Defending Truth: Slate's Chris Hitchens does a hatchet job on Michael Moore
by Chris Parry

Well, it didn't take long. The partisan hacks were out for blood on Bowling For Columbine within days of its release, but with Fahrenheit 9/11, they're out before the flick is even in theaters. Slate's resident Bush apologist (who once did a negative piece about Mother Theresa!), Chris Hitchens, pulled an absolute kneecap job on Michael Moore yesterday with an article entitled Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore. In it, he wrote all manner of allegation about Moore's new film, peeing on it from a great height, calling it "crap", and alleging that the film shared the same standards as the propaganda films of the Nazis. For a while I thought about responding to Hitchins' article, being as it is so rife with laughable comments and unfounded allegations, but I thought to myself, "No, that's one long rambling piece he's written there. It'd take forever to disassemble it... it's just a lone voice in the wilderness after all. It'll be forgotten soon. I'll just let it go." But then my buddy Chuck read Hitchens' piece and took the position that it must be all true and Michael Moore can't be trusted and that there was no way he would see this film. Well, I couldn't let that stand, so now, for the sake of all that is good, I must speak out. I'm cracking my knuckles as you read.
"One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh?"

Hitchens exposes his bias in the first few lines of this piece. In calling lefties dull and mirthless, and wondering where their version of Rush Limbaugh will come from, he's announced where he's coming from in no uncretain terms. Need I say, on behalf of all those who claim a leftist affiliation out there, that when a lefty version of Limbaugh comes along we want nothing to do with it. Limbaugh fights without facts, he alleges and abuses, he makes statements that he knows are untrue, simply because nobody can refute them to his large audience without coming on his show. And nobody is likely to do that unless they like being talked over.

But what Hitchens is setting up here is the theory that Michael Moore IS the left's version of Limbaugh. And it only gets worse from there.

"With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl."

Wow. Second paragraph and he's calling Moore Nazi-esque. Talk about setting the tone...

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

A simplistic attempt at 'Gotcha'. Allow me to explain Moore's motivation, as if it needed explaining to anyone with a concept of logic, law and due process. Bin Laden IS innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. That IS the American Way. Indeed, it's the World Way. But in order to prove his guilt, one must build a case, capture him and put him to trial. Moore's point was clear - in order to make a military move on another government, people or person, you need to have your ducks lined up legally. You can't just say "he's evil, so we're gonna get him," no matter how evil he may actually be. If you've got to build a case against Jeffery Dahmer, you've got to build a case against Bin Laden.

But in F9/11, Moore has a different point to make. What he's saying in F9/11 is, why, exactly, when the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden is completely justified, have only 14,000 troops been sent after him, while ten times that number have been sent into Iraq to take over a country that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11?

Has Michael Moore ever made a statement that he might later have regretted? I'm sure. Perhaps something like "Mission Accomplished" or "bring 'em on" might qualify... hmm?

"Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.

How do you get 'close and convoluted' exactly? The business relationships that Moore points out run far more frequently than a single 'convoluted' connection at the Carlyle Group. In fact, Bush's first private company, a Texas oil drilling company, was invested in heavily by Osama Bin Laden's brother when the firm was in dire financial straits. Bush promptly drove the newly funded company to bankruptcy regardless, but it wouldn't be his last "close and convoluted" connection with the Bin Ladens. His father knows the Bin Ladens well too, since a Bin Laden sat on the Carlyle Group's board of directors while Bush Sr was employed by the company, and while that comfortable connection was growing, Carlyle gave Bush Jr an airline catering company to run... which he promptly ran into the ground. Again.

On the day before September 11 2001, Bush Sr was meeting with the Carlyle head honchos, including a Mr Bin Laden, to talk business in New York, but Poppy left early for a remote part of the Midwest. The next day, the WTC towers would tumble, and three days later, while the rest of us were stranded at airports and bus stations, the Bin Ladens (including the Carlyle director) were picked up by private jets authorized by the White House and whisked off (without questioning) to Paris 'for their own protection'.

Now, you tell me if that connection is "close and convoluted", because to me it looks pretty damn close, and not at all convoluted.

2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.

Yes. 7% of all wealth in the United States, according to Moore's figures. That would include Citibank (yes, the largest bank in the world is owned by the Saudi royals), and large parts of Time Warner (you know them, the owners of CNN) and even Disney (who refused to let Fahrenheit 9/11 be shown in their theaters). The Carlyle Group just yesterday purchased Loews Theaters. Hmm... Wonder why they'd have sudden interest in the cinema industry.

3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

Wow. Talk about being disingenuous. Moore's point was far clearer than Hitchens gives credit for. In the years before September 11 2001, the Clinton government passed a directive that no business be done with the Taliban, for they had been harboring and protecting Osama Bin Laden's al Queda organization. That meant NO business would be done with them - period. But when Bush came to office, not only did he send the Taliban $43m in aid, he also brought in a delegation of Taliban honchos that came to Texas to discuss a pipeline that would take gas from the Caspian Sea to Pakistan - through Afghanistan.

The prime movers behind this plan were Unocal, who Moore shows again and again Bush had majors ties to. After September 11 happened, when we duly went in and overturned the Taliban as the rulers of Afghanistan, who did Bush put in their place? Khamid Karzai - an employee of Unocal. And one of Karzai's first acts of office was to sign the papers agreeing to send that pipeline through 'his' country for his old employers.

How fortunate for them.


4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.

I'm sorry, but I thought this was considered fact. When American Generals opted to send Kurdish rebels into the caves and holes of the Afghan mountains, we all sat back waiting for the inevitable dead body to emerge. Instead, Osama Bin Laden got through the Kurds, as well as the few hundred Americans behind them, and was spirited off to Pakistan where he remains to this day. He's not hiding in a cave, he's laughing. He's watching Matrix DVDs and sipping Jolt Cola. He's playing X-Box and ordering pizza, people.

Bush's response to that? He took troops out of Afghanistan and sent them instead to go get Saddam Hussein. Think about that - they know roughly where Bin Laden was, but rather than make his capture a priority, they went after someone else. With TEN TIMES the number of troops that they took to Afghanistan.

If that doesn't warrant mentioning, I'm Dutch.

5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.

I'm not even sure what Hitchens is trying to say here. The Afghan government had no army to speak of, because we blew it apart. Even today, the government itself only rules small portions of that country, while the rest is down to tribal warlords who do their own thing (such as grow more opium poppy than ever before). Suffice to say, when the US says "jump", Khamid Karzai says, "would you like oil with that?"

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

Hitchens 'divines' wrong. I have to say that I was shocked and pleasantly surprised by exactly how pro-soldier Fahrenheit 9/11 is. It shows the soldiers as just doing their job, with minimal supervision, questionable directives from commanders, incredible stresses, a lack of training, and no clear objective. It shows them asking the question, again and again, "Why are we still here?"

