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, ‘Should such an ignorant people lead the world?’ In an interview with a Japanese newspaper, Moore helped citizens of that country understand why the United States went to war in Iraq: ‘The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich.’ But venality doesn't come up when he writes about those who are killing Americans in Iraq: ‘The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.’ Until then, few social observers had made the connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Paul Revere.”

Undoubtedly, too long a quote, but there is no substitute for the original. 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, writer and director of the award-winning documentary “Roger & Me.” 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 lightening than die from an act of terror.” I was aghast and responded, “I think what you have said is outrageous, particularly when we are today commemorating the deaths of 3,000 people resulting 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.”

Many in the audience assembled by the BBC included Americans and people from other nations. Their positive responses to Moore on this and other comments he made during the program convinced me that the producers had found a lair of dingbats when looking to fill the studio with an audience. Moore later called President Bush a “dummy,” denigrating him for having threatened Iraq with consequences including war if it did not comply with the United Nations resolutions to which it agreed when it was defeated in the 1991 Gulf War. Again, I couldn’t contain myself and said, “That’s what you radicals on the left always do. You don’t debate issues, you denigrate your opponents. You did it with President Reagan, saying he was dumb. After he left office, 600 speeches, many hand-written by him, demonstrated his high intelligence.”

In World Wars I and II, the U.S., suffering great casualties to its military personnel, saved the world, particularly in WWII, from occupation by the German Nazi Reich and Japanese empire. We currently are fighting the battle against a minority of fundamentalist Islamists whose objective is to destroy Western civilization. They are willing to use every act of terrorism from suicide bombers to hacking off heads to destroy and terrorize us into surrender. And Michael Moore weakens us before that enemy. How should we respond? With scorn, catcalls, the Bronx cheer and the truth. Of course, we should recognize the outrages and criminal acts committed by Americans in military service and civilians at the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib. We should continue as we have done and take action to punish those involved. But we ought not in the media show again and again the pictures of the atrocities to simply flagellate ourselves and give aid and comfort to our enemies. A good rule of thumb might be to show the pictures of Abu Ghraib as many times as we show the beheadings of Danny Pearl, Nicholas Berg and Paul Johnson.

I am a movie critic, so I went to see “Fahrenheit 9/11.” The movie is a well-done propaganda piece and screed as has been reported by most critics. It is not a documentary which seeks to present the facts truthfully. The most significant offense that movie commits is to cheapen the political debate by dehumanizing the President and presenting him as a cartoon.

Newsday reported some of Moore’s misstatements as follows: “At the start of ‘Fahrenheit 9/11,’ filmmaker Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential vote, ‘under every scenario Gore won the election.’

“What Moore doesn't show is that a six-month study in 2001 by news organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN found just the opposite. Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily Democratic counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida and the election…Moore suggests Bush's conflict of interest was manifest shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks when the White House ‘approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis’ who, fearing reprisals, were flown out of the United States. Embellishing the well-known scenario, Moore interviews a retired FBI agent who says authorities should have first questioned the bin Ladens.

“But the bin Ladens were questioned. The commission investigating the attacks reported in April that the FBI interviewed 30 passengers: ‘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’” It is clear to me from the tenor of the film’s off-screen commentary by Michael Moore that he would have denounced WW II. Did he support the United States and NATO going into Bosnia to save the Muslims from ethnic cleansing and destruction? Would he agree that we should have attempted to save the Muslim men from death at the hands of the Serbs in Srebrenica? Should we now be going into the Sudan and saving perhaps a million black Christian and Animist Sudanese from Arab marauders who are murdering, raping and starving the blacks and even selling some into slavery? Weren’t we right to go into Iraq on the basis of United Nations Resolution 1441 which stated the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction and that was a cause for war unless they accounted for them and destroyed them, which they refused to do?

Now that no WMDs have yet been found, was the invasion to end the reign of Saddam Hussein, who had killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, still supportable? Moore thinks not. I think, yes.

The movie’s diatribes, sometimes amusing and sometimes manifestly unfair, will not change any views. They will simply cheapen the national debate and reinforce the opinions on both sides.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edward I. Koch, who served as mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989, is a partner in the law firm of Bryan Cave.

Guess I'm not the flavor of the month anymore huh?
BTW tell Mike happy birthday for me

Good for Ed Koch. He has his opinion, Moore has a differing one.

Next!

It's sad to see political "debate" ruin a friendship...

You put two fisherman of the same method side by side the politics go away . They will lie to each other and speak poorly of each others abilities and upbringing. But all in friendship.

I went to see it (F 911) and enjoyed it. Michael Moore did a wonderful and masterful job making this film. Definately a must see. Don't let bullys keep you from seeing it. We are not terrorist's or a threat to National security by going to see this movie. The Patriot Act doesn't forbid us from going to the movies. Just tired of this scare um and keep em quiet bull. For those extreme control freaks, no need to Call Home Land Security because the number's seeing this movie is to great for them to come kicking down everyone door.

It does'nt make you any less patriotic or American, as anyone else, by checking it out. Tired of this one upsmanship with patriatism crap. Debates are healthy and this movie definitely adds abundant material. Unless you see it for yourself, you have no reference or basis for a factual critique of THIS MOVIE. Definitely an improvement from his other works.

There are a variety of movies out there and a variety of newspapers and tabloids. Some people skoff at them and some swear that what they see and read is absoulute fact. In fact I was in Westport this weekend with 6 other fishermen and politics didn't come up once. I did see a newspaper that had a front page story about the BigFoot baby that was just born..There was even a picture. Michael Moore has every right to make a movie just like tha author of the bigfoot baby story. Some will suck it up and some won't.

I have been fishing for years and the older I get the more I strive for positive and healthy life affirming fishing experiences. Lieing to and criticizing others is to must of a distraction for me. Let alone, attacking someone because of their upbring. I'v seen my share of bigoted Rednecks and their mischief hate, while out trying to have an enjoyable day. Don't try to make every fisherman you see your personal good OLE boy and expect him to take a bunch of crap. That **** is to dangerous . I stay away from guy's that do that crap, so I don't have to go fishing while packing heat, in order to be left alone. I will continue to pick and choose carefully the people I share my fishing adventures with.

I can do without friends like that.

my .02

Yeah it is but that's the way it goes sometimes.

I was driving in to see the movie but instead I pulled the car over and decided to slam my testicles in the car door. Now I feel like a liberal

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124079,00.html

The Truth About 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
Tuesday, June 29, 2004




Michael Moore's (search) "Fahrenheit 9/11" broke records this weekend, becoming the first documentary to debut as Hollywood's top weekend film — but there are holes in the controversial film's story.

For instance, in one often-showed clip, Moore claims that President Bush was on vacation 42 percent of the time during his first several months in office — but that estimation included weekends at Camp David, a common practice for presidents. Without those days figured in, Bush actually spent 13 percent of his time on vacation.

The movie also criticizes Bush for staying inside a Florida classroom full of kids for a full seven minutes after he learned that the country was under attack on Sept. 11, 2001.

However, the vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission has said that Bush did the right thing. "Bush made the right decision in remaining calm, in not rushing out of the classroom," said Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana.

In "Fahrenheit 9/11" (search) Moore also claims that the White House approved plans for planes to pick up relatives of Usama Bin Laden right after the attacks. But according to terrorism czar Richard Clarke (search), he alone approved the Saudi flights.


In addition, Moore says that the departing Saudis were not properly processed by the FBI when leaving the country. That too is contradicted by the Sept. 11 commission, which said the Saudis were properly interviewed.

Finally, Moore shows prominent members of the Taliban visiting Texas, implying that they were invited by then-Governor Bush. The Taliban delegation, however, was invited to Houston by UNOCAL (search), a California energy company.

Moore also doesn't mention that the visit was made with the permission of the Clinton administration, which twice met with Taliban members — in 1997 and 1998.

Stew

"Most people that bash Moore have never seen any of his work. They take their opinion from what others tell them
I've taken the time to at least read and listen to what the righties have to say before slamming them."

--------------------------------

Excellent Point Stew!

I agree with Michael Moore on one point that Americans are ignorant of things outside our own country. We think the world revolves around the US because it does for the most part. Americans are lazy when it comes to education and would rather sit in front of the tube eating Doritios than doing something of merit. Yet in the work place Americans are number one in productivity.

Michael Moore had a real funny TV show in the 90's called TV nation. I enjoy his sense of humor. He got off the bus with me on Gun control issues and has been diving deeper left recently. He is just like Rush Limbaugh only on the left side not the right. Both are big fat discusting pigs that lie.

This is kinda funny.

A month or two ago, Clarke was the guy the Demos were saying "listen to him" about how inept the Bush administration was at dealing with the terrorist threat. The GOP said "don't listen to him, he's trying to sell books".

Now, Clarke is the guy the GOP is holding up saying "listen to him" about the Saudi flights and the Dems are now silent on the issue.

Makes me wonder who we're supposed to listen to next week.

"Makes me wonder who we're supposed to listen to next week"


That's the whole point and maybe you agree with me on this... It's not which one was rigth or wrong as much as it points out that these guys are less concerned with the facts and more concerned with getting their agenda out.

This doesn't mean we suddenly trust Clarke. I'm sure much of what he said was accurate. But many of us believe he had an agenda and like mooore, probably didn't always tell the whole story or check all his 'facts' carefully...

Dan S

"Clarke is the guy the GOP is holding up saying "listen to him" about the Saudi flights and the Dems are now silent on the issue.
Makes me wonder who we're supposed to listen to next week."


I 'm with you on that. Who are we to listen to?

Don't listen to anyone. it's more fun making it up as you go along. Just like MM does in most of his movies. Listen to some partial quotes editied nicely to make your case and there you go a new reality. One that meets your needs and you have to do very little homework.

TK,

You’re too funny as you undermine your own credibility, should anyone here think you have some. You haven’t seen Farenheit 9/11, but you criticized it on 6/22, prior to its release saying, “If lies and mistated facts can be considered good,” based on what you think and what others speculate, rather than on what you know. Then you posted later that day, “Those unwilling to do the work to reasearch the facts or devlop an informed opinion will love it much like they did Bowling . Moores dilevery is engaging and his storytelling ability is there. Do a little work to peel the layers and you find all the mistakes half truths etc. Most Americans are too lazy and it easy to accept it as fact or out right deny it has any merit.” It looks to me as though you were almost referring to yourself. Go see the movie, and then tell me what you think, instead of what someone else thinks.

