Michael Moore's Hate Soup (food for thought)

[HondaMan]

Michael Moore's Hate Soup

Christopher Ruddy
Monday, July 5, 2004



I just drank a cup of Democratic Hate Soup cooked up by its new propaganda chef, Michael Moore.
After watching his “Fahrenheit 9/11,” one has to have a certain admiration for Michael Moore.

It takes a definite genius to be able to manipulate well-educated people.

Of course, I was shocked by Moore’s film and his blatant disregard for truth.

But even more startling was the reaction I have heard this week from other people who saw the “documentary” and who are Republicans, conservatives or political moderates – but all well-educated.

All of them were overwhelmed by Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” and said they already have decided to vote against Bush and for John Kerry. I count now about a dozen people that I would not have believed could be so affected, including one of my doctors.

Clearly, the Republicans and supporters of George Bush must take this movie with the utmost seriousness.

NewsMax predicted that this movie would be part of the media offensive against Bush.

In NewsMax Magazine’s June cover story, “The Media War On Bush,” we detailed the $2 billion – our estimate – that will be spent with “in kind” media coverage to defeat Bush this November.

This in-kind donation comes in the form of slanted nightly news coverage, the print media, books and even Hollywood’s efforts.

We noted that Michael Moore’s film would be a major contribution for Kerry, as it was being shown in theaters nationwide. Of the $2 billion media war against Bush – which we believe to be a conservative estimate – we calculated that Michael Moore’s “documentary” would be an in-kind contribution of approximately $20 million for the Kerry campaign.

As it turned out, that figure was way too conservative.

The Moore film raked in over $20 million on its opening day.

It is now evident that the Moore film will have a value of at least $250 million for the Kerry effort to win the White House.

Moore’s concoction of Hate Soup is being completely swallowed. This November it will sway independent voters, completely energize the Democratic base – and lead to increased donations to the Kerry coffers.

Moore’s Hate Soup can be countered, but only if we can regurgitate chunk by chunk the propaganda that has been so willingly swallowed.

'The Real Intent'

Moore claims that this is a movie about Bush’s failure to handle the events that led up to 9/11.

But the opening of the documentary reveals that his real intent was to inflict as much political damage on Bush as possible.

He does so by having viewers relive his version of the 2000 election crisis in an effort to show that George Bush a) is an illegitimate president and b) stole the election from Al Gore.

I’m not sure what the election controversy has to do with Sept. 11.

But in discussing this event, Moore uses the same old arguments that somehow Bush stole the election and squeaked through in Florida.

In a sequence of footage he shows news clips of the 2000 Election Night where the major news anchors flip-flopped their prediction that Al Gore had won Florida.

But he could just as easily have shown clips of the networks declaring Gore the winner of Florida – an hour before all the polls in the state had closed.

As Republicans have pointed out, this had the effect of lowering Republican turnout by as many as 50,000 votes in Florida’s Panhandle.

As it turned out, Bush won Florida by a squeaker – but there is little dispute that had the media not acted deviously in calling the election early in Florida, Bush would have won quite handily.

I might add that Moore could have noted that the major networks had been asked not to call Florida before the polls closed – as they customarily do for every other state – because it could skew the results.

But Moore did not even mention that issue. His intent is not to get to the truth behind Sept. 11. It is instead to remind people that Bush is an illegitimate president and to stir up Democratic ranks to come out on Election Day.



Full Story (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/1/210557.shtml)

Flame the source of the article all you want, but just remember this is FOOD FOR THOUGHT about the beloved liberal poster child Micheal Moore.

[tony4311]

I'm not going to get into bush vs kerry but anyone using his movies to base who they vote on scares me.

[TSX 'R' US]

"Why can't we all just get along"

[Joker]

All of them were overwhelmed by Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” and said they already have decided to vote against Bush and for John Kerry.
Moore’s concoction of Hate Soup is being completely swallowed. This November it will sway independent voters, completely energize the Democratic base – and lead to increased donations to the Kerry coffers.
Don't forget the hundreds of thousands of votes that Howard Stern will also get for Kerry. ;)
http://www.howardstern.com/bush.html

[HondaMan]

Don't forget the hundreds of thousands of votes that Howard Stern will also get for Kerry. ;)
http://www.howardstern.com/bush.html

Hence my :rolleyes: comment on your Howard server blew up thread. :p

[Joker]

Hence my :rolleyes: comment on your Howard server blew up thread. :p
All joking aside, Howard has over 10 million listeners, of which he has a major amount of swing voters who will be voting for Kerry.

[HondaMan]

All joking aside, Howard has over 10 million listeners, of which he has a major amount of swing voters who will be voting for Kerry.

I'm aware of that...it's sad he is doing all this (more or less) anti-Bush stuff for petty revenge. :rolleyes:

Edit:
Shouldn't Howard be directing this hate toward the FCC? O well, I guess Bush is a more opportunistic target, especially during an election year.

Howard and Moore must be on the Kerry/Heinz payroll…I’m going to start a conspiracy theory like the libs love to do. Actually, Kerry could be on the Moore/Stern/Soros payroll. Millionaires paying off millionaires! hmmmm :jeffy: crazy huh?

[Joker]

Shouldn't Howard be directing this hate toward the FCC?
Look who is running the FCC JP (Chairman Michael Powell). It's all related ;)
Howard is going to the top of the food chain

[jcg878]

Look who is running the FCC JP (Chairman Michael Powell). It's all related ;)
Howard is going to the top of the food chain

:sprint:

As well he should. The Bush administration has been very successful integrating its conservative doctrine into the entire executive branch. The FCC and the Justice department are out of control IMO.

What a disappointment Michael Powell is. I have a lot of respect for his father.

I'll withhold criticism of that article (f)(l)(a)( Michael Moore's film is clearly an attack on GWB - does anybody NOT know this?? :rolleyes:

[jcg878]

I'm aware of that...it's sad he is doing all this (more or less) anti-Bush stuff for petty revenge. :rolleyes:

Don't you think it's more than 'petty revenge'? Howard - love him or hate him, and I'm inbetween - believes in freedom of speech (aka freedom to offend). His show has been as tasteless as it is now for years, except now he's being pissed on directly and indirectly by the government. I think he has a legitimate gripe, egomaniac though he may be.

I also agree with Joker that he may have a significant effect on the electorate. He's gone from a Bush supporter to an ardent opponent, in full view of millions of loyal fans. If he stays in the limelight (that is, on FM radio), I think he'll have some swing.

[HondaMan]

Michael Moore's film is clearly an attack on GWB - does anybody NOT know this?? :rolleyes:

Good question...read the article. Glad to see you libs recognize it, but y'all still do nothing to condemn it. :rolleyes:


Don't you think it's more than 'petty revenge'?

Duh! Hence why I said (more or less) :slap: ;)

Flame on... :Popcorn:

[jcg878]

Glad to see you libs recognize it, but y'all still do nothing to condemn it. :rolleyes:

Why should be be condemned? We've had 3 years of the media cheering on the Bush administration as we've been lied to about motives for WAR, whereas they went to town on Clinton for what he did with his DICK. I think Michael Moore can say whatever he wants in whatever format he would like.

Every weekday, Rush Limbaugh paints a distorted version of 'the truth' to his millions of devoted fans.

Every day, Fox News Channel selectively reports the news with their own twist, with the byline 'Fair and Balanced' reporting.

So what's the difference again???

[TSX 'R' US]

Politics: http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v62/TSX-R-Us/Smilies/gayfight.gif

:D

[HondaMan]

Why should be be condemned? We've had 3 years of the media cheering on the Bush administration as we've been lied to about motives for WAR, whereas they went to town on Clinton for what he did with his DICK. I think Michael Moore can say whatever he wants in whatever format he would like.

Every weekday, Rush Limbaugh paints a distorted version of 'the truth' to his millions of devoted fans.

