News Michael Moore - Minister of Disinformation?

[Tigers2B1]

...Or maybe Moore is the High Priest of Disinformation, or the liberal classes’ Minister of Propaganda, or the poster child for entire bags of potato chips, cookies, and quarts of ice cream – or just an innocent owner of the Five Chin Award, but no matter his title, Michael Moore loves to edit. He loves to edit because he loves to manipulate facts. Moore edits for time – placing event B before event A in his movies to create the impression that B caused A --- he edits words to create statements never, ever uttered by that speaker --- (c.f. Charlton Heston) --- So – before you sell your soul to the devil and buy into Moore’s message, it’s good medicine for the unsold soul to check out this site ---

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

This is also a good site exposing Moore's love of deception –

http://www.moorelies.com/

Yet, Moore's misuse of time, context, and words aren’t restricted to his movie making --- he tells them in his books also -

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.asp

From the personal experience of Fred Barnes –

A FEW YEARS AGO Michael Moore, who's now promoting an anti-President Bush movie entitled Fahrenheit 9/11, announced he'd gotten the goods on me, indeed hung me out to dry on my own words. It was in his first bestselling book, Stupid White Men. Moore wrote he'd once been "forced" to listen to my comments on a TV chat show, The McLaughlin Group. I had whined "on and on about the sorry state of American education," Moore said, and wound up by bellowing: "These kids don't even know what The Iliad and The Odyssey are!"

Moore's interest was piqued, so the next day he said he called me. "Fred," he quoted himself as saying, "tell me what The Iliad and The Odyssey are." I started "hemming and hawing," Moore wrote. And then I said, according to Moore: "Well, they're . . . uh . . . you know . . . uh . . . okay, fine, you got me--I don't know what they're about. Happy now?" He'd smoked me out as a fraud, or maybe worse.

The only problem is none of this is true. It never happened. Moore is a liar. He made it up. It's a fabrication on two levels. One, I've never met Moore or even talked to him on the phone. And, two, I read both The Iliad and The Odyssey in my first year at the University of Virginia. Just for the record, I'd learned what they were about even before college. Like everyone else my age, I got my classical education from the big screen. I saw the Iliad movie called Helen of Troy and while I forget the name of the Odyssey film, I think it starred Kirk Douglas as Odysseus….

Mr. Barnes then goes on to discuss the other Mooreish misdirections, false implications, and misinformation found in Moore’s films.

So -- beware when viewing Unfair-In-Height 9/11. Moore's false implications take the small minded where he wants them to go. As for the rest of us - never look directly into Moore's eyes ---

 

[FZ+]

The only problem is none of this is true. It never happened. Moore is a liar. He made it up. It's a fabrication on two levels. One, I've never met Moore or even talked to him on the phone.

Er... The standard of this rebuttal seems rather low, since it is just a case of one man's word against another.

Someone should set up www.fredbarneslies.com[/URL]

As our good friend Clinton said - I did not have sexual relationships with that woman.

Maybe someone should set up [PLAIN]www.drudgelies.com[/URL] as well.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I would tend to believe Fred Barnes, mainly because Moore's propaganda techniques have been well established.

And while Fred Barnes may not know the all the details in The Iliad and The Odyssey, he would certainly know enough about the stories to respond by more than hemming and hawing.

If Moore in fact made up the story, would it really surprise anyone? It sure sounds like Moore to me.

 

[Adam]

I would tend to believe Fred Barnes, mainly because Moore's propaganda techniques have been well established.

They have?

 

[Tigers2B1]

They have?

I think so ---

Problem with the he said he said argument is that Fred Barnes isn’t the only person claiming this personal experience with Moore lies – and taking that personal experience public.

Heston’s speech in Moore’s movie was NEVER made by Heston ---- it’s a Moore creation. How odd. Need Moore? Go to this site (linked) for a side by side comparison of the actual speech given by Heston against the a speech created by Moore and pieced together to look as if it’s Heston’s.

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


Then take a glance at what Christopher Hitchens’ wrote in an article for Slate - outlining his experiences with Moore.

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

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

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

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

…It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. 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….

And it gets better ---

 

[Entropy]

I think just about everyone on these forums knows that Moore is full of BS. Its the general public that needs to be informed. I had to de-brainwash my sister and her friend after we watched Bowling For Columbine. Although I agree hand guns cause a lot of problems in America and are unnecsissary I pointed out a lot of lies and deceptions Moore trys to pull off in his movie to my sister and her friend. Too me these lies and deceptions stick out like sore thumbs but it gets by most people.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Adam, yes he has. Care to defend the following?

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/fahrenheit911/iraq911.htm

But for the moment, allow me to address the film’s final scene, a montage of clips “demonstrating” that “Bush lied” about Iraq’s supposed connection to 9-11; that the American people—a trusting, if simple, group—were bunched into connecting “secular Saddam” to the zealots of Al-Qaeda. Let’s be clear about this, for it bears repeating: the administration has repeatedly and forcefully connected Iraq and Al-Qaeda—and, as recent evidence has shown, for good reason. What the administration has not done—contrary to popular belief—is publicly link Iraq to the attacks of September 11.