I saw the movie last Saturday night. I was impressed. I saw the expected truths and half-truths, but I didn’t detect the outright lies I also expected. It will be interesting to hear what the opposition fact-checkers have to say. Unlike Bowling for Columbine, Moore allegedly put extraordinary effort into checking that this movie is factually correct. That’s not to say he didn’t put any spin on those facts. The film is an incredibly well threaded indictment of President Bush and his family.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo,

Just because something agrees with your view does not make it factual. As your posts show on the Palestinian vs Isreal issues you have a minimalist grasp of the issue's and even less of the facts . The are plenty of challenges of Moores representation of the facts by people that have seen the movie. Just do some searches and you will find them. To call this film a documentary is a joke as Moore himself admits his bias.

Did Moore call it a documentary?

One question TK and this goes for any Moore critic. Have you seen any of his films or read any of his books? If you haven't then you really should keep your unqualified opinions to yourself.

Stew I have seen all his movies except this one and most of his TV shows. I have skimmed a few of his books but not read them. So my opinion of Moore is qualified and I can cite chapter and vs. on how he uses incomeplete interview clips and edits to leave the viewer with a false impressions of someones view point on an issue. How he very smoothly crafts a story line that is very entertaining and engaging yet incomplete and drawing false conclusions. These are being exposed daily as more and more people see the film.

Dans,

Yes Moore has called it a documentary. He refers to the possibility that it will be the most widely viewed and biggest money making documentary in history.

I bet you couldn't get Moore to call it a documentary now if you threatened to make him GW's servant-boy.

This one is what we are talking about though TK!
I can respect that you have seen the others and formed your opinion of those films from actually viewing them. Go see the new one and then we'll debate.

Stew,

I am more than capable of debating the issues with out MM's viewpoint. Please bring on up and lets have a go. I may check it out on DVD. Moore is entertaining but much like Mad magazine

Here is a short piece that breaks down how Moore twists, ueses incomplete or false data and assumptions etc. to make a political statement. We will see a similar treatment of F911 before the election.


BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE

Documentary or Fiction?

-David T. Hardy-

Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" won the Oscar for best documentary. Unfortunately, it is not a documentary, by the Academy's own definition.

The injustice here is not so much to the viewer, as to the independent producers of real documentaries. These struggle in a field which receives but a fraction of the recognition and financing of the "entertainment industry." They are protected by Academy rules limiting the documentary competition to nonfiction.

Bowling is fiction. It makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the viewer. Statements are made which are false. Moore leads the reader to draw inferences which he must have known were wrong. Indeed, even speeches shown on screen are heavily edited, so that sentences are assembled in the speaker's voice, but which were not sentences he uttered. Bowling uses deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect.

A film which does this may be a commercial success. It may be entertaining. But it is not a documentary. One need only consult Rule 12 of the rules for the Academy Award: a documentary is a non-fictional movie.

The point is not that Bowling is biased. No, the point is that Bowling is deliberately, seriously, and consistently deceptive.

1. Willie Horton. The first edition of the webpage had a section on falsification of the election ad regarding Willie Horton (the convict, not the baseball star). This was one of the earliest criticisms of Bowling--Ben Fritz caught it back in November, 2002.

To illustrate politicians' (and especially Republican politicians') willingness to play the "race card," Bowling shows what purports to be a television ad run by George Bush, Sr., in his race against Governor Dukakis. For those who weren't around back then -- Massachusetts had a "prison furlough" program where prisoners could be given short releases from the clink. Unfortunately, some of them never came back. Dukakis vetoed legislation which would have forbidden furlough to persons with "life without parole" sentences for murder, and authorities thereafter furloughed a number of murderers. Horton, in prison for a brutal stabbing murder, got a furlough, never returned, and then attacked a couple, assaulting both and raping the woman. His opponents in the presidential race took advantage of the veto.

The ad as shown by Moore begins with a "revolving door" of justice, progresses to a picture of Willie Horton (who is black), and ends with dramatic subtitle: "Willie Horton released. Then kills again."

Fact: Bowling splices together two different election ads, one run by the Bush campaign (featuring a revolving door, and not even mentioning Horton) and another run by an independent expenditure campaign (naming Horton, and showing footage from which it can be seen that he is black). At the end, the ad ala' Moore has the customary note that it was paid for by the Bush-Quayle campaign. Moore intones "whether you're a psychotic killer or running for president of the United States, the one thing you can always count on is white America's fear of the black man." There is nothing to reveal that most of the ad just seen (and all of it that was relevant to Moore's claim) was not the Bush-Quayle ad, which didn't even name Horton.

Fact: Apparently unsatisfied with splicing the ads, Bowling's editors added a subtitle "Willie Horton released. Then kills again."

Fact: Ben Fitz also noted that Bowling's editors didn't bother to research the events before doctoring the ads. Horton's second arrest was not for murder. (The second set of charges were aggravated assault and rape).


I originally deleted this from the main webpage, because in the VHS version of Bowling Moore had the decency to remove the misleading footage. But as Brendan Nyhan recently wrote in Spinsanity, he put it back in in the DVD version! He did make one minor change, switching his edited-in caption to "Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman." Obviously Moore had been informed of the Spinsanity criticism. He responded by correcting his own typo, not by removing the edited in caption, nor by revealing that the ad being shown was not in fact a Bush-Quayle ad.

2. NRA and the Reaction To Tragedy. A major theme in Bowling is that NRA is callous toward slayings. In order to make this theme fit the facts, however, Bowling repeatedly distorts the evidence.

A. Columbine Shooting/Denver NRA Meeting. Bowling portrays this with the following sequence:

Weeping children outside Columbine;

Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket and proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'";

Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore intones "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association;"

Cut to Heston (supposedly) continuing speech... "I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. He sent me this; it says 'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I say to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!"

The portrayal is one of an arrogant protest in response to the deaths -- or, as one reviewer put it, "it seemed that Charlton Heston and others rushed to Littleton to hold rallies and demonstrations directly after the tragedy." The portrayal is in fact false.


Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting (see links below), whose place and date had been fixed years in advance.


Fact: At Denver, the NRA cancelled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' voting meeting -- that could not be cancelled because the state law governing nonprofits required that it be held. [No way to change location, since under NY law you have to give 10 days' advance notice of that to the members, there were upwards of 4,000,000 members -- and Columbine happened 11 days before the scheduled meeting.] As a newspaper reported:

In a letter to NRA members Wednesday, President Charlton Heston and the group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, said all seminars, workshops, luncheons, exhibits by gun makers and other vendors, and festivities are canceled.

All that's left is a members' reception with Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., and the annual meeting, set for 10 a.m. May 1 in the Colorado Convention Center.

Under its bylaws and New York state law, the NRA must hold an annual meeting.

The NRA convention April 30-May 2 was expected to draw 22,000 members and give the city a $17.9 million economic boost.

"But the tragedy in Littleton last Tuesday calls upon us to take steps, along with dozens of other planned public events, to modify our schedule to show our profound sympathy and respect for the families and communities in the Denver area in their time of great loss," Heston and LaPierre wrote.


Fact: Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon his being given a handmade musket, at that annual meeting.

Fact: When Bowling continues on to the speech which Heston did give in Denver, it carefully edits it to change its theme.

Moore's fabrication here cannot be described by any polite term. It is a lie, a fraud, and a few other things. Carrying it out required a LOT of editing to mislead the viewer, as I will show below. I transcribed Heston's speech as Moore has it, and compared it to a news agency's transcript, color coding the passages. CLICK HERE for the comparison, with links to the original transcript.

Moore has actually taken audio of seven sentences, from five different parts of the speech, and a section given in a different speech entirely, and spliced them together. Each edit is cleverly covered by inserting a still or video footage for a few seconds.

First, right after the weeping victims, Moore puts on Heston's "I have only five words for you . . . cold dead hands" statement, making it seem directed at them. As noted above, it's actually a thank-you speech given a year later in North Carolina.

Moore then has an interlude -- a visual of a billboard and his narration. This is vital. He can't go directly to Heston's real Denver speech. If he did that, you might ask why Heston in mid-speech changed from a purple tie and lavender shirt to a white shirt and red tie, and the background draperies went from maroon to blue. Moore has to separate the two segments.


Moore's second edit (covered by splicing in a pan shot of the crowd) deletes Heston's announcement that NRA has in fact cancelled most of its meeting:

"As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that."

Moore then cuts to Heston noting that Denver's mayor asked NRA not to come, and shows Heston replying "I said to the Mayor: As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!" as if in defiance.

Actually, Moore put an edit right in the middle of the first sentence, and another at its end! Heston really said (with reference his own WWII vet status) "I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing."

Moore cuts it after "I said to the Mayor" and attaches a sentence from the end of the next paragraph: "As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land." He hides the deletion by cutting to footage of protestors and a photo of the Mayor before going back and showing Heston.

Moore has Heston then triumphantly announce "Don't come here? We're already here!" Actually, that sentence is clipped from a segment five paragraphs farther on in the speech. Again, Moore uses an editing trick to cover the doctoring, switching to a pan shot of the audience as Heston's (edited) voice continues.

What Heston said there was:

"NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy."

"NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means that whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity."


I recently discovered that Moore has set up a new webpage to respond to a chosen few points of criticism, one of which is his, er, creative editing of Heston's speech. Click here for a link to his page, and for my response to his attempted defense of what he did. Basically, Moore contends that he didn't mean for the viewer to get the impression that "cold dead hands" was spoken at Denver -- that just "appears as Heston is being introduced in narration."

B. Mt. Morris shooting/ Flint rally. Bowling continues by juxtaposing another Heston speech with a school shooting of Kayla Rolland at Mt. Morris, MI, just north of Flint. Moore makes the claim that "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally."


Fact: Heston's speech was given at a "get out the vote" rally in Flint, which was held when elections rolled by some eight months after the shooting ( Feb. 29 vs Oct. 17, 2000).

Fact: Bush and Gore were then both in the Flint area, trying to gather votes. Moore himself had been hosting rallies for Green Party candidate Nader in Flint a few weeks before.

Here's the real setting, as reported in the Detroit Free Press one day after Heston's speech:

What do Al Gore, Charlton Heston, Jesse Jackson, Lee Iacocca, and George W., Laura and Barbara Bush all agree upon?

