What is it about Michael Moore that makes you so mad?

OK, I'll take a swing at this one. Michael Moore plays with how he edits the truth. As an example, in Bowling for Colombine, he talks about how heartless the NRA was to come to Denver the week after the shootings. When he does this, he plays a clip from Heston giving his "From my cold, dead hands" line. Only, that was taken from a different time and place - a year later in a different state. The side I heard, the NRA was going to cancel the convention, and the Denver city officials talked them into staying.

Things like this make Moore have a credibility issue. So when some people see his movies as documentaries, it just inflames any discussions that he is brought up in.

If as you said that you have done your research, then you should know Michael Moore is a liar. If you don't even know that, then you should go back to do some more researchs before posting an article. To be honest, I am embarrassed for you, and you should too. For one, Moore in his film points to the decision to wage war on Iraq has made us relocate the military power from Afghanistan to Iraq, thus caused our chance in capturing Osama bin Laden. First, that is just a unfound accustion, which clearly proves either Moore himself does not read history or his fans do not. Wars are usually wage in multiple fronts. For example, during World War 2, America was attacked by Japan. Why did we spent most of our war resource on Nazi German then? German never attacked us. Another example, we won the Cold War because we wage a silent war on every fronts. The Russian couldn't keep up. Also if the Cold War is between United States and USSR, how come all the conflicts are elsewhere like Vietnam and Korea. I can keep naming wars with multiple front. The 1200 A.D. Mongol expansion is a multi-front operation: attacking China, Korea, Japan, Persian, Ayrain (Caliphs), Poland, Russia, Hungry.... Literally attacking every directions. Moore seems to think wars can only be waged in his vision. When did he become a military expert? If not, how come he said things complete contradict historical successful wars. Second, what do Moore care about Osama bin Laden escaping anyway? He should be glad as a matter of fact because he believes Osama bin Laden and Taliban are innocent. Before the Iraq War was bought to table, Moore insisted that the Afganstanisn War is unjusted. Osama bin Laden and the Taliban were not proved guilty of any crime, and we should not persue these people. So what do he care if we attack Iraq and let these "innocent" men escape?

Bush family was into oil, but that doesn't mean they are close to Saudi Royal Fmaily because of their oil/gas business. They were closed to Saudi when they are in politics, just like any president. The concept of Bush family is close to Saudi because they used to be in oil is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. This really prove when people what to believe in something, they stop asking questions because they are already what they were told are lies. You might well say people behind Boering and AirBus are good friends because they make airplanes. Has it ever occcur to you that Xbox and Playstation2 are competitiors? Do you know what kind of energy business the Bush faimly was into? They are into the business of getting oil and gas from the America underground. George W. Bush in his younger years was in the business of buying and selling oil/gas fields in America, not in Saudi Arabia. He drilled many dry holes and his oil career was one unsuccessful story, and no way Saudi would know him because of his failed business. Your logic of Bush into oil, and Saudi has the most oil, therefore Bush and Saudi, are close is horrible. That is the same logic for saying anyone who open a Chinese restuarent is related to Chinese government, or anyone who raps is a Black person. Really unfounded.

Here is a quote describing W Bush business from washingtonpost:

"On July 6, 1977, George W. Bush celebrated his 31st birthday with little to show in the way of a resume or significant career prospects. Since arriving in Midland, Tex., in the summer of 1975 after finishing Harvard Business School, he had worked as an entry-level land man in the oil business, spending his days in the courthouse researching titles to mineral rights and negotiating deals to lease them. He lived in a cluttered bachelor apartment above a cinder-block garage, his bed held together by one of his ratty ties.............As world oil prices plummeted in the winter of 1985-86, George W. Bush faced the most serious crisis of his 11-year career as a West Texas oilman. Spectrum 7, his exploration and development company, had reported a net loss of $1.6 million in 1985, due to the fast-deteriorating value of its holdings. As the price of oil fell from $25 to $9 a barrel, the firm was on its way to losing another $402,000 by mid-1986. Bush's company owed more than $3 million in bank loans and other debts with no hope of paying them off in time. His investors had disappeared."

The following is from PBS:

"1975: George W. returns to Midland with money left over from his education trust fund and starts to work in the oil business. He begins as a freelance "landman," a middleman who researched land titles for potential oil prospects and attempted to lease the land on behalf of an oil company."