But, you protest, I saw Condoleezza Rice in Fahrenheit 9-11 tell a reporter that, “indeed,” there was a relationship!

ROLL FILM:

“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.”

CUT.

Pretty damning stuff, isn’t it? But that was the truncated, Michael Moore version. Now for the full, unexpurgated quote:

“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.

 

[russ_watters]

I think just about everyone on these forums knows that Moore is full of BS. Its the general public that needs to be informed. I had to de-brainwash my sister and her friend after we watched Bowling For Columbine.

Well, I had a lot of issues with some of my friends and Bowling for Columbine, but Moore goes further and further off the deep end with every new creation. I think the general public is wising up. Some friends of my parents saw F9/11 and said the manipulation was fairly obvious even without being able to check Moore's "facts."

He loves to edit because he loves to manipulate facts. Moore edits for time – placing event B before event A in his movies to create the impression that B caused A --- he edits words to create statements never, ever uttered by that speaker

Ya know, I actually hadn't thought of it that way. Moore is a talented manipulator and propagandizer, to be sure, but his real talent is editing. And really, that's a rather basic film skill. But anyway, perhaps the fact that films are often shot out of sequence for convenience and then pieced together later has him confused about how timelines and cause and effect work in real life?

One of his more important "facts" is the "fact" that the Saudis have given Bush and his "associates" $1.4 billion dollars over time. But oops, to get that sum you have to include $1.18 billion spent on a defense contractor that was spun off of the Carlyle group before Bush was ever associated with it. But hey - timing is irrelevant, right? All you need to do is connect the dots: Bush->Carlyle->BDM (the contractor)->$1.18 billion. Simple!

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

 

[Adam]

But for the moment, allow me to address the film’s final scene, a montage of clips “demonstrating” that “Bush lied” about Iraq’s supposed connection to 9-11; that the American people—a trusting, if simple, group—were bunched into connecting “secular Saddam” to the zealots of Al-Qaeda. Let’s be clear about this, for it bears repeating: the administration has repeatedly and forcefully connected Iraq and Al-Qaeda—and, as recent evidence has shown, for good reason. What the administration has not done—contrary to popular belief—is publicly link Iraq to the attacks of September 11.

But, you protest, I saw Condoleezza Rice in Fahrenheit 9-11 tell a reporter that, “indeed,” there was a relationship!

ROLL FILM:

“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.”

CUT.

Pretty damning stuff, isn’t it? But that was the truncated, Michael Moore version. Now for the full, unexpurgated quote:

“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.

Wow. Saddam Hussein is about as responsible for 11/9 as as McDonalds is, and every other company partaking in foreign trade from the USA...

 

[JohnDubYa]

Nice way to skirt the issue. Basic questions:

Did the editing of Condi's speech change the meaning of her original response?

Do you think it was ethical for Moore to cut Condi's speech in the manner he did?

Are you going to defend his methods?

Just answer the questions.

 

[Adam]

Providing further context adds more information, but does not change the meaning of her sentence. She claims a link between Saddam Hussein and terrorism, whixh is about as justified as the link between McDonalds and terrorism. Edited or not, she says the same thing.

1) "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11." Saying that there is a link.

2) "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York." Saying that there is a link and explaining the manner of that link.

 

[kcballer21]

Did anybody see Moore on Bill O'Reilly the other night?

http://

As a liberal and a fan of the O'Reilly Factor (hey, its entertaining) I thought that this show could have been much better. What is with Moore's responses?

O'Reilly: Evidence show Bush's sources confirmed WMD's.
Moore: Bush lied.
O'Reilly: Bush was misinformed.
Moore: He didn't tell the truth.
O'Reilly: He didn't lie.

Give me a break, I feel like any liberal on this website could of responded better to O'Reilly. At any rate it is funny to watch (read).

 

[JohnDubYa]

Adam, you never did answer my question:

Do you think it was ethical for Moore to cut Condi's speech in the manner he did?

Providing further context adds more information, but does not change the meaning of her sentence. She claims a link between Saddam Hussein and terrorism, whixh is about as justified as the link between McDonalds and terrorism. Edited or not, she says the same thing.

1) "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11." Saying that there is a link.

2) "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York." Saying that there is a link and explaining the manner of that link.

Adam, it is very clear that cutting Condi's statement very much changed the context of her response. In fact, the "manner of that link" is very much the context of her response. How can you possibly suggest otherwise? Is there anyone else in here seriously willing to say that Moore's editing didn't change the context of her response?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Give me a break, I feel like any liberal on this website could of responded better to O'Reilly.

I think most liberals on this board are smarter than Moore.