That Michigan is a really big deal right now. The candidates, their wives, mothers, and pals are here this week, as post-debate spin control ebbs and political ground control overtakes Michigan with 20 days left to Election Day.....Democratic nominee Gore is to campaign in Flint tonight; Texas Gov. Bush is to visit a Macomb County factory Thursday. . . . . For Republicans, other surrogates include former auto executive Lee Iacocca touting Bush at a luncheon today in Troy, and Tuesday's visit by National Rifle Association President and movie-Moses Charlton Heston.

For the Democrats, the Rev. Jesse Jackson is seeking to mobilize black voters for the Gore ticket Thursday at Detroit's King High School, and Energy Secretary Bill Richardson will do the same at an Arab-American Chamber of Commerce dinner Friday in Livonia.

How does Moore trick the viewer into believing that this speech, given in this context, was actually a defiant response to a shooting in a nearby town months before?

Moore creates the impression that one event was right after the other so smoothly that I didn't spot his technique. It was picked up by Richard Rockley, who sent me an email.

Moore works by depriving you of context and guiding your mind to fill the vacuum -- with completely false ideas. It is brilliantly, if unethically, done,. Let's deconstruct his method.

The entire sequence takes barely 40 seconds. Images are flying by so rapidly that you cannot really think about them, you just form impressions.

Shot of Moore comforting Kayla's school principal after she discusses Kayla's murder. As they turn away, we hear Heston's voice: "From my cold, dead hands." [Moore is again attibuting it to a speech where it was not uttered.]

When Heston becomes visible, he's telling a group that freedom needs you now, more than ever, to come to its defense. Your impression: Heston is responding to something urgent, presumably the controversy caused by her death. And he's speaking about it like a fool.

Moore: "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally."

Moore continues on to say that before he came to Flint, Heston had been interviewed by the Georgetown Hoya about Kayla's death... Why would this be important?

Image of Hoya (a student paper) appears on screen, with highlighting on words of reporter mentioning Kayla Rolland's name, and highlighting on Heston's name (only his name, not his reply) as he answers. Image is on screen only a few seconds.

Ah, you think you spot the relevance: he obviously was alerted to the case, and that's why be came.

And, Moore continues, the case was discussed on Heston's "own NRA" webpage... Again, your mind seeks relevance....

Image of a webpage for America's First Freedom (a website for NRA, not for Heston) with text "48 hours after Kayla Rolland was prounced dead" highlighted and zoomed in on.

Your impression: Heston did something 48 hours after she died. Why else would "his" webpage note this event, whatever it is? What would Heston's action have been? It must have been to go to Flint and hold the rally.

Scene cuts to protestors, including a woman with a Million Moms March t-shirt, who asks how Heston could come here, she's shocked and appalled, "it's like he's rubbing our face in it." (This speaker and the protest may be faked, but let's assume for the moment they're real.). This caps your impression. She's shocked by Heston coming there, 48 hours after the death. He'd hardly be rubbing faces in it if he came there much later, on a purpose unrelated to the death.

The viewer thinks he or she understands ....

One reviewer: Heston "held another NRA rally in Flint, Michigan, just 48 hours after a 6 year old shot and killed a classmate in that same town."

Another:"What was Heston thinking going to into Colorado and Michigan immediately after the massacres of innocent children?"

Let's look at the facts behind the presentation:

Heston's speech, with its sense of urgency, freedom needs you now more than ever before. As noted above, it's actually an election rally, held weeks before the closest election in American history.

Moore: "Just as at Columbine, Heston showed up in Flint to have a large pro-gun rally." As noted above, it was an election rally actually held eight months later.

Georgetown Hoya interview, with highlighting on reporter mentioning Kayla and on Heston's name where he responds.

What is not highlighted, and impossible to read except by repeating the scene, is that the reporter asks about Kayla and about the Columbine shooters, and Heston replies only as to the Columbine shooters. There is no indication that he recognized Kayla Rolland's case. It flashes past in the movie: click here to see it frozen.

"His NRA webpage" with highlighted reference to "48 hours after Kayla Robinson is pronounced dead." Here's where it gets interesting. Moore zooms in on that phrase so quickly that it blots out the rest of the sentence, and then takes the image off screen before you can read anything else.


(It's clearer in the movie). The page is long gone, but I finally found an archived version and also a June 2000 usenet posting usenet posting. Guess what the page really said happened? Not a Heston trip to Flint, but: "48-hours after Kayla Rolland is pronounced dead, Bill Clinton is on The Today Show telling a sympathetic Katie Couric, "Maybe this tragic death will help."" Nothing to do with Heston. Incidentally, if you have the DVD version and the right player, you can freeze frame this sequence and see it yourself. Then go back and freeze frame the rally, and you'll make out various Bush election posters and tags.

Yep, Moore had a reason for zooming in on the 48 hours. The zooming starts instantly, and moves sideways to block out the rest of the sentence before even the quickest viewer could read it.

By the way, when interviewed by a reporter for the Times of London, Moore had to admit the point: "When I spoke to Moore last week, he confirmed Hardy's point about the date of the speech, but angrily denied the allegation that he had misled viewers." Link to Times webpage (charge for download).

If this is artistic talent, it's not the type that merits an Oscar.

C. Heston Interview. Having created the desired impression, Moore follows with his Heston interview. Heston's memory of the Flint event is foggy (he says it was an early morning event, and that they then went on to the next rally; in fact the rally was at 6 - 7:30 PM. and the last event of the day.). Heston's lack of recall is not surprising; it was one rally in a nine-stop tour of three States in three days.

Moore, who had plenty of time to prepare, continues the impression he has created, asking Heston misleading questions such as: "After that happened you came to Flint to hold a big rally and, you know, I just, did you feel it was being at all insensitive to the fact that this community had just gone through this tragedy?" Moore continues, "you think you'd like to apologize to the people in Flint for coming and doing that at that time?"

Moore knows the real sequence, and knows that Heston does not. Moore takes full advantage.

As noted above, Moore's deception works on reviewers. In fact, when Heston says he did not know about Kayla's shooting when he went to Flint, viewers see Heston as an inept liar:

"Then, he [Heston] and his ilk held ANOTHER gun-rally shortly after another child/gun tragedy in Flint, MI where a 6-year old child shot and killed a 6-year old classmate (Heston claims in the final interview of the film that he didn't know this had just happened when he appeared)." [Click here for original]

Bowling persuaded these viewers by deceiving them. Moore's creative skills are used to convince the viewer that things happened which did not and that a truthful man is a liar when he denies them.

A further question: is the end of the Heston interview faked?

3. Animated sequence equating NRA with KKK. In an animated history send-up, with the narrator talking rapidly, Bowling equates the NRA with the Klan, suggesting NRA was founded in 1871, "the same year that the Klan became an illegal terrorist organization." Bowling goes on to depict Klansmen becoming the NRA and an NRA character helping to light a burning cross.


This sequence is intended to create the impression either that NRA and the Klan were parallel groups or that when the Klan was outlawed its members formed the NRA.

Both impressions are not merely false, but directly opposed to the real facts.


Fact: The NRA was founded in 1871 -- by act of the New York Legislature, at request of former Union officers. The Klan was founded in 1866, and quickly became a terrorist organization. One might claim that while it was an organization and a terrorist one, it technically became an "illegal" such with passage of the federal Ku Klux Klan Act and Enforcement Act in 1871. These criminalized interference with civil rights, and empowered the President to use troops to suppress the Klan. (Although we'd have to acknowledge that murder, terror and arson were illegal long before that time -- the Klan hadn't been operating legally until 1871, it was operating illegally with the connivance of law enforcement.)


Fact: The Klan Act and Enforcement Act were signed into law by President Ulysess S. Grant. Grant used their provisions vigorously, suspending habeas corpus and deploying troops; under his leadership over 5,000 arrests were made and the Klan was dealt a serious (if all too short-lived) blow.

Fact: Grant's vigor in disrupting the Klan earned him unpopularity among many whites, but Frederick Douglass praised him, and an associate of Douglass wrote that African-Americans "will ever cherish a grateful remembrance of his name, fame and great services."

Fact: After Grant left the White House, the NRA elected him as its eighth president.

Fact: After Grant's term, the NRA elected General Philip Sheridan, who had removed the governors of Texas and Lousiana for failure to suppress the KKK.

Fact: The affinity of NRA for enemies of the Klan is hardly surprising. The NRA was founded by former Union officers, and eight of its first ten presidents were Union veterans.

Fact: During the 1950s and 1960s, groups of blacks organized as NRA chapters in order to obtain surplus military rifles to fight off Klansmen.

.4. Shooting at Buell Elementary School in Michigan. Bowling depicts the juvenile shooter who killed Kayla Rolland as a sympathetic youngster, from a struggling family, who just found a gun in his uncle's house and took it to school. "No one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl."


Fact: The little boy was the class thug, already suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil, and had fought with Kayla the day before. Since the incident, he has stabbed another child with a knife.


Fact: The uncle's house was the family business -- the neighborhood crack-house. The gun was stolen and was purchased by the uncle in exchange for drugs.The shooter's father was already serving a prison term for theft and drug offenses. A few weeks later police busted the shooter's grandmother and aunt for narcotics sales. After police hauled the family away, the neighbors applauded the officers. This was not a nice but misunderstood family.


Links:1., 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

5. The Taliban and American Aid. In discussing military assistance to various countries, Bowling asserts that the U.S. gave $245 million in aid to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001.


Fact: The aid in question was humanitarian assistance, given through UN and nongovernmental organizations, to relieve famine in Afghanistan. [Various numbers are given for the amount of the aid, and some say several million went for clearing landmines.]

6. International Comparisons. To pound home its point, Bowling flashes a dramatic count of gun homicides in various countries: Canada 165, Germany 381, Australia 65, Japan 39, US 11,127. Now that's raw numbers, not rates -- Here's why he doesn't talk rates.

Verifying the figures was difficult, since Moore does not give a year for them. A lot of Moore's numbers didn't check out for any period I could find. As a last effort at checking, I did a Google search for each number and the word "gun" or words "gun homicides" Many traced -- only back to webpages repeating Bowling's figures. Moore is the only one using these numbers.

Germany: Bowling says 381: 1995 figures put homicides at 1,476, about four times what Bowling claims, and gun homicides at 168, about half what it claims: it's either far too high or far too low. ( Jörg Altmeppen has emailed me a link to a German site putting the figure at Moore's 381, in 1998 -- I have to depend upon his translation here, as German is one of the languages in which I can only curse.).