"1979: George W.'s Arbusto Oil company begins active operations. The company had been incorporated in June 1977 so Bush could use it as a credential in his congressional campaign. Although the Bush name attracted many investors, most lost money due to Arbusto's average performance. "

"1982: Arbusto Oil is renamed the Bush Exploration Company. Bush took the company public and received a $1 million investment from Philip A. Uzielli, a New York investor who had attended Princeton with James Baker. Over the next two years, Bush found it increasingly difficult to find investors in the oil business. "

I've actually seen the film and I find it interesting that the people that are so dead set against it have never even watched it. Hopefully little whip will pop in on this thread, because she's a Republican and I know that she's seen it and can therefore speak about it with a bit more authority.

As a side note, Michael Moore's book, Will They Ever Trust Us Again, Letters From the War Zone is a very good read . . . it's comprised of emails written by deployed soldiers and their family members. I read it and thought it was very touching.

I don't think there is much argument about the fact that the Bush family is into Oil, and you can't be in the Oil Business with out being tied with the Saudis

Greatest logic written here in Joe User. I mean I am just too dumb to follow all the high-level math. But I am sure you are correct. I like to eat Cuban food, and I can't be in Cuba food without being tied to the Communist Cuban government. Yeah, I must be a communist and I didn't know it. Thank you for showing me the truth. By the way, I am also into chemistry research, and I guess I can't be into chemistry without being tied to chemical companies like Johnson&Johnson or Dow Chemical. Yeah, I think I will ask them for my next paycheck.

this is off-topic in that it has nothing to do with michael moore nor is it directly related to the bush family finances.  are you familiar with 'team b'?  if not, you might want to look into it because it could  help you fill in some of the blanks regarding the ascendancy of ghw bush to the whitehouse and the apparent continuum linking his administration to that of the current president.  here's a link to an overview of 'team b' chronology i posted a while back. Link

I read your article. I am not going to comment everything, but one thing is out of place. Rumsfeld is not a neocon and your artcile seems to imply that. People who doesn't know what a neocon would say that. Also Rumsfled was not in power for a long time. He did start early and regained power in his late age, but he was powerless for a long time. Nixon hated him. George H. W. Bush dislikes him alot, supposively something happened between these two men. In fact, he was offered no position during George H. W. Bush era. He then went to private sector. In short, Rumey was in power early under President Ford and now back under W. Bush. It is inaccuarate to say he was in power for a long time. It is also inaccurate to say Rumsfeld is a proof for continum from GHW Bush to GW Bush. In fact, counter-proof. A proof shows that GW Bush used a man hated by his dad.

Rumsfeld is not a neocon and your artcile seems to imply that.

imply? hell if one of the founders of project for a new american century and a signatory to the pnac's 1998 letter calling on clinton to invade iraq and overthrow hussein (essentially the program that was put into play under the current president and the reason it appears so obvious that this was part of the bush administration agenda since long before 9/11) isnt a neocon, he musta developed antineocon vaccine while he was with searle.  he's been associated with them, appointed them, worked with them and may be about to go down for/with them.

Rumsfled was not in power for a long time

you mean he wasnt a cabinet member for a long time i believe.  during the years he was not an official member of the reagan and ghwbush administrations, rumsfeld was appointed to a number of commissions and was reagan's special envoy to the middle east (that's when he met with hussein to firm up whatever unholy alliance the us forged with iraq).  although he was less of a presence during the former bush presidency, his associates (wolfowitz, perle, etc) kept the chain intact.

GW Bush used a man hated by his dad.

hmmmm ill let that one simmer a while uncommented; it really is too tempting but...

You based your blog ona misconception. Conservatives do not fear Michael Moore. They do despise him for he is just a propagandist, but why fear such a pathetic and impotent individual?

As for your lies, I would have to agree with ChemicalKinetics. If you have done any research at all, you could have easily found them. Since you do not seem capable of doing any research, I will post them here for your easy reading:

http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/59_lies/

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Finally, since your research is so bad, I would say you are a very good desciple of Michael Moore. His sucks as well. At least he did have the decency at the end to say his movie was not a documentary, but just entertainment. Which is more than I can say for most of his lemmings. (pun intended).

Cappy1507, I am not a Republican, so I know that you aren't really asking me... but let me toss my two cents in here.

I would tell you that, although Moore is far from a reliable authority, the vehement attacks on him show a lot more about the attackers than they do about Moore.

The right has done very well using political information immunized against careful truth checking, through the use of humor. Rush Limbaugh is the poster child for this movement. However, they are outraged that such a tactic should be turned back against them.

There is a little bit more to it, though. The effectiveness of Limbaugh (as opposed to Savage, for example) is that he is generally deemed acceptable listening to much of middle American. People say that they don't believe him particularly, but they enjoy his humor, so they listen. (My wife who was more pro-Kerry than I was listened to him on the way home every day for years.) I believe that some of the tacticians on the right made a decision that the left's answer to Limbaugh needed to be thoroughly villified, to prevent a parallel audience from developing. The best way to do that is to saturate the audience with general ad hominem arguments (liar, etc.) and then follow up with a supply of specifics which might not be relevant or important, but convince the inattentive that the overall message has been disproved.