And it shows them in hospital, with limbs blown off, annoyed that their benefits have been slashed by Bush in the time since they volunteered to fight. Some of them even make a point of vowing to do whatever they can for the Democrats from this moment on, despite having always voted Republican previously.

And it shows their funerals, none of which Bush has ever attended.

And it shows their parents, beaming with pride that their child is in the military, then devastated when that child is reported as dead.

And it shows the veterans that have come home and refuse to return to Iraq for another tour of duty, not willing to kill innocent people for a war based on a lie, even if it means they'll be sent to prison as a result.

And it shows conferences of US corporate contractors heading to Iraq, where a speaker says such things as "whatever it costs, the government will pay it," and "when that oil flows, there's going to be a lot of money there."

So yeah, American lives in Afghanistan have been wasted. As they have in Iraq. The boys and girls who went to fight for what they thought was right have been sacrificed so 'the have's and the have more's' (or, as George likes to call them, "his base") can profit.

"And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal."

That's perhaps because there is no irony inherent. Never in Moore's film does he say that troops shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan. If he did say that once at a film festival two years ago, it's not in his film today - so why is this the primary point of Hitchens' article?

It seems that Hitchens is intent on critiquing this film not for what is in it, but for the fact that it doesn't follow with statements the filmmaker made in 2002, to a room of maybe twenty people. Is Moore not allowed to make a film unless every statement he's ever made has been vetted and qualified and cross-referenced against it? Is he not allowed to point out 90 truths if one of them doesn't match with something he once said during a film festival panel? This is ridiculous, and the most petty basis for attack in the entire Hitchens piece.

But then, that's what the right does so well - point out the flip-flops of others while ignoring their own. Going to war with Afghanistan for harboring terrorists is one thing. Going to war against Iraq for oil is another altogether, and only someone with a partisan ax to grind couldn't (or wouldn't) see that. Like it or not, formerly liberal Chris Hitchens is very much now a member of the Republican right.

"In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures."

Okay, so Hitchens calls Moore tedious and paranoid for pointing out something that Hitchens himself admits to having pointed out? Double standards anyone?

It's true that Clarke says he authorized the Saudi planes to leave US airspace. But Clarke worked not for the FBI, who desperately wanted to interview those family members (as interviews with agents in F9/11 point out), rather he worked for George Bush's White House. He signed the authorization, he did not make the orders.

As for the 9/11 commission having nothing to complain about in that respect, Hitchens might be better served to note that the commission has said that their only mandate is to investigate the CAUSE of 9/11 - not the subsequent actions that may have helped capture (or free) the organizers of the attack. That means that such questions are outside their arena of interest and are a waste of their precious time.

But then, to admit such wouldn't serve Hitchens' real point here - that Michael Moore is on the other side of the political spectrum from he and that means he must be smeared at all costs, so that Republicans can point to Hitchens' article and say "See? The movie is all crap! It's lies! Lies, I tell you! Hitchens is a liberal and even HE says it's lies!"

"President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the 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."

Now, I just don't get this at all. According to figures compiled by the Washington Post, to August 2003 from the time he took office, Bush had taken 250 days off. That's 27% of his presidency to that point spent on vacation, or roughly a day off per week, in '9 to 5 speak'. In his father's entire term of office (four big years), Poppy took 543 vacation days at Camp David and in Kennebunkport. Ronald Reagan? He went off the clock for 335 days during his eight years in office. But Jimmy Carter only took 79 days off during his Presidency, while Bill Clinton spent only 152 days kicking back during his two terms in the top job.

Think about that for a second - in barely 2/3 of one Presidential term, George Bush Jr took more days off than Clinton and Jimmy Carter did in a combined TWELVE YEARS!

Is that not worth mentioning? Would Hitchens find such behavior from a Democratic President similarly understandable? Is it okay to spend the day riding around the back forty on a mountain bike if Tony Blair is huffing and puffing trying to keep up? Does that constitute 'work'? Is that what Presidents are paid for?

Hitchens takes issue with a shot that he admits is only a split second, simply because it has Tony Blair in the background. Perhaps Blair was on vacation too? Perhaps on one of the other several dozen vacations Bush has taken Blair wasn't present?

The fact is that Bush, along with taking more vacation days than any other President but his father, has also attended more fundraising functions that any other President - by a country mile. And all that during a time of war?

Tell me, Chris... am I lying?

"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. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm."

Not if he'd said it while the nation was at war, it wouldn't.

"More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse."

Where on earth is Hitchens getting his crack? You don't need to rush to war to actually be "doing something" when you're under attack. Surely Bush could have done more, while the jets were still in the air and heading to New York City and Washington, than sit in a children's classroom for fifteen minutes reading "My Pet Goat". The nation was under attack for crying out loud! And those were the EXACT words whispered in Bush's ear as he SAT THERE looking scared out of his brains. He heard the US was under attack and he did nothing. He sat and waited it out. Then he took questions from the children.

Meanwhile, in New York, Washington DC and Pennsylvania, Americans were dying, jumping out of windows, burning, being crushed, fighitng hijackers and steering planes into fields. While America was being attacked, George W. Bush finished his photo op.

Now, let's be clear. There were many things Bush could have done that day. The first one might have been to cancel the school photo op when he'd heard that the first plane had hit the WTC (something he admitted to having known when he told a reporter on his way into the school, "that's one bad pilot, huh? I'll talk about it later.")

He might also have got out of that classroom and hit the phones when he heard about the second building being hit. He might have authorized the hijacked planes to be shot down by F-16's, or even make sure that F-16's were shadowing the hijacked planes (they never did, even though there was more than an hour between the first hijacking being reported and the last plane hitting a field in Pennsylvania).

Or heck, he might have even pulled a Rudy Giulliani and got on the TV to tell us all that it was going to be okay. But he did nothing. And Hitchens, in trying to say that the only thing he could have done that day was rush to war, is not just being disingenuous, he's being totally and morally dishonest. And YOU know it, no matter who you vote for.

"In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003."

Clearly Hitchens hasn't seen the excellent Control Room, or he wouldn't have made the unfortunate Al Jazeera dig. But in terms of civilian casualties, Hitchens is amazingly flip with the lives of innocent people. Were the dead in the World Trade Center towers not 'civilian casualties'? Are the civilian casualties on one side of the political divide more important than those on the other? And to what end have we inflicted those civilian casualties on Iraq? For their freedom? For their democracy? For their Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Why? Why are we there? Why aren't we in Afghanistan? That's Moore's point, and it is well made.

"I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)"

If I were an editor who wanted to twist Hitchens' words here, I could have changed the above passage to: "Moore mentions the 30-year record of war crimes and repression from Saddam's Baath Party, while pointing out that the Bush cabinet members that very much wanted to go to war against him also once sold him chemical weapons, financed his army and called him their great friend in the Middle East" - and it wouldn't be a lie. That's exactly what Moore says, but Hitchens prefers to twist it so Moore looks e-ville.