Australia: Bowling says 65. This is very close, albeit picking the year to get the data desired. Between 1980-1995, firearm homicides varied from 64-123, although never exactly 65. In 2000, it was 64, which was proudly proclaimed as the lowest number in the country's history.

US: Bowling says 11,127. FBI figures put it a lot lower. They report gun homicides were 8,719 in 2001, 8,661 in 2000, 8,480 in 1999. (2001 UCR, p. 23). Here's the table:


[You can download the entire report, in .pdf format, by clicking here; look for pt. 2 at p.23.] To be utterly fair, this is a count of the 13,752 homicides for which police submitted supplemental data (including weapon used): the total homicide count was 15,980. But what weapon, if any, was used in the other homicide is unknown to us, and was unknown to Moore.

After an email tip, I finally found a way to compute precisely 11,127. Ignore the FBI, use Nat'l Center for Health Statistics figures. These are based on doctors' death certificates rather than police investigation.

Then -- to their gun homicide figures, add the figure for legally-justified homicides: self-defense and police use against criminals. Presto, you have exactly Moore's 11,127. I can see no other way for him to get it.

Since Moore appears to use police figures for the other countries, it's hardly a valid comparison. More to the point, it's misleading since it includes self-defense and police: when we talk of a gun homicide problem we hardly have in mind a woman defending against a rapist, or a cop taking out an armed robber.

Canada: Moore's number is correct for 1999, a low point, but he ignores some obvious differences.

Bias. I wanted to talk about fabrication, not about bias, but I've gotten emails asking why I didn't mention that Switzerland requires almost all adult males to have guns, but has a lower homicide rate than Great Britain, or that Japanese-Americans, with the same proximity to guns as other Americans, have homicide rates half that of Japan itself. (And, after posting this, got an email saying that Switzerland doesn't require all adult males to own guns -- not everyone is in the national militia. Here's an encyclopedia reference to their system. 36% of entire population is enrolled in the militia -- which must mean a very great part of the adult male population, " All of Swiss society celebrates shooting, and skill with the rifle. For example, each year Zurich shuts down a whole day for its "Boys' Shooting Festival."" Sounds like a plan to me.)

And, oh, yes, there is an extremely interesting paper by Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser, presented at a colloquium in, appropriately enough, the Tower of London, and addressing international comparisons of firearms laws and firearm crime rates. I highly recommend reading, if you're interested in serious research rather than Moore's flashing numbers. Okay, they're mentioned, now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Actually, international comparisons lead to some interesting points. Here's a webpage which gives worldwide homicide rates. The U.S. comes in at 23rd place. It only made the list by edging out Armenia and Bulgaria. Its former rival as a superpower, the states of the former Soviet Union, absolutely flatten it in this competition. Russia has four times the US rate. Ukraine and Estonia have twice its rate. Even Poland ranks higher. South Africa's showing is ten times the US rate! Hmm-- another point from a different section of that site. In rape rates per 1000 population, the US ranks ninth, at .32, just ahead of Iceland and Papua New Guinea. Canada is fifth, at .75, over double the US rate, and Australia is third with .80.

7. Miscellaneous. Even the Canadian government is jumping in. Bowling shows Moore casually buying ammunition at an Ontario Walmart. He asks us to "look at what I, a foreign citizen, was able to do at a local Canadian Wal-Mart." He buys several boxes of ammunition without a question being raised. "That's right. I could buy as much ammunition as I wanted, in Canada."

Canadian officials have pointed out that the buy is faked or illegal: Canadian law has since, 1998, required ammunition buyers to present proper identification. Since Jan. 1, 2001, (sorry--link broke--it was a Canadian government info site) it has required non-Canadians to present a firearms borrowing or importation license, too. (Bowling appears to have been filmed in mid and late 2001).

While we're at it: Bowling shows footage of a B-52 on display at the Air Force Academy, while Moore scornfully intones that the plaque under it "proudly proclaims that the plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve of 1972."

The plaque actually reads that "Flying out of Utapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southeast Thailand, the crew of 'Diamond Lil' shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during 'Linebacker II' action on Christmas eve 1972." This is pretty mild compared to the rest of Bowling, but the viewer can't even trust Moore to honestly read a monument.

(As Spinsanity notes, Moore goes even farther in his add-on DVD. There, he tells us, "And they've got a plaque on there proudly proclaiming that this bomber, this B-52, killed thousands upon thousands of Vietnamese -- innocent civilians.")

8. Race. Moore does not directly state that Heston is a racist--he is the master of creating the false impression --but reviewers come away saying "Heston looks like an idiot, and a racist one at that" Source. "BTW, one thing the Heston interview did clear up, that man is shockingly racist." Source.

The remarks stem from Heston's answer (after Moore keeps pressing for why the US has more violence than other countries) that it might be due to the US "having a more mixed ethnicity" than other nations, and "We had enough problems with civil rights in the beginning." A viewer who accepts Moore's theme that gun ownership is driven by racial fears might conclude that Heston is blaming blacks and the civil rights movement.

But if you look at some history missing from Bowling, you get exactly the opposite picture. Heston is talking, not about race, but about racism. In the early 1960s, the civil rights movement was fighting for acceptance. Civil rights workers were being murdered. The Kennedy Administration, trying to hold together a Democratic coalition that ranged from liberals to fire-eater segregationists such as George Wallace and Lester Maddox, found the issue too hot to touch, and offered little support.

Heston got involved. He picketed discriminating restaurants. He worked with Martin Luther King, and helped King break Hollywood's color barrier (yes, there was one.). He led the actors' component of King's 1963 march in Washington, which set the stage for the key civil rights legislation in 1964.

Here's Heston's comments at the 2001 Congress on Racial Equality Martin Luther King dinner (presided over by NRA director, and CORE President, Roy Innes). More on Heston.

Most of the viewers were born long after the events Heston is recalling. To them, the civil rights struggle consists of Martin Luther King speaking, people singing "We Shall Overcome," and everyone coming to their senses. Heston remembers what it was really like.

If Heston fails to explain this in Bowling, we've got to note that Moore (despite his claim that he left the interview almost unedited) cut a lot of the interview out. Watch closely and you'll see a clock on the wall near Moore's head. When it's first seen, the time is about 5:47. When Heston finally walks out, it reads about 6:10. That's 23 minutes. I clocked the Heston interview in Bowling at 5 1/4 minutes. About three-quarters of what Heston did say was trimmed out. [Why the clock indicates six o'clock, when Moore is specific that he showed up for the interview at 8:30 AM, will have to await another investigation!]

9. Fear. Bowling probably has a good point when it suggests that the media feeds off fear in a search for the fast buck. For an interesting analysis of this, showing how crime news skyrocketed (largely displacing international coverage) even as crime fell, click here.

Bowling cites some examples: the razor blades in Halloween apples scare, the flesh-eating bacteria scare, etc. The examples are taken straight from Barry Glassner's excellent book on the subject, "The Culture of Fear," and Moore interviews Glassner on-camera for the point.

Then Moore does exactly what he condemns in the media.

Given the prominence of schoolyard killings as a theme in Bowling for Columbine, Moore must have asked Glassner about that subject. Whatever Glassner said is, however, left on the cutting-room floor. That's because Glassner lists schoolyard shootings as one of the mythical fears. He points out that "More than three times as many people are killed by lightning as by violence at schools."

This is as close as Moore comes to having a thesis, an explanation for homicide rate differences. But here he falls flat on his face. As one of his interviewees notes, over a period when homicide rates were falling, media coverage of murder increased by 600%. Okay, flip it around. When media coverage of homicides increased 600%, homicide rates fell. So much for Moore's explanation. In fact, so much for all of his attempted explanations. During the 1990s, homicide rates in the US went into their steepest decline in decades, with handgun homicides leading the way. That was the same period that saw the welfare reform laws, the bombing in Serbia, several million firearms sold each year -- everything, in short, that Moore condemns. (For one source, just go back up the page to the FBI statistics: between 1997 and 2001, firearm homicides fell from 10,729 to 8,719, and 1997 was after the biggest drop had occured.

I suppose we might go farther, and ask if Moore's film is not illustrative of what it condemns. Moore argues that the media (a) distorts reality, and (b) hypes fear of other Americans, because (c) fear is good for a fast buck. Moore distorts reality, hypes fear of other Americans ("are we nation of gun nuts, or just nuts?") and, well, made several million fast bucks.

10. Guns (supposedly the point of the film). A point worth making (although not strictly on theme here): Bowling's theme is, rather curiously, not opposed to firearms ownership.

After making out Canada to be a haven of nonviolence, Moore asks why. He proclaims that Canada has "a tremendous amount of gun ownership," somewhat under one gun per household. He visits Canadian shooting ranges, gun stores, and in the end proclaims "Canada is a gun loving, gun toting, gun crazy country!"

Or as he put it elsewhere, "then I learned that Canada has 7 million guns but they don't kill each other like we do. I thought, gosh, that's uncomfortably close to the NRA position: Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Bowling concludes that Canada isn't peaceful because it lacks guns and gun nuts -- it has lots of those -- but because the Canadian mass media isn't into constant hyping of fear and loathing, and the American media is. (One problem).

Which leaves us to wonder why the Brady Campaign/Million Moms issued a press release. congratulating Moore on his Oscar nomination.

Or does Bowling have a hidden punch line, and in the end the joke is on them?

One possible explanation: did Bowling begin as one movie, and end up as another?

Incidentally, Moore has issued a webpage responding to criticism. In so doing, he actually admits that much of the above criticism is accurate. He did splice the Willie Horton ad, and Heston's "cold dead hands" was never spoken at Denver, and his statistics do stem from those of the Center for Disease Control, which include self-defense and police shootings of perps. As far as the rest of the criticisms above -- strange, but Moore doesn't have an answer. Here's my response.

Conclusion

The point is not that Bowling is unfair, or lacking in objectivity. The point is far more fundamental: Bowling for Columbine is dishonest. It is fraudulent. To trash Heston, it even uses the audio/video editor to assemble a Heston speech that Heston did not give, and sequences images and carefully highlighted text to spin the viewer's mind to a wrong conclusion. If there is art in this movie, it is a dishonest art. Moore does not inform his readers: he plays them like a violin.

A further thought, on a topic far broader (no pun intended) than Moore. Moore's film is unquestionably popular. He's attracted an almost-cult following. And judging from the emails I've received, plenty of his followers don't care a bit about whether they were misled. Can broader lessons be learned from this?