 

[Dagenais]

Moore has a decent amount of fans in Canada, not including myself. Some even wish that America should have more people like him.

I can't stand him. I don't know why people still believe the crap in his films when evidence shows that he isn't truthful.

Here's an interesting story about Moore not belonging in Canada and sticking his nose in our election:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/07/14/moore_elxn040714.html%3E

before you sell your soul to the devil and buy into Moore’s message, it’s good medicine for the unsold soul to check out this site ---

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

This is also a good site exposing Moore's love of deception –

http://www.moorelies.com/

I'm going to use those sites against Moore fans, most I've talked to believe everything he says is true.

Someone mentioned that the general public is wising up. But are they? People still go to his films.

 

[check]

In regards to the law Michael Moore broke, I had no idea such a law existed in our great land. Indeed, he should be charged.

 

[Adam]

Adam, you never did answer my question:

Do you think it was ethical for Moore to cut Condi's speech in the manner he did?



Adam, it is very clear that cutting Condi's statement very much changed the context of her response. In fact, the "manner of that link" is very much the context of her response. How can you possibly suggest otherwise? Is there anyone else in here seriously willing to say that Moore's editing didn't change the context of her response?

I did answer. Case 1 shows the link. Case 2 shows the link also, and provides extra data which does not in any way negate the link she asserted. So there is no ethical problem whatsoever.

 

[Adam]

I just watched Moore's movie Farenheit 9/11. Now, this thread is basically a smear effort, an attempt at discrediting Moore. So how about people focus on the information rather than the person? Can anyone tell me something Moore showed/said in Farenheit 9/11 which is not true?

 

[kcballer21]

Someone mentioned that the general public is wising up. But are they? People still go to his films.

His films are entertaining in my opinion, I think the issue is whether or not they are documentaries.

This is from merriam-webster.com:

Documentary: 2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE <a documentary film of the war>

 

[Adam]

See my question. Does Fahrenheit 9/11 contain fact or fiction?

 

[Robert Zaleski]

His films are entertaining in my opinion, I think the issue is whether or not they are documentaries.
This is from merriam-webster.com:

Documentary: 2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE <a documentary film of the war>

Apparently not. The word 'fantasy' doesn't appear in the definition.

 

[Adam]

Robert Zaleski asserts Moore's film is fiction. I ask for a reason for this assertion.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Since Moore uses innuendo, as when he shows you Bushes palling around with Saudis and let's you draw your own conclusions, it's impossible to get him on the fiction charge. I don't believe anybody has a serious contradiction of anything he DEFINITELY STATED in the movie.

 

[Adam]

He definitely stated a lot in the movie. Can anyone contradict him?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Adam, I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "honesty."

If I say something that is factually true but is designed to leave my audience with the wrong impression of events, that is dishonest.

For example, I cannot make a factual claim about a product that leaves consumers with a false impression about my competitors. So if I am selling toothpaste, I cannot prominently proclaim that it does not contain lead, because it would give consumers the false impression that my competitors' products DO contain lead. Such behavior is dishonest and can get you sued.

So being factually correct is only a part of being honest.

Before we go on, do you agree with my statements?

 

[graphic7]

I think the primary reason Moore sometimes uses "contradictory" information is to simply get his point across. While it might not be the most ethical and accurate, it certainly does get the point across. We must admit that most things about the United States are fraudulent. We might as well be living in a tyranny, perhaps, a "nice tyranny." Bush shouldn't be in office, Gore should (neither of them were decent in my opinion). Our votes can be overidden with the flick of a finger.

Take the quote on F 9/11 when Bush was referring to how he was a "war-based president." You can't say that Moore faked that. You can't say the interviews of the soldiers in the desert are fraudulent. You can't discard the music *our* soldiers listen to is not disturbing.

Back to my original point. In order to get things across to quite a few ignorant and arrogant people, you sometimes have to intensify the facts you are presenting. By intensify, I am referring to editting and exagerating.

 

[Adam]

Adam, I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "honesty."

If I say something that is factually true but is designed to leave my audience with the wrong impression of events, that is dishonest.

For example, I cannot make a factual claim about a product that leaves consumers with a false impression about my competitors. So if I am selling toothpaste, I cannot prominently proclaim that it does not contain lead, because it would give consumers the false impression that my competitors' products DO contain lead. Such behavior is dishonest and can get you sued.

So being factually correct is only a part of being honest.

Before we go on, do you agree with my statements?

Before we go on, first answer my question, which I have asked several times. Did he lie?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Yes, if by lying you mean "did he make statements or alter the footage of real events to intentionally lead the audience to the wrong conclusion?"

If you mean "did he make statements that were factually incorrect?," then I am not sure.

Now answer my questions.

 

[Adam]

Yes, if by lying you mean "did he make statements or alter the footage of real events to intentionally lead the audience to the wrong conclusion?"

Such as?

