Debunking Feirhenlies 9/11

[Conservative Front]

This is part one of my debunks for this propaganda.

1) When Michael Moore asked Congressman (damn I forgot his name but he was a republican) If he'd like to sign up and said no and thats where moore ended it however the Congressman Explained to him that he already had a Nephew in the war so he has family in the war but interesting enough Michael Moore lies about it....

2) Michael Moore proclaims that most of the deaths in the war where of minority groups well that's an interesting statement considering that 70% of the fallen where white.

3) Michael Moore Proclaims there was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam well I think thats be fairly debunked now.

this is just a small portion of my debunkering I'll write more soon but I think even thus far it's enough to show that this film is plain and simple Propaganda and I'm still curious when he's going to film the Soliders that accutally support the war instead of infecting people with extreme liberal views.

[lotrfan55345]

About the "proven connection" between 9/11 and Saddam, you were the one that was pwned by MM on that... There is no connection, look at his reply on one of these threads with links...

[DontBeAfraid]

You will be hard pressed to find any soldier who is truely excited about possibly dying in iraq or any country.

[stewey]

You will be hard pressed to find a soldier who is truely excited about possibly dying anywhere. You will be hard pressed to find a person who is truely excited about dying. Asides from lunatic suicide bombers and terminally ill people.

[MetalMilitia]

1) When Michael Moore asked Congressman (damn I forgot his name but he was a republican) If he'd like to sign up and said no and thats where moore ended it however the Congressman Explained to him that he already had a Nephew in the war so he has family in the war but interesting enough Michael Moore lies about it....

It's not lies, it's tricky editing. If you had read into Michael Moore a little more, and watched any of his previous films, you would realize how good of a "spinster" he is.


2) Michael Moore proclaims that most of the deaths in the war where of minority groups well that's an interesting statement considering that 70% of the fallen where white.

Links, Links, Links please.


3) Michael Moore Proclaims there was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam well I think thats be fairly debunked now.

Got a link for me? I'd love to read it. Don't you think if we had the proof, they MIGHT HAVE CHARGED SADDAM themselves... rather than turn 'em over for an Iraqi trial? I think the Americans (having absoloute proof) would have taken him in on our own charges for 9/11, seeing as how we held him since last December.


this is just a small portion of my debunkering I'll write more soon but I think even thus far it's enough to show that this film is plain and simple Propaganda and I'm still curious when he's going to film the Soliders that accutally support the war instead of infecting people with extreme liberal views.

Have fun countering propaganda with more proaganda.... you know they do call this a "documentary" but it is also a movie, based on what one man thinks... it's not like he speaks for everyone.

-MM- :crs:

[Moishe3rd]

I understand that one premise of the movie is that President Bush went to war in Iraq to support his relationship with Osama; the Saudis; and / or oil interests.
:wlink:
I understand that one implication was how happy the Iraqis were under Saddam.

I understand that one implication is that our military forces and there families are very unhappy about us going into Iraq.

I understand that Moore presents this piece of crap as a documentary.
:Bott:

[stewey]

Yeah, I am going to retire from political forums I think. It is just mud slinging with rhetoric and propaganda and sources and polls that support your idea.

[Emerald_Dragon]

>I understand that one premise of the movie is that President Bush
>went to war in Iraq to support his relationship with Osama;
> the Saudis; and / or oil interests.

I don't think it was to support his relationship with OBL, I don't think there is one (i could be wrong).

I do believe he's got connections to the Saudis via the Carlyle Group and that this war will make him/his family rich(er). I also believe he's been funded by the Saudi's so will likely do things that benefit them. Like excluding 28 pages mentioning their involvement in 911 and [maybe] pointing them in the right direction of who to talk to in order to get their friends out of the U.S. post-911 [/conjecture].

I think Bush got us in Iraq because of Cheney/PNAC/Rove. For his part, his wealth grows. So I don't think I hate Bush, he's Christian and so am I.


>Yeah, I am going to retire from political forums I think.

that may be a good thing. you don't need people telling you your opinions aren't substantiated. and you might learn things you'd prefer not to know about. cyaz.

[stewey]

People may think they're unsubstantiated because they do not agree with them. In fact, I think many peoples opinions are not substantiated, but it is their right to have the opinion.

[Agroblade]

People may think they're unsubstantiated because they do not agree with them. In fact, I think many peoples opinions are not substantiated, but it is their right to have the opinion.
Well said, I'm getting tired of this "only I can be right" attitude too. But I would remind you that conflict breeds creativity as well.

[substand]

It's not lies, it's tricky editing. ... you know they do call this a "documentary" but it is also a movie, based on what one man thinks...

It can't be "tricky editing" and "what [he] thinks" at the same time. If he thinks something, he wouldn't need to use "tricky editing" to show what he thinks. He would think it based on the truth, not based on what he can edit the truth to sound like.

stewey, I think the problem with what you posted comes in the form of:

"It is just mud slinging with rhetoric and propaganda and sources and polls that support your idea."