Every day, Fox News Channel selectively reports the news with their own twist, with the byline 'Fair and Balanced' reporting.

So what's the difference again???

Of course I think that is all :bs:, especailly that about the Fox News Channel...your frustration that the highest-rated cable news channel allows more than just bleeding heart liberals on the air is duly noted.

[jcg878]

Of course I think that is all :bs:, especailly that about the Fox News Channel...your frustration that the highest-rated cable news channel allows more than just bleeding heart liberals on the air is duly noted.

You've got to be kidding me. You won't acknowledge their bias? Everything is biased - FNC is just biased your way. Honestly, do you really think they aren't??? How about Rush?

[larchmont]

HondaMan: In that portion of the article that you pasted here, THERE IS NO MENTION OF EXACTLY WHAT FACTS FROM THE MOVIE ARE FALSE.

Repeat: There is no mention of what facts from the movie, if any, are false.

And this is typical of what I've seen and heard so far from Moore's opponents.

HondaMan (and anybody else), I invite you to give an example - ANY example -- of a mistaken fact from the movie.

I've stated myself that I think some aspects of the movie are weak. I think a couple of his theories are far-fetched and even embarrassing, and they weaken the movie. IMO they keep it from being a great film.

But lies? Falsehoods?

I'm still waiting for one of you to give even one example.

And until then, I'm calling :bs: on you.

[HondaMan]

HondaMan: In that portion of the article that you pasted here, THERE IS NO MENTION OF EXACTLY WHAT FACTS FROM THE MOVIE ARE FALSE.



Try reading the Full Story (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/1/210557.shtml) i.e. paying attention...that was just a snip from the article. :rolleyes: :buttkick:

[HondaMan]

BTW, here is another link for you (pay attention & don't miss this one):
59 Deceits in Fahrenheit 911 (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm)

[larchmont]

No good! :D

You're the one who thinks Moore is FOS and who's finding these articles.
If you think the articles have any good answers in them, how about you show us?
All I know is, the portion that you quoted up there doesn't have them.

Larchmont, who thinks that's a pretty reasonable request.

[HondaMan]

No good! :D

You're the one who thinks Moore is FOS and who's finding these articles.
If you think the articles have any good answers in them, how about you show us?
All I know is, the portion that you quoted up there doesn't have them.

Larchmont, who thinks that's a pretty reasonable request.

Geez! :rolleyes: Damn, you are lazy...I provide the links and everything! Well, 59 deceits is a lot to list. So, here is the first 16 of 59 (enjoy & go to the link for the links in the list below...if you can manage to point & click your way there):

2000 Election Night

Deceits 1-2



Fahrenheit 911 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.



The premature calls probably cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that their state had already been decided, and many 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 widely blamed for costing the Democrats several Congressional seats in the West. 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.) 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; depress overall turnout in the panhandle, and you will necessarily depress more Republican than Democratic votes.



At 10:00 p.m., which network took the lead in retracting the premature Florida result? 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.



CBS had taken the lead in making the erroneous call for Gore, and had taken the lead in retracting that call. At 3:59 a.m., CBS also 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, formally 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.



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 claim 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 been not been illegally allowed to vote, it is likely that Bush's statewide margin would have been substantially larger. (On the other hand, John Lott's study of the Florida fiasco suggests that Republicans and Democrats were purged in approximately equal numbers, with Black Republicans being disproportionately impacted.)



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 claim 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.



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 (not “appointment”) 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.



Bush Vacations

Deceits 6-7



Fahrenheit 911 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.



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

Deceit 8



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 lightening than die from an act of terror.”



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 claim 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 lightening strike, but the same person might feel that, overall, the "lightening problem" is not worth making a big fuss over. Fahrenheit present 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 deceitful, other people may not.



Bush on September 11

Deceit 9



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.



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 if the slightest way if the President had acted differently. As the previous item, people may differ about whether this segment should be considered deceitful, or perhaps just a very cheap shot.



Pre-911 Briefing

Deceits 10-12



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.”



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 13-16

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. One 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.



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.

(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.)

[larchmont]

Sorry HondaMan, didn't read the whole thing -- and I'll bet you a year's supply of Michael Moore DVD's that nobody else will either. That's not the way to try to argue something like this.

Because it's just more hot air.

Oh, excuse me, I don't want to be accused of "lies" and "falsehoods," so I better correct that:

It's 99.99% hot air. :D

We're not asking for essays and excuses -- we're asking for BULLET POINTS.
Give us a SIMPLE LIST of the alleged lies and falsehoods.
Then we can look clearly at whether they're lies and falsehoods, or not.
And I'll bet you they wouldn't be, which is why the arguers on the other side engage exclusively in such hot air.

I still say there aren't any lies or falsehoods -- and BTW I did look through that last very, very long post, and I don't see that it points out anything that was asked for.

A couple of quotes from that post of yours (yes, I'm taking out of context, but that's what you get when you answer a question like this with a post like that):

(1) "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 claim that Moore has made when discussing the film."

(That's not what we're talking about. If you want to be effective, you have to stick to the question.)

(2) "The premature calls probably cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle...."

(Total speculation, off the subject, and absolutely dwarfed by factors working in the other direction.)

And finally:

(3) "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, formally speaking, false."

(Thank you, I couldn't have said it better myself.)


Oddly, the techniques used in that article are of exactly the same type as the techniques that Moore is being accused of, and if anything it's a worse version of them. Things are twisted around, "maybes" are made into "I told you so's," and on top of it, most of it has nothing to do with the question.

BTW it was an acknowledged piece of wisdom long before Michael Moore came into the question that Fox News (and Bush's brother-in-law or whatever he is) were instrumental in taking the lead in calling the election for Bush.


But, like a lot of this, that's irrelevant. Nobody else much cares about these digressions.

So, let's get back to the subject. No more long, long posts that skirt the issue.

Tell us ANYTHING from the movie that's just a "lie" or "falsehood," flat-out, without any of those ifs-ands-or-buts.

We're still waiting. :D

[Ferg]

Why would the liberals condemn the 9/11 movie when the neo-cons don't condemn the crap that is spewed daily by Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, et al?

Get focking real.

[Ferg]

Before I forget....Michael Moore hired a fact checker from the New Yorker to review the facts of the movie. Moore himself says that if you want to take issues with his opinions and conclusions, then feel free, but also states that if anyone can find an incorrect fact in the movie, he will pay them $10K.

I'm betting there are very little facts in the movie that are incorrect. You may disagree with his conclusions, but the facts will stand.

Ferg, who in fact has not seen the movie, but probably will

[jcg878]

Why would the liberals condemn the 9/11 movie when the neo-cons don't condemn the crap that is spewed daily by Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, et al?

Get focking real.

:sprint:

Much of the news is a matter of perspective...

[HondaMan]

Why would the liberals condemn the 9/11 movie when the neo-cons don't condemn the crap that is spewed daily by Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, et al?

Get focking real.

http://www.rightnation.us/forums/html/emoticons/rofl.gif

LOL, you guys are just mad no liberal has yet to have a successful talk radio show! :jester: Plus, it hurts y'all to no end when Limbaugh and Hannity tell you the truth on a daily basis.

Now I will admit Coulter is over the top at times, but Limbaugh and especially Hannity don't distort the truth like M. Moore. So, I challenge you libs to prove conservative talk radio show hosts distort the truth like M. Moore...just like good olé Larchmont asked me to do (and I did).

Lastly, it's interesting how you liberals get ugly and use profanity when confronted with the truth or is Ferg just an anomaly? :confused:

[jcg878]

Lastly, it's interesting how you liberals get ugly and use profanity when confronted with the truth or is Ferg just an anomaly? :confused:

This is apparently not restricted to just liberals. "You conservatives" seem to do this as well... http://www.tsxclub.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2317

Rush Limbaugh is a racist. :soapbox:

[HondaMan]

This is apparently not restricted to just liberals. "You conservatives" seem to do this as well... http://www.tsxclub.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2317

Rush Limbaugh is a racist. :soapbox:

Come on now...a racist?