Suppose for a moment that Moore's behavior can be explained as a product of Narcisstic Personality Disorder, that he fits the clinical symptoms to a T, that indeed Bowling is a grand acting out of this character disorder. Does its popularity suggest something of far greater concern than one more narcissist in Hollywood? And does that in turn hold a key to mass slayings?Click here for some thoughts on that score.

David T. Hardy [an amateur who has for the last year been working on a serious bill of rights documentary], to include the Second Amendment.

dthardy at mindspring.com ["at" instead of "@" used to confuse those blasted spam robots]

P.S.: I don't have Moore's $4 million budget (and wound up paying over a thousand in bandwidth overruns, before I found a new host), but if you could see the way to contribute ten or twenty dollars to this research, and to preparing a real documentary, please click below.






A few additions:

Links to other Moore & Bowling sites.

Some criticisms not given on this page.

Did Moore appropriate large portions from a webpage?

Equal time: emails critical of this page.

A brief reply to two responses I've received:

Objectivity: (sample email): "Your entire article is retarded. We're talking about making FILM. ALL film is subjective. Have you not even taken an entry level course in film before?"

Response: The point is not that Bowling is non-objective, or biased. The point is that it is intentionally deceptive.

Nothing is real: The camera changes everything, etc., so in video there can be no truth or falsity. Sample: "tv and movies, newspapers or even documentaries *are* constructions, not "the truth" ("truth" is subjective personal opinion/experience, which would be impossible to commit to videotape or celluloid)."


Response: This certainly has given me some insight into how some in the media view things! Can we agree upon one core premise: to deliberately deceive a viewer is wrong?

Talk basic ethics. Is that what you teach your kids? Truth and lies are ultimately the same, all that matters is whether you're good at it?

And don't give me the claim that filmmaking is somehow different, all filming departs from reality, so truth and lies exist for written media and not for film. All communication is symbolic; the use of verbal and written symbols to convey ideas. If anything, a documentary film purports to be less symbolic and more real: the viewer is shown things, and assumes he is himself seeing reality, rather than hearing a speaker's description, possibly unfair or deceptive, of it. If anything, this should imply a greater duty to avoid conscious deception than would apply to the written and spoken word.

Equally to the point: Moore himself repudiates these defenses, insisting that every iota of his film is objectively true. "I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact.... [F]aced with a thoroughly truthful and honest film, those who object to the film's political points are left with the choice of debating us on the issues in the film or resorting to character assassination." Source.

Moore makes people think. This at least has some merit to it. But deception is not the way to inspire clear thinking. For that matter ... if the purpose is to inspire thought, how about giving some data? Homicide, firearm homicide, and gun use in self-defense have been extensively studied for forty years now. Kleck, Zimring, Bordua -- there is no shortage of experts here. And there is a lot of data on other matters, such as relationship of media coverage to crime. Yet the viewer hears none of this: in terms of substance, Bowling is thin as an oil slick. The viewer is left with Moore the criminologist looking at a TV screen and proclaiming TV news just has to be the answer -- and not stopping long enough to reflect that if homicide rates fell when news coverage of them went up 600%, this is a most peculiar answer.

Speaking of DVD's, I heard it will be released in about the 2nd or 3rd week in November.....Just a little reminder before the ballots go in... In terms of political strategy, sounds pretty well thought out to me.

here is the link before the foil hats toss out allegations,

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

That link alone would have sufficed King. Pretty soon you'll have ALL of Bob's server space for this site eaten up with your copy / paste opinions.

You would not have looked at a link 4salt. Remember it's easy to belive lies and gossip it's hard searching for the truth and learning the fascts.

Enjoy the read.

Knock Knock any one here? or is that the sound of a pin dropping.

Moore specializes not in documentary, but in propaganda. He doesn't want to inform, but to persuade.
But I think he's clever enough so that his work is salted with enough truth to seem plausible to gullible folks prone to agree with his point of view. Folks that never check for facts.

Your link is stupid.

It does not expose lies...it interprets Moore's work as deceitful.

You righties know the drill....Bush didn't 'lie', he was 'misled'.

Anything presented in his movies as fact can be backed up with data and references. Its his 'conclusions' or 'message' that the elephants call 'lies'.

They are opinions, get over it.

If you've never seen a Moore film and you are criticising him, you are dioing yourself a disservice. Remember, even some gun ADVOCATES gave 'Bowling....' high marks in spite of its patently anti-gun stance.

Aunty-

It surprises me that you aren't more open minded about this, especially in light of your emnity for the Bush administration.

Out of curiosity and to save me some thread scrolling, specifically why do you think he's such a POS?

IMO, MM is one of the premier american patriots of our time.

"IMO, MM is one of the premier american patriots of our time"


What is your definition of "American patriot"????????


Here's the 'standard' dictionary defintion that I agree with:

pa·tri·ot: n.
One who loves, supports, and defends one's country.


In what way do you see MM:

Loving his country?
AND
Supporting his country?
AND
Defending his country?


I can list many ways in which he demonstrates a hatred for this country and the people in it. Many ways he does not support his country. And other than defending his personal and political agendas, I have yet to see him defend the country as a nation. He defends free speech - if it is not against him. He defends capitalism - but only for himself. He defends his freedoms provided under the constitution, but not the soldiers\military that keeps that constitution even possible.

He has a right to do what he does. But we have a right to call a spade a spade and show the POS that he is...

Its really too bad you feel that way.

whether you agree with his presentation or not the main tenets of each movie have been irreproachable.

GM cuts jobs during record a period of record profits and the brass could care less about its effect on the communities depending on them.

Gun violence is a major problem in the united states and gun rights advocates refuse to acknowledge that fact. Even when bludgeoned over the head with it....the spokesman for the most powerful lobby in Washington blamed it on 'ethnics'....even if you don't like the way the message is presented fair minded americans SHOULD KNOW THAT THIS IS HOW THE NRA THINKS!

Unfortunately Aunty that's what it takes to get through to the american people sometimes, a bludgeon...not you or I, because we are and have been able to see through the 'propaganda' that comes from the other side.

For some, the bludgeon will have been Abu Ghraib, for others beheadings and for some, Fahrenheit 9/11.

If you love your country so much why on earth would you plunge it into an unnecessary war....in so doing defiling the sacrifices made my great grandfather, grandfather and father?

Bush wipes his butt with the flag and the memory of our fallen by putting them in harms way unnecessarily.

....so yeah, ask yourself the same set of questions about Dubya. I'll be able to tell you all about how you're wrong and I'm right just as you'd be be able to tell me all about how I'm wrong if I answered your questions.

Not gonna play that game here today except to say that even to those who disagree with him it should be plain that Micheal Moore loves his country, if for no other reason than that he is willing to to challenge its leadership when he disagrees with it, stopping not at words but by taking action.....

c'mon aunty, you've heard the conservatives....

....rich people like MM are so overburdened by taxes that there isn't a he'penny left for 'worthy causes'.

:rolleyes:

"Gun violence is a major problem in the united states and gun rights advocates refuse to acknowledge that fact"

Lets run with that absurd notion.

leading cause of injury and related deaths from the CDC 1990 to 2000. All sexes races and ages combined.

1 Unintentional MV Traffic 42443

2 Suicide Firearm 16869

3 Unintentional Fall 15019

4 Unintentional Poisoning 14078

5 Homicide Firearm 11348

6 Unintentional Unspecified 7218

7 Suicide Suffocation 6198

8 Unintentional Suffocation 5555

9 Suicide Poisoning 5191

10 Unintentional Fire/burn 3423

leading cause of deaths from the CDC 1990 to 2000. All sexes races and ages combined.

1 Heart Disease 700142

2 Malignant Neoplasms 553768

3 Cerebrovascular 163538

4 Chronic Low. Respiratory Disease 123013

5 Unintentional Injury 101537

6 Diabetes Mellitus 71372

7 Influenza & Pneumonia 62034

8 Alzheimer's Disease 53852

9 Nephritis 39480

10 Septicemia 32238


It looks like we would need to ban autos, Suicide ,falling and Poisions ,Mcdonalds, Sugar, Tobacco and alchohol and Alzheimers before we even get close to people using guns.


BTW inanimate objects to not harm people people.

Typical of the asinine mentality I mentioned above to try to avoid the reality by obfuscation.

I'm not going to pick your ludicrous statistics apart line by line because 'shooting fish in a barrel' is boring.....I'll just say this.....

You've just used accident statistics and health statistics to illustrate your point that gun violence is NOT a major problem in the US........






What's next? You going to illustrate a point about how safe the world is under Bush by quoting a story about the terrorist attacks in Turkey, Spain and Baghdad??

"I'm not going to pick your ludicrous statistics apart line by line because 'shooting fish in a barrel' is boring"

No it's impossible and your original statement would be ill informed if it was anyone else. Coming from you it's moronic.

H20. try this book it refutes every crackpot idea theory ever given about gun control.

More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott.

The dog ate his data...

No thanks....but since we are suggesting each other reading material have you looked at 'Imperial Hubris' by Mr. Anonymous, an acknowledged CIA insider and the former top man on Bin Laden?

How about a book of the day forum?

I will check out Imperial Hubris. What I have read so far on it shows it as being a bit short sighted. Given information that keeps pouring out of Russia (who trained Sadams army) that Al Queda had it's operatives working Sadams Iraq hard as it's best sorce for WMD's. It appears they have them in their hands as we speak.

If that's where they went you'd blame clinton.

No . I like Clinton. He agrees with GW for the most part. I think he did what he was capable of Re terrorism given the way he viewed it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stlhdh2o:

" Micheal Moore loves his country, if for no other reason than that he is willing to to challenge its leadership when he disagrees with it, stopping not at words but by taking action"--stlhdh20


How many bong hits did it take to get to the center of that tootsie pop?


Michael Moore doesn't love this country and just want to challenge it's leadership-- He wants to see her fall flat on her face.

How many times do you need to be reminded?--In referring to America he said in his movie The Big One,

"one evil empire down--one to go."--Michael Moore Or sthdh20, do you agree with him that America would be much better served with a Socialist form of government and economic system?


AuntyM has her concerns about Bush's leadership--but she's smart enough to recognize that Moore isn't just anti-Bush, he's anti-American. There's a profound diffrence!

We can all give our opinion of Moore's patriotism, but I haven't heard the ruling of the "Who Loves America and Who Hates It" council yet.