Now answer my questions.

You can make any true claim about your product. Advertisers do it constantly, making claims which are true but give the impression of something outside what they state. However, I have yet to see how Moore is guilty of this.

 

[russ_watters]

The last part is the best, kcballer21:

Moore: He didn't tell the truth.
O'Reilly: He didn't lie.

You could switch the names and the argument works just as well - with Moore being the subject.

The question really is whether Bush (Moore) was intentionally deceitful. I know for sure bout Moore - he's too careful with his wording and editing. With Bush its a little tougher. He's generally regarded as a buffoon by liberals - is he smart enough to be that manipulative? Who'se the bigger fool, the fool who is fooled or the fool who fools him?

Since Moore uses innuendo, as when he shows you Bushes palling around with Saudis and let's you draw your own conclusions, it's impossible to get him on the fiction charge. I don't believe anybody has a serious contradiction of anything he DEFINITELY STATED in the movie.

You're absolutely correct and this is (to me) just as bad if not worse than an explicit lie. An implied lie is actually two deceits in one. One is the insinuation, the other is the denial (if challenged) that he made the insinuation. That's why I don't really distinguish between a "lie" and a "deceit."

We must admit that most things about the United States are fraudulent.

No, I don't think I will.

Take the quote on F 9/11 when Bush was referring to how he was a "war-based president." You can't say that Moore faked that.

I haven't heard that one - do you have the full quote and the context (a google search for that exact phrase yields no hits)? You do see with the Condi Rice quote how it is possible to chop up a quote to change the meaning, right?

Back to my original point. In order to get things across to quite a few ignorant and arrogant people, you sometimes have to intensify the facts you are presenting. By intensify, I am referring to editting and exagerating.

Are you condoning deception?

Before we go on, first answer my question, which I have asked several times. Did he lie?

No, he did not lie by the strict definition: he did not make specific factually inaccurate statements. So answer my question: was he intentionally deceitful? And the followup: if yes, does that make it ok (that it was "just" deceit and not lies)?

 

[Tigers2B1]

Before we go on, first answer my question, which I have asked several times. Did he lie?

What Moore does is put a ring in the nose of some in his aude3nce and lead them by implication and innuendo down the preconceived path he has already designed ---

Involving the Florida recount -- UNLIKE Moore's assertion, FOX News was not the first to initially retract that Gore was the winner of Florida. That is a lie. FOX NEWS was in fact the last major network to do so -

The Moore film assertion that Gore would have won in a recount "under every scenario" is a lie. Bush would have won under BOTH the recount system in place at that time AND under Gore's suggested limited recount.

Moore lies when he says that Florida voters were denied the right to vote "by the color of their skin." A very misleading statement --- very misleading to the point of probably being a lie. Felons were denied the voting right.

Moore's implication that Bush invited the Taliban to visit him in Texas while he was governor is a lie. Governors do not have the authority to invite foreign offficials onto US soil.

Moore's false implication that Bush had members of the bin Laden family (with other Saudis) flown out of the US after 9/11 is a lie - acccording to Richard Clarke's May 24, 2004, statement that he was "solely responsible" for that decision and that it "didn't go any higher than me." Yet - Moore fails to mention this although Moore does include Clarke's statements on other matters.

http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/clarke.aspx

 

[graphic7]

In reply to Russ:

"haven't heard that one - do you have the full quote and the context (a google search for that exact phrase yields no hits)? You do see with the Condi Rice quote how it is possible to chop up a quote to change the meaning, right?"

http://www.redlinerants.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1088581422&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&

PRESIDENT BUSH: I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office, uh, in foreign policy matters with war on my mind.

In all honesty, are you proud of having a president with that view?

And, yes I agree with you on the Condi quote. Moore did take it out of it's proper context and place it in another.

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.redlinerants.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1088581422&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&

PRESIDENT BUSH: I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office, uh, in foreign policy matters with war on my mind.

In all honesty, are you proud of having a president with that view?

Thanks for the link, but that's apparently a transcript of the movie. I'd like some context. And a date would help too: that quote would mean two different things on 9/10/01 and 9/12/01.

 

[graphic7]

Thanks for the link, but that's apparently a transcript of the movie. I'd like some context. And a date would help too: that quote would mean two different things on 9/10/01 and 9/12/01.

I understand where you're coming from. So far, I've been unable to find the actual transcript of that speech.

I do fail to see how it would matter between those two dates, though? If *any* president utters those words, it's not good. Even after 9/11, no president should have war strictly on his mind.

 

[Adam]

Involving the Florida recount -- UNLIKE Moore's assertion, FOX News was not the first to initially retract that Gore was the winner of Florida. That is a lie. FOX NEWS was in fact the last major network to do so -

Please support this claim. Heck, you may be right, but I'd like to see the evidence.

The Moore film assertion that Gore would have won in a recount "under every scenario" is a lie. Bush would have won under BOTH the recount system in place at that time AND under Gore's suggested limited recount.