What else is any conversation? Mudslinging with rhetoric is just violent disagreement. But given "sources and polls that support your idea" (and the idea being "mudslinging with rhetoric"), what else is there?

You can have ideas on anything (be it politics, armageddon, ufos, etc), but you better have proof to back it up (ie sources and polls)... There is no truth besides truth, and the only way to arrive at "truth" in debatable matters (such as politics) is thru backing yourself thru polls (which are sources) and sources (and rhetoric). Even then it may not be truth, because someone may show a different source that proves your source wrong.

This is politics and political reality my friend. If you don't like it, by all means, talk about "oh my god, can you beleive becky wore that outfit yesterday?" gossip, and don't worry about politics. But politics needs, demands, deserves, and will eventually come to the truth by the very mechanisms you claim to abhor. If you don't like it, I welcome your candor and support your decision to leave. However, its always nice to have a fresh face around like yourself to argue a good new point. So if you stay, I say welcome. If you leave because of the things you said, then "good riddance."


Hopefully, stewey- I'd like to say welcome.

[Conservative Front]

I don't think I was owned on it He didn't prove anything to me but his own opinion on the matter.
---end response to lotrfan---

He accepted his dutys and he knew the risks of becoming a solider when he signed up.
---end response to dontbeafriad---

True it is trickery edited but it's still lies and doesn't show the "truth" which Michael Moore proclaims it does it simply shows his "spin" of lies.

foxnews.com, and I think MSNBC had a little piece on this aswell check it out I know its on foxnews and i'm about 90% sure its on MSNBC.

Why would the American's charge Suddam, He didn't butcher are people with cyclosarin and It looks great to the world the directly after the transfer of sovernegty we would hand over the Iraq criminal to stand trial against his own people great great move.

Yeah, I realize that he doesn't speak for everyone but he trys to and he trys too. So why not debunk what I can?

---end respone to MM---

haha Nicely said Moishe3rd because you know Bush had a secret pipeline built if so i'm kind of curious as to why i'm still paying 1.99$ a Gallon

---end respone to Moishe---

[DontBeAfraid]

CF, I was simply responding to your outlandish statement that more soldiers who WANT/LIKE going to war in iraq should be interviewed. Dont tell me they knew the risks when they signed up because telling me that is OFF-TOPIC. Just admit that the reason more soldiers who LIKE war HAVENT been interviewed because they DONT EXIST.

[stewey]

Yeah, I am staying. What you said is totally correct. Anyways, I don't think there is much doubt on this forum about the authenticity of most of F911's claims.

[Conservative Front]

And the only Reason Michael Moore hand picked a few crop of soliders is so he could inflate is biased extreme liberal opinion, during the beginning of the war I remember Foxnews interviewing several soliders that supported the action and I was watching Gerlado the other night and he had a whole company with him in Iraq that supported the war or what about Oliver North? same deal.
---end response to dontbeafriad---

[Emerald_Dragon]

I'd like to see Fox interview those same soldiers to see how they feel now.

OTOH, i believe Fox would only air them if they didn't stray from what they originally said. And if they did, I would wonder if they would air them, at all. We already know their biased.

[VegasRonin]

Most of our society's members who would like war are in our prisons. A true Warrior depletes all his options before physically engaging a person(s). One shouldn't confuse a Warrior with a Warmonger.

OTOH, i believe Fox would only air them if they didn't stray from what they originally said. And if they did, I would wonder if they would air them, at all. We already know their biased. No one can realistically claim that FOX or CNN is not biased but I have seen FOX cover both sides (Those for and against). CNN, IMO, does not know the defintion of War (I know its not declared. What would you call it?).

And the only Reason Michael Moore hand picked a few crop of soliders is so he could inflate is biased extreme liberal opinion, during the beginning of the war I remember Foxnews interviewing several soliders that supported the action and I was watching Gerlado the other night and he had a whole company with him in Iraq that supported the war or what about Oliver North? This statement, and the need for it, is funny to me. Anyone who had a Highschool debate class, knows that you present arguments/facts/people that reinforce your position. You're not going to present the other's evidence to wage your debate. :ohmy:

[Conservative Front]

Id say Foxnews does lean a bit right but for the most part they are balanced they always invite both sides to the debate.
---end response to emerald dragon---


I realize what your saying Vegas but at the same time Moore was claiming that most soliders where against the war and that is plain and simple Propaganda there is no excuse for it it's pure fabricated lies nothing more thats the point I was trying to make.
---end response to Vegas Ronin---

[humanhybrid]

Any soldier that has came out of boot camp does not know what he will feel when confronted with action and death, only that what has been drilled into him or her for survival. It changes a young man or woman. Any soldier that has been through it and has experienced it will have a change of heart. My step son will be leaving in 2 or three weeks to Iraq. :confused: IT WILL BE A BAD and sad day!