I must have missed that F-Bomb thread while I was on vacation. I actually thought it was pretty damn funny Cheney said that! :) Besides Sen. Leahy deserved it! ;)

[larchmont]

......Now I will admit Coulter is over the top at times.....
Ann Coulter is fabulous, if you turn off the sound. :D

[HondaMan]

Ann Coulter is fabulous, if you turn off the sound. :D

I basically agree with you there. Wow, I'm agreeing with you guys today. :shock:

[jcg878]

Come on now...a racist?

More than just McNabb comments... (which were probably more stupid than racist)

As a young broadcaster in the 1970s, Limbaugh once told a black caller: "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." A decade ago, after becoming nationally syndicated, he mused on the air: "Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"


In 1992, on his now-defunct TV show, Limbaugh expressed his ire when Spike Lee urged that black schoolchildren get off from school to see his film Malcolm X: "Spike, if you're going to do that, let's complete the education experience. You should tell them that they should loot the theater, and then blow it up on their way out."


In a similar vein, here is Limbaugh's mocking take on the NAACP, a group with a ninety-year commitment to nonviolence: "The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."


When Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL) was in the U.S. Senate, the first black woman ever elected to that body, Limbaugh would play the "Movin' On Up" theme song from TV's "Jeffersons" when he mentioned her. Limbaugh sometimes still uses mock dialect -- substituting "ax" for "ask"-- when discussing black leaders.


Once, in response to a caller arguing that black people need to be heard, Limbaugh responded: "They are 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?"

http://www.fair.org/articles/limbaugh-color.html



Besides Sen. Leahy deserved it! ;)
Yes, how dare he remind Cheney of his own BS comments :rolleyes:


Note: Interesting article I found on a conversative website about Rush and the McNabb comment. http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1003/1003rushmcnabb.htm

I should also note that I want Rush to say something similar to inspire McNabb before this season starts :D Shall we say, late August?? :D

[larchmont]

More than just McNabb comments.....
Not to be piling on or anything, but..... :D

There was also this example, which is my own particular favorite because I heard it myself:


In early 2001, on his radio show, a caller from Texas was talking about how people were questioning Bush's mandate and his ability to win an election, but that the last time he ran for governor in Texas he won by a landslide.

And Rush said, "And he won this one by a landslide too, if you throw out the black vote."


Yes. "If you throw out the black vote."

Larchmont, who got made into an Eagle fan for the rest of the season last year and particularly liked the Packer game.

[jcg878]

And Rush said, "And he won this one by a landslide too, if you throw out the black vote."


Yes. "If you throw out the black vote."

I was looking for that one, but all the links in google kept coming up with the McNabb comment :rolleyes:

Hell, toss out that vote- they're only 12% of the population anyway :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :buttkick:

[jcg878]

Larchmont, who got made into an Eagle fan for the rest of the season last year and particularly liked the Packer game.

Funny too, because I half-agreed with Rush about McNabb. He has been overrated, but really responded last season.

[HondaMan]

Well, I agree with most of those comments were racist in nature but they are fighting words that the NAACP and Rainbow Coalition tend to blow way out of portion to make themselves look good or discriminated against. :rolleyes:

I happened to be watching ESPN Game Day the day Rush commented about McNabb and if you would try not to make it all about racism you would see he had a valid point. Hell, Tom Jackson the former black linebacker for the Denver Broncos on the show with him didn't say crap to him after that...if it was so bad wouldn't you think he would have said something or Sterling Sharpe or Michael Irvin for that matter.

This link/article sums the Limbaugh/McNabb situation very well (sorry I couldn't take out every little good piece out for you Larchmont, so you will have to actually click the link to see it...it's actually a good read (lib or con) and relatively short): http://www.dannyhayes.freeservers.com/ESPN%20Game%20Day%20Editorial.htm

Sen. Leahy was just trying to make news for himself and it worked. He is a nobody in Congress and I'm sure he knows it.

[larchmont]

.....I happened to be watching ESPN Game Day the day Rush commented about McNabb and if you would try not to make it all about racism you would see he had a valid point. Hell, Tom Jackson the former black linebacker for the Denver Broncos on the show with him didn't say crap to him after that...if it was so bad wouldn't you think he would have said something or Sterling Sharpe or Michael Irvin for that matter......
Cool, now we're arguing about football. :D

These discussions that we have are fascinating and funny, even besides the details of what we say, because of our "techniques" -- it's mostly the same spinning and BS that politicians do and that we see on TV. And, I guess, what Michael Moore does too, although really he does stick closer to the facts.

BTW.....about M. Moore, HondaMan seems to think he really pointed out some lies or errors or whatever, but he didn't. :D

HondaMan's account of that ESPN show is total spin. It's like if you lose an election and then talk about how good it was because you came in second......but conveniently ignore that there were only 2 candidates. :D

No, it wasn't reasonable what he said. If all he said was that McNabb was overrated, that would have been fine, although of course debatable. But he brought the "black QB" thing into it, which is pure Limbaugh, and which, as Steve Young and many others soon pointed out, is factually incorrect besides. It would have been correct about 20 years ago, maybe also 15, but not now.

And the reason the others didn't respond was because they were stunned, and not quick enough on their feet, and just couldn't think of a way to respond without taking a risk of compounding the problem. They spoke up plenty about it thereafter.

[HondaMan]

And the reason the others didn't respond was because they were stunned, and not quick enough on their feet, and just couldn't think of a way to respond without taking a risk of compounding the problem. They spoke up plenty about it thereafter.

That sounds more like your opinion than fact. Are you M. Moore's twin? LOL

Go read the link/article again...Tom Jackson and Co. all knew what he was going to say:

Now, the Game Day crew all knew Rush was going to say this the night before. They discussed it in the show prep meeting. No one thought anything of it then. It really wasn’t totally unfair to say that the media overrated McNabb.

[larchmont]

.....Go read the link/article again...Tom Jackson and Co. all knew what he was going to say:

Now, the Game Day crew all knew Rush was going to say this the night before. They discussed it in the show prep meeting. No one thought anything of it then. It really wasn’t totally unfair to say that the media overrated McNabb.
I don't think this is true. In fact, everything else that happened during the succeeding days indicates otherwise.

I can very well believe they knew THE GIST of what he was going to say.
But not the "black QB" part, which was the issue.

This is a good example of how tricky it is to argue about what's "true," or what "really happened." Sometimes a thing can start out with a general statement that's really true, and then people might assume that something more specific was intended -- and they go with that, and they're totally wrong. Happens all the time. And in this case, it's a fair guess that the story is.......Yes, they knew in advance what he was going to say. But all it meant was that they knew the gist, not the specific wording.

You might say that I'm guessing. Yes I am, but it's an educated guess, because the sequence of events following that show isn't consistent with them having known in advance about the controversial part of what he said.

[Ferg]

Tom Jackson did quite a few minutes the day after, essentially apologizing for not taking issue with what Rush said. Doesn't sound to me like someone who knew exactly what Rush was going to say.

Rush is a putz. Hell, the man didn't even register to vote until he was 35. And didn't vote for Reagan, BTW, even though he swore he did. He's a loudmouth fool.

Ferg

[pocketkiller]

This is a good example of how tricky it is to argue about what's "true," or what "really happened." Sometimes a thing can start out with a general statement that's really true, and then people might assume that something more specific was intended -- and they go with that, and they're totally wrong. Happens all the time.

Nice quote LARCHMONT - explains perfectly the moore movie.

[Ferg]

http://www.rightnation.us/forums/html/emoticons/rofl.gif

LOL, you guys are just mad no liberal has yet to have a successful talk radio show! :jester: Plus, it hurts y'all to no end when Limbaugh and Hannity tell you the truth on a daily basis.