1) We'll never know, since it was all rushed through while a good portion of the voters were still trying to figure out why they weren't being allowed to vote...

2) Please support this claim. Heck, you may be right, but I'd like to see the evidence.

Moore lies when he says that Florida voters were denied the right to vote "by the color of their skin." A very misleading statement --- very misleading to the point of probably being a lie. Felons were denied the voting right.

Entire predominantly black neighbourhoods were blocked in, unable to get out to voting stations. For more information, please see the link I have provided many times: http://www.lumpen.com/coup2k/

Moore's implication that Bush invited the Taliban to visit him in Texas while he was governor is a lie. Governors do not have the authority to invite foreign offficials onto US soil.

So you're saying that visit did not happen?

Moore's false implication that Bush had members of the bin Laden family (with other Saudis) flown out of the US after 9/11 is a lie - acccording to Richard Clarke's May 24, 2004, statement that he was "solely responsible" for that decision and that it "didn't go any higher than me." Yet - Moore fails to mention this although Moore does include Clarke's statements on other matters.

Clarke? The FBI denied all Clarke's claims. It's even on the page you linked to. And right down the bottom, you can see the telling: " The Sept. 11 commission released a statement last month declaring that six chartered flights that evacuated close to 140 Saudi citizens were handled properly by the Bush administration." But feel free to accept the credibility of the Bush administration on this matter, when they have lost all credibility on just about every matter. I'm sure they will reward your patriotism some day.

 

[Adam]

So... Where is the support for this assertion that Michael Moore lied?

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Since Moore uses innuendo, as when he shows you Bushes palling around with Saudis and let's you draw your own conclusions, it's impossible to get him on the fiction charge. I don't believe anybody has a serious contradiction of anything he DEFINITELY STATED in the movie.

Yes, suppositions based on no solid foundation...fantasy. Moore has found a willing audience and he's milking them for all their worth.

 

[Adam]

Yes, suppositions based on no solid foundation...fantasy. Moore has found a willing audience and he's milking them for all their worth.

Once again: Please support this assertion.

 

[Tigers2B1]

Please support this claim. Heck, you may be right, but I'd like to see the evidence.

Here is a link to ALL OF THE CALLS (by State) for either Bush or Gore (and retractions where applicable).

http://mikehammer.tripod.com/tables.htm

Note: NBC called it first for Gore followed by CBS and FOX minutes later. The first retraction of the call for Gore was by CBS not FOX and that retraction was at 10 pm more than four hours before FOX’s retraction and the retraction of ABC, NBC, and FOX..

Why did Moore lie?

And, again, from this site –

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/fahrenheit911/foxcall.htm

...In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in the evening—before polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle, which is part of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 P.M., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 P.M., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never let's the audience know that Fox was among the networks which made the error of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at 8:02 P.M., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were closed.

The premature calls probably cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that their state had already been decided, and many voters who were waiting in line left the polling place. In Florida, as elsewhere, voters who have arrived at the polling place before closing time often end up voting after closing time, because of long lines. The conventional wisdom of politics is that supporters of the losing candidate are most likely to give up on voting when they hear that their side has already lost. (Thus, on election night 1980, when incumbent President Jimmy Carter gave a concession speech while polls were still open on the West coast, the early concession was widely blamed for costing the Democrats several Congressional seats in the West. The fact that all the networks had declared Reagan a landslide winner while West coast voting was still in progress was also blamed for Democratic losses in the West.) Even if the premature television calls affected all potential voters equally, the effect was to reduce Republican votes significantly, because the Florida panhandle is a Republican stronghold; depress overall turnout in the panhandle, and you will necessarily depress more Republican than Democratic votes.

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

Over four hours later, at 2:16 A.M., Fox projected Bush as the Florida winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 A.M.

CBS had taken the lead in making the erroneous call for Gore, and had taken the lead in retracting that call. At 3:59 A.M., CBS also took the lead in retracting the Florida call for Bush. All the other networks, including Fox, followed the CBS lead within eight minutes. That the networks arrived at similar conclusions within a short period of time is not surprising, since they were all using the same data from the Voter News Service. (Linda Mason, Kathleen Francovic & Kathleen Hall Jamieson, “CBS News Coverage of Election Night 2000: Investigation, Analysis, Recommendations” (CBS News, Jan. 2001), pp. 12-25.)…

1) We'll never know, since it was all rushed through while a good portion of the voters were still trying to figure out why they weren't being allowed to vote...

2) Please support this claim. Heck, you may be right, but I'd like to see the evidence.

From CNN showing a comprehensive University of Chicago study done after the election in Florida. This study indicates that Bush would have won the Florida election whether the then existing method was used OR even if the limited recount method suggested by Gore was employed. Again, why did Moore lie?

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN.