[stewey]

The media is actually pretty evenly here, compared to other countries. Fox news is more right than left, CNN seems more left than right. It's however the higher ups in the company want to do it.

[Defiant Noquisi]

It can't be "tricky editing" and "what [he] thinks" at the same time. If he thinks something, he wouldn't need to use "tricky editing" to show what he thinks. He would think it based on the truth, not based on what he can edit the truth to sound like. Im not quite sure what both you and MM mean in what you posted, I think I do. However, Im being anal and I know it. It is very possible to use "tricky editing" AND opinion. In the editing process, its cuts and fades are "tricks" to "glue" the story being spun together. In fact, the editing process is VERY opinionated since it is the final views of the director in conjunction with the director of cinematography that get pieced together into what you see in the theater or by rental. F911 is no different. (for Subs and MM)

For everyone;

Right or wrong, Moore is entitled to his opinion and to place it in the view of the public. Anyone that views this film as verbatim of actual fact is fooling themselves and deserve to be fooled. They can drown in their own stupidity. The majority of citizens have been so caught up in their own little piece of life that they have let the world and its politics just wander by without a care in the world about it.

If people are so pissed off by the politics of today that they actually go see it then great! Our economy is being well served and so are thousands of people who work in the entertainment industry who then spend money in other industry.

If people get so angry with Moore for leaving key facts out that they educate themselves with the truth then amazing! People have sat on their collective asses long enough and ignored what is happening in their own government. I find it sickening that they were quick to be emotional over drunken/drug addicted brothers, HIV ignorance, blow jobs and goofy speech rather than the sponsored murder of people in other countries.

If people are so swept up in emotion over the "facts" as told by Moore that they get up off their asses and become involved through education and/or voting in this nations politics then fabulous! What took them so damn long!

If people get so pissed off that they want to watch and hold our government accountable for its actions then its about damn time! People are quick to point fingers at the president, state leaders and anyone else convenient while forgetting that they are just as responsible by there own apathy for allowing government actions that piss them off to happen in the first place.

Eventually people will tire of Moore's grandstanding and arrogance. As they educate themselves, if they educate themselves, it can only be of service TO this country rather than by just being ignorant about it. When all is said and done the ends will justify the means and free speech will be protected, even if it is one-sided (which is what "one man's opinion" is all about).

Go ahead and be angry with Moore and F911, but instead of just spinning your wheels and arguing about it do something about it. Im glad there are people out their writing books, making movies and creating websites in answer to his rally cries of "Weve been screwed!". Why argue about it? The truth is there for all to see. If you are one of the ones that see it then fabulous! You can consider yourself an intuitive person who is not swayed by emotion but base your opinion on fact.

If you are one of the ones that believe that people like Moore should be silenced because you think his "opinion" is all lies you better be careful. I doubt that the "silence" would only be extended to just him alone and I doubt you would like being silenced yourself. This forum itself could also become victim to that very same silencing procedure.

[stewey]

http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/

[substand]

I was watching Gerlado the other night and he had a whole company with him in Iraq that supported the war or what about Oliver North? same deal.




I'd like to see Fox interview those same soldiers to see how they feel now.
OTOH, i believe Fox would only air them if they didn't stray from what they originally said. And if they did, I would wonder if they would air them, at all. We already know their biased.


Actually, I had thought that since Geraldo had given troop positions in Afghanistan on air, FOX and the US Govt did not allow him to do the Iraq thing.

I may be wrong though. About those soldiers who WANT war, of course you won't find them. I dont even think you'll find many people who thought/think this current Iraq war was needed/worth it would "WANT/LIKE" war.

No one likes it (well, not many people anyway). Some people think its needed at some point, others think its never needed.

Those who think it is needed every once in a while differ about how they decide when it is needed.

Some think its neccesary after 12 years of "diplomatic" sanctions in Iraq (in the current case), while others think we should, or should have, waited longer than 12 years for compliance.



My step son will be leaving in 2 or three weeks to Iraq. IT WILL BE A BAD and sad day!


Well, God bless him. May he return with Godspeed. Even if you agree or disagree with the war (not you in particular HH, but "you" meaning "everyone" in this case), I hope you will not just "support the troops, just not thier mission" but also really support him as well.

[edit above, I had said "them" when I meant "him", and changed it accordingly]

[substand]

It is very possible to use "tricky editing" AND opinion.


No doubt, it is possible. Michael Moore did it, and so has everyone else. (The difference is) I was simply stating that if you BELEIVE something, there is no reason to use "tricky editing" to tell what you beleive. tricky editing (to me) includes (among other things) completely ignoring facts that pose problems to what you beleive.