Now I will admit Coulter is over the top at times, but Limbaugh and especially Hannity don't distort the truth like M. Moore. So, I challenge you libs to prove conservative talk radio show hosts distort the truth like M. Moore...just like good olé Larchmont asked me to do (and I did).

Lastly, it's interesting how you liberals get ugly and use profanity when confronted with the truth or is Ferg just an anomaly? :confused:


I may be a lot things, but a "liberal" isn't one of them. Unless your definition of "liberal" is someone who isn't a lemming neo-con marching himself off the Patriotism cliff without asking why.

And since when is the word "focking" profanity? It's from the Meet the Parents movie; it's called humor. Try it, you'll like it. You can start with any show on the Fox channel -- most of them are bordering on total fiction and include heavy doses of both irony and humor. It's just that most people don't notice because they're dizzy from brainlessly bobbing their heads up and down chanting "yes master, yes master".


So, I challenge you libs to prove conservative talk radio show hosts distort the truth like M. Moore


I'll take you up on this challenge even tho I'm not a "lib". I'll try to post something by tomorrow afternoon.

Ferg

[pocketkiller]

Ferg if you're not a "lib" then why don't you believe what the radio hosts say? Of course their opinions are not always dead on, but at least they have the facts str8

[Ferg]

Ferg if you're not a "lib" then why don't you believe what the radio hosts say? Of course their opinions are not always dead on, but at least they have the facts str8

I can't tell if this is in jest or not....

Why don't I believe what the neo-con radio hosts say? Because I have a brain, and can use it for analytical thinking. Does anyone really think they are getting unbiased, 100% accurate info from guys like Rush and Hannity? I mean good lord, I would be the biggest fool if I thought these guys didn't have an agenda to push and they were telling the whole truth and nothing but.

It's scary to think that people are using these outlets as their primary source of information. If people want to listen to Rush, fine, but I hope they are doing it as entertainment, and not education. That's utterly ridiculous.

So many people who think they are politically astute (cough cough) are just parroting what they hear these morons say, and a good amount of it is garbage.

Ferg

[pocketkiller]

Like I said, their opinions are not always truth, but they usually present the facts.

[larchmont]

:D :D :D

Ferg a "liberal"???

It's all relative I guess.

Larchmont, who is a liberal.
Whatever that means.

[Ferg]

:D Compared to Stalin, then yes, I guess I'm extremely liberal. :D

I don't consider myself "conservative" or "liberal". I think "skeptical" would be the most fitting term.

See, larchmont is a guy whose opinion I can respect, even if I disagree with him entirely. He's comfortable with who he is, and I can respect that. I don't respect people who try to bludgeon you with their politics. Or worse, bludgeon you with words from someone else's beliefs, making them both boorish and unoriginal.

What is a liberal, larch? Best as I can tell, the men who founded this country were pretty liberal in their beliefs at the time. But these days, "liberal" is a term what you are branded with by the right wing if you don't agree with them -- hence me being called a lib simply because I have a different point of view.

Actually, that's not entirely true; if you don't agree with the neo-cons then you are probably either a liberal, a homosexual, a communist, or you simply "hate America". I love that one -- if you don't agree with me, you must Hate America!! You Liberal!!

Ferg -- Talent On Loan From Dog

[jcg878]

I can't tell if this is in jest or not....

Why don't I believe what the neo-con radio hosts say? Because I have a brain, and can use it for analytical thinking. Does anyone really think they are getting unbiased, 100% accurate info from guys like Rush and Hannity? I mean good lord, I would be the biggest fool if I thought these guys didn't have an agenda to push and they were telling the whole truth and nothing but.

It's scary to think that people are using these outlets as their primary source of information. If people want to listen to Rush, fine, but I hope they are doing it as entertainment, and not education. That's utterly ridiculous.

So many people who think they are politically astute (cough cough) are just parroting what they hear these morons say, and a good amount of it is garbage.

Ferg
:sprint:

Very well put :thumbsup: I just assume everyone has an agenda until proven otherwise.

[jcg878]

Actually, that's not entirely true; if you don't agree with the neo-cons then you are probably either a liberal, a homosexual, a communist, or you simply "hate America". I love that one -- if you don't agree with me, you must Hate America!! You Liberal!!

Ferg -- Talent On Loan From Dog

Your dog is insightful :) 'Hate America' is one of my favorites, along with people crying out to 'support our troops' when someone is against a war. I also am a fan of people who cry out that the opposition is pessimistic and negative when they point out the faults of the administration. :rolleyes:

[larchmont]

Ferg and JCG -- very well said.

And thanks Ferg for the personal asides. I regard those things as maybe the best compliments anyone can get.

Peace, all. And BTW of course you know what "dog" is backwards? :D


Actually, thanks to everybody, because even when we're disagreeing and even when we think each other is FOS, the discussions here are very interesting and on a pretty impressive level.

[pocketkiller]

Everyone defines it differently but there are democrats, and then there are liberals, who are in the left wing of the democratic party. Yes you can be liberal on certain things and conservative on others (ie gov arnold), but usually people will label themselves part of a certain group in order to quickly tell someone else where most of their believes align. In the case of this internet forum, those types of labels aren't necessary because we have all the time in the world to discuss individual issues...like michael moore.

Where did this thread go?

The questions are: Do you blame Bush for 9/11. Do you think he could have done something to stop it? Do you think he let the Saudi's leave but grounded every other single American? And why. You can't honestly say that Moore gave ALL the facts on these issues in the film. He used certain facts to support his opinions and shared that with the world. Granted he is a very radical liberal in his views, and you can't possibly agree with everything in his movie. You are crazy if you do. I think clinically so. So my question to the "liberals" is this.

Which part of the film do you disagree with?

[larchmont]

....Where did this thread go?
I guess PK isn't a liberal on the subject of digresssions. :D

The questions are: Do you blame Bush for 9/11. Do you think he could have done something to stop it? Do you think he let the Saudi's leave but grounded every other single American? And why. You can't honestly say that Moore gave ALL the facts on these issues in the film. He used certain facts to support his opinions and shared that with the world. Granted he is a very radical liberal in his views, and you can't possibly agree with everything in his movie. You are crazy if you do. I think clinically so. So my question to the "liberals" is this.

Which part of the film do you disagree with?
I don't get where you're coming from with that final question. I guess you think we're kinda crazy to begin with (which is fine), but why do you think we HAVE TO disagree with any of the film's basic messages in order NOT to be crazy?

I'll take them one at a time:

Do you blame Bush for 9/11?

Yes, absolutely. And although even many "liberals" hedge on this one, it's a slam dunk. Which isn't to say that he DEFINITELY could have prevented it, just that there are many reasons to believe he didn't do everything he could have done. In fact, arguably he didn't do ANYTHING he could have done. And since it happened on his watch, he's vulnerable to facts like that. Here we go:

(1) His eye wasn't on the ball. He was (and is) far from a knowledgeable hands-on president, and his eye certainly wasn't on this. To the extent that he was looking at anything, it wasn't terrorism.

(2) He had picked cabinet members and advisors who similarly de-emphasized terrorism for the sake of other things. Probably the clearest example is Ashcroft, the attorney general, who specifically took resources and emphasis away from terrorism-related matters in order to better focus on what we liberals call the "moral agenda."

(3) About that famous PDB of Aug. 7 or whatever it was: He was aware of it, and did nothing. And went on vacation.


Do you think he could have done something to stop it?

See above. I think yes, although it's impossible to say what. All we know, and we know it for sure, was that relative to prior administrations, there was essentially a policy of neglect toward terrorism-related factors. So at the minimum, the answer to this question is, he didn't do ANYTHING, and it was by choice that he and his people didn't do anything.

Do you think he let the Saudi's leave but grounded every other single American? And why.