Hitchens is essentially admitting the same thing Moore is saying - that the US built Saddam, and that the blood of those Iraqis he killed and tortured is on that country's hands. But he says it in such a way that anyone who hasn't seen the film could say "Yeah! That Michael Moore, he's a liar!"

Which is very similar to the title of Hitchens' piece yet, remarkably, we haven't actually got to a single lie yet. Let's see if any pop up in the rest of the article...

"Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Munich and Rome."


As an objective writer (yes, I do consider myself as such), I have to point out when something that doesn't help my side of the argument is factual, and this is indeed a blooper from Moore. Certainly I know what the filmmaker was trying to say - that Iraq was no threat to us on or after September 11 2001, but he said it in a way that makes him easy to shoot down.

Fact, Saddam Hussein had often boasted of offering rewards to the families of terrorists, most specifically in Israel. Fact, Saddam's men tried to off Poppy Bush after he'd been removed as President of the United States. Fact, Iraq took US citizens hostage during the Gulf War. Fact, American soldiers died during the Gulf War.

But the following must be added:

* Israel-based terrorism was never the object of the attack on Iraq by America. The 9/11 terrorists were and, as we now know in a big way, Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. In Bush's own words, "We have no evidence that Saddam was involved in the September the 11th."

* While Saddam's agents tried to off Bush Sr after he had stepped down from office, that was after Iraq had been famously (and remarkably unreportedly) told by Bush Sr's government that the US took "no position" on the country's dispute with Kuwait. Iraq warned loudly that they may decide to attack the Kuwaitis over a border dispute that involved Kuwait 'angle drilling' for oil that was under Iraqi territory. Iraq objected to these actions, saying Kuwait was stealing their resources. Kuwait told them to get stuffed, more or less, so Iraq decided to make it interesting.

And that's where the US said "we have no position on this dispute." So Saddam attacked. Then we called him a villain and attacked him.

So sure, Saddam's men went out to get Bush Sr. Considering what Bush Sr's staff got Iraq into, it's kind of understandable that there was animosity, don't you think?

* Yes, Iraq took hostages during the war (who were all released unharmed) and Americans died fighting in the conflict - but they WERE no threat to Americans until we doublecrossed them and decided to invade. And, if you want to get all factual, more Americans died at the hands of fellow Americans in the Gulf War than died from Iraqi weapons. Friendly fire was by far the biggest killer in that war, just as it was in the Afghanistan invasion, and the attacks on Serbia during the Clinton years.

So yeah, Moore overplays the case with his statement, but it's certainly defensible.

"Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem. No problem at all."

Oh Chris, he says no such thing. What he says is that we built Saddam, then when he was no longer our buddy and 9/11 happened, it suddenly became easier to justify invading a sovereign nation. And yes, as much as Saddam was a bastard, he was the leader of a sovereign nation. And we invaded that nation. And today we occupy it.

And hey, let's not forget, we've also tortured their people. And we've selected their leaders. And we've closed their newspapers. And we're taking their natural resources to pay for the action we took against them. Viva democracy!

"We are shown some American civilians who have had absurd encounters with idiotic "security" staff. (Have you ever met anyone who can't tell such a story?) Then we are immediately shown underfunded police departments that don't have the means or the manpower to do any stop-and-search: a power suddenly demanded by Moore on their behalf that we know by definition would at least lead to some ridiculous interrogations. Finally, Moore complains that there isn't enough intrusion and confiscation at airports and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters. (Cue mood music for sinister influence of Big Tobacco.) So—he wants even more pocket-rummaging by airport officials? Uh, no, not exactly. But by this stage, who's counting?"

I am. If Hitchens can't see Moore's point in all this, he's either trying hard not to or he's just flat out dumb. By pointing out the ridiculous stories of encounters with overzealous security staff, then pointing out that the State of Oregon only has eight state troopers on duty at certain times through the week, leaving huge swathes of coastline unprotected, then pointing out that three matchbooks and two lighters is a-okay to take on a plane but four matchbooks and two lighters is not (despite the evidence showing that shoebomber Richard Reid would have succeeded in blowing up a civillian flight if he'd had access to a lighter), Moore is making a very salient point. That point is that homeland security is a JOKE.

You can see that, right? Because I saw it clearly. Is it just me?

"Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar?"

Because, and I'd be surprised if Hitchens truly doesn't know this, the Saudi royals are far from 'in control' at home. Their close ties to the US are the subject of much local dissension, and bombings of US buildings in Saudi Arabia are a very regular occurrence. In fact, for many years those bombings were blamed on westerners who the Saudis accused of running 'illegal alcohol rings." It was a turf war, they said, and they arrested random Brits and Canadians, holding them in prison for many years (dozens are still there), torturing them and beating them for confessions, all so they could put forth the spin that there was no internal problem in Saudi Arabia.

Well, there is. There's a big problem, and had the Saudi leaders allowed America to run its attack on Iraq from that country, chances are you'd have seen open revolt against the house of Saud. That's why they didn't let the US base their forces there, and let's not forget that the American presence in Saudi Arabia is why Osama Bin Laden got annoyed with the US in the first place (along with the lack of a Palestinian homeland, Bin Laden's big demand is that the US get out of a nation that is considered the Arab holy land). It's also why the US didn't make a bigger deal about the refusal - in essence, they understood the delicacy of the situation and they moved one country downwind.

"There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that. Back in Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this time. Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away."

Is Hitchens really going to hang his hat on this? In F9/11, Moore follows a couple of Marine recruiters as they hit the local shopping mall (the poorer mall, where the minority folks shop) in search of new blood. They can be heard talking about how to corner someone trying to get away from them, they're seen taking down the name and address of someone who says they're not interested, "so we know not to bother you again..." Puh-lease.

And most interestingly? The recruitment candidates are mostly black. They're mostly unemployed. They're mostly people who have nothing going on in life and are being offered schooling, which they can otherwise in no way afford. And to illustrate that point, Moore talks to a Flint woman in gainful employment (in a town with nearly 50% unemployment), a white woman at that, who boasts proudly about her family's military tradition, and how she had been telling her children from a young age that the military was the only way they could get out of Flint and get an education.

Did I mention that woman's son died in Iraq?

The truth is that the people serving in Iraq are, by and large, either volunteers from poor backgrounds trying to get some sort of possibility of education in their lives, or middle class white folks who signed up to the National Guard back in the day when doing so meant you WOULDN'T be sent overseas. There's also another contingent in the US armed forces that perhaps you didn't know about - the foreigners. Yes, America's armed forces now feature Mexicans who want citizenship in the US and are prepared to be shot at to get it. Foreign nationals in America's armed forces - but hey, Moore shouldn't point such things out because whitey might feel slighted, right Hitchens?