I would venture to say that most of us "edit" what we say/post to prove our points. But we don't completely dismiss everyone elses opinion just because it doesn't fit our point. Furthermore, in a documentary especially, you should address those points, even though your documentary shows a different POV. For the most part, on this board, if there is something that discredits my view, I will either address that point or amend my position (as do most of us from what I've seen). However, Mr. Moore did not even address why "the other side" was wrong, even though he had as long as he wanted to do so. and by billing his film as a documentary, he was more obligated to defend the film's position than any of us are obligated to defend our posts. Therefore, if most of us defend our posts and Moore, with an obligation by his own admission of the "content" of the film (meaning it was a "documentary") does not (and refused to do so based on a basically unlimited time schedule), Moore is wrong, especially when he uses "tricky editing" to get around any objections to his point.

[dutchie]

I haven't seen F911 YET but I probably will. If I would know in advance that it would annoy or upset me, I would NOT go (as I did with Mel Gibson's The Passion). Going to see a Michael Moore documentary means that you're willing to take the risk of seeing something that's bound to be opinionated. If you share that opinion, you WILL have a great time. Go, and enjoy. Do not go and whine afterwards, if you do NOT share that opinion.


BTW... to a foreigner like me, all this commotion around this thing works like a magnet... The fact that so many people get really upset about this documentary, IMO means that there must be something in it.

[humanhybrid]

If people get so pissed off that they want to watch and hold our government accountable for its actions then its about damn time! People are quick to point fingers at the president, state leaders and anyone else convenient while forgetting that they are just as responsible by there own apathy for allowing government actions that piss them off to happen in the first place.

Eventually people will tire of Moore's grandstanding and arrogance. As they educate themselves, if they educate themselves, it can only be of service TO this country rather than by just being ignorant about it. When all is said and done the ends will justify the means and free speech will be protected, even if it is one-sided (which is what "one man's opinion" is all about).
"Quick to point a finger" Now what do you suppose that means? And how does the public take responsabilities for the evil that a "president, state leaders and anyone else convenient" Pay less taxes and then spend more? And how do you stop goverment actions when the general mass of people have been lied to and misled? No Eventually people will not tire about how we were lied to by a United States president. And as they educate themselves and when the lies surface people will tire of the grandstanding and arrogance of the chickenhawks who roost in the white house. This is not about one mans "opinion" either so get use to it! good day

[Defiant Noquisi]

No doubt, it is possible. Michael Moore did it, and so has everyone else. (The difference is) I was simply stating that if you BELEIVE something, there is no reason to use "tricky editing" to tell what you beleive. tricky editing (to me) includes (among other things) completely ignoring facts that pose problems to what you beleive. Very true. However, that is also why I will argue until my dying days that his film is NOT a documentary even though the masses call it one. The only reasons I see for it being called one is that it gives the film more "legitimacy" to the public and because "op-ed" isnt an awards category.


However, Mr. Moore did not even address why "the other side" was wrong, even though he had as long as he wanted to do so. and by billing his film as a documentary, he was more obligated to defend the film's position than any of us are obligated to defend our posts. Yes, the one sided nature of this film should show everyone that it should not be considered a documentary. Had he put in place the elements you bring up it could be. It leaves me considering it in the same manner as what the politicians spin doctors crank out.

However, he still has a right to say what he wants in regards to his own opinion and thats what got me going. Even though its very slanted, he shouldnt be silenced or his film banned because of it. The lunatics making death threats to theaters was way out of line.


Therefore, if most of us defend our posts and Moore, with an obligation by his own admission of the "content" of the film (meaning it was a "documentary") does not (and refused to do so based on a basically unlimited time schedule), Moore is wrong, especially when he uses "tricky editing" to get around any objections to his point. If people publically vocalized that the movie is not a documentary (and I think they should) that is one thing. But calling someone's opinion "lies" is quite another.

It is glaringly obvious that it is an opinion driven piece so why not call Moore into question his calling it a documentary? Thats where the real lie is being told. He cant and shouldnt have both but by arguing about "lies" in the movie, rather than what the movie really should be considered, he is getting away with it. Just like a politician.

[Defiant Noquisi]

BTW... to a foreigner like me, all this commotion around this thing works like a magnet... The fact that so many people get really upset about this documentary, IMO means that there must be something in it. Sure does Dutchie, controversy and sensationalism sells big here. All the best advertising a movie could ever gotten, and for free!

[Defiant Noquisi]

"Quick to point a finger" Now what do you suppose that means? And how does the public take responsabilities for the evil that a "president, state leaders and anyone else convenient" Like I should have to explain it to all knowledgable you? Again, youre no different than the politicians you point fingers at. Was it not YOU who told me that I was off topic in another thread? Is this thread not about a movie and Moore's "lies"?


And how do you stop goverment actions when the general mass of people have been lied to and misled? Who's fault is it that "the general mass of people" have been mislead hmmm? If people have been so dilligent to educate themselves about a MOVIE then why is it so difficult for you to understand that they should also be capable of doing the same about real life?