I don't know about "every other single American" (nor the married ones :D ), but yes, virtually everyone was grounded, and yet it was arranged for the Saudis to leave, particularly the Bin Ladens. Why? I don't know, but Moore's closely-traced history of the Bush's connections with the Saudis raises some very serious questions; you'd have a hard time denying that. Anyway, why not let the administration explain it to us?


So, what exactly is crazy here?

I don't agree with all his ideas. For example, I think the idea that we invaded Afghanistan because of business considerations is embarrassing, and I wish he had stuck to things that make more sense.

But what's crazy about agreeing with all those other things? :donno:

[pocketkiller]

Thank you. All I wanted is one liberal to say one thing they did not agree on with the movie. I hereby declare you sane...yes if someone agrees with EVERY aspect of that movie, they are crazy in my opinion.

Although when you blame George Bush for 9/11 and not the terrorists who trained to fly those winged missiles into buildings, you've got something wrong with your brain. Seriously look at your logical for a second. If I blow up your house, is it my fault or yours? Its yours - because you did nothing to stop me from doing it. Come on Larch. Why don't you blame the World Trade Center Head of Security while you're at it?

I'll agree with you that he could have done something to prevent it, but when it comes to blaming him, you're just dead wrong.

[pocketkiller]

The film forms perfectly logical conclusions about certain events, but if you beleive everything in that movie then you're just another puppet head.

[jcg878]

Hmm, this is interesting. I'm sure it's no surprise that I think the Bush administration has been a disaster, but I don't blame Bush for 9/11. However, PK, I think your logic is a little simplistic in your assessment of blame. Clearly the terrorists who flew those planes are to blame for doing so, but that doesn't necessary absolve the administration.

(disclaimer: i haven't seen it yet. HondaMan and I are going tomorrow, after the Kerry rally :D)

[larchmont]

.....I hereby declare you sane...
Although when you blame George Bush for 9/11 and not the terrorists who trained to fly those winged missiles into buildings, you've got something wrong with your brain.....
I'll agree with you that he could have done something to prevent it, but when it comes to blaming him, you're just dead wrong.
I never thought I'd be falling back on internet cliches so much, but:

:WERD:!!!! :D

And even JCG too! :WERD:!!!! :D


(Sheesh..... next thing, I'll be writing teh word "the" wrong.) :D

Gotta say it again though: :WERD:!!!!!!


Like many alleged arguments, it's clear to me that this little argument is nothing more than semantics: Obviously (at least to me), we're defining the word "blame" differently. That's all. We don't disagree on the basic idea; it's just that my idea of the word is broader than yours.

When I say, "Yes, I 'blame' Bush for 9/11," it's on a totally different level than when I (or you) say, "We blame the terrorists for 9/11." I say that both are true. And you would too, if your concept of "blame" meant both different things.

And truly, folks, it does mean both different things.
You just have to understand that in those two cases, it means.....well, different things.

In a way, this seems like a set-up (even though of course I know it wasn't).
Look: You (PK) were the one who used the word "blame," when you asked if I blame Bush for 9/11. And that's the only reason I used the word; otherwise I'd have put it differently.

And when you asked the question and chose to use that word, did you think for a second that ANYBODY would "blame" Bush for 9/11 in the same way that we'd "blame" the terrorists? Of course you didn't. You meant the word in the broader sense. But now you're slipping into the narrower definition.

We all do this kind of thing and it's hardly ever on purpose; we just slip into it. BTW I'm not "blaming" you for it :D just taking this opportunity to go off on this subject which happens to be a favorite one of mine. You'd be surprised how many disagreements can be resolved just by clarifying what we mean by the words.

P.S. The reason I kept saying "werd" is that you actually come right out and say that Bush could have done something to prevent it, which goes even a little further than I did -- and yet you're "blaming" me for saying that I "blame" him? In my book, if you think that, then you're blaming him. But it's not like how we blame who did it.

[HondaMan]

(disclaimer: i haven't seen it yet. HondaMan and I are going tomorrow, after the Kerry rally :D)

LOL, of course I wouldn’t be caught dead paying to see that movie and especially not at a Kerry rally! :D I’m actually downloading the movie now, since M. Moore said it was OK…always good to know your enemies.

Hmm, this is interesting. I'm sure it's no surprise that I think the Bush administration has been a disaster, but I don't blame Bush for 9/11. However, PK, I think your logic is a little simplistic in your assessment of blame. Clearly the terrorists who flew those planes are to blame for doing so, but that doesn't necessary absolve the administration.

Good to see you putting the blame where it belongs and that’s on the terrorists…that’s important for everybody to remember!

Well, Ferg I’m glad you cleared up your post for me and good luck defining yourself…I retract labeling you as a liberal. Tell your dog hi for me. :)

PK has good points, like this one: Like I said, their opinions are not always truth, but they usually present the facts. I guess you guys don’t listen to Rush or Hannity…they almost always have sources they research before they go on the air, which they use to comment on the issues/events…etc. of the day. The same sources you can read for yourself on the internet, newspaper….etc. I usually just listen to Hannity and I bet if you guys listened to him you would think differently...he thinks for himself and doesn't always agree with GWB, just like me. Believe it or not! :p

Larchmont are you on crack? You are nuts! hehe ;)

[larchmont]

.....Larchmont are you on crack? You are nuts! hehe ;)
No, just a little bit academic. :D

[HondaMan]

No, just a little bit academic. :D

LOL, if that's what you want to call it...more power to you. :D

[Ferg]

…always good to know your enemies.



..As well as the enemies of your enemies, who may or may not be your enemies as well. To that end I've read several interesting books from both sides of the issue.





Well, Ferg I’m glad you cleared up your post for me and good luck defining yourself…I retract labeling you as a liberal. Tell your dog hi for me. :)



I knew you would get my little Rush joke. BTW, the Sammadog (http://www.sammadog.com) says hello back. :)

Good luck in defining myself is something I do, in fact, need. I am loathe to say "I'm conservative" or "I'm liberal" because I think the two parties most closely associated with those ideals are both full of sheet. Independent? Well, maybe. I think most "independents" are just "liberals" in disguise. :D Libertarian? Yeah, maybe that's closer, but it's not quite right either.

Guess I'll have to create my own political party: The Cynics. Or maybe The Skeptics. There will be no dues, or fundraising, or running for office, but there will be a lot of really great bitching about the other parties. :cool:

[larchmont]

....Guess I'll have to create my own political party: The Cynics. Or maybe The Skeptics. There will be no dues, or fundraising, or running for office, but there will be a lot of really great bitching about the other parties. :cool:
I think you could count on Bob Shiftright to sign right up. :D

And maybe even me2.

[HondaMan]

..As well as the enemies of your enemies, who may or may not be your enemies as well. To that end I've read several interesting books from both sides of the issue.





I knew you would get my little Rush joke. BTW, the Sammadog (http://www.sammadog.com) says hello back. :)

Good luck in defining myself is something I do, in fact, need. I am loathe to say "I'm conservative" or "I'm liberal" because I think the two parties most closely associated with those ideals are both full of sheet. Independent? Well, maybe. I think most "independents" are just "liberals" in disguise. :D Libertarian? Yeah, maybe that's closer, but it's not quite right either.

Guess I'll have to create my own political party: The Cynics. Or maybe The Skeptics. There will be no dues, or fundraising, or running for office, but there will be a lot of really great bitching about the other parties. :cool:

Sounds good... excellent/candid post! :thumbsup:

[pocketkiller]

There is only one definition for BLAME larch. BLAME means to hold responsible. To you its a slam dunk, to the liberals that were elected, its a no-no, because they know what BLAME means. Just don't try to hide from the issue.
The fact is you didn't put it differently. I asked if you blame bush, and you said "YES, ABSOLUTELY". Only after the fact that you see yourself in the corner did you try to explain the subtle differences to this "little argument". Things aren't as complicated as you explain them to be.