Moore's message is essentially populist, and populism raises a lot of hackles in America. For him, it is very significant that the African American crowds pelted George W. Bush with eggs during his first inaugural parade, that many in the House wanted to challenge the election results, but that the more upper crust Senate (including Democrats) would have no part in it. It is very significant that, similar to old European royalty, the ruling family of our country may have closer ties to the leading family of another country than to you and me. It is very significant that huge, international corporations have such power over the lives of everyday Americans. He clearly is skeptical of both big government and big business, and he questions extreme capitalism.

All of these viewpoints are debatable -- but they deserve open debate... and I can tell you that very little of America's power structure wants any of this on the agenda for debate. Thus the blizzard of mud slinging and nitpicking.

If we are to take our own forum members as representative:

In the ad hominem department we have Chemicalkinetics resorting to the generalized term of "liar" and saying he is "embarrassed" for you and your research. Little Whip takes two paragraphs to attack Moore's claim of coming from Flint, when he actually comes from a Flint suburb. (Abe Lincoln didn't grow up in a log cabin, either, so I guess that pretty much refutes his work, eh.)

Chemicalkinetics is typical of the factual debunking when he cites the many countries that have fought on multiple fronts, so how dare Moore attack our administration for diluting our effort on two fronts. There is no logic at all to Chemicalkinetics' attack, since most military people would agree that multiple fronts is something you try to force on your enemy and avoid for yourself -- but truly this is only a lead-in to another ad hominem argument: "When did he [Moore] become a military expert?" However, arguments such as Chemicalkinetics' work well because they so effectively draw listeners far from Moore's populist point.

I respect Genghis Hank's point about Moore's misleading editing, but the fact that many of the criticisms of Moore boil down to this sort of thing is telling. I teach a course in media studies, and one of my main goals in the course is to show how every screen representation of public affairs does exactly this. I can bring in a random newscast from any of the networks, and I never have to let the tape roll for very long before we find misleading editing. Pictures "prove" what is being discussed -- but the pictures are technically of something totally unrelated. Past footage is interspliced with current footage, graphical representations with real, etc. Without trying to do my entire lecture here, let me just say that Moore's films are well within the norms of current news broadcasting standards. You could, if you so wished, pick apart any network news broadcast similarly -- if you were opposed enough to the message therein to bother to do so.

The right gets its message across in the media, the middle gets its message across in the media. When the wolves howl over Michael Moore's message, in truth, they are trying to shut the left out of the discussion. The current dominant media is the screen, and screen communication is more entertainment-centered than logic and accuracy-centered. If populists are not allowed to communicate by the same standards, then they are effectively shut up... Which I think is the real point here.

Don -

1. Calling Moore the "left's answer to Limbaugh" is just nuts. Al Franken, maybe, but even that's a stretch. I don't particularly care for Limbaugh's floss ("half my mind tied behind my back") which I'd be glad for him to lose, but he is a legitimate political analyst with a sound intellectual footing. Moore's a propagandist moviemaker, pure and simple, and not a particularly good one.

2. Moore's whole shtick is suckering people into being exposed as something they're not. Perfectly legit to skewer him for pretending to have Flint origins. Nothing ad hominem about it, unless you're willing to concede everything Moore's done is ad hominem.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Michael Moore was a Green and Nader Supporter yet complained about a man he did not vote for losing plus he uses the Movie line from 1984 not a part written by George Orwell as a quote and credits it to George Orwell.
If anything, Moore has proven himself to be another in a long line of Orwellian (or my personal flavor Blairian) Documentary / Media people claiming to proclaim the truth.

Objectivity in News and Documentaries are dead...Long live the age of Propaganda and subjectivity!! Eric Blair would be proud!

Yes, I have seen Fahrenheit 9/11, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenhype 9/11, so far and I am trying to see Celsius 41.11...TRUE knowledge is power and I always seek to increase my power!!

I think it's really rather simple as to why so many Americans are not fond of Michael Moore. Personally, I could care less how many leftist propaganda pieces he wants to pass off as "documentaries". We all have the right to express our opinions in what ever medium we have access to and Moore takes full advantage of that. However, there is a price to be paid when you insult a rather large percentage of the population and then look down your nose at them when they take issue with it. Here is a quote or two (out of many made by Moore) that should clear things up a bit.

"They [Americans] are possibly the dumbest people on the planet"
"We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.