No Eventually people will not tire about how we were lied to by a United States president. Which has nothing to do with a thread about Moore's movie except for Moore's opinions of it. Just like a politician, you spew your rhetoric to anyone you think will listen.


This is not about one mans "opinion" either so get use to it! Get used to what? You posting OT? This entire thread is about a movie based on one man's opinion so I dont see much relation in the idiocy you just posted.

[stewey]

Moore's film is as much documentary as Space Balls. Damn that's a good flick!

[Defiant Noquisi]

Moore's film is as much documentary as Space Balls. Damn that's a good flick! Im surrounded by assholes. May the schwartz be with you. :D

[dutchie]

Im surrounded by assholes.
eeehrr, wouldnt that be a bit of an overgeneralizing statement?!? :nudge:

[Moishe3rd]

This is from James Lileks, written on 7/8/04. Read the whole thing at The Bleat (http://www.lileks.com/bleats/index.html) and to get all the links.
Cheers!


Believing in Bush’s perfidy gives some people the same comfort and emotional nourishment others get from believing in Jesus. It validates them, cements their view of the world – venal, conspiratorial, run by capering chimps who are somehow ten times less intelligent than Usenet posters but somehow able to yank strings on a global scale. A commenter on a Fark thread called Bush “The Unelected Murder Monkey,” for heaven’s sake. Not all the opponents are unhinged, of course. Of course. There are many levels of opposition, from the serene and reasonable to the char-broiled nutburgers who haunt the comments sections of my favorite blogs. Or my favorite talk shows. Today I heard a caller describe how “Fahrenheit 9/11” affected him; now he believed that the Bush administration attacked the Taliban and Iraq because the Saudis wanted it. The host pointed out that the Saudis didn’t want it. The caller said “well, that’s your opinion.” Movies are facts, you see. Facts are just opinions.

Ooooh! You’re really spooked by F911, musta struck a nerve, eh? Scared that Chimpy McDeath is gonna go down? I love that: Moore’s on the cover of Entertainment Weekly and Time and who knows what else; he's the big magilla of the month. But respond to his assertions and you’re acting out of frantic panic. Right. I admit, I don’t like Mr. Moore; I don’t share his contempt for the American people, and I think he’s a dishonest polemicist. Exhibit A:


It unpacks the assertions made by his books and movies. It’s not a flame-throwing rant. It’s the brief for the defense - the client in the dock being America. Fans of Mr. Moore would be advised to read it, if only to get a head start on refuting its innumerable refutations. Plus, it has an essay by Tim Blair, who is crueler and funnier than Moore can ever hope to be. If Moore had Blair’s talent, Ralph Nader would not only be elected president but elevated to Global Pope-Emperor by a deafening national voice-vote.

Which brings us to Moore’s 4th of July piece for the LA Times.

As a young boy, I loved the American flag. I'd lead my younger sisters in patriotic parades up and down the sidewalk, waving the flag, blowing a whistle and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance over and over until my sisters begged me to let them go back to their Easy-Bake Oven.

I’ll take his word for that.

I loved singing the national anthem. I won an essay contest on "What the Flag Means to Me." I decorated my bicycle with little American flags for a Fourth of July parade and won a prize for that too. I became an Eagle Scout and proudly promised to do my duty to God and country. And every year I asked to be the one who planted the flag on the grave of my uncle, a paratrooper who was killed in World War II. I was taught to admire his sacrifice, and I hoped to grow up and do my part, as he had, to keep us free.

His patriotic bona fides thus established, he says this:

But, in high school, things changed. Nine boys from my school came back home from Vietnam in boxes. Draped over each coffin was the American flag. I knew that they also had made a sacrifice. But their sacrifice wasn't for their country: They were sent to die by men who lied to them.

For some reason that intrigued me: nine boys from my school. So I googled around, and found the Casualty list for the Vietnam War. There were six casualties from Davison, Michigan. (He didn’t go to high school in Flint. He didn’t live in Flint. You knew that, right? He lived in a suburb.) They weren’t boys. They were men. The earliest was killed in 1967, and there were two casualties in that year. Two in 1969, one in 1968, and one in 1970. Moore was born in 1954, so he would have entered high school in 1969, after which there were four casualties. (One of which died of a heart attack.) Two were drafted, incidentally. The rest – if I’m reading the site correctly – appeared to have enlisted.

Just so we’re not throwing them around as props, we should give their names. They were Gary Thompson, Martin Scott, David Bonesteel, Howard Doyle, David Ex, and Lowell Holden.

Why bother? Because it has the ring of a Mooreism – an assertion thrown out with the assurance that no one will question it. Sounds right. And if it's not exactly right on the micro level it's true on the macro level - hey, 50 thousand boys died for Nixon's war, and you're quibbling about whether they came from Davison or Flint or wherever? Tell you what: I'll grant him the nine if he grants me yellowcake.