There isn't one? Oh. Never mind.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stlhdh2o:


I'm not going to pick your ludicrous statistics apart line by line because 'shooting fish in a barrel' is boring--sthdh20


Please bore us a little about gun statistics--Or like most of those in favor of gun control you don't like to let facts get in your way.

You're really in top form today.

And since you said that you think Michael Moore is a Patriot and GW wipes his butt with the American flag insulting all the brave men that have served this country--How do you feel about John Kerry throwing his medals away and saying publically that his 'brothers in arms were baby killers and rapists?

Where? Inner cities and gang violence is where. Usually where gun control is strongest. i.e. D.C. As far as Moore is concerned, im worried about his health. Speaking of health care....

Nice paraphrase.

The Vietnam war DID turn soldiers into rapists and baby killers, just not all or even the majority of them. My Lai is only the most publicized instance, many veterans have their own personal horror stories.

Just as Abu Ghraib turned ordinary soldiers into torturers.

flip it, strip it, flip it, flop it, drop it, pop it, say whatever you want. Bush was cowering in a frickin backwater united states watering hole when the bullets were flying and the soldiers were dying.

...how do I feel about his tossing the medals? I laud his courage. The medals were awarded to him, they are his to do with what he wishes. I can think of no more powerful symbolic gesture....

The guy won the medals defending his brothers fer crissake...who gives a rats pointed a** what he did with them after that?

The only medal Bush ever wore on his chest was a pledge pin..... legacy, no doubt .

IMO, a man's patriotism isn't defined by how vigorously he falls into lock step with his countries leaders, its the effectiveness with which he expresses his dissension.

When war heros throw their medals in the garbage I consider that a pretty effective delivery of the message.

Your not SUPPOSED to like it. Its SUPPOSED to ruffle Righty's feathers.........

Now go ahead...explain to me how a decorated combat hero is a traitor and a privileged draft dodger is a patriot.

Explain it to my cousin whose Dad was drafted and died during the v war.

If you throw away your medals are you still decorated? My cousin, a decorated Marine, is disgusted by Kerry, politics aside. And by some of these justifications in the name of ideological bull****. "Get in the game you fukin scumbags" D.I. Perry

SCOWAK

Quote; "Please bore us a little about gun statistics"
--------------------------------------
Seems you got that covered very well.

Time to troll that RED Herring in hopes for a take down. :rolleyes: Gun control will not be a major issue in this election. I'm sure a diversion is needed to take the focus alway from what most peoples are concerned with in 2004. Today most voters (see polls) are concerned that the Bush Administration is to risky and careless with the lives of American soldiers and a failed foriegn policy, while generating more hate and terrorists in the process. Guess that's what you get when the leader of the free world, rides in on the back of ENRON and all the other scandalist and corrupted that he represents. Bet those cheated retiree's are doing all they can to get Bush out.

And to think that he (The commander in chief) was AWOL ( facts=F-911 paper trail) when he was active in the Coast Guard, as an enlisted man. I voted for Reagan and GW's father, Bush senior, but I never could get behind this guy. Always seemed unqualified and without the qualities of a true leader. He never will be accused of being a great communicator that's for sure.lol

In the mean time Kerry and McCain were representing themselves with courage and pride during a difficult times of Viet Nam. I am a big fan of John McCani, but he's not on the ballot. The only other real options is Kerry. You see, we independents have choices. We can choose from the best available candidate and not be bound by some cult idea that we have to vote as we are told, along party lines. Looks like this is the Year of the Democrat. If Kerry is elected and screws up, I want hesitate to vote his butt out in a New York second.

my .02

racerdan-

....and goharley is disgusted by Bush and his cowardice, politics aside........ what's yer point? What, you grunts check your disdain for draft dodgers at the door here or what?

Aunty-

I think characterizations like 'trickery' are pretty similar to when elvis or anyone else around here for that matter calls someone else a liar. Its all about how you interpret what you see and hear.

One of the big criticisms I hear about Bowling is that Charlton Hestion never held a gun over his head and said 'from my cold dead hand'.....the point of that edit, or at least my interpretation of the point is that he might as well have...by not having the sensitivity to reschedule gun advocate events in the face of such an enormous tragedy it was equivalent to having done so.

I don't call that dishonest.....anyone even remotely plugged into current events knows that file footage of Heston's.

I knew some (one) would try to defend Heston's 'ethnics' comments by telling everyone how gun violence is a problem of 'the inner city'. ...YOU EVER BEEN TO COLUMBINE? Tell that to that to the dead childrens parents.......

I realize its cold comfort, but lets keep **** in perspective, huh? We need more parachutes, thats where your anger should be directed. Think of all the lives saved. Keep the guns, give out chutes and the deaths drop considerably. Duh. Moore does need to lose a few pounds, or he wont be around for his next umentary or whatever. BTW, numero uno was auto accidents, mainly caused by buffoons that were not paying attention or driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs and shortened attention spans, like placing the DVD in the headrest so johnny will shut up or all the above. Soccer moms that tailgate kill more people than guns. Cant argue with ignorance. :p

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stlhdh2o:


The Vietnam war DID turn soldiers into rapists and baby killers--sthdh20

I would encourage you to do more than watch an Oliver Stone movie in forming your opinions
about the American men who fought in SE Asia.

------------------------------------------------------------
IMO, a man's patriotism isn't defined by how vigorously he falls into lock step with his countries leaders, its the effectiveness with which he expresses his dissension.--sthdh20

What war or major military conflict in the history of the world was ever won by expressing descension?

------------------------------------------------------------

....how do I feel about his tossing the medals?
I laud his courage. The medals were awarded to him, they are his to with what he wishes. I can think of no more powerful gesture--sthdh20


You do realize that John Kerry has said publicly that the medals he threw weren't his own, but rather the medals earned by others--He changed his story to that version after a focus group suggested throwing his own medals didn't track well with male voters between 18 and 49. Just the kind of man with firmly planted belief system and strongly held convictions this country needs at this critical point in our Nations history. If he's elected President let's just pray that his focus groups are always available to guide him and that the direction they move him- on a givin' day are in this countries best interest.

------------------------------------------------------------

Now go ahead...explain to me how a decorated combat hero is a traitor and a privileged draft dodger is a patriot.--sthdh20


John Kerry did earn some medals in Vietnam during the 4 months that he served over there(most of which he nominated himself for and their validity was questioned by his CO--Including one of his non-combat related boo-boos that required some Bactine spray and a band aid-He asked for and received the Purple Heart.)

In the olden days when I got a boo-boo my Mom would spray Bactine on and put a band aid on it and then just 'kiss it and make it better.

------------------------------------------------------------


Was it Bush you were referring to when you said,"priviledged draft dodger."?

If so please tell me how someone who served honorably in the Air National Guard is a draft doger?

Before you say that the Guard isn't really military service but rather some kind of club med for children of rich parents --Tell that to the thousands of them serving abroad putting themselves in harms way every day--Not to mention the thousands here at home working with homeland security to keep you, me and our loved ones safe.

So AM , you should enjoy the movie

So are all the people who chose not to join the military during the Vietnam war scumbags? I remember a whole lot of good folks who "dodged" the draft during those years and most did not join the National Guard or ROTC or anything else. If I remember right those who were in the military were not looked upon with much respect and were certainly not supported like they are now.

In regards to the president treating our soldiers as just expendable fodder that is pretty far off the mark. Soldiers in war always sacrifice their lives and those who are in the volunteer armed forces today relaize that and knowingly and willingly serve. It sould be argued I suppose that all wars are a waste of good men and women.

If Bush had engaged in civil disobedience to avoid the war and protest its very existence I would have some respect for him. That he allows people in his campaign to attack Kerry's service record in spite of his own personal cowardice is a clear indication of the true nature of this guy's 'character'.

I find it unfathomable that people could find a shred of honor in this disgraceful 'President'.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AuntyM:
[
This situation was well covered during the Republican primary 4 years ago. It's why many of us supported McCain, who could easily have hidden in the guard during Nam, but instead, spent 5 years as a prisoner of war after being shot down.--AuntyM

Who does John McCain feel is best suited to lead our Nation and it's military during these difficult times? Who is he supporting and actively campaigning for in the upcoming election?

At the end of F911 Michael Moore quotes Condoleeza Rice as saying, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.” Asjust like he did with the Charlton Heston speech in BFC, Mike plays fast and loose with the truth through the world of editing. But that was the truncated, Michael Moore version. Now for the full, unexpurgated quote:

“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.”


Do you see what he did there ? I suppose it does not matter if you want to believe it's the truth.

Mccain said that Kerry's testimony hurt the POW's and was used against them. Most of the people that served with him think he was trying to get back stateside by any means possible. Bushs commanding officers said he met his obligation. I have a cousin that ws in the NG and a pilot from 1968 to 1974 . He was never sent to Vietnam and was honorable discharged . Our family had no money or connections. He joined the NG and served. I suppose Bush could have been shown favors because of his family. So choose your evil

At least we STILL have a free press, but remember W. said "there ought to be a limit on freedom." We just cannot afford four more years with this idoit at the helm. The leader of the Free World and he has trouble piecing two complete sentences together.


George W. Bush's Credibility
Bush Pressured CIA to Cook the Books
"In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, CIA analysts were ordered repeatedly to redo intelligence assessments that concluded al-Qaida had no operational ties to Iraq, according to a veteran CIA counterterrorism official who has written a book that is sharply critical of the decision to go to war with Iraq."
The Los Angeles Times July 01, 2004

Administration Stonewalls Abu Ghraib Investigation
"Mr. Rumsfeld's handling of another issue, the Red Cross reports on Iraq, is the most outrageous example of the administration's bad faith on the prison scandal. The Bush administration has cited Red Cross confidentiality policies to explain its failure to give up the reports. The trouble is, the Red Cross has repeatedly told the administration to go ahead and share the agency's findings with Congress, as long as steps are taken to prevent leaks."
The New York Times June 30, 2004

President Questioned About Plame Outing
"A team of federal prosecutors interviewed President Bush in the Oval Office for more than an hour on Thursday as part of their investigation into whether administration officials illegally disclosed to a journalist the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer, the White House said."
The New York Times June 25, 2004

Bush's Reassurances Hardly Reassuring
"We can now see the August 2002 legal opinion for ourselves, thanks to The Post, which posted the complete text on its Web site Monday. Reading the memo's legalistic explanation of why "the mere inflicting of pain or suffering on another" is not torture, you begin to understand why Attorney General John Ashcroft refused last week to release the opinion himself -- and why Bush's description of it was so misleading. The document, in its dry, lawyerly way, is as shocking as the Abu Ghraib photographs."
The Washinton Post June 15, 2004

Top Military Brass Implicated in Abu Ghraib Scandal
"The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, issued a classified order last November directing military guards to hide a prisoner, later dubbed "Triple X" by soldiers, from Red Cross inspectors and keep his name off official rosters. The disclosure, by military sources, is the first indication that Sanchez was directly involved in efforts to hide prisoners from the Red Cross, a practice that was sharply criticized by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba in a report describing abuses of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad."
US News & World Report June 14, 2004

Bush Administration Places Itself Above the Law
"After assertions by the Bush administration that the United States did not intend to comply with the Geneva Conventions, that its treatment of detainees at Guantánamo Bay was beyond review by U.S. courts and that it could hold U.S. citizens without charge or trial, it is difficult to believe that any new leaked memorandum could have the power to shock.