"In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.)"

Uh, no. He doesn't. He says not enough troops were sent to Afghanistan - which is correct, evidenced by the fact that we didn't catch Osama Bin Laden, who killed 3000 of our own. But Moore is NOT saying there should have been more troops sent to Iraq, he's saying that the US went in underprepared. There's a big difference between the two positions - one says "we should flood the country with our men and get the bastards!" while the other says, "You idiots, you sent our kids in there, in numbers too small to effectively control the place, when you shouldn't have been sending in troops at all!" The latter is Moore's point, and it's a very clear one.

Hitchens is being intellectually dishonest here on a grand scale. He's pulling the right wing move that we've seen time and again where you manipulate words and scenarios to suit your own needs, and anyone who sees Moore's movie will see, front and center, that this is the case.

And they really will. I mean, good grief, a woman who sat next to me during this film, a respected newspaper writer in this town, cried at what she saw on screen. She cried. Not quietly, not a single tear quickly sucked back in - she cried LOUDLY.

Is this woman merely someone so weak of mind that she could be snowed by some clever editing and emotional background music? Of course not. What she saw were images we're not allowed to see as a matter of course in American life any more. She saw babies covered in burns, missing limbs, being thrown on trucks. She saw US soldiers singing "the roof is on fire" as Baghdad buildings burned behind them. She saw soldiers standing in the desert wondering what the hell they got themselves into, and why.

And she saw a pattern of deception, hubris and elitist manouveuring that saw the western world descend into war for NO REASON other than the profit of a small number of people. She saw lives destroyed so that Halliburton could see their stock rise. She saw parents grieving, caskets returning, and innocent Iraqi civilians calling for our deaths because, heck, after you've flattened someone's home with their family inside, they tend to get a littly pissy.

"However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point."

Excuse me? What did he just say? "Fact-checking is beside the point"?

No sir, fact checking IS the point when you accuse someone of lying. And you, sir, have not proved one single lie here, only a bunch of inferences that exist in your head and nowhere else. Hitchens is saying that F9/11 is an awful movie simply because it doesn't take his perspective on things. He claims lies have been told, but can only find one statement that could even be inferred as untrue - and even that's a stretch. As for the rest, he seems to think if he can smear a little doody on Michael Moore's reputation at the top of the article, he doesn't have to prove it in the bottom. So if you happen to know the New York Times' Judith Miller personally, kindly let her know there's a new hack in town. She's now number two behind Chris "Hatchet" Hitchens, who accuses people of lying but doesn't deliver the evidence.

This Slate article, good people with brains in your heads, is some of the shoddiest 'journalism' I've seen. And it comes to you from a guy who wrote an article not long ago defending Ahmad Chalabi, double agent to the Iranians, fabricator of WMD stories, and wanted bank defrauder, saying "if there has to be a 'Mr. Shiite' in Iraq, I can think of worse candidates than Chalabi."

I can't.

This is a hilarious post.

Chris Parry takes issue with Hitchens' orientation (Hitchens is a liberal btw) as proof that his criticisms are invalid. While attempting to deny that Parry's own orientation is irrelevant to the issue. What?:o

Not only that but Parry's own analysis is faulty. Citibank (yes, the largest bank in the world is owned by the Saudi royals), That will certainly be news to Citibanks shareholders. They're probably wondering what planet Parry comes from.

The bush's family connection to the bin laden family is appropos of what? No actual allegations are made just the insinuation. This is relevant to what? This is analysis?

The $43 million in aid to the Taliban was to suppress the growth of poppies for heroin.:rolleyes:

The pipeline, from Usbekistan and Cental Asisa thru Afghanistan and Pakistan to a port on the Indian Sea has been under discussion for more than 10 years by a variety of players in various consortiums of which Unocal has been one player. They also include Total (a French co.), Exxon, Occidental and numerous other large international E&P companies as well as pipeline cos. In 10 years, despite the best efforts of the Taliban, Kharzai, Uzbek, and Paki gov'ts no one has signed a deal. No one, No one (not even the Citibank owned by the Saudis) will finance the deal because the financial risk to the project is too great given the political situation in that part of the world both pre and post 9/11. He and Moore (or should it be Less) deal in half truths.

I could go on but it would be pointless. The authors knowledge is at best limited. His arguments spurious due to his lack of knowledge about the subjects he attempts to discuss. If this is the best defence of Moore people can offer it's indicative of the extent of the myopia of the angry left. :rolleyes:

too much to read, overdose. make it short and sweet

Originally posted by waldo

The bush's family connection to the bin laden family is appropos of what? No actual allegations are made just the insinuation. This is relevant to what?


Yes, that is important, if you would actually WATCH the film. It gives you a clear reason as to why the Bush family did certain decisions, and or why they were motivated to go to Iraq, and send 10 times the troops to Iraq, instead of focusing on Afghanistan, where Osama really is.

"In fact, Bush's first private company, a Texas oil drilling company, was invested in heavily by Osama Bin Laden's brother when the firm was in dire financial straits. Bush promptly drove the newly funded company to bankruptcy regardless, but it wouldn't be his last "close and convoluted" connection with the Bin Ladens. His father knows the Bin Ladens well too, since a Bin Laden sat on the Carlyle Group's board of directors while Bush Sr was employed by the company, and while that comfortable connection was growing, Carlyle gave Bush Jr an airline catering company to run... which he promptly ran into the ground. Again."

Originally posted by waldo
The pipeline, from Usbekistan and Cental Asisa thru Afghanistan and Pakistan to a port on the Indian Sea has been under discussion for more than 10 years by a variety of players in various consortiums of which Unocal has been one player. They also include Total (a French co.), Exxon, Occidental and numerous other large international E&P companies as well as pipeline cos. In 10 years, despite the best efforts of the Taliban, Kharzai, Uzbek, and Paki gov'ts no one has signed a deal. No one, No one (not even the Citibank owned by the Saudis) will finance the deal because the financial risk to the project is too great given the political situation in that part of the world both pre and post 9/11. He and Moore (or should it be Less) deal in half truths.


Although, it would have had to have been discussed when Bush's father was in office. If it was a "10" year old business deal, and Clinton disabled all trade with them, then how on earth did this happen in a 10 year, time span? Maybe it was all of those meetings Bush's family had with the Taliban to discuss the pipeline. There is actual footage of the meetings. Although other "companies" may have been involved, it was mainly the Bush family.

"The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

Wow. Talk about being disingenuous. Moore's point was far clearer than Hitchens gives credit for. In the years before September 11 2001, the Clinton government passed a directive that no business be done with the Taliban, for they had been harboring and protecting Osama Bin Laden's al Queda organization. That meant NO business would be done with them - period. But when Bush came to office, not only did he send the Taliban $43m in aid, he also brought in a delegation of Taliban honchos that came to Texas to discuss a pipeline that would take gas from the Caspian Sea to Pakistan - through Afghanistan.