For too long now we have abandoned our flag to those who see it as a symbol of war and dominance, as a way to crush dissent at home. Flags are flying from the back of SUVs, rising high above car dealerships, plastering the windows of businesses and adorning paper bags from fast-food restaurants. But these flags are intended to send a message: "You're either with us or you're against us," "Bring it on!" or "Watch what you say, watch what you do."

I knew a paranoid schizophrenic once. He believed that the New York Times was sending him personal messages through its front-page headlines. He might also have believed that car-dealership flags were telling him to watch what he said.

If flying the flag is intended to crush dissent at home (as opposed to abroad) it’s not doing a very good job, is it? Personally, I fly my flag on holidays because I love this country. If you asked for secondary reasons, I’d say it’s to show support for the troops and their mission. I gave my daughter a flag to wave on the Fourth as part of a long careful education in what sets the American experiment apart from the general nature of human history. (Details to follow.)

Those who absconded with our flag now use it as a weapon against those who question America's course. They remind me of that famous 1976 photo of an anti-busing demonstrator in Boston thrusting a large American flag on a pole into the stomach of the first black man he encountered.

That could be what’s happening here, although whether this is “the first black man he encountered” isn’t clear from the picture. Interesting side note: the man who was being attacked was named Ted Landsmark. He spent part of his youth in Harlem. He later went on to Yale, to get a BA in Political Science, then got a PhD at Boston U. He is presently the president and CEO of the Boston Architectural Center, and has received fellowships from the National Science Foundation. (The Bush administration requested a three percent increase in their funding in the last budget.) The man in the photo wielding the flag was Joseph Rakes, who when last heard from was a laborer on the Big Dig in Boston. Ted Landsmark is writing opinion pieces for the Globe about the nature of the art and landscaping that will go on top of the tunnel.

What a horrible country, eh? But that’s not Michael Moore’s America. Michael Moore’s America is the dirtball shoving the flag at a black man, because that says it all.

These so-called patriots hold the flag tightly in their grip and, in a threatening pose, demand that no one ask questions. Those who speak out find themselves shunned at work, harassed at school, booed off Oscar stages. The flag has become a muzzle, a piece of cloth stuffed into the mouths of those who dare to ask questions.




Or draped backwards on the broad trunk of brave dissenters who manage to schedule in a photo shoot before they’re carted off to the lime pits. You know, this is just so old. So tired. It would be old and tired if it ran in a high school newspaper. Shunned at work? Oh, I can’t tell you the number of times around the newspaper office I’ve been told to avoid someone because he was critical of the Shrub Regime. Harassed at school? I’ve heard of such things, yes. Booed off an Oscar stage?

But I thought that didn’t happen. According to that mouthpiece of the Jackboot set, CNN, Moore said the following after the Oscars:

Moore expanded on his comments with the press backstage.

"I'm an American," he said. "You don't leave your citizenship behind when you enter the doors of the Kodak Theatre." He added that expressing opinions is "what I do. I do that in my filmmaking."

Asked what he thought of the catcalls, he said, "Don't report that there was a split decision in the hall because five loud people booed."

One of these positions would appear to be a fictition. The Kodak theater, incidentally, seats 3400; is Moore saying that the catcalls of less than half a dozen people is a sign that the smothering glove of fascism is clamped over the wide-eyed face of America?

We continue with the LATimes piece:

I think it's time for those of us who love this country — and everything it should stand for — to reclaim our flag from those who would use it to crush rights and freedoms, both here at home and overseas. We need to redefine what it means to be a proud American.

Again with the crushed rights. It’s a standard trope, a talisman worn smooth with obsessive rubbing, and people of Moore’s stripe won’t let it go until the Patriot act is rescinded and we can go back to the good old days of petitioning judges for separate wiretaps for a suspected terrorists’s individual cell phones and land lines. Fine. But let’s talk about the rights and freedoms we’ve crushed abroad. Leave aside Western Europe, which is still reeling from the decision by the Bush adminstration to use Warthogs to strafe all those street protests. Two questions:

Afghanistan had more / less freedoms under the Taliban

Iraq had more / less freedoms under Saddam

[Moishe3rd]

Part Two:
(This is from James Lileks, written on 7/8/04. Read the whole thing at The Bleat (http://www.lileks.com/bleats/index.html) and to get all the links.
Cheers!)



I’ll grant you that we surely put the screws to the Iraqi press. Moore himself has famously decried the shutting of Al-Sadr’s paper. Here’s the legal basis for that:

Prohibited Activities: Media organizations are prohibited from broadcasting or publishing original, re-broadcast, re-printed or syndicated material that:

a) incites violence against any individual or group, including racial, ethnic or religious groups and women;

b) incites civil disorder, rioting or damage to property;

c) incites violence against Coalition Forces or CPA personnel;

d) advocates alterations to Iraq's borders by violent means;

e) advocates the return to power of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party or makes statements that purport to be on behalf of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party.