NORC dispatched an army of trained investigators to examine closely every rejected ballot in all 67 Florida counties, including handwritten and punch-card ballots. The NORC team of coders were able to examine about 99 percent of them, but county officials were unable to deliver as many as 2,200 problem ballots to NORC investigators. In addition, the uncertainties of human judgment, combined with some counties' inability to produce the same undervotes and overvotes that they saw last year, create a margin of error that makes the study instructive but not definitive in its findings.
As well as attempting to discern voter intent in ballots that might have been re-examined had the recount gone forward, the study also looked at the possible effect of poor ballot design, voter error and malfunctioning machines. That secondary analysis suggests that more Florida voters may have gone to the polls intending to vote for Democrat Al Gore but failed to cast a valid vote.

In releasing the report, the consortium said it is in no way trying to rewrite history or challenge the official result -- that Bush won Florida by 537 votes. Rather it is simply trying to bring some additional clarity to one of the most confusing chapters in U.S. politics.

Florida Supreme Court recount ruling

On December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Florida Supreme Court ruling ordering a full statewide hand recount of all undervotes not yet tallied. The U.S. Supreme Court action effectively ratified Florida election officials' determination that Bush won by a few hundred votes out of more than 6 million cast.

Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, ]the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.

Gore's four-county strategy

Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide.
The news media consortium then tested a number of other hypothetical scenarios….

So you're saying that visit did not happen?

No, read my post again. I’m saying that the Clinton Administration authorized the Taliban visit – not Bush, as implied by Michael Moore. In fact the Clinton Administration visited with the Taliban leadership. Does Moore mention that the Clinton Administration authorized this visit? Does Moore mention that the Clinton Administration also visited with the Taliban? Why not? Why? Because Michael Moore isn’t interested in truth – he’s interested in propaganda ---

A quote from that link --

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

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

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

Clarke? The FBI denied all Clarke's claims...

Well Moore sure seems to use Clarke's statements in his movie when they suit his storyline. In any event, what does that have to do with Clarke’s assertion that he was totally responsible for the bin Laden / Sandi flights AND Moore’s decision to ignore those Clarke comments when addressing THIS issue - yet his focus on other Clarke statements when addressing other issues? Answer: Moore isn’t interested in the truth so he omits here and admits there depending on how it fits into the story he has already decided he will tell.

And in relation to the Heston speech and the extreme remake of the speech by Michael Moore --- why did he do that? As a refresher here’s my original response to you when asking for a Mooreism --- “Heston’s speech in Moore’s movie was NEVER made by Heston ---- it’s a Moore creation. How odd. Need Moore? Go to this site (linked) for a side by side comparison of the actual speech given by Heston against the a speech created by Moore and pieced together to look as if it’s Heston’s.

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

 

[JohnDubYa]

You can make any true claim about your product. Advertisers do it constantly, making claims which are true but give the impression of something outside what they state.

You are flat-ass wrong.

"Finally, careful consideration must be given to the overall message of the advertisement. Even if all of the claims in an advertisement are literally true, their combined effect in the advertisement can be deceptive, and thus not permitted. In a case where a comparison between the advertiser's and competitor's products was truthful and accurate, the overall impression was held misleading because of a lack of disclosure of the material differences between the products that was relevant to the comparison.2'"

http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00338/008730/title/Subject/topic/Communications_Advertising/filename/communications_2_1664

Care to back away from your statement?

 

[Adam]

Tigers2B1:

Thanks for those links, I'm reading them now.

Seems the calls for Florida go:
19:49:40 - NBC for Gore
19:50:11 - CBS for Gore
19:52:00 - Fox and VNS for Gore
20:02:00 - ABC for Gore
22:00:00 - CBS retracts earlier call for Gore
22:16:00 - VNS retracts earlier call for Gore
02:16:00 - Fox calls for Bush
02:17:30 - NBC calls for Bush
02:17:52 - CBS calls for Bush
02:20:00 - ABC calls for Bush
03:57:49 - CBS retracts calls for Bush
04:00:00 - ABC retracts call for Bush
04:02:00 - NBC retracts call for Bush
04:05:00 - Fox retracts call for Bush

That is the entire list of events from the page regarding Florida. Looks to me like Fox was the first to call it for Bush.

From CNN showing a comprehensive University of Chicago study done after the election in Florida. This study indicates that Bush would have won the Florida election whether the then existing method was used OR even if the limited recount method suggested by Gore was employed. Again, why did Moore lie?

Once again, we'll never know, since the vote never was allowed to be counted.

The page you linked to about NORC admits that the study is not definitive in its findings.

Are you saying Moore lied when he showed all those black people in Washington trying to get a hearing because their towns were blocked in during voting time?

No, read my post again. I’m saying that the Clinton Administration authorized the Taliban visit – not Bush, as implied by Michael Moore.