If Moore wants to speak for himself, thats fine, but comments like this will get him to the bottom of my $hit list in record time. It's obvious that Moore is laughing all the way to the bank while many American's stew over his insults - and again......thats fine with me. Having said that, I'm quite sure that few will shed a tear when his self absorbed, condescending, fat ass falls out of the lime light and into the "has-bin". When his biggest audience is the crickets in his backyard, he might finally understand the price I spoke of was greater than the sum of his ticket sales..

-Z

"They [Americans] are possibly the dumbest people on the planet" "We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.

What's funny is that people try to say that he's patriotic for what he does and what he says and that he does it and says it because he loves American. Although this is a bit offtopic, when one thinks about it, people who bash the French are actually patriotic of France!

"Please do not say things like Michael Moore is a liar - or he's full of crap. I want specifics of what he said, and why it is false. I'd like a non confrontational discussion"

"If as you said that you have done your research, then you should know Michael Moore is a liar. If you don't even know that, then you should go back to do some more researchs before posting an article. To be honest, I am embarrassed for you, and you should too."

And my dear Chemical, I am embarrassed for you. Cappy did do research and was asking for what it was that you refute. Moore's alleged distortion is debatable, but you can't just blanketly decide that everything he says is a lie. I mean, you do agree with him that George Bush lives in the White House, right?

Don, B ,you get an insightful from me.

What I have seen of the criticisms of Moore largely relate to one of the following:
1. The critic simply didn't get the joke.
2. The critic didn't realise it was a joke.
3. Moore stated his opinion or his interpretation straight after he had presented a fact, and the critic didn't make the same interpretation and thus decided the fact was incorrect, not just Moore's interpretation
4. The critic doesn't understand hyperbole and the importance of context.
5. The critic picked on the really unimportant points in an attempt to discredit everything Moore says. I've lied on occasion in my life, most of us have, but that doesn't mean I can't speak the truth.
6. The critic misunderstood the point Moore was making.

There are some legitimaite criticisms, as there are of any journalist. Contrary to the impression they like to give, they are simply fallible human beings. Moore is no different.

Calling Moore the "left's answer to Limbaugh" is just nuts. Al Franken, maybe, but even that's a stretch. I don't particularly care for Limbaugh's floss ("half my mind tied behind my back") which I'd be glad for him to lose, but he is a legitimate political analyst with a sound intellectual footing. Moore's a propagandist moviemaker, pure and simple, and not a particularly good one.

Daiwa, my first reaction is to say that you have it the wrong way around. My own (admittedly small) sampling of Limbaugh has included mostly silly statements, wild exaggerations, and showmanship. At least Moore has a serious point.

But as soon as I thought this, I realized that the argument itself isn't much worth pursuing because all I am doing is showing up the impossibility of having a political discussion dominated by entertainment based media. The Limbaugh crowd "gets" the serious point behind his bombast and the humor. The Moore crowd "gets" the serious point behind his. But this this isn't really promoting a political discussion.

Which really only brings me back to my original belief. It is not that Moore is a good source of information, nor that I am glad that this is how we do politics -- but if the right and the middle are going to have these entertainer-propagandists, the left will have to as well.

Mike's a good guy. A bit too keen on self-promotion for my taste, but I like him. And I've read all the "answer" sites about his movies -- they play just as fast and loose with the truth (many more so) as they claim Mike does in his films.

imply? hell if one of the founders of project for a new american century and a signatory to the pnac's 1998 letter calling on clinton to invade iraq and overthrow hussein (essentially the program that was put into play under the current president and the reason it appears so obvious that this was part of the bush administration agenda since long before 9/11) isnt a neocon, he musta developed antineocon vaccine while he was with searle. he's been associated with them, appointed them, worked with them and may be about to go down for/with them.

You think the New American Century equals Neo-con? Ha ha ha. There are Democrats signed to the 1998 leter to call Clinton to invade Iraq. Are they neo-con? Jesus Christ. The letter they signed in 1998 means nothing of what you said. In 1997, John Kerry called for unilateral action against Saddam. Is he a neo-con? Ha ha ha In that 1998 letter you mentioned, do you bother to noticed that Richard L. Armirage, Francis Fukuyama also signed it. Ha ha ha Are there neo-con signed that letter? Sure, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz are the two most famous ones.

5. The critic picked on the really unimportant points in an attempt to discredit everything Moore says. I've lied on occasion in my life, most of us have, but that doesn't mean I can't speak the truth.

Didn't I point out an important point? If Moore implies that Iraq War is a distraction to capture the most dangerous man to us, Osma bin Laden, but at the same time he privately believed and actually openly said bin Laden is innocent, then is just plain illogical. I believe that is not an unimportant point, as Moore tried to claimed that Iraq War is a distraction.