The prime movers behind this plan were Unocal, who Moore shows again and again Bush had majors ties to. After September 11 happened, when we duly went in and overturned the Taliban as the rulers of Afghanistan, who did Bush put in their place? Khamid Karzai - an employee of Unocal. And one of Karzai's first acts of office was to sign the papers agreeing to send that pipeline through 'his' country for his old employers.

How fortunate for them."

The movie gives you Moore's interpretation of events. He attempts to support his interpretation with what can only be described as anecdotal evidence.

The pipeline deal has been discussed in many forms by a variety of partners for a 10 year period. If you would like to offer evidence that such a deal has been signed, announced, or financed feel free.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

The entire point of the movie was to outline Moore's take on what happened and to argue his point of view. So why do we need all of these posts arguing his point of view for him?

Top 10 George W. Bush Complaints About Fahrenheit 9/11 (I'm assuming this is from David Letterman):

10. That actor who played the President was totally unconvincing.

9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election.

8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words.

7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported.

6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger.

5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97% are true.

4. Not sure -- I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe.

3. Where the hell was Spider-man?

2. Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth.

1. I thought this was supposed to be about Dodgeball.

To me, the issue of whether or not Michael Moore is got a decent point is completely moot. He isn’t fair in his interpretation of true journalism. He touts his movies as documentaries, yet manipulates audio/video feeds to convey a point he believes is correct. If that’s not propaganda, then I’m not really certain I know what is. The movies he’s made will undoubtedly make him a VERY wealthy man, and given his stance on current politics, I’d like to see what he does with it. Simply to see if making the money he is will stop him from living here (i.e. the country he, along with the North Koreans, France, and the Middle East hate) while allowing him the chance to move to any country of his choice replete with a fat American bankroll. He has a known history of hating the way we do business here, which dates back to his first arrest while they were filming a Rage Against the Machine video, “Sleep Now in the Fire”. He protested the way American money was invested in foreign markets. This is all well and good, but when you take action and halt the trading on the floor of the NYSE, then you’re not only acting illegally, but also hindering business for everyone. This includes the companies that, even according to Michael, are conducting themselves the way in which he deems “acceptable”. This kind of radical liberalism is completely unacceptable, and should have been dealt with by imposing a stiffer penalty on him at the time. I’d protest his film based on the fact that he’s so blatantly partisan and has the balls to step to the plate with a straight face while saying he’s making a documentary. Its classic spin at it’s absolute worst. I feel bad for those among you who take what he has to say as gospel.

Well said, The Praetorian! :thumbs:

Welcome to allForums!

Thank you, F. de Marzipan. Glad to be here.

Again, you have yet to give me "examples" of areas in this movie that are "false" and or "propaganda" It may be a “left” view, but it is backed with factual documents. You can blame it on “taking clips out” and “editing” but that’s about all you have. You label something “fake” because of something all documentaries HAVE to do, which is take out clips and parts of interviews that are not as important, and or relevant.

You would protest something you haven't even seen? Wow, that's amazing. Yes, he shares his side, but you cannot deny that he does back them up.

Go ahead, and believe the Right-Wing in calling him a "liar", because you are indeed giving into the very same "propaganda" you call Moore's films, just on the “other side”

Again, you have yet to give me "examples"

Done and done. That you refuse to read what I've provided (in another of your I LOVE MICHAEL MOORE threads) isn't my worry. That you swallow everything Moore shoves down your neck isn't my worry either.

It is rather annoying, however, how you go on about it... :rolleyes: You're not having his baby by any chance, are you?

Wow, :) I've refuted almost all of your "examples"

But have fun taking what the Right-Wing spews to you. That's not my problem.

:):)

Remember, Free Love, Buddy. No hard feelings...oh and take care.

Now we’re getting into the gray area of what’s valid and not valid. Yes, he’s editing the films, but it boils down to the information he omitting and/or implying. You want examples…go rent Bowling for Columbine one more time. Scan forward until you get the part where Moore is demonizing Charlton Heston for arguing for our second amendment right to bear arms at an NRA convention. If Michael Moore has a problem with this constitutional freedom, that’s fine…then run for office and change things, but don’t incriminate a man for the incident at Columbine because he’s part of an organization that happens to be full of members that are 99.99999% law abiding. There was a scene in the movie where an innocent black kid was horribly shot and, due to Moores "agendaless" fair journalism, the implication wound up being that Heston was, in fact, not only a gun-toting lunatic, but also a racist to boot. These are our country’s hunters, IPSC handgun competitors, Police officers, and sport shooters. His argument for not allowing the liberal government to take away his right to bear arms had nothing to do with that poor black kid being shot by those twisted youngsters for simply being black. Once again, here were dealing with spin and nothing more. Do you really think those teen-age kids were card-carrying members of the NRA? Do you think the Charlton Heston wanted those kids to get killed on that horrible day? The obvious answer is no to both of those questions. Is Moore an extremist? Well, you figure that one out for yourself, but just make sure you use logic when applying the facts. Facts will always be facts, but his application of those facts leaves good room for relative interpretation. On a related note, do you think most of the crime perpetrated by individuals that use guns, purchased those guns legally? Even if we weren’t to use that simple question for a basis in being rooted in reality, then surely, we can still be of the mindset that it's the fault of the human pulling the trigger and not the gun. People have been intentionally killed with cars and bats, but I don’t see any movement to stop people from owning them. Why the liberal coup with guns???

3) Denver NRA meeting. Critics like yourself claim that Moore has massively distorted evidence to support his point that Charlton Heston has effectively insulted the victims of the Columbine tragedy by holding a rally in Denver shortly afterwards.

First, the "from my cold, dead hands" part: This is used by Moore as a visual citation to introduce Heston. It is perhaps one of his most famous quotes, shown on national TV even here in Germany. It tells viewers: Aha, this is the person we are talking about. Nowhere does Moore say or imply that these words were uttered at the rally in Denver, and in fact, their reptition later in the movie at another occasion (oddly claimed by critics to be again "misattributed") is simply a reminder of this. It is Moore's way to say: Viewers, meet Charlton Heston, gun nut extraordinaire.

The "visual of a billboard and a narration" is viewed by you as evidence that Moore is trying to somehow tie the two events together, when in reality, it is quite obvious that he does it to separate the introduction of Heston from his speech in Denver. Moore is a professional filmmaker -- he concentrates on maximum impact of each of the statements he cites, and to accomplish that effect, uses subtle interludes instead of long-winded introductions. This is a common technique, but because conservative readers are not familiar with the basics of filmmaking, they believe critics who claim that he is "distorting" the interview. What he does is standard filmmaking practice.