Did Moore say Bush authorised it? Or are you assuming that? Either way, does it negate the clear connection between Bush and the Taliban? You know Bush placed a UNOCAL guy in charge of Afghanistan, yes?

By the way, Australia gave the Taliban tens of thousands of dollars, but that does not negate the connection between Bush and the Taliban either.

Well Moore sure seems to use Clarke's statements in his movie when they suit his storyline. In any event, what does that have to do with Clarke’s assertion that he was totally responsible for the bin Laden / Sandi flights AND Moore’s decision to ignore those Clarke comments when addressing THIS issue - yet his focus on other Clarke statements when addressing other issues? Answer: Moore isn’t interested in the truth so he omits here and admits there depending on how it fits into the story he has already decided he will tell.

What happened to you supporting your assertions about those Saudis on planes? Clarke's words are doubtful at best, even the FBI said so. So where do you get your information from?

Heston’s speech in Moore’s movie was NEVER made by Heston ---- it’s a Moore creation.

I'm well aware that Moore takes slices of speeches from different occasions. It's not hard to tell. Often the subjects are wearing different suits and such. But that does not in any way negate the individual slices of insanity spewing from their mouths.

 

[Adam]

You are flat-ass wrong.

"Finally, careful consideration must be given to the overall message of the advertisement. Even if all of the claims in an advertisement are literally true, their combined effect in the advertisement can be deceptive, and thus not permitted. In a case where a comparison between the advertiser's and competitor's products was truthful and accurate, the overall impression was held misleading because of a lack of disclosure of the material differences between the products that was relevant to the comparison.2'"

http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00338/008730/title/Subject/topic/Communications_Advertising/filename/communications_2_1664

Care to back away from your statement?

From the same page:

Once the meaning or meanings are determined, statements must be separated into claims and puffing. Whether a statement is a claim or is puffing depends on whether it is measurable. A claim is not measurable if it is a statement of opinion. For example, a testimonial that the product is "great" cannot be measured in any meaningful way and is mere puffery. Puffery is an exaggerated advertising, bluster and boasting upon which no reasonable buyer would rely and is not actionable. For example,"Less is More," was held to be non-actionable puffery because it was not measurable and precisely the type of generalized boasting upon which no reasonable buyer would rely.1 However, the court also held that the claim "50% Less Mowing," was a specific and measurable claim of superiority and was therefore not puffery. In order to prove a statement is merely puffery, the advertiser must show that there is no method by which the statement can be proven. In some instances, if a claim cannot be proven to be true because the scientific community can only agree to a hypothesis which supports the claim, it may be necessary to determine if competitors are using the same claim. Competitors' use of the claim may go towards reducing the likelihood that the claim is deceptive.

Your point?

When you have something worth posting, get back to me.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Here is your claim:

You can make any true claim about your product.

Is that statement true, yes or no? If yes, then how can you explain the following?

Even if all of the claims in an advertisement are literally true, their combined effect in the advertisement can be deceptive, and thus not permitted.

This directly contradicts your statement. It is pretty obvious that you scanned real hard to find some way to weasel out of your statement, and the puffery quote was all you could find.

Sheez, Adam, why not just admit that you blew it? Your statement that businesses can make any true claims about their product is clearly incorrect and unsupportable. In fact, it doesn't even make any sense that the law would allow such bending of honesty.

 

[Adam]

This directly contradicts your statement. It is pretty obvious that you scanned real hard to find some way to weasel out of your statement, and the puffery quote was all you could find.

It was the largest paragraph of the page you provided, smack in the middle. You provided the analysis of the laws, which supports what I said. Now take a pill and relax, Dave. If the first analysis of the laws doesn't support you, feel free to go find another.

 

[Gokul43201]

Thanks for the link, but that's apparently a transcript of the movie. I'd like some context. And a date would help too: that quote would mean two different things on 9/10/01 and 9/12/01.

Russ & Graphic,

This might help some :

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

There's more context in the text than in the video clips.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Here is your claim:
Quote:
You can make any true claim about your product.

No mention of puffery anywhere in your statement.

Again, is your statement true, yes or no? If yes, then how can you explain the following?

Even if all of the claims in an advertisement are literally true, their combined effect in the advertisement can be deceptive, and thus not permitted.

This directly contradicts your statement, does it not?

And forget all the talk about taking pills and relaxing. Just answer the questions.

 

[graphic7]

It seems that everyone is ignoring the more important points to itterate on the "more-vulnerable points" to declare Moore a "minister of disinformation."

Yes, Moore provided some incorrect statements about the election, but Moore provided us video clips of two other events. Keep in mind these are video clips, not Moore saying a bunch of junk.

1. Bush, Rice, and Powell saying two years before the attack on Iraq that he was still rebuliding his forces and was *no threat*. I'm not a military expert but if you haven't rebuilt your forces in roughly ten years, you're not going to rebuild them in another two and become a threat. The video clip refers to Iraq and is before the war on Iraq.