You read that right, friend: in the early days of occupation, before the country had settled down, the OCCUPIERS forbade people to publish newspapers that advocated rape, rioting, and the reinstallation of the fascist regime.

We continue:

If you are one of those who love what President Bush has done for this country and believe you must blindly follow the president to deserve to fly the flag,

Stop. This is a perfect example of prose from someone who either does not understand his opposition, or chooses not to grant that they have a legitimate basis for opposition. Or, it’s just bad sophomoric writing. If you are one of those who love what President Bush has done for this country and believe you must blindly follow the president to deserve to fly the flag. Yes, that’s me. Me deserve fly flag! Me blindly follow! Hulk smash!


you should ask yourself some difficult questions about just how proud you are of the America we now inhabit:

Oh, no: not the difficult questions! Biggles, stab him with the leaden accusation.

Are you proud that one in six children lives in poverty in America?

No. I’m ashamed. I think we should be more like British Columbia, where one in six children lives in poverty. No – wait. Er - next question.

But before we move along, I’d like to echo what Dennis Prager said about this today: child poverty is closely tied to unwed motherhood. You want a poor kid, have one when you’re young and the father’s contribution consists of bimonthly Pamper drops. If Mr. Moore wishes to lead society back to a place where unwed motherhood is frowned upon and men are expected to marry the women they impregnate, I’ll be right there with him.

Are you proud that 40 million adult Americans are functional illiterates?

This is addressed in “Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man.” As the authors note: the survey to which Moore refers also says (quoting MMIABFSWM) “in the next paragraph, [the survey] goes on to note that 25 percent of those people who scored in the lowest literacy category were immigrants who have learned little or no English. And in classic Moore fashion, he also fails to disclose that nearly 19 percent of the group he includes in the uneducated masses are actually people who have ‘visual difficulties that affect their ability to read print.’”

The authors also note that when it comes to the highest level of literacy skills, “the US figure is 21.1 percent, compared to 16.6 percent in the UK and only 13.4 percent in Germany.” I’m sure there are those who find calamity in those numbers, too, some sort of gap in the distribution of literacy skills. The rich get wordier while the poor are unable to afford the new, longer words, and have to make do with hand-me-down single-syllable slang.

There’s more Damning Stats of this ilk, and it’s too late for me to slog through them. Basic point: we dumb, and it’s everyone’s fault but the educational system. Then this:

Are you proud that the rest of the world, which poured out its heart to us after Sept. 11, now looks at us with disdain and disgust?

Let me see if I can find the right way to put this:

No.

Again, the high-school-level thinking: “the rest of the world.” It’s simplistic to identify Iran, Iraq and North Korea as evil. It’s simplistic to state in the immediate wake of 9/11 that nations are either with the terrorists, or the United States. But it’s a sign of complex nuanced thinking to say that “the rest of the world . . . looks at us with disdain and disgust.” Yes, the world poured out its heart; it cost them nothing. Hearts are easily tipped and just as easily refilled. When the French newspaper said “We are all Americans now” it sounded nice, and I suppose it was, but in retrospect it looks as if there was an undercurrent of appeasement and surrender: we are all Americans because we are all victims in a sense, non? We ceased to earn the precious coin of French approval when we fired the chief procurer for their favorite customer, Iraq. C’est dommage. We can live with it.

Wait until France gets a hard shot in the nose. Wait until France reacts with some nasty work. They’ll get a golf-clap from the chattering class over here and a you-go-girl from Red America. France could nuke an Algerian terrorist camp and the rest of the world would tut-tut for a day, then ask if the missiles France used were for sale. And of course the answer would be oui.

Are you proud that nearly 3 billion people on this planet do not have access to clean drinking water when we have the resources and technology to remedy this immediately?

Immediately! Right now! The entire purpose of the American economy must be turned to the task of building sanitary water systems in rural Peru, old Soviet industrial sites in the Urals, and the Chinese hinterlands! Immediately! We are not only obligated to step in and help poor Robert Mugabe upgrade the pipes of urban Zimbabwe, we must issue bonds to ensure that these systems work until the sun sputters out. Because that is the first obligation of the government, as set forth in the Constitution: ensure that someone in the Sudan can drink tap water without getting the squirts.

I support helping struggling countries that aren’t run by kleptocrats upgrade their utilities; really, I do. It’s a good thing to do. But look how Moore sets the bar: if we don’t help 3 billion people, we can’t be proud.

And who might profit from this global project?

Are you proud of the fact that our president sent our soldiers off to a war that had nothing to do with the self-defense of this country?

Hello:



This is the true state of disgrace we are living in. I hope we can make it up someday to these brave kids (and older men and women in our reserves and National Guard). They deserve an apology, they deserve our thanks — and a raise — and they deserve a big parade with lots of flags.

Draped over their coffins, that is. As Moore wrote elsewhere:

There is a lot of talk amongst Bush's opponents that we should turn this war over to the United Nations. Why should the other countries of this world, countries who tried to talk us out of this folly, now have to clean up our mess? I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle. I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.