The same goes for the interview which follows. Moore's critics would expect us to have him quote Heston in his entirety, have him present fully the PR that the NRA has used to justify its rally in Denver for reasons of "balance". The NRA was fully aware of the scandal it would cause through its rally and decided to push on because they believed to have enough media support to successfully do so. They were right. You claim that there was "no way to change location, since you have to give advance notice of that to the members, and there were upwards of 4,000,000 members." 10 days are more than enough to give advance warning of a change in location or date, had the NRA really wanted to. It is probably correct that their primary reason for not doing so was to save money, not to piss off the victims of Colubmine. That does not change the fact that they did just that. Moore presents the most important part of the speech to back up this point and ignores the fluff. This is what good documentary filmmaking is about. And here the critics again ignore important evidence:

When Heston mentions the mayor of Denver, the crowd boos loudly. Heston maganimously holds up a hand to read the mayor's letter (only to explain in detail why he chose to ignore the request -- not mentioning at all the reasons you have given!). This booing by the crowd, not mentioned with a single word in your transcript or your article, shows that the crowd was fully aware of the controversy they would cause by coming to Littleton after children were being killed there -- and they effectively said "Fuck you". To say that they could not have done otherwise is a bold lie by Moore's critics.

4) The Kayla Rolland case. Again, critics like yourself charge Moore with deception. The rally took place on October 17, the shooting on February 29. Again, standard filmmaking techniques are interpreted as smooth distortion: "Moore works by depriving you of context and guiding your mind to fill the vacuum -- with completely false ideas. It is brilliantly, if unethically, done." As noted above, the "from my cold dead hands" part is simply Moore's way to introduce Heston. Did anyone but Moore's critics view it as anything else? He certainly does not "attribute it to a speech where it was not uttered" and, as noted above, doing so twice would make no sense whatsoever if Moore was the mastermind deceiver that his critics claim he is.

Concerning the Georgetown Hoya interview where Heston was asked about Rolland, you write: "There is no indication that [Heston] recognized Kayla Rolland's case." This is naive to the extreme -- Heston would not be president of the NRA if he was not kept up to date on the most prominent cases of gun violence. Even if he did not respond to that part of the interview, he certainly knew about the case at that point.

Regarding the NRA website excerpt about the case and the highlighting of the phrase "48 hours after Kayla Rolland is pronounced dead": This is one valid criticism, but far from the deliberate distortion you make it out to be; rather, it is an example for how the facts can sometimes be easy to miss with Moore's fast pace editing. The reason the sentence is highlighted is not to deceive the viewer into believing that Heston hurried to Flint to immediately hold a rally there (as will become quite obvious), but simply to highlight the first mention of the name "Kayla Rolland" in the text, which is in this paragraph.

Unfortunately, because the zooming is rather fast, it is easy to miss the rest of the sentence, so as you correctly note, some viewers got an incorrect impression. It would have been fair for Moore to point out this possible misinterpretation on his website. However, the claim of deliberate distortion is ludicrous for several reasons:

a) Moore clearly states that "before he came to Flint", Heston gave an interview. In the excerpt from said interview, we can see that it is from March. If Moore wanted to deceive his viewers, why would he say this, and show the month the interview was published?

b) Why should Moore leave the words "Clinton is on the Today Show" visible in the text, which is necessary to correctly interpret the highlighted part? I reviewed the sequence several times and it is perfectly possible to see this text without pausing.

c) Both the "soccer mom" interview and the sequences showing the NRA rally make no effort to distort the fact that this rally happened months after the fact. The camera lingers on Bush/Cheney posters, and the protestor is quoted as saying that "we wanted to let the NRA know that we haven't forgotten about Kayla Rolland". You make the hysterical claim that the interview "may be faked" (on the basis that no name is shown for the interviewee), but if Moore had faked it, why the hell should he put this sentence in the protestor's mouth, which directly contradicts the conclusion that the rally happened hours after Kayla's death? Why did Moore, the masterful deveiver, not edit this sequence out? This makes no sense.

Opinions may vary on how tasteless it was for Heston to hold a pro gun rally on the location of the nation's youngest school shooting months after the fact, but this sequence of "Bowling" is without doubt the most unfair to Heston. The claims of deliberate distortion don't hold up when viewing the whole scene, though -- as "Hanlon's Razor" states, one should never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence. The somewhat inept editing of the NRA press release has led some viewers to wrong conclusions, which is unfortunate, but Moore's critics have no interest in viewing the matter fairly. Had they done so, Moore himself would probably have apologized for the gaffe. In any case, at no point does Moore make a false statement, in contradiction to claims by critics that his documentary is "full of lies".

5) You write: "Having created the desired impression, Moore follows with his Heston interview." No, he doesn't. You accuse Moore so often of changing the chronology, yet you have no problems changing it yourself. The Heston interview is at the very end of the movie. After the Flint rally comes a brief TV interview with Heston, where he is asked about Kayla Rolland (again, clear evidence that the local media in Flint raised questions about the NRA's presence), then an inteview with country prosecutor Arthur Busch, entirely ignored by critics of the film, who also mentions Heston's presence as notable, and refers to the immediate reactions of "people from all over America", gun owners/groups who, according to him, reacted aggressively to warnings of having guns accessible to children, much like spanking advocates react aggressively when anti-spankers point to a case of a child being killed or severely injured by a beating. These people do not feel the need to express sympathy, or to think about ways to avoid such incidents, but they feel the need to assert their "rights" and to look for quick, simple answers -- as Busch states, gun owners wanted to "hang [the child] from the highest tree". This is all not mentioned by critics of Moore's movie, who claim to be objective.

Perhaps the best example of the paranoia surrounding Moore's film is your sub-essay "Is the end of the Heston interview itself faked?"

Moore answers a simple question -- how could the scene have been filmed -- with a simple answer: two cameras. From this, you construct an obscure conspiracy of "re-enactment": "For all we can tell, Moore could have shouted 'Hey!' to make Heston turn around and then remained silent as Heston left." Even if your "re-enactment" theory is true (and I see no evidence that you have actually tried to ask the people involved in the filmmaking for their opinion), this itself is not unethical, and you have no evidence whatsoever that Moore has done anything unethical here, just like you have no evidence that Moore has unethically removed parts of the interview. You use standard filmmaking technique as a basis to construct bizarre conspiracies which sound plausible to the gullible reader, without ever providing any evidence for the implicit or explicit claims of fraud and distortion.