What makes this memo different is that it lays out a strategy by which anyone in the U.S. government -- from the president down to the lowliest foot soldier -- can defeat a prosecution for violating U.S. laws. By asserting that the president is immune from criminal laws during any war, it is a full-scale attack on the Constitution itself."
[The article deals with Defense and Justice memos outlining how the government can engage in torture without fear of prosecution.]
The Miami Herald June 11, 2004

Meet the Real Flip-Flopper
Bush-Cheney team likes to say president is "steadfast." And John Kerry is "flip-flopper." But Senator Kerry is bolted to floor compared to Bush. President Bush is no more steadfast than Tony Soprano is faithful."
The Boston Globe June 05, 2004
Click here for article
Bush's Hands Off Style Leads to Problems
"President Bush has long prided himself for focusing on big goals rather than niggling details and delegating significant responsibility to his aides. But his belated attention to the brutality at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison has revealed vulnerabilities in a management style that had brought him personal and political success.

Outsiders, including some Republicans who speak forlornly about the debacle, said the Abu Ghraib scandal is the price Bush is paying for lacking curiosity and showing unwillingness to delve into potential roadblocks to his larger mission."

The Washington Post June 02, 2004

Bush's Flaws Have Long Been on Display, Despite Early Press Treatment
"The truth is that the character flaws that currently have even conservative pundits fuming have been visible all along. Mr. Bush's problems with the truth have long been apparent to anyone willing to check his budget arithmetic. His inability to admit mistakes has also been obvious for a long time."
The New York Times May 28, 2004
Click here for article
Secret Budget Memo Shows Drastic Cuts Across the Board
"The White House put government agencies on notice this month that if President Bush is reelected, his budget for 2006 may include spending cuts for virtually all agencies in charge of domestic programs, including education, homeland security and others that the president backed in this campaign year."
The Washington Posts May 27, 2004

Prison Abuse Scandal Showing Signs of Cover Up
"The Bush administration is doing its best to keep secret the policies it has developed for handling foreign prisoners and to stifle congressional examination of the issue."

"President Bush compounds the damage by refusing to make public the practices that U.S. interrogators are allowed to use with foreign detainees. The administration's claims that these all conform to the Geneva Conventions have little credibility -- not only because the International Red Cross and other outside experts strongly disagree but because sworn statements by senior Pentagon and Army officials at Armed Services hearings have been riddled with contradictions."

The Washington Post May 23, 2004

Bush Arrogance and Hubris Increasingly Evident
"Those in Bush's inner circle reconciled themselves to this suspension of morality long ago. They live in a bubble in which everything is permitted militarily and politically in the pursuit of total victory. Their approach to the Iraq campaign is the same as their approach to all things: 'We can do anything we want to win. We can do no wrong. We will brook no dissent.' "
The Guardian (United Kingdom) May 21, 2004

Bush Guilty of Violating Propoganda Law
"Mock news reports produced and distributed to local television stations by the Bush administration to promote the Medicare prescription-drug program violated a provision of federal law that prohibits the use of taxpayer funds for "covert propaganda," the General Accounting Office determined yesterday."
The Seattle Times May 20, 2004

Bush Administration Touting Programs it Tried to Cut
"Like many of its predecessors, the Bush White House has used the machinery of government to promote the re-election of the president by awarding federal grants to strategically important states. But in a twist this election season, many administration officials are taking credit for spreading largess through programs that President Bush tried to eliminate or to cut sharply."
The New York Times May 19, 2004

More Evidence of Offical Involvement in Torture Scandal
"Republicans on Capitol Hill were notably reluctant to back Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And NEWSWEEK has learned that U.S. soldiers and CIA operatives could be accused of war crimes. Among the possible charges: homicide involving deaths during interrogations. 'The photos clearly demonstrate to me the level of prisoner abuse and mistreatment went far beyond what I expected, and certainly involved more than six or seven MPs,' said GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, a former military prosecutor. He added: 'It seems to have been planned.' "

Newsweek May 17, 2004

Even in War, Bush More Concerned With Politics Than Policy
"I thought the administration would have to do the right things in Iraq — from prewar planning and putting in enough troops to dismissing the secretary of defense for incompetence — because surely this was the most important thing for the president and the country. But I was wrong. There is something even more important to the Bush crowd than getting Iraq right, and that's getting re-elected and staying loyal to the conservative base to do so. It has always been more important for the Bush folks to defeat liberals at home than Baathists abroad. That's why they spent more time studying U.S. polls than Iraqi history."
The New York Times May 13, 2004

Torture and Abuse Appear to be Systemic
"At congressional hearings last week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and senior military commanders repeatedly tried to distinguish what they characterized as isolated acts by a handful of individuals at Abu Ghraib from the general procedures under which physical and mental harassment is used to soften up prisoners and under which prison guards are ordered to "set the conditions" for intelligence interrogators. They pretended there was no connection between the two.

Yet a growing body of evidence shows that the connection is integral."

The Washington Post May 11, 2004

Bush Facing Criticism from the Right
"After three years of sweeping actions in both foreign and domestic affairs, the Bush administration is facing complaints from the conservative intelligentsia that it has lost its ability to produce fresh policies.

The centerpiece of President Bush's foreign policy -- the effort to transform Iraq into a peaceful democracy -- has been undermined by a deadly insurrection and broadcast photos of brutality by U.S. prison guards. On the domestic side, conservatives and former administration officials say the White House policy apparatus is moribund, with policies driven by political expediency or ideological pressure rather than by facts and expertise."
The Washington Post May 10, 2004

Bush Sees America as Above International Law
"Instead of a country committed to law, the United States is now seen as a country that proclaims high legal ideals and then says that they should apply to all others but not to itself. That view has been worsened by the Bush administration's determination that Americans not be subject to the new International Criminal Court, which is supposed to punish genocide and war crimes."
The New York Times May 07, 2004
Click here for article
What Did He Know, And When Did He Know It?
"Mr Bush also faces rising anger in Congress at his administration's failure to come forward about the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners. He admitted he first learned of the torture claims in EARLY JANUARY."

AM,

As I remember and all my reading on the war shows it was more popular to avoid going than to have gone in the day. Much unlike WWII where 16 million served.

"... most of which he nominated himself for and their validity was questioned by his CO--Including one of his non-combat related boo-boos that required some Bactine spray and a band aid-He asked for and received the Purple Heart. In the olden days when I got a boo-boo my Mom would spray Bactine on and put a band aid on it and then just 'kiss it and make it better."

Sorry, chicken-hawk, but it don't work that-a-way. You can't nominate yourself for a medal, and you cannot receive the Purple Heart for a noncombat related injury. Not only that, but his CO is the approving authority, so unless the CO is questioning his own judgement...

I'm sure McCain and Dole will appreciate your comparison of a combat related injury to that of a "boo-boo."

The administration has announced that it will be calling up members of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) to report back to active duty. Those are retirees and people that have ETS'd. They're calling mostly engineers and intelligence people (Caveman?). 5,600 next month and more to follow. It's just like a backdoor draft keeping all those privileged safe - not to mention those that find it easier to sit behind a monitor playing cheerleader because they don't have the intestinal fortitude to strap on a pair of boots.

If Bush is a true believer in fulfililng one's duty to America and is truly sincere in his fight against terrorism, why isn't he more ardently persuading his own daughters to join the military now that they're done with college?

Just got back from seeing Fahrenheit 911. I thought is was a great and sobering film and highly recommend it!
If you haven't seen it or are basing your impressions on what other tell you to think then you are doing yourself a great disservice by not actually seeing the film. If you trash Moore and his work without actually knowing anything about him then you arguments here are pointless. Base your opinion on first hand knowledge not on what some radio, newspaper or television hack tell you to think.
Say what you want about Moore but there is no doubt this is one powerful film and while
I was not all that impressed with "Bowiling for Columbine" Moore makes up for it with this film.
Flame away at me if you want but unless you have actually seen the film then your criticism is baseless.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Stew:

If you haven't seen it or are basing your impressions on what other tell you to think then you are doing yourself a great disservice by not actually seeing the film.

Flame away at me if you want but unless you have actually seen the film then your criticism is baseless. --Stew

I've never seen a homosexual S&M snuff film either--do I need to go see one and lay down my hard earned money making the pornagraphers who made it wealthy to be able to say it's not my cup of tea?

SCOWAK

[Quote] "I've never seen a homosexual S&M snuff film either--do I need to go see one and lay down my hard .........................

------------------------------------------------

No you don't. Just relax, no need to go overboard. I think this movie and the public will do just fine without you seeing it. Please stay away, if seeing this movie brings out the thoughts you just mentioned. My I suggest that you get help if the condition doesn't improve. already to much wierd stuff going on out there. Probably time to go do some Bass fishing.

GH said: "If Bush is a true believer in fulfililng one's duty to America and is truly sincere in his fight against terrorism, why isn't he more ardently persuading his own daughters to join the military now that they're done with college?"


LOL. First, who said he didn't have those talks with his kids? Second, I would have that talk with my sons, but not my daughter (if I had a daughter). Just a personal opinion about women in the military...

But all that is beside the point. They are calling up those people because they need trained and experienced people ASAP. I doubt the Presidents daughters have any experience building bridges and hospitals while dodging road-side bombs...

Sorry, but you're wrong again. They are calling up those people because the Army is running thin, and all the "partriots" are playing cheerleader from their livingrooms instead of joining the fight.