[HondaMan]

There is only one definition for BLAME larch. BLAME means to hold responsible. To you its a slam dunk, to the liberals that were elected, its a no-no, because they know what BLAME means. Just don't try to hide from the issue.
The fact is you didn't put it differently. I asked if you blame bush, and you said "YES, ABSOLUTELY". Only after the fact that you see yourself in the corner did you try to explain the subtle differences to this "little argument". Things aren't as complicated as you explain them to be.

:sprint:

Can't wait to see what Larch has to say about this post...should be entertaining! :Popcorn:

[larchmont]

:sprint:

Can't wait to see what Larch has to say about this post...should be entertaining! :Popcorn:

You kids make it almost too easy, kinda like taking candy from a child. :D

OK, here we go -- from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:


Main Entry: blame
Pronunciation: 'blAm
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): blamed; blam·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French blamer, from Late Latin blasphemare to blaspheme, from Greek blasphEmein
1 : to find fault with : CENSURE <the right to praise or blame a literary work>
2 a : to hold responsible <they blame me for everything> b : to place responsibility for <blames it on me>
- blam·er noun
- to blame : at fault : RESPONSIBLE
usage Use of blame in sense 2b with on has occasionally been disparaged as wrong. Such disparagement is without basis; blame on occurs as frequently in carefully edited prose as blame for. Both are standard.


(Emphasis mine. But the content is verbatim.)


Two things that I will note:

(a) The additional meaning that I was talking about isn't even the one that they say is controversial; there's no indication that anybody regards the one I was talking about as controversial -- WHICH btw IS ACTUALLY THE FIRST DEFINITION, meaning that it is regarded as the MAIN one.

(b) It's not like I had to go searching for a dictionary that would give this. It was the first one I checked, and it's regarded as one of the most standard dictionaries, probably THE most standard. It is ALWAYS the first one that I check about anything.


I tell you, like taking candy from a child. :donno:

[HondaMan]

You kids make it almost too easy, kinda like taking candy from a child. :D

OK, here we go -- from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:


Main Entry: blame
Pronunciation: 'blAm
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): blamed; blam·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French blamer, from Late Latin blasphemare to blaspheme, from Greek blasphEmein
1 : to find fault with : CENSURE <the right to praise or blame a literary work>
2 a : to hold responsible <they blame me for everything> b : to place responsibility for <blames it on me>
- blam·er noun
- to blame : at fault : RESPONSIBLE
usage Use of blame in sense 2b with on has occasionally been disparaged as wrong. Such disparagement is without basis; blame on occurs as frequently in carefully edited prose as blame for. Both are standard.


(Emphasis mine. But the content is verbatim.)


Two things that I will note:

(a) The additional meaning that I was talking about isn't even the one that they say is controversial; there's no indication that anybody regards the one I was talking about as controversial -- WHICH btw IS ACTUALLY THE FIRST DEFINITION, meaning that it is regarded as the MAIN one.

(b) It's not like I had to go searching for a dictionary that would give this. It was the first one I checked, and it's regarded as one of the most standard dictionaries, probably THE most standard. It is ALWAYS the first one that I check about anything.


I tell you, like taking candy from a child. :donno:

LOL, you are a piece of work dude. :jester:

[larchmont]

pwn3d :D

[HondaMan]

pwn3d :D

If you say so. :bill:

[larchmont]

Not to worry, it's only words we're talking about.

[pocketkiller]

what a moron, you think that posting definitions to words is going to help your argument. Its a stupid thing to do. We both know what blame means, so does everyone else in America. Just because you happen to be a spin doctor when it comes to the word BLAME, doesn't mean that your original argument about blaming BUSH was correct. You get caught up in silliness and forget the actual issue.

[TSX 'R' US]

:Popcorn:

[larchmont]

what a moron, you think that posting definitions to words is going to help your argument. Its a stupid thing to do. We both know what blame means, so does everyone else in America. Just because you happen to be a spin doctor when it comes to the word BLAME, doesn't mean that your original argument about blaming BUSH was correct. You get caught up in silliness and forget the actual issue.
PK, watch it.

Not because I'm going to do anything to you (I can't, and I wouldn't want to anyway), and not because you're offending me, because BS like this is too BS to ever offend me.

But because you're making an ass of yourself.

If you don't think a definition of a word is a good answer to what it means, what is?

P.S. Take it easy on calling people names.

[pocketkiller]

you are making an ass out of yourself when you try to define BLAME, when everybody already knows what that word means. Come on Larch how stupid do you think we are?

My goal is not to offend you Larch. It would be very difficult for me to do anyway as you mentioned. If my desire is to make an ass our of myself, just let me. Your warnings are not necessary.

[HondaMan]

http://moorewatch.com/images/uploads/bushmooretempscale.jpg

[larchmont]

I don't get that either. :D

I mean, it's not like M. Moore actually said anything like that, is it?

[HondaMan]

I don't get that either. :D

I mean, it's not like M. Moore actually said anything like that, is it?

I'm not sure...I just thought it was funny! I try to have a sense of humor about it all...be it right or wrong. :D

[larchmont]

I'm not sure...I just thought it was funny! I try to have a sense of humor about it all...be it right or wrong. :D
Well, it's not funny unless M. Moore actually said something like that.

Would it be funny if I posted a pic of HondaMan saying, "Hey, I'm a moron"? No. And that's about the same thing.

But if you think it's funny and you just did it for yourself, it's all good. :D

[HondaMan]

Sorry HondaMan, didn't read the whole thing -- and I'll bet you a year's supply of Michael Moore DVD's that nobody else will either. That's not the way to try to argue something like this.

Because it's just more hot air.

Oh, excuse me, I don't want to be accused of "lies" and "falsehoods," so I better correct that:

It's 99.99% hot air. :D

We're not asking for essays and excuses -- we're asking for BULLET POINTS.
Give us a SIMPLE LIST of the alleged lies and falsehoods.
Then we can look clearly at whether they're lies and falsehoods, or not.
And I'll bet you they wouldn't be, which is why the arguers on the other side engage exclusively in such hot air.

I still say there aren't any lies or falsehoods -- and BTW I did look through that last very, very long post, and I don't see that it points out anything that was asked for.

A couple of quotes from that post of yours (yes, I'm taking out of context, but that's what you get when you answer a question like this with a post like that):

(1) "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 claim that Moore has made when discussing the film."

(That's not what we're talking about. If you want to be effective, you have to stick to the question.)

(2) "The premature calls probably cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle...."

(Total speculation, off the subject, and absolutely dwarfed by factors working in the other direction.)

And finally:

(3) "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, formally speaking, false."

(Thank you, I couldn't have said it better myself.)


Oddly, the techniques used in that article are of exactly the same type as the techniques that Moore is being accused of, and if anything it's a worse version of them. Things are twisted around, "maybes" are made into "I told you so's," and on top of it, most of it has nothing to do with the question.

BTW it was an acknowledged piece of wisdom long before Michael Moore came into the question that Fox News (and Bush's brother-in-law or whatever he is) were instrumental in taking the lead in calling the election for Bush.


But, like a lot of this, that's irrelevant. Nobody else much cares about these digressions.

So, let's get back to the subject. No more long, long posts that skirt the issue.

Tell us ANYTHING from the movie that's just a "lie" or "falsehood," flat-out, without any of those ifs-ands-or-buts.

We're still waiting. :D

Here ya go:
Moore then pulls a stunt which had the audience in tears. He spoke with Representative Porter Goss, who was defending the PATRIOT ACT. Gross informs Moore that problems with the PATRIOT Act can be reported by calling a toll-free “800 number.” We then see words flashed across the screen, informing the audience that there is no “800 number,” but that Goss does have a private telephone line, as he flashes their (202) office number across the screen. Once again, while Moore won a few laughs, he was lying through his teeth. The U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (where problems with the PATRIOT act can be reported) does have a toll-free number, though its prefix is (877). The number is 1-877-858-9040.19 Somebody ought to tell Moore, so he doesn’t have to go through the trouble of yelling it over a loud-speaker in an ice cream truck again.