The right gets its message across in the media, the middle gets its message across in the media.

Yeah.... we all believe that one. Republicans get sooo much television time. Lets see in the elections Bush got about 20 seconds on the news and Kerry about 1 minute. And thats not even in depth.

GW Bush used a man hated by his dad. hmmmm ill let that one simmer a while uncommented; it really is too tempting but...

Seriously. The inside story is always that HW Bush and Rumsfeld dislike each other alot. Just as today, you hear Powell and Cheney dislike each other. As for the facts that Reagan sent Rumsfeld to see Saddam does not mean Iraq and American forged any alliance. Clinton sent Carter to N. Korea too. What does that mean? Even though Rumsfeld was not hated by Reagan, he was not in power. Bush has also sent out a bunch of no name people for convey. People who get to sent out for a convey do not make national decision. They do their job as messenger -- which is important, but they are not allowed to act on their opinion. Such that, Rumsfeld was not "in power", he was not a decision maker. There are tons of people sent out for convey every year by G W. Bush, do you think they are all in power. Be consistency.

I am going to cut and paste some defintion of a neocon here. I think some not all reader have no idea what a neocon. Neocon, in fact, are mostly FDR Democrats. Later, they are joined by Teddy Rooverselt Repubicans. Democrats got changed so much they forgot who they once were. Anyway, Rumsfeld and Cheney are not FDR Democrats and they are not neo-con. They were in power when Nixon was president. How can they be neo-con?

Beliefs
This political group supported a militant anticommunism; more social welfare spending than was acceptable to libertarians and mainstream conservatives; and sympathy with a non-traditionalist agenda, being more inclined than other conservatives toward an interventionist foreign policy and a unilateralism that is sometimes at odds with traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law. They feuded with traditional right-wing Republicans, and the nativist, protectionist, isolationists once represented by ex-Republican "paleoconservative" Pat Buchanan.

But domestic policy does not define neoconservatism; it is a movement founded on, and perpetuated by an aggressive approach to foreign policy, opposition to communism during the Cold War, free trade, and opposition to Middle Eastern states that are perceived to pursue terrorism or anti-Israel policies. Thus, their foremost target was the conservative but pragmatic approach to foreign policy often associated with Richard Nixon, i.e., peace through negotiations, diplomacy, and arms control, détente and containment (rather than rollback) of the Soviet Union, and the beginning of the process that would lead to bilateral ties between the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the U.S. Today, a rift still divides the neoconservatives from many members of the State Department, who favor established foreign policy conventions.

Intellectually, neoconservatives have been strongly influenced by a diverse range of thinkers from Max Shachtman 's strongly anti-Soviet version of Trotskyism (in the area of international policy) to the elitist, ostensibly neo-Platonic ideas of Leo Strauss.

[edit]
Origins
Neoconservatives are conservatives who are "new" (neo) to the conservative movement in some way. Usually, this comes as a result from the migration from the left of the political spectrum to the right, over the course of many years. Though every such neoconservative has an individual story to tell, there are several key events in recent American history that are often said to have prompted the shift.

Many of today's most famous neocons are from Eastern European Jewish immigrant families, who were frequently on the edge of poverty. The Great Depression radicalized many immigrants, and introduced them to the new and revolutionary ideas of socialism and communism.

The Soviet Union's break with Stalinism in the 1950's led to the rise of the so-called New Left in America, which popularized anti-Sovietism along with anti-capitalism. The New Left became very popular among the children of hardline Communist families.

Opposition to the New Left and Détente with the Soviet Union
Later to emerge as the first important group of social policy critics from the working class, the original neoconservatives, though not yet using this term, were generally liberals or socialists who strongly supported the Second World War. Multiple strands contributed to their ideas, including the Depression-era ideas of former New Dealers, trade unionists, and Trotskyists, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman. The current neoconservative desire to spread democratic capitalism abroad often by force, it is sometimes said, parallels the Trotskyist dream of world socialist revolution. The influence of the Trotskyites perhaps left them with strong anti-Soviet tendencies, especially considering the Great Purges targeting alleged Trotskyites in Soviet Russia. A number of neoconservatives such as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz were Shachtmanites in their youth while others were involved in the Social Democrats, USA, which was formed by Schachtman's supporters in the 1970s.

The original "neoconservative" theorists, such as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, were often associated with the magazine Commentary, and their intellectual evolution is quite evident in that magazine over the course of these years. Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s the early neoconservatives were anti-Communist socialists strongly supportive of the civil rights movement, integration, and Martin Luther King. However, they grew disillusioned with the Johnson administration's Great Society. Some neoconservatives also came to despise the counterculture of the 1960s and what they felt was a growing "anti-Americanism" among many baby boomers, in the movement against the Vietnam War and in the emerging New Left.