11) Heston's allegedly implied racism. You conclude from Heston's own words that Heston was somehow portrayed as racist. If anything, it is his own failure that he did not clarify what he meant with "having a more mixed ethnicity". Heston's answers in the interview were evasive and unhelpful. While this can in part be explained with his age and mental condition, if he is unable to defend the interests of the NRA, he should not be their spokesman. In this case, Hanlon's Razor can be applied to Heston -- he is probably not racist, but incompetent. Your accusations of inappropriate cutting are once again entirely unsupported -- in fact, it is quite clear from watching that particular scene that there is not a single cut from the point at which Moore asks Heston a second time for the cause of the higher violence in the States, and the point when he mentions the Kayla Rolland incident. If Heston makes himself look like a fool, that should hardly be blamed on Michael Moore.

I loved the part about conservative readers not being familiar with the basics of filmmaking; hence they believe that Moore is "distorting" the interview. Out of curiosity, what the hell does filmmaking have to do with distorting fact, especially under the guise of being a documentary??? Really, I’d love to learn how to make a film so I can be better versed in what’s factual and what’s politically motivated, biased, slam-based propaganda. Great way to connect the dots, dude. Please do me a favor, and don’t quote any further rants of that article in your future responses to me. If the meat of his argument as to why the information in Moore’s movie is biased is because of the necessity of making short introductions, changing dates, and generalizing info to give the viewer a “better” picture of the situation, then don’t bother trying to legitimize this mans long winded attempt to justify Moore’s blatant America bashing. If Michael Moore cared so much for this country, then I would have imagined that somewhere down the line that he’d actually get off his fat ass, run for office, and stop complaining about it instead of just CAPITALIZING on his arrant brand of misinformation.

It's good that you refuted all of the things I posted.

Good job! :):)

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Scan forward until you get the part where Moore is demonizing Charlton Heston for arguing for our second amendment right to bear arms at an NRA convention.

Wrong, Moore is for the people owning guns. He did not show the parts, about Charlton Heston aruging for the second amendment, he showed him attacking the Mayor of the town they had their rally in. Implying they knew that they were going to cause trouble when they went into it after Columbine, when they “booed and cussed” at the mayors letter. Proving that he purposely went there, to show, “you can't stop us from having our rally!”

Originally posted by The Praetorian
full of members that are 99.99999% law abiding.

Your facts for that would be...where?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
His argument for not allowing the liberal government to take away his right to bear arms had nothing to do with that poor black kid being shot by those twisted youngsters for simply being black. Once again, here were dealing with spin and nothing more.

When did he say that he wanted to take away the guns of Americans? He is also a registered independent. And he brought up that incident because it was drawing attention to the fact that people, in America, have issues on raising their children because of the jobs they are forced to commit to. Which is a real issue, in America that needs to be addressed. He was not trying to convey we need to get rid of guns, he was saying we need to improve the conditions in which Americans live, and create more safety precautions so incidents like this DO not occur. Never once was he trying to say that we should not be able to own guns.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Do you think the Charlton Heston wanted those kids to get killed on that horrible day?

Never said he did and neither did Moore.

Do you mean to tell me there weren't grossly blatant insinuations? If you can't read between the lines, then I'm envious of your ignorance. Michael Moore skews facts to promote his agenda. Period. If you don’t see it that way, then I think we’re wasting each other’s time. Moore is a card-carrying NRA member who’s said to have it because he wants to become president of the organization simply to implement and enforce control. I think it’s pretty friggin’ clear where the man stands in regards to gun control. My guess is somewhere left of Hillary Clinton. I am, however, surprised to have an argument of basic semantics with someone who seems to be fairly intelligent. In being so, I’m sure it’s your nature to refute the rational arguments of people who aren’t filmmakers, but in understanding the UBER left (as well as filming documentaries), which definitely aids you in your relentless pursuit of the truth, perhaps you can explain why it’s always acceptable to challenge the very things that have built this country, as well as the majority of western civilization. What makes the “lefties” believe they know how to develop big industry, but amazingly, never demonstrated the ability to do so? Never forget the Reagan years, for they were the most valuable in teaching us the importance of hedging our bets, long-term investment, and superior economic stratagem. On second thought…don’t even reply to this, for I know I’ve written it in vein, and I now feel even emptier for having done so. Good luck with your blind praises.

As for where I sourced my facts in regards to 99.9999% of NRA members being law abiding…you’re absolutely correct. I didn’t get it from any real publication, and after thinking about it, I realized that one of those card-carrying nut jobs actually tried to halt the days trading on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange all to prove the political point that he’s socially balanced and for the betterment of America. He’s definitely a good, non-biased, candidate for making a documentary.

Initially, I guess I was going on the fact that most members, I’m assuming, own weapons. I think that’s a pretty safe assumption, but it wouldn’t surprise me if you disagree. And, in doing so, they have to apply for a Firearm Owners Identification Card, and consequently, a criminal background check is performed. Any assault, battery, or domestic abuse charge denies you the privilege of ownership, and immediately cancels current said ID. Any new gun you purchase you’ll have to register and a new criminal background check is performed before you take delivery of it. I also think it’s pretty safe to assume the people who want to protect their rights of ownership, are registered, law abiding, hunters, gun collectors, sport shooters, and competition shooters. I’m sorry we don’t see eye to eye, but maybe someday you’ll graduate and join the professional world with not just theories, but the motivation to actually do something with them

The Praetorian, you do understand that this is a forum, to debate issues concerning people in our society as well as politics? Which concludes I’m willing to debate anything, and or any argument you may have on Michael Moore. I’m not saying he’s a “God” or “Saint”, but he does have many valid things to offer.

I’ve yet to see you defend your claims that Moore is a propaganda piece, and or a liar. I’ve refuted everything you’ve brought to the table. You are dancing around the issues, claiming things that are undeniably untrue about the left. You accuse us; of wanting they’re to be no guns in our society. That is completely and utterly incorrect. My father, both uncles, Grandfather, and many other people in my family posse guns. I support the right to own firearms, but I believe America has a huge issue with gun violence, which Moore has addressed in this film.

Again, you make accusations that are indeed, not true. Moore has never said he wants to take guns away from Americans. Neither have I, or many “liberals”. Again, Moore’s film does have flaws, but it is not filled with lies and propaganda. I’ve clearly shown that it does have truth.

As far as Moore trashing the NRA, he has just shown that there is always a negative to a positive. The negative would be that the NRA was laughing and shouting obscenities at the mayors request for coming into their town after Columbine. This is a slant, yes, because he does not offer the positive. But it’s still something to take into consideration.

He is pointing out that our Government is so gun crazy, because we offer them in banks. Within hours you can have a gun, just for singing up to a bank, and getting “cleared” Again, every attack on this scene was indeed wrong. The outtakes are on Moore’s site…proving it was not done months ahead of time.

And a news article came out before Moore went to this bank, about how they would hand out guns after opening a membership. The women who said Moore deceived her, is only retracing her steps, because the movie created a moronic image for her. Yet, she contradicts her statement, because in the Documentary she says, “We will hand you the gun” (right after your background check is cleared)…but then says he “came in months a head of time”…oxymoron?