Of course it wouldn’t be a Michael Moore film without him doing what he’s famous for- heckling unsuspecting people and making them look crazy for not taking him seriously. He approaches some Congressmen, in order to get them to “sign their kids up for the army.” It was just asinine. How does a parent sign their child up for the army? His rationale for doing so is that “only one congressman has a son or daughter enlisted in the armed forces.” FLAT-OUT-LIE. According to Kelly Beaucar, who wrote a Fox News article, entitled, Handful of Congressman Send Their Kids to War, “There are at least seven members of Congress with children in the Armed Forces.” In fact, there are eight: Tim Johnson(D), Marilyn Musgrave(R), Ed Schrock(R), Joe Wilson(R), John Kline(R), Duncan Hunter(R), Todd Akin(R)20, and Joe Biden(D)21 are all Congressmen who have children currently serving in the military, not to mention the 36 veterans in congress22. And Moore would probably disheartened to know that his favorite punching bag, John Ashcroft, also had a son serving in the military.23

Moore seems to have a knack for ignoring relevant information. Upon discussing the Coalition of the Willing, he only mentions the small countries that don’t possess troops, while leaving out the countries which do, such as Poland, England and Australia.24 And of course we’re supposed to be disgusted that our armed forces possess large quantities of low-income earners and minorities, and that recruiters often go to the more unfortunate towns, looking for people to enlist. Think about that argument. Leftists like Moore are upset when a company doesn’t hire enough minorities and upset when the military hires too many! Only someone as ungrateful as Michael Moore, could be appalled at the fact that low-income earners from places like Flint, MI are “targeted” by the military and granted the greatest opportunities that America has to offer- education, money, benefits, housing, training, food and heroism. But, of course, Moore sees none of these things. He is still too blinded by his hatred for the United States and his belief that the U.S. military is the embodiment of shame.

Debunking Farenheit 9/11 (http://www.larryelder.com/911/debunking911.html)

Now debunk that Larch aka Mr. Spin! ;)

[larchmont]

[B]Here ya go:....Representative Porter Goss, who was defending the PATRIOT ACT...informs Moore that problems with the PATRIOT Act can be reported by calling a toll-free “800 number.” We then see words flashed across the screen, informing the audience that there is no “800 number,”.....Once again, while Moore won a few laughs, he was lying through his teeth. The U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (where problems with the PATRIOT act can be reported) does have a toll-free number, though its prefix is (877).....
See what I mean, everybody?

This is the best "lie" that HondaMan can come up with, and it isn't a lie at all. In fact, it's true -- just look at what HondaMan says up there.

It's true. There was no 800 number. That's what Moore said, and that's true.

You might argue that it's an irrelevant truth, and a lot of people would agree with you. But a "lie"? How can it be a lie, if it's true?

And you'd even be on shaky ground arguing that it's irrelevant, because while Gross's saying "800" might have been an oversight, it also may have been intentional -- a way of making it not-so-easy for people to complain about the Patriot Act. Look: He was putting Moore off by telling him there was a number to call -- and the number he gave didn't exist.

That's a fact.

So what Moore said was true.


Larchmont, who can't believe HondaMan is making it so easy to defend Michael Moore. :donno:

[HondaMan]

See what I mean, everybody?

This is the best "lie" that HondaMan can come up with, and it isn't a lie at all. In fact, it's true -- just look at what HondaMan says up there.

It's true. There was no 800 number. That's what Moore said, and that's what's true.

You might argue that it's an irrelevant truth, and a lot of people would agree with you. But a "lie"? How can it be a lie, if it's true?

And you'd even be on shaky ground arguing that it's irrelevant, because while Gross's saying "800" might have been an oversight, it also may have been intentional -- a way of making it not-so-easy for people to complain about the Patriot Act. Look: He was putting Moore off by telling him there was a number to call -- and the number he gave didn't exist.

That's a fact.

So what Moore said was true.


Larchmont, who can't believe HondaMan is making it so easy to defend Michael Moore. :donno:

No, your twin is M. Moore...in other words you can distort the truth as well. Hondaman, who can't believe Larchmont takes M. Moore's "documentary" as gospel. :rolleyes:

What about the “sign their kids up for the army.” paragraph? :donno:

[larchmont]

.....Hondaman, who can't believe Larchmont takes M. Moore's "documentary" as gospel.....
That's a lie! :D

Larchmont, who doesn't take anything as gospel. At least nothing from any mortal.

[larchmont]

No, your twin is M. Moore...in other words you can distort the truth as well.....
What truth did I distort? :donno:

Larchmont, who is beginning to get a bit disappointed in HondaMan.

[larchmont]

.....although I do like the avatar. :nod:

Is that the signing of the Declaration of Independence?

[HondaMan]

.....although I do like the avatar. :nod:

Is that the signing of the Declaration of Independence?

Yes, thanks! :)

[Ferg]

By definition, the signers of the Declaration of Independence couldn't have been right-wing extremists. The idea that we could separate from the domination of the British Empire, and rule ourselves was, at the time, a pretty liberal idea.

:D

Ferg, who just loves to stir the pot sometimes

[larchmont]

By definition, the signers of the Declaration of Independence couldn't have been right-wing extremists. The idea that we could separate from the domination of the British Empire, and rule ourselves was, at the time, a pretty liberal idea.

:D

Ferg, who just loves to stir the pot sometimes
I was gonna say something like that myself, but I hate so much to get in HondaMan's way. :D

Yes indeed -- you could say they were RADICALS.

[Ferg]

Traitors, even!! :D

Oh how unpatriotic they were (he says sarcastically).

[HondaMan]

I was gonna say something like that myself, but I hate so much to get in HondaMan's way. :D

Yes indeed -- you could say they were RADICALS.

Our founding fathers were right-wing by their belief in humans to govern themselves. Liberals believe in government as top-down social school-marm; i.e., The government (e.g., King George) knows what's was best for them. The modern day "right wing" principles of personal responsibility/self-governance are exactly the principles that founding fathers decided to fight a war for. Not for a government that takes money from the "rich" to redistribute to the poor (like most liberals programs).

[larchmont]

Our founding fathers were right-wing by their belief in humans to govern themselves. Liberals believe in government as top-down social school-marm; i.e., The government (e.g., King George) knows what's was best for them. The modern day "right wing" principles of personal responsibility/self-governance are exactly the principles that founding fathers decided to fight a war for. Not for a government that takes money from the "rich" to redistribute to the poor (like most liberals programs).
Believe me, you can argue this one either way.
They do all the time.

Besides, JP, just look at the two of us -- who do you think people are gonna believe, George Washington or a stupid painting? :D

[HondaMan]

See what I mean, everybody?

This is the best "lie" that HondaMan can come up with, and it isn't a lie at all. In fact, it's true -- just look at what HondaMan says up there.

It's true. There was no 800 number. That's what Moore said, and that's true.

You might argue that it's an irrelevant truth, and a lot of people would agree with you. But a "lie"? How can it be a lie, if it's true?

And you'd even be on shaky ground arguing that it's irrelevant, because while Gross's saying "800" might have been an oversight, it also may have been intentional -- a way of making it not-so-easy for people to complain about the Patriot Act. Look: He was putting Moore off by telling him there was a number to call -- and the number he gave didn't exist.

That's a fact.

So what Moore said was true.


Larchmont, who can't believe HondaMan is making it so easy to defend Michael Moore. :donno:

Most of your arguments are based on semantics; i.e., the 800 number issue -- it's not a lie because it was an *877* number. Ridiculous.

You are once again showing your intellectual dishonesty. You know darn well that Moore is a propagandist riding the coattails (all the way to the bank) of a fictitious documentarian he's created (himself).

What about the “sign their kids up for the army” paragraph? I'm still waiting for you to spin that one.