According to Irving Kristol, former managing editor of Commentary and now a Senior Fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington and the Publisher of the hawkish magazine The National Interest, a neoconservative is a "liberal mugged by reality." Broadly sympathetic to Woodrow Wilson's idealistic goals to spread American ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject his reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives.

As the radicalization of the New Left pushed these intellectuals further to the right in response, they moved toward a more aggressive militarism. Admiration of the "big stick" interventionist foreign policy of Theodore Roosevelt remains a common theme in neoconservative tracts as well. Now staunch anti-Communists, a vast array of sympathetic conservatives attracted to their strong defense of a "rolling-back" of Communism (an idea touted under the Eisenhower administration by traditional conservative John Foster Dulles) began to become associated with these neoconservative leaders. Influential periodicals such as Commentary, The New Republic, The Public Interest, and The American Spectator, and lately The Weekly Standard have been established by prominent neoconservatives or regularly host the writings of neoconservative writers.

Reply #15 By: Champas Socialist - 11/16/2004 3:51:13 AM "Please do not say things like Michael Moore is a liar - or he's full of crap. I want specifics of what he said, and why it is false. I'd like a non confrontational discussion" "If as you said that you have done your research, then you should know Michael Moore is a liar. If you don't even know that, then you should go back to do some more researchs before posting an article. To be honest, I am embarrassed for you, and you should too." And my dear Chemical, I am embarrassed for you. Cappy did do research and was asking for what it was that you refute. Moore's alleged distortion is debatable, but you can't just blanketly decide that everything he says is a lie. I mean, you do agree with him that George Bush lives in the White House, right? Don, B ,you get an insightful from me. What I have seen of the criticisms of Moore largely relate to one of the following: 1. The critic simply didn't get the joke. 2. The critic didn't realise it was a joke. 3. Moore stated his opinion or his interpretation straight after he had presented a fact, and the critic didn't make the same interpretation and thus decided the fact was incorrect, not just Moore's interpretation 4. The critic doesn't understand hyperbole and the importance of context. 5. The critic picked on the really unimportant points in an attempt to discredit everything Moore says. I've lied on occasion in my life, most of us have, but that doesn't mean I can't speak the truth. 6. The critic misunderstood the point Moore was making. There are some legitimaite criticisms, as there are of any journalist. Contrary to the impression they like to give, they are simply fallible human beings. Moore is no different.

That's where you would be incorrect. The following is from MSN. Link

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.