With the incident about the killing of a little girl, that was to show how America’s society makes it hard for people to maintain a family. Because they have to work 2 jobs, and never see their child, their child, gets a hold of a gun, and shoots another 6 year old. It is simply drawing attention to the fact that, we need to change a lot about our society. It is not saying, “We should ban guns because of this occurrence” It is also saying, that because we indeed force people, in our society to live a lifestyle this way, we need to put proper “Gun locks” on guns.

Again, this movie gives a clear message, that does have a slant, but this “slant” is indeed proved to be for the most part, factual and ethical.

Fair enough, however, I would like to state that your views of what’s ethical might not coincide with the ethical views of others. I know this is an obvious statement, and however valid you feel your point is, I still feel that anytime you film a documentary with a “slant”, you’re defeating the purpose of a documentary. That’s simply NOT ethical. It’s like quoting someone as saying one thing, when you part and parcel their comment, and convey the same words with a very different impetus. YES, technically it’s what they said, but the inference has now been changed due to someone pounding a political agenda. When you pound a political agenda by bending the truth to suit you needs, it is indeed propaganda.
PROPAGANDA (n):
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
YES, technically it’s what they said, but the inference has now been changed due to someone pounding a political agenda. When you pound a political agenda by bending the truth to suit you needs, it is indeed propaganda.
PROPAGANDA (n):
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

Well, I would like to tell you, that most of the "out takes" are on his web site. So he is not afraid of showing the world everything. It was a 2-hour shot, at the bank. So of course he has to cut out the majority of the things he shot, for his movie was about 2 hours long total. That goes with interviews, as well.

Originally posted by Overdose
Well, I would like to tell you, that most of the "out takes" are on his web site. So he is not afraid of showing the world everything. It was a 2-hour shot, at the bank. So of course he has to cut out the majority of the things he shot, for his movie was about 2 hours long total. That goes with interviews, as well.

How do you know that most of the outtakes are on his website? As opposed to just the outtakes that support his position?

Originally posted by LionelHutz
How do you know that most of the outtakes are on his website? As opposed to just the outtakes that support his position?

I guess if you want to believe he faked the outakes, even though they show the women and everyone in the same outfits and or time of day, proving that it would HAVE to be in the same day.

Everyone accuses him of "taking out" things that don't support his agenda. But once he offers everything, you say that, that's fake as well. The guy just can't win, can he?

if all of the things moore said about the evil bush family were true he would be dead. use a littel common sense when dealing with anything so stupid as moore. even he cant beleive he would still be alive if he were telling the truth.

hahaha
good reply, travy.
always nice to see you!
:)

Originally posted by Overdose
I guess if you want to believe he faked the outakes, even though they show the women and everyone in the same outfits and or time of day, proving that it would HAVE to be in the same day.

Everyone accuses him of "taking out" things that don't support his agenda. But once he offers everything, you say that, that's fake as well. The guy just can't win, can he?

I didn't say that they were fake, I just said that maybe he only puts the outtakes on his website that support his opinions and leaves out the ones that might undermine his movie. I'm not saying that's the case, just a possibility you don't seem to want to acknowledge. Believing everything Michael Moore says just because he says it isn't any more valid than those who disbelieve everything he says.

shown on national TV even here in Germany.


Are you telling me that your rebuttal evidence comes from Germany???? A good source for American facts....

Or maybe you are saying that you are in Germany?? Hmmm either way this is an interesting point.

Who knows us better than Germany and their liberals...

By the way, Michael Moore is a film maker, not a documentarian... Just think about that, he is in the same catergory as Spielberg....

Contraversy certainly makes for good publicity.
Moore should make a gazillion dollars.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Are you telling me that your rebuttal evidence comes from Germany???? A good source for American facts....

Or maybe you are saying that you are in Germany?? Hmmm either way this is an interesting point.

Who knows us better than Germany and their liberals...

By the way, Michael Moore is a film maker, not a documentarian... Just think about that, he is in the same catergory as Spielberg....

Good job BV, just throwing away his whole paper, and ideas, because he lives in Germany. He’s seen the movie, and lived in America before. So actually, he does know a lot. You will throw this all away, because it does indeed prove a point. It defends most of the silly attacks that many people place on this movie.

Oh well, BV…
I guess this is propaganda and lies…even though most of the attacks can be refuted

Originally posted by F. de Marzipan
It is rather annoying, however, how you go on about it... :rolleyes: You're not having his baby by any chance, are you?

Let's see, now. I was directed to this thread to see examples of Overdose's alleged immaturity. But instead, I stumble across gems such as the above quote. Holy double standards, Batman!

Originally posted by waldo
Not only that but Parry's own analysis is faulty. That will certainly be news to Citibanks shareholders. They're probably wondering what planet Parry comes from.

I know the Saudis own a pretty substantial portion of our pretty substantial debt, so it's certainly conceivable that they would be one of the largest controlling interests if not the single largest controlling interest among the shareholders of Citibank. Unless I'm mistaken, isn't that tantamount to ownership in this day and age of publicly traded corporations? (In case you didn't know, if a person or group of people own a mere five percent of shares of a major publicly-traded corporation and nobody else owns that large a percentage, that makes them the effective owners of the corporation.)

The bush's family connection to the bin laden family is appropos of what? No actual allegations are made just the insinuation. This is relevant to what? This is analysis?

The point that was being made is that this connection explains why all those Saudis were surreptitiously flown out of the country shortly after 9/11 with only a perfunctory interview of these people by Federal law enforcement, as opposed to the full interrogation national security would rightfully require. So Moore is saying that Bush family financial relationships trumped national security concerns even after the worst terrorist attack in US history.

The $43 million in aid to the Taliban was to suppress the growth of poppies for heroin.:rolleyes:

I'll accept that on its face. One of the very few positive things the Taliban did was effectively suppress opium poppy cultivation. Unfortunately, because our handling of post-Taliban Afghanistan has once again proven wrong-headedly complacent, poppy production is now at an all-time high (so to speak).

The pipeline, from Usbekistan and Cental Asisa thru Afghanistan and Pakistan to a port on the Indian Sea has been under discussion for more than 10 years by a variety of players in various consortiums of which Unocal has been one player. They also include Total (a French co.), Exxon, Occidental and numerous other large international E&P companies as well as pipeline cos. In 10 years, despite the best efforts of the Taliban, Kharzai, Uzbek, and Paki gov'ts no one has signed a deal. No one, No one (not even the Citibank owned by the Saudis) will finance the deal because the financial risk to the project is too great given the political situation in that part of the world both pre and post 9/11. He and Moore (or should it be Less) deal in half truths.

Well, plans were certainly on the table for it, but these plans didn't materialize obviously because Afghanistan's unforseen fragmentation. Darn that wrong-headed complacency again!