[larchmont]

Most of your arguments are based on semantics; i.e., the 800 number issue -- it's not a lie because it was an *877* number. Ridiculous.

You are once again showing your intellectual dishonesty.....
Like I said, sometimes you're a grand disappointment.

If you've ever tried to call a phone number, which I imagine you have once or twice in your lifetime, you know that phone numbers are very unforgiving. You have to get all the digits right.

If a public official is serious about giving out a phone number, he does it right. If he gives it out wrong, he deserves to get his ass kicked for it.

The guy gave out a nonexistent phone number.
The fact that it was "almost sort of" right is interesting, but irrelevant to the fact that what Michael Moore said was true.

The guy said there was an 800 number.
There wasn't.
Michael Moore said there wasn't.
That was true.

If you wanted to call the number based on what that guy said, you couldn't.
Because the information that he gave out was wrong, and useless.

Whether he did it on purpose or not (and I think he did) is interesting, but irrelevant to whether what Moore said was a "lie" or not.

As I said, if this is the BEST example you can give (and I guess it is, because you keep harping on it), it means you're out of ammunition.

[HondaMan]

Like I said, sometimes you're a grand disappointment.

If you've ever tried to call a phone number, which I imagine you have once or twice in your lifetime, you know that phone numbers are very unforgiving. You have to get all the digits right.

If a public official is serious about giving out a phone number, he does it right. If he gives it out wrong, he deserves to get his ass kicked for it.

The guy gave out a nonexistent phone number.
The fact that it was "almost sort of" right is interesting, but irrelevant to the fact that what Michael Moore said was true.

The guy said there was an 800 number.
There wasn't.
Michael Moore said there wasn't.
That was true.

If you wanted to call the number based on what that guy said, you couldn't.
Because the information that he gave out was wrong, and useless.

Whether he did it on purpose or not (and I think he did) is interesting, but irrelevant to whether what Moore said was a "lie" or not.

As I said, if this is the BEST example you can give (and I guess it is, because you keep harping on it), it means you're out of ammunition.

I'm not harping on it...just pointing out your intellectual dishonesty and how ridiculous your semantics are. Interesting, how you are still avoiding the “sign their kids up for the army” paragraph? Talk about grand disappointment...you fit that bill as well. :sport62:

[larchmont]

Too bad this isn't up for a vote. If it was, we could just "call the question" and be done with it.

And you'd lose. :D

Anyway, I think we've cleared up this whole question. When HondaMan -- and I guess others on his side -- say that Michael Moore is telling "lies," what they mean by "lies" is something totally new and different from anything that "lies" ever meant before.

You can yell "semantics" all you want.
In order for something to be a lie, it has to be untrue.
If it's true, it's not a lie. :donno:

[HondaMan]

You can yell "semantics" all you want.


LOL I just call it like I see it...it is semantics on your part regardless of what you say or how you say it. :rolleyes:

[Ferg]

Our founding fathers were right-wing by their belief in humans to govern themselves. Liberals believe in government as top-down social school-marm; i.e., The government (e.g., King George) knows what's was best for them. The modern day "right wing" principles of personal responsibility/self-governance are exactly the principles that founding fathers decided to fight a war for. Not for a government that takes money from the "rich" to redistribute to the poor (like most liberals programs).


Interesting spin, HondaMan. I think I would have to disagree. At the time, the right of humans to govern themselves simply did not exist. It was the divine right of kings. Those who sat on the "right hand" of the king -- i.e. those that supported his rule -- would not be likely to support a system of self-goverment designed to eliminate the rule of the king.

To my understanding, this is where the terms "right wing" and "left wing" are derived, but I concede that I could be wrong.

It's difficult to say that a group of men who declared their independence from the the British Empire were anything but "radical" or "liberal", especially when you consider the time, when all they had known was rule by a monarch. Their ideas definitely were not "conservative".


"...strange women lying in ponds, distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"

Dennis
Monty Python and The Holy Grail

[Ferg]

By jove, I think I've found a signature!

[larchmont]

By jove, I think I've found a signature!
Looks pretty good to me. :thumbsup:

[larchmont]

RE: Whether or not to "blame" Bush (whatever you think that means).....

Richard Clarke, tonight on Nightline: The #1 mistake that was made in the period leading up to 9/11 was that Bush, despite repeated warnings from the FBI that a major Al Qaeda attack in the U.S. was coming, didn't get involved in any effort against it, and didn't get his administration involved in any effort against it.

And, asked whether we're now safer against terrorism than before 9/11: No, we're less safe, because the invasion of Iraq has greatly increased the terrorist threat.


Sorry, y'all who are in denial about this administration's blame -- you've got more people than Michael Moore that you'll have to debunk.

[HondaMan]

RE: Whether or not to "blame" Bush (whatever you think that means).....

Richard Clarke, tonight on Nightline: The #1 mistake that was made in the period leading up to 9/11 was that Bush, despite repeated warnings from the FBI that a major Al Qaeda attack in the U.S. was coming, didn't get involved in any effort against it, and didn't get his administration involved in any effort against it.

And, asked whether we're now safer against terrorism than before 9/11: No, we're less safe, because the invasion of Iraq has greatly increased the terrorist threat.


Sorry, y'all who are in denial about this administration's blame -- you've got more people than Michael Moore that you'll have to debunk.

Well, you keep telling yourself Bush's Administration was to blame when he was only 8 months into his term, and 8 years under Clinton had nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:

However, the new 9/11 report doesn’t blame either one of them:
Sept. 11 Report to Highlight Government Failings (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20040722/ts_nm/security_commission_dc_6)

Here again you are disappointing me Larch, Richard Clarke is just another Michael Moore writing books or movies for his own personal gain regardless of the truth. So, Mr. Spin I’m sure you will try to give Richard Clarke some kind of creditable :russ:...it's never ending with you.

Seriously Larch, are you a Democratic Strategist or something? You thought of becoming a Kerry Adviser? They have an opening…you can replace Sandy Burglar! LOL You are very good at the liberal rhetoric! Maybe some day I will be as good as you with conservative rhetoric.

[larchmont]

Cliff's Notes: HondaMan thinks Richard Clarke doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Ferg]

Well, you keep telling yourself Bush's Administration was to blame when he was only 8 months into his term, and 8 years under Clinton had nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:


Well, if you're going to blame Clinton -- which has become a famous cop out for neo-cons who have no other defense -- then you also have to rest some blame at the feet of Bush I, and maybe even Reagan (gasp!!) seeing as how he teamed up with Bin Laden.

This puts me in a strange position personally, because I find myself defending Clinton, with whom I disagreed enough that I couldn't bring myself to vote for Gore.

The simple fact is this....at the end of Clinton's term, he received information saying that Bin Laden's people may be planning another attack. Instead of starting a messy ordeal then turning it over to a new President, he waited for Bush to take office, and informed him of the intelligence that he (Clinton) had received. Members of Clinton's team tried -- in vain -- to quickly meet with Bush's people for the first nine months that Bush was in office. Of course, the Bush team ignored the data. The rest is history.

Look, I don't blame Bush for what happened. It does appear that for whatever reason -- and that reason seems to be political -- they did not take Clinton's people seriously until it was too late. But this is just one of many many intelligence failures and they can't all be blamed on one person. Unfortunately for all of us, Bush has not shown enough resolve to admit that the buck ultimately stops with him, because this did, in fact, happen under his watch. It's not like it happened on the first day of his Presidency -- it happened nine months in.

Blaming Clinton is, as I said, a simple cop out. They tried, for months, to get the Bush administration to see that Bin Laden was a problem. Should Clinton have done something more after the attack on the USS Cole? I don't know. But what I do know is that Bush didn't do anything either. The neo-cons are so embarrased that this happened on their watch that they'll do whatever they can to blame Clinton.

[pocketkiller]

Funny how everybody blames the terrorists but the liberals...they like to blame Bush.