And this is from factcheck.org

Summary This anti-Bush radio ad is among the worst distortions we've seen in what has become a very ugly campaign. It states as fact some of the most sensational falsehoods that Michael Moore merely insinuated in his anti-Bush movie Farenheit 9/11 . The ad was released Oct. 25 by The Media Fund, an independent Democratic group run by former Clinton deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes. It falsely claims that members of the bin Laden family were allowed to fly out of the US "when most other air traffic was grounded," though in fact commercial air traffic had resumed a week earlier. The ad also falsely claims that the bin Laden family members were not "detained," when in fact 22 of them were questioned by the FBI before being allowed to leave -- and their plane was searched as well. And by the way, the man who gave approval for the flight wasn't Bush or even any of his close aides, it was former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke, now one of Bush's strongest critics. Analysis This one is wrong, wrong, wrong. Let us count the ways: Media Fund Radio Ad "Flight Home" Announcer: After nearly 3,000 Americans were killed, while our nation was mourning the dead and the wounded, the Saudi royal family was making a special request of the Bush White House. As a result, nearly two dozen of Osama bin Laden's family members were rounded up... Not to be arrested or detained, but to be taken to an airport, where a chartered jet was waiting...to return them to their country. They could have helped us find Osama bin Laden. Instead the Bush White House had Osama's family flown home, on a private jet, in the dead of night, when most other air traffic was grounded. We don't know whether Osama's family members would have told us where bin Laden was hiding. But thanks to the Bush White House...we'll never find out. Air Traffic Not Grounded The ad is as false as it can be when it claims the bin Laden family members flew home "when most other air traffic was grounded" following the attacks of September 11, 2001. In fact, according to the final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the 9/11 Commission), the bin Laden flight was on Sept. 20. (See footnote 28 in the 9/11 Commission's report in "supporting documents" at right). That was one week after the FAA allowed commercial air traffic to resume at 11am on Sept. 13. By that time all major airports in the US had re-opened, with the sole exception of Washington DC's Reagan National airport, which the bin Laden flight didn't use. The bin Laden family members were among a number of other Saudi citizens and government officials who left the US on special charter flights because they feared possible reprisals in the emotional aftermath that swept the US in the days after the 9/11 attacks. Neither the FBI nor the 9/11 Commission has found any of the departing Saudis had any links to terrorism: 9/11 Commission (page 330): The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to their departures. They concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion. Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights . Bin Laden Family Was Questioned The ad is also false when it says members of the bin Laden family were not "detained." In fact, the 9/11 Commission report states that the FBI questioned 22 of the 26 passengers on the bin Laden flight, some of them in detail. The FBI first checked faces of the passengers against passports to confirm identities, and also ran all names through several law-enforcement databases. It even searched the aircraft: 9/11 Commission (page 557 & 558): Twenty-two of the 26 people on the Bin Ladin flight were interviewed by the FBI. 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. The FBI had previously investigated two of the passengers on the bin Laden flight but had closed their cases prior to 9/11 after turning up "no derogatory information," according to the Commission's report. And in the years since then, the FBI has found no reason to re-open those cases. Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission said the bin Laden family members might not have been interviewed had they simply departed the country in the usual way, rather than on a charter flight with special White House clearance: 9/11 Commission (page 557): Having an opportunity to check the Saudis was useful to the FBI. This was because the U.S. government did not, and does not, routinely run checks on foreigners who are leaving the United States. This procedure was convenient to the FBI, as the Saudis who wished to leave in this way would gather and present themselves for record checks and interviews, an opportunity that would not be available if they simply left on regularly scheduled commercial flights. In other words, had the bin Laden family members merely driven across the border to Canada and flown home from there, they probably would not have been questioned at all. Bush White House The ad gives a false impression when it says the "Bush White House" made the decision agreeing to the Saudi government's request. Neither President Bush nor any of his immediate aides had anything to do with the decision. Richard Clarke -- the national security aide who later became one of Bush's strongest public critics -- testified repeatedly that he made the decision to allow the flights, after consulting with the Federal Bureau of Investigation: 9/11 Commission (page 329): We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals. . . . Clarke told us, "I asked the FBI, Dale Watson . . . to handle that, to check to see if that was all right with them, to see if they wanted access to any of these people, and to get back to me. And if they had no objections, it would be fine with me." Clarke added, "I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House." Clarke had been the top anti-terrorism aide in the White House under Clinton, then stayed on under Bush. Since leaving the Bush White House he has become an outspoken critic of the current administration, accusing the Bush team of ignoring his recommendations prior to the September 11 attacks. What Michael Moore Didn't Say This ad rushes in where even Michael Moore feared to tread in his anti-Bush movie Fahrenheit 9/11 . Moore merely led viewers to believe -- but never actually stated -- that the bin Laden flight left while US airspace was closed. And viewers who listened closely -- very closely -- might have heard Moore acknowledge that the bin Ladens were in fact interviewed by the FBI before being allowed to leave. Here's the way Moore manipulated his viewers: Moore (Fahrenheit 9/11): In the days following September 11th, all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded. The FAA has taken action to close all of the airports in the United States. Even grounding the President's father, former President Bush, on a flight forced to land in Milwaukee. Dozens of travelers stranded, among them, Ricky Martin, due to perform at tonight's Latin Grammy awards. Not even Ricky Martin would fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one. Except the bin Ladens. (video of plane taking off... song, "We've got to get out of this place") . . . It turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis. At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the bin Ladens out of the U.S. after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country. (video of Osama bin Laden) Notice that Moore drops in the words "after September 13" without explaining the significance of that date -- the day airspace reopened to commercial traffic at 11am. Viewers were invited to believe from all that Moore said before that airspace was still closed, when in fact it was not. That's a false insinuation, but not a false statement. Moore went on to interview a retired FBI agent who stated that "I think it would have been prudent, hand the subpoenas out, have 'em come in, get on the record. You know, get on the record." Perhaps, being retired, that agent wasn't aware that the FBI had interviewed the bin Laden family members. In any case, Moore didn't correct him. Moore also presented an interview with Craig Unger, author of the book House of Bush, House of Saud : Moore: Did the authorities do anything when the bin Ladens tried to leave the country? Unger: No, they were identified at the airport, they looked at their passports, and they were identified. Moore: But that's what would happen to you or I if we were... Unger: Exactly. Exactly. Moore: So a little interview, check the passport, what else? Unger: Nothing. So Moore knew the bin Ladens had been interviewed when he made the movie. Those three words -- "a little interview" -- are difficult to hear on the movie soundtrack, however. One blogger who posted an "unofficial transcript" of the movie missed them at first, recording that line as "So what did they do , they checked the passports, what else?" He later went back to correct the transcript after another pointed out the discrepancy. (Unger's book, published in March of this year, reports that the FBI was only able to check papers and identify everyone on the bin Laden flight. That is contradicted by the more authoritative Commission report, published July 22, 2004. The Commission interviewed, among others, the FBI agent who supervised the questioning of the bin Laden family members.) So, as misleading as Moore's sly insinuations are on this point, his movie isn't as bad as the Media Fund's outright falsehoods

Link



These are just 2 of many!