And yet we're dismissing specialists rooted out be the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Nice.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PhishPhreak:

[QB] GH said: "If Bush is a true believer in fulfililng one's duty to America and is truly sincere in his fight against terrorism, why isn't he more ardently persuading his own daughters to join the military now that they're done with college?"


LOL. First, who said he didn't have those talks with his kids? Second, I would have that talk with my sons, but not my daughter (if I had a daughter). Just a personal opinion about women in the military...

------------------------------------------------------------

Women are highly intellegent and can contribute to our armed forces in a number of vital roles. However, I don't believe they should be on the front lines or in forward positions.


Because no one wants to see women suffer--that's why I say, " STOP WOMENS SUFFRAGE NOW!"

Absolutely awesome two part interview with Micheal Moore on Charle Rose this week.

First in depth interview I'd seen with the man and he won some newfound respect with me. Hey if good conservative Texan like Charlie considers him a friend, there must be adequate substance there.

I smell another congressional investigation as to the flight of the Bin Laden family. The questions raised are valid and I think the motivation of the Bush administration in accepting a personal call from Prince Bandar two days after a dozen of HIS COUNTRIES CITIZENS attacked the United States. Bin Laden's relatives WERE ON THE PLANE.

Valid questions raised and yet to be addressed satisfactorally by the Bush administration.

Good work MM!!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stlhdh2o:

Absolutely awesome two part interview with Micheal Moore on Charle Rose this week.

First in depth interview I'd seen with the man and he won some newfound respect with me. Hey if good conservative Texan like Charlie considers him a friend, there must be adequate substance there.--stlhdH20


Charlie Rose may be a Texan, but he's about as conservative as Phil Donahue. I saw the interview as well, and the questions Charlie Rose pitched at him made me think back fondly to my softball days.

The reason you've only seen one "in depth" interview with Michael Moore is because he doesn't want to have his Documentary exposed for the Mockumentary it really is. I'd like to see him do an "in depth" interview with Michael Medved about F911-- then let's see who's left standing.

------------------------------------------------------------


I smell another congressional investigation as to the flight of the Bin Laden family. --stlhdH20

The only thing a congressional investigation would find is that Richard Clarke (by his own omission) authorized those flights. Michael Moore doesn't tell you that in the movie ( because it doesn't fit in with his spooky conspiracy theory) but he does suggest that Richard Clarke is a man of integrity whom we should believe.

------------------------------------------------------------

Good work MM!!--sthdH2o


If you want to see other work that was considered "good"as well as" factual'' that lead people to have "enlightened views" by raising "valid questions" perhaps you should check out some of Leni Riefenstahl film work. They're not my cup of tea personally, but I understand the cinematography is brilliant and she won a number of awards. I'm not sure if Charlie Rose ever did an "in depth" interview with her though.

Who's this Phil Donahue guy they keep talking about? Is he involved in the presidential campaign or pertinent to the issues of today? Or is he behind the "blame America first" conspiracy?

If you combine the fact of their special treatment with the close financial connections between the two families, Bin Ladin and Bush, it raises serious questions.

Imagine spiriting the McVeigh family out of Oklahoma City the day after that bombing....mightn't the citizens of that city have valid questions as to why?

Would they have the right to expect their leaders to answer the goddamn question?

I think so.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stlhdh2o:

If you combine the fact of their special treatment with the close financial connections between the two families, Bin Ladin and Bush, it raises serious questions.--stlhdH20

------------------------------------------------------------

By saying they had ,"close financial connections"--Are you referring to the past investments both families had in the Carlyle Group?


If so, would you be just as alarmed to know that John Kerry and his family also held major investments in the Carlyle Group at the same time the bin Ladin family did? Michael Moore didn't mention that in his movie either--because it didn't help to promote his Spooky Conspiracy theory.

No.......its the special relationship between Dubya and the Bin Ladin family financial representative, (name eludes me off the top of my head) that I find alarming.

You know...they dodged the draft together...that guy.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AuntyM

During Vietnam, we had a draft. Most guardsmen never went to Vietnam. It was a National disgrace back then. The priveleged among us could serve in the guard and avoid Nam and it was cosidered by many, especially draftees, to be legal draft dodging.--AuntyM

------------------------------------------------------------

Do you think the men who served stateside in the Coast Guard during the Vietnam era were a bunch of ,"draft dodging scumbags"?

SCOWAK

Do you think the men who served stateside in the Coast Guard during the Vietnam era were a bunch of ,"draft dodging scumbags"?
-----------------------------------------------------------

Are you referring to men that served, or the Chicken Hawks that choose to be AWOL? There's a big difference, you know.

I am sure guys like Salma with their keen anylitical minds causghtt all 59 and still came to the conculsion that this is a documentary and factual instead of pure propaganda.

It's long but worth it. the full text isnot up yet so I could not post the link. But i will when it's available.


Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 By Dave Kopel


This is a preliminary version of an article that will be published on National Review Online. 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 result, the number of listed deceits has been raised from 56 to 59. On July 8, I updated the listed deceits, to account for some new ones based on leads supplied by readers, and to remove the "deceit" label from some items which I thought were deceitful, but which a significant number of readers did not.


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, shorter 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."


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 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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. 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 the 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.


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 premature calls 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.


At 10:00 p.m., which network took the lead in retracting the premature Florida win for Gore? The first retracting network was CBS, not Fox.


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. (Linda Mason, Kathleen Francovic & Kathleen Hall Jamieson, “CBS News Coverage of Election Night 2000: Investigation, Analysis, Recommendations” (CBS News, Jan. 2001), pp. 12-25.)


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.


2000 Election Recount

Deceit 3


A little while later:

…Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential vote, “under every scenario Gore won the election.”

What Moore doesn’t show is that a six-month study in 2001 by news organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN found just the opposite. Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily Democratic counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida and the election.

Thomas Frank, “Film offers limited view,” Newsday, June 27, 2004. 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.


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 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.


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.


It seems to me that even if we presume that the 1,100 wrongly purged Florida voters would have voted Democratic at the same rate that felons do (even though some of these voters were non-felons who were the victim of mistaken identity), the net result of the 2000 purge fiasco harmed Bush: the number of votes which Gore gained as a result of 20 counties refusing to conduct the felon purge far outnumbered how many votes that Gore lost as the result of the overbroad purges in other counties.


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.


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. Moore continues: “No President had ever witnessed such a thing on his inauguration day. 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.


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.


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.)

[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, used the death of Ronald Reagan as an occasions to write a June 7 obituary calling Reagan "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.


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 that every decent human being still feels about September 11.


But remember, Moore does not necessarily feel the same way. As New York’s former Mayor Edward Koch reported, Moore later said, “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.)


Like several of the other deceits identified in this report, the September 11 deceit is not part of the film itself. Several of the deceits involve claims that Moore has made when discussing the film. Like some deceits which are identified near the end of this report, the September 11 deceit involves the contradiction between Moore's purported feelings about a topic in the movie and what appear to be his actual feelings about that topic. If a Klansman made a film which feigned admiration for Rosa Parks, that too would be a form of deceit, even if the film were accurate in its portrayal of Parks as a great American hero.


On the other hand, 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, 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. Although I consider the disjunction to be deceitful, other people may not.


Bush on September 11

Cheap Shot


Fahrenheit mocks President Bush for continuing to read a story to a classroom of elementary school children after he was told about the September 11 attacks.


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."


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.")


Saudi Departures from United States

Deceits 11-15

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. Although there is still conflict on the issue, there appears to have been a charter flight from Tampa, Florida, which took three Saudis to Lexington, Kentucky.)

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.


Again, Moore is misleading. His film 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.


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.

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. Omission of Commission staff finding that many Saudis were asked "detailed questions" before being allowed to leave, 5. Moore himself wanted to fly when he says only the bin Ladens did.)


Bush and James Bath

Deceits 16-17

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: Frank, Newsday; 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 required the Alabama National Guard to black out the names any Guardsmen whose medical information was on the same pages as the records which the Alabama Guard released regarding George Bush's health records. 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.


Bush and Prince Bandar

Deceit 18


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.)


I am not suggesting that Mr. Fowler is in any way corrupt; I’m sure that he is sincere (although, in my view, mistaken) in his strongly pro-Saudi viewpoint. 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 19-20


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 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 21-23

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 alright 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 bin Laden 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, 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.


Saudi Investments in the United States

Deceit 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.


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 about 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 Statistics, 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."


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.


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.


Proposed Unocal Pipeline in Afghanistan

Deceits 27-31


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.


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 new pipeline (which has not yet been built) has nothing to do with Unocal. 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 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.


Bush Administration Relationship with the Taliban

Deceit 32

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 Claimed that Osama bin Laden Might be Innocent and Opposed the Afghanistan War

Deceit 33


Fahrenheit 9/11 attempts in every way possible to link Osama bin Laden to George Bush. Moore even claims that Bush deliberately gave bin Laden “a two month head start” by not putting sufficient forces into Afghanistan soon enough. (On HBO, Moore explicitly claimed that the U.S. is protecting bin Laden in order to please the Saudis.) However, Moore has not always been so fierce demanding that the Afghanistan War be prosecuted with maximal power in order to get bin Laden:

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous “distraction” from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.

Hitchens, Slate. That Osama, if captured and tried in an American court, would be entitled to a presumption of innocence (in the sense that the prosecution would have to prove guilt) does not mean that the U.S. should be morally foreclosed from destroying Osama's base in Afghanistan and attempting to capture or kill Osama based on facts demonstrating his guilt.


Three days after September 11, Moore demanded that no military action be taken against Afghanistan:

"Declare war?" War against whom? One guy in the desert whom we can never seem to find? Are our leaders telling us that the most powerful country on earth cannot dispose of one sick evil f---wad of a guy? Because if that is what you are telling us, then we are truly screwed. If you are unable to take out this lone ZZ Top wannabe, what on earth would you do for us if we were attacked by a nation of millions? For chrissakes, call the Israelis and have them do tha

Well, I finally saw the movie. I doubt that every assertion made by Moore is correct, but it raises some thought provoking questions that people should consider for themselves and not let others (Dave Kopel or otherwise) draw conclusions for them without ever seeing them movie themselves. If nothing else, the movie is entertaining and funny (humorous shots at Bush) and a real touching portail of a patriotic American mother (Lipthscum) who lost her son in the Iraq war and then had to ask herself "why are we over there?"