2. Bush's infamous, "I'm a president of war" quote. I don't care if I can provide the context of it or not. How many different contexts can that quote be in, and not be disturbing or non-offensive? The video clip clearly has Bush in an interview saying this quote.

It seems that the people that are against Moore, and only arguing against the weaker arguments. Let's see some argument about these two points.

Another point to bring up. What about Bush refusing to open independent or government panels for investigating the 9/11 incident? What about the video clip in Fahrenheit interviewing Bush.

TIM RUSSERT (TO BUSH):

Will you testify before the commission?

BUSH:

This commission? I don't testify-- I mean, I’ll be glad to visit with them...

Again, how many different contexts can you put this in and *none* of them be disturbing?

In Farhenheit 9/11, Moore specifically targets our reasons for going to war with Iraq:

The main argument I hear about going to war with Iraq is we are saving the people. When have we ever been crusaders of freedom and liberators? Take Cambodia between 1975-1979 during the Khumer Rhouge reign. Millions died during those 4 years. Not just the ocasional Iraqi or two off the streets of Baghdad. Again, when have we ever been liberators? Cambodia didn't have oil, we didn't liberate it.

Next you're going to tell me that Saddam killed the Kurds. Saddam only killed the Kurds because we gave him the necessary materials. The intentions of those materials were to be used for attacking Iran. The person that actually made the deals with Saddam, is no other than our Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

Moore highlights all of what I have said in the film. If you question any of the facts I listed in the two above paragraphs, I'll be glad to provide some "context."

Edit: Some of you might say that Cambodia wasn't even during Bush's presidency, you're right. However, the same situation as Cambodia is developing in Sudan. There's been estimates that 200-300 people die in Sudan a day, and it's boarding being declared a genocide. Does Sudan have oil? No, therefore, we won't liberate it.

 

[russ_watters]

I do fail to see how it would matter between those two dates, though? If *any* president utters those words, it's not good. Even after 9/11, no president should have war strictly on his mind.

I disagree. For several months after 9/11 that should be the only thing (mild exaggeration) on his mind.

Russ & Graphic,

This might help some :

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

There's more context in the text than in the video clips.

Thanks, but that quote appears nowhere on that page. I don't see what it has to do with anything.

It seems that everyone is ignoring the more important points to itterate on the "more-vulnerable points" to declare Moore a "minister of disinformation."

Yes, Moore provided some incorrect statements about the election, but Moore provided us video clips of two other events. Keep in mind these are video clips, not Moore saying a bunch of junk.

Not quite (but just about) everything was a deception, so we should listen to him? Um, sorry, I won't.

To the rest, I recommend not responding to any more of Adam's questions until he responds to some already posted. His tactic is to avoid stating, much less defending his position at all costs.

Even the "puffery" thing, JD - let it go. Its comically obvious.

 

[JohnDubYa]

2. Bush's infamous, "I'm a president of war" quote. I don't care if I can provide the context of it or not. How many different contexts can that quote be in, and not be disturbing or non-offensive? The video clip clearly has Bush in an interview saying this quote.

I interpret the quote to mean that he has to take the war into account for every decision he makes. Sounds reasonable to me.

No one has accused Bush of being eloquent. Sometimes he makes statements that are hard to parse. But when I read the quote, I think he is simply elevating the fight against terrorism to the highest priority.

Another point to bring up. What about Bush refusing to open independent or government panels for investigating the 9/11 incident?

He probably felt that opening up investigations during the time we are still trying to win over Iraqi sympathy was bad timing. Has anyone asked him for his reasons?

What about the video clip in Fahrenheit interviewing Bush.

TIM RUSSERT (TO BUSH):

Will you testify before the commission?

BUSH:

This commission? I don't testify-- I mean, I’ll be glad to visit with them...

Again, he may have felt that testifying in an investigation while we are still in Iraq would be distracting. Again, has anyone asked him to explain his statement? What was his response?

The problem with Michael Moore is that all context is stripped out of people's statements. And he does that for a reason, and not just concern over time restraints. Look at what he did to Condi. That behavior is completely underhanded, so why do people support it?

 

[devil-fire]

i think its ironic that the reason why moore is such a bad guy is because he is twisting the truth to give an impression that is not the truth when the main thing he does is try to expose that same characteristic in others (expose may be the wrong word, he trys to do it anyway). i hadn’t even seen his movie yet but iv seen interviews with people who claim the president wanted to go to war because of weak "fact"s.

just as an example. colon Powell said there were mobile biological weapons facilities in iraq without talking about evidence and showed pictures of a rendition. a point raised to congress and the united nations was that a son-in-law of saddam who was in charge of the chemical weapons program in iraq claimed there was a sizable arsenal. the same man also stated he order the arsenal destroyed, but that part was left out because it would not help sell the point they were trying to make

if moore is such a bad guy because of how he presents his case, what about some of the people he talks about?