Reply By: ChemicalkineticsPosted: Tuesday, November 16, 20045. The critic picked on the really unimportant points in an attempt to discredit everything Moore says. I've lied on occasion in my life, most of us have, but that doesn't mean I can't speak the truth.Didn't I point out an important point? If Moore implies that Iraq War is a distraction to capture the most dangerous man to us, Osma bin Laden, but at the same time he privately believed and actually openly said bin Laden is innocent, then is just plain illogical. I believe that is not an unimportant point, as Moore tried to claimed that Iraq War is a distraction.

I think what Moore believes is unimportant on this issue - think his argument is regardless of what he believed, his critisism was of the contradictory actions of the administration. The administration has pointed to OBL as the most dangerous terrorist and made him #1 on the most wanted list. Moore is stating that they went after Iraq, and that went contrary to their decision that OBL was the target.

I don't think you can deny that at some point the target changed from OBL to Saddam. We were given various reasons as to why that decision was made, WMD, Harboring Terrorist, Money to al Quaeda. Most of those didn't pan out. And now OBL #2 on the most wanted list behind a coke dealer from columbia.

The critic didn't realise it was a joke

Wait a minute, is it a joke? Or is it a documentary? Most documentaries I know of (and I'm no media expert) are not satirical or parodies. Did I miss something here?

I'd say that the Dave Kopel (who BTW is a Democrat that supported Nader in 2000, as did Moore) piece (linked in reply #9) says it all with regard to Moore. Also, isn't it at least a little curious that guys like Kopel and Dick Morris (Fahrenhype 9/11, and a former Clinton advisor) saw fit to debunk Moore's propaganda? I mean these guys are not critics pushing some right wing agenda. If Moore was putting out pieces that were self admittedly satirical, I don't think the reaction would be the same as making claims they are documentaries.

I think what Moore believes is unimportant on this issue - think his argument is regardless of what he believed, his critisism was of the contradictory actions of the administration. The administration has pointed to OBL as the most dangerous terrorist and made him #1 on the most wanted list. Moore is stating that they went after Iraq, and that went contrary to their decision that OBL was the target. I don't think you can deny that at some point the target changed from OBL to Saddam. We were given various reasons as to why that decision was made, WMD, Harboring Terrorist, Money to al Quaeda. Most of those didn't pan out. And now OBL #2 on the most wanted list behind a coke dealer from columbia.

You are missing the most important factor. First, my original post is about answering someone why Moore is a liar. Well, if he believes Osama bin Laden is innocent and he also accuses the adminstration for going after the wrong target. Isn't that a contriction? Is going after an innocent man (bin Laden) the right target then? At least we know Saddam is guilty of something -- brenching a cease-fire agreement for 12 years.

It is simple to complain. Little kids do that best. But it is more important to have a stand. I can complain about that the tax is too high for Americans and the government is not providing enough programs at the same time, but those two are abit contradict with each other. I took no stand on that issue. If I believed Bush tax cut is too great, but I made a movie about Bush should be cutting more tax -- then I am lying. If I only want to marry a virgin, but I told my girlfriend that I want to have sex with her before marrying her, then I lied. What is so difficult about Moore has lied. For you to say Moore's belief is unimportant in determining if he is a liar or not -- is completely beyond me. If I believe in one thing and try to sell you an opposite concept. I am lying. Lying has everything to do with one's mental state. That is why a calculator or a computer does not lie. Yes, they can give you the wrong answer, but that can only be described as "misleading", because it wasn't like they knew the right answer and hide it from you. If I believed it is sunny outside and told you so even it was really raining, I have misleaded you. If I knew it is rainy outside and told you it is sunny, then I have lied to you. So please think a little bit before you write your next post. Moore's belief is the key, it is not Unimportant.
I like to answer some of your comment. First, the War on Terror is not the War on Osama bin Laden. We know by capturing bin Laden, the war does not end. I do agree with the adminstration thinking that after the fact bin Laden, Al Qaeda and Taliban was kicked out of Afghan and seriously weaken. Saddam was increaing more threatening.