Moore did not tell us how many American deaths would be sufficient to earn God’s forgiveness. I can’t tell you. It's not something I think about. I don't have my soldier-death / God-placating abacus handy. I didn’t know God was rooting for Saddam. The things you learn on the internet!

Back to his opinion piece:

Let's create a world in which, when people see the Stars and Stripes, they will think of us as the people who brought peace to the world, who brought good-paying jobs to all citizens and clean water for the world to drink.

In anticipation of that day, I am putting my flag out today, with hope and with pride.

There you have it. He wants the flag to stand for clean water. This from a man who waddles up to the deep well of American freedom, fumbles with his zipper, and pisses in it.

[Defiant Noquisi]

eeehrr, wouldnt that be a bit of an overgeneralizing statement?!? :nudge: I couldnt help myself! Its a line from "Spaceballs". Dark Helmet had just found out that everone on the control bridge had the last name of "Asshole".

[Defiant Noquisi]

That was a good read Moishe. I dont agree that Moore is pissing on anything though, he is entitled to his opinion just as the guy who wrote that strangely formatted article.

I did notice something rather intriguing about that article though. It is published in THE BLEAT. Sheep will be proud. :D

[Moishe3rd]

The format is my fault.
The article reads much better in Lilek's weblog, The Bleat. (http://www.lileks.com/bleats/index.html)
It's a great site. And he is funny. He's a professional writer.

[stewey]

People who believe Moore are the same people who don't believe cnn or msnbc or foxnews or any other reputable news source. So giving them true facts really does no good.

Spaceballs: I bet if we watch a video of us, we can fast forward and see where Osama is! "What is this?" "This is now." "Then whats now?" "Now is then" "So what is then?" "Then is past. Now is now then"

[dutchie]

People who believe Moore are the same people who don't believe cnn or msnbc or foxnews or any other reputable news source. So giving them true facts really does no good.

Seems to me you're overdoing it in the generalizing department... Do you have anything worthwhile to support that opinion??

[stewey]

Well, from other forums I visit it seems to be the general consensus. I do not mean believe his ideas and ideologies and political ideoligies; I mean believe all his "facts" are the cold hard truth and nothing but the truth.

[substand]

However, he still has a right to say what he wants in regards to his own opinion and thats what got me going. Even though its very slanted, he shouldnt be silenced or his film banned because of it. The lunatics making death threats to theaters was way out of line....
....
It is glaringly obvious that it is an opinion driven piece so why not call Moore into question his calling it a documentary? Thats where the real lie is being told. He cant and shouldnt have both but by arguing about "lies" in the movie, rather than what the movie really should be considered,


I agree completely. I don't even care if its billed as a documentary and one-sided. What I care about is that at least 2 people I know (who also happen to be the only 2 non-political people I know who have seen it) don't see it as one sided opinion because of the way its being called a documentary. As far as I'm concerned, a documentary can and probably should be one sided to make a point. However, to distort truth and ignore truths that cut holes in your argument is not and should not be called a documentary. If you at least make an attempt to address them and prove your point despite them, thats fine. But to call it a documentary and not do that is a lie, and calls into question everything else.

And as an update, I found out from http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/5403841 that one of the bin Laden family who was supposedly flown out immediately says it did not happen until 1 week after US airspace opened, and that he's breaking his "silence" partly because of the innacuracies portrayed in Moore's film.

[substand]

...long article...

f'ing hilarious!

[Defiant Noquisi]

The format is my fault.
The article reads much better in Lilek's weblog, The Bleat. (http://www.lileks.com/bleats/index.html)
It's a great site. And he is funny. He's a professional writer. Naw Moishe, I went to the site and it was strange there. Its not at that link now so I assume they have moved it elsewhere for the newest one.

[Defiant Noquisi]

Well, from other forums I visit it seems to be the general consensus. I do not mean believe his ideas and ideologies and political ideoligies; I mean believe all his "facts" are the cold hard truth and nothing but the truth. Well then youve missed the half of it. Those are facts all dressed up in his opinion which he is allowed to express. If anyone doesnt have the forethought to educate themselves about it, then they are just as blind as those who think it is "all lies".

[Defiant Noquisi]

And as an update, I found out from http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/5403841 that one of the bin Laden family who was supposedly flown out immediately says it did not happen until 1 week after US airspace opened, and that he's breaking his "silence" partly because of the innacuracies portrayed in Moore's film. Since there has been quite a bit of speculation since the movie, then the movie is a valuable tool in getting the "truth" out if people choose to talk as this bin Ladin has done. However, Im rather wary because of the Royal family and the bin Ladin's connections with the businesses of the current administration and past support of other administrations. It can easily appear as a freind speaking in support of a freind, even if guilty. Hopefully we will have all the facts someday eh? :dunno: