They're not all Moore-ons

Some folks who defend Fahrenheit 9/11 are thoughtful and constructive

 

By DaveKopel

I've received a lot of e-mail, both pro and con, regarding my report on Fahrenheit 9/11.

 

Many readers have agreed with some items, but disagreed with others. Thanks to all the readers who have sent thoughtful suggestions or criticism. The report has been revised many times in response to your ideas. Among the people who have helped me improve the website have been some of Michael Moore's defenders who have sent me thoughtful counter-arguments to particular items. Usually, I haven't agreed with these counter-arguments, but often the counter-arguments have shown that I need to clarify or elaborate my reasoning, or supply additional information.

Below are some other e-mails I've received. Rather than discussing particular items in my article, they offer more general critiques. Some of the critiques are intelligent and well-written. Others are less so.

These e-mails represent a significant percentage of the pro-Moore e-mails I've received, but they do not necessarily represent a large percentage of Michael Moore fans. I have no idea to what extent these folks are representative of any broader group of people. Perhaps not at all.

Although I've never studied the e-mail that other writers receive, I suspect that there are nuts and jerks of all political persuasions who send subliterate and angry letters to authors with whom they disagree.

For some letters, I've inserted some introductory comments in brackets. For other letters, I just let the writers speak for themselves.

Sometimes Moore's fan are derided as "Moore-ons" for their uncritical, and nearly hysterical devotion to their hero. Some of the letter-writers do fit this category--but many do not. Among the writers below you'll find many articulate and thoughtful folks.


[For example, this writer was polite and constructive.]

 

I just wanted to say that yes, there are "deceits" in that movie, however, i also wanted to say that he is pointing out his opinion on Bush, among other things. I am anti-Bush, but I am Pro-American, I don't believe in war, however, I do hope that everyone who goes over, comes back, unharmed, naturally I will see that movie. This is not supposed to be important points, etc. or try to get you to like the movie, etc.
 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions in every situation, it's in the Constitution. The movie may have been fabricated, but it was done to what he personally believed was being said, whether or not it was actually said out loud. It is only a movie, let him have his way, that's all, no one should pick apart something that you believe in so faithfully. Don't be a bully, stand up for what you and many people believe, but please don't bully anyone about it. 

 

Thank you for your time, this is just rambling, but I am doing this in a hurry, I do appreciate whoever stands up for their beliefs, in a civilized manner.


[An articulate expression of the viewpoint that since Bush is wrong, Fahrenheit must be right.]

 

I read your critical analysis of Fahrenheit 911 and would like to comment.   

I have seen the movie three times, once with a friend, then I brought my wife, and today I saw it with my daughter.  I have also read John Dean's book regarding his analysis of the Bush Administration, Richard Clark's book "Against All Enemies" and several books about Al-Qaida. 

 

I mention the books because I always am skeptical of any "facts" in film, as it is a medium which, through its impact on the senses, can easily persuade and distort by the use of emotional and sensual devices (music, sound effects, close-ups of people, etc.) 

Many of your "deceits" are open to interpretation.  Mr. Moore, like all of us, is an imperfect human being with biases and limits of viewpoint that no human I've ever known, met or studied has been without.  But compared to the monstrous administration of Mr. Bush's that Michael Moore is critiquing, Mr. Moore's so-called "deceits" are child's play.   

 

The facts in Fahrenheit 911 compare quite favorably with what I have learned from other sources.   Apologists for Mr. Bush can deny all they want that Iraq was the wrong war on the wrong people at the wrong time, but it is true.  They can scream till the cows come home that oil, strategic positioning and corporate wealth isn't the driving impetus of our foreign policy, particularly our invasion of Iraq, but intelligent, educated people who know how to think reject that, and rightfully so. 

 

Taking Mr. Moore to task for being hyper-critical of this president, who wasn't even elected by the people, and probably did not win the electoral vote, seems a bit over the top.  I myself would  turn some of that criticism toward the Bush administration, where it really belongs, with all of their lies including causing directly the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, perhaps that would be more constructive.    You say that Mr. Moore is helping our enemy.  I have news for you:  The U.S. government is creating new enemies faster than we can shoot them down.  Mr. Bush has done more for Al-Qaida recruitment than Mr. Moore ever will.  The Iraqi insurgency is the exact response Americans would embrace if we were invaded by another country, occupied, and treated with the countless human rights abuses that are beyond reason. 

 

Michael Moore hasn't detained any innocent people, hasn't tortured people, hasn't murdered and bombed civilian homes, but Mr. Bush has.  Mr. Moore hasn't dragged a nation into the wrong war with the wrong society and botched it in the process. 

 

It isn't Michael Moore who makes Mr. Bush look stupid or self-serving.  It is Mr. Bush who does that himself (he calls the "haves" the "have-mores" and says they are "his base").  If this isn't pandering to the corporate class with their greed and lack of concern about justice and peace in the world then as far as I am concerned these journalists are as corrupt as Bush himself. 

 

The role of journalism in a so-called democratic, open and free society IS to be critical of those in power, and, more importantly, how they use and abuse it.  Michael Moore is contributing mightily in ways that Newsweek, Time, ABC, CNN and other media giants refuse to.  The bottom-line for corporations is profit, pure and simple; that is their legal mandate. Telling the truth to the American people is a distant second.  If appeasing those at the top of government and influencing the government to serve corporate interests is the way to increase that profit, then so be it.  Even if that government murders innocents, destroys nations or denies Americans due process. And even if those media giants distort the news to fit the needs and worldview of those short-sighted predators who are out to take what they can while they can.

 

American journalism has sunk to a new low.   Attacking the messenger because one doesn't like the message is deplorable, and I for one don't see an ounce of integrity in this.  American foreign policy is hated all over the world, and if Bush wins in November, the world loses, the public good loses and democracy and freedom will be that much further from realization.   Why don't you spend some energy investigating the deepening corruption between Corporate America and fascism, where warfare is used as a means to enrich the few?  Why don't you spend energy investigating why people all over the world, including the majorities in Britain, France, Ireland, Germany, Turkey, etc. etc.  hate our foreign policy because of how unjust and self-serving it has become?

 

America is a society that fears, above all else, looking in the mirror and seeing its own dark side.  It isn't a society that values self-examination, much to its own demise.  Michael Moore has the courage to look in the mirror and a lot of people are pissed off that he is doing so. 

 

We need the Michael Moores of the world who don't drool all over those with power and kiss their ass like so many media darlings are willing to do. 

 

The scourge of Nationalism is repugnant to all thinking people. 

 

Nice try, but your criticism lacks any ability to convince me that Mr. Moore isn't helping to enlighten Americans as to how rotten our foreign policy is, and has been for many years, and for this I applaud him, warts and all.

 


The film is a sell out in Ireland...........its raging through Europe.Mr Moore has become a rich man !!!

Now bad for an ejit from Flint !!!!

Even if film is half lies, Its made him rich !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Stawman tactics and strong arm tactics won't  do .
While Americans still tremble in the after shocks of 911,Still no explanation of why .
just a feeble story about , hijacking arabs from mostly Saudi  Arabia ,distant friends of the oil cartel, and its Bush affiliates no doubt.
That were able somehow (eyes roll) to  take control of  those planes, drive them  all that distance, without the airforce noticing  , no radar warnings.  please!
While most Americans  havn't got a clue as to what happened .Any person with a head on their shoulders ,will tell you that after looking at all the video footage,personal accounts of people that were there, the various statements put out by the govt. , Etc..
The only logical explanantion of events that makes any sense to anyone  but a nitwit is,:
With America's economy floundering, wall street scandals and  stock market crash.The powers that be said lets hatch a plan to steal saddam's oil ,or at the very least secure it for america's future.(before China  grabs it all)
And  even now they claim to be freeing  Iraq's poor peoples ,while sleeping  with  Saudi Arabia a non free nation
How can they go  to war against terrorists, then end up instead of  doing that, turn to Iraq. And  now they  occupy Iraq .There are no terrorists in Iraq except Americans terrorizing a third world nation to secure  oil supplies.
Again only a person of high enough intelligence sees this clearly today.
The rest of the sheep need converting to believe anything , any simple strawman tactic is enough to sway them.
While all the evidence points to bush. and  his network of friends ,the American public by and large are to busy waving old glory to see anything but  through bloody eyes  .They can only scream kill bin laden oops change horses midsteam  Kill Saddam . Still while Americans spill their kids blood in Iraq ,the lies continue .
the shame on America's hands will stain its future for many years . History will see it how it actually is . time will explain what has  happened
sum up the evidence with clearity.  as even  the popnderance of   evidence is overwhelming pointing to BUSH and his his gang of cutthroats
 
America's  mission:  war on terrorists oops no now its to free iraq ,letting bin laden go the other way .while they sleep with saudi Arabia a non free non democratic nation
and they left the opium and heroin fields in afghanistan stand on touched , the very source of  income that fuels terrorism .
To me I only see CON JOB and not a very bright one either
Again it is only  the deaf ,dumb, and blind that are fooled. History will shed light on the real story America's shame will be great.

your points were quite fair and balanced, I guess, but very nit picking - then Rachel Corrie.  Then I realised if that fact was so wrong, then probably others were too.  Poor Rachel Corrie - it seems you have been listening to the Israelis.  Other points were not correct either.  So I did my own homework and came to the conclusion you are as guilty of right wing propaganda as Michael Moore is of the left!  Anyway, here's to fair and balanced!


Your writing showed how big idiots americans are.
The whole world knows that Bush is equal to Hitler.
You can throw sand in eyes, but american eyes only.
And you know why?
Because you're an IDIOT like whole your country.
Go hang yourself!


[Still more evidence that Europeans are smarter than Americans]

"Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11"? Aha.

I think THIS is a lie! And a GREAT ONE!!!

Because it won´t be useful to make myself clear (YOU would not accept it), I
leave you your illusions!

Everyone has the right to support who he wants - so support your terrorist
leader!

You should better see that Moore has not shown THESE things about Bush,
which reveal his (very low) intellect.

In fact, he has shown his true face, and the truth behind the war.

Some actions of Bush have been nearly funny, if he not were a president.

I live in Europe, and I hear much more about Iraq than nearly any American
(even before 9/11).

And although the Iraq was never a democracy (what is the same with America
today), they have not provoked any country in the last years.

If the would have been a threat, don´t you mean that the european troops
would have taken over this country long time ago?

The european armies are not as powerless as you americans probably think.

But they don´t start a war if it isn´t inevitable ANY MORE!

We HAVE learned - YOU NOT, it seams!

The terror was put into your heads by your leaders - when do you people
realise this???

Patriotic people (like the americans are), are not very liked in the most
european states!


By a peace-loving, really democratic human!

PS: The FBI can´t arrest ME for my statements - I´m living in REALLY FREE
country!

DONT ANSWER ME! I AM NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR "TRUE FACTS" (ROFL-LOL)!


[It's already well-known that British English and American English have different spelling of some words. This piece suggests that Canadian spelling is evolving in new directions.]

The hole movie is not lies and you no it. I can remember most of the stuff
on that movie being on the news. Are you calling them liers to? I remember
news reports doing interviews with these people and some of these people
work for the american government. You cant say these things didnt happen
because they did. You are only defending your contry be trashing Michael
Moore`s movie and thats great you are standing up for your country but you
are blind by not seeing the truth. Just take for example when they anounced
there were no weapons ever found in Iraq and they told this to George Bush
that he went to war to soon and it should not have happened. What do you
really think he went to war for, I say it was because of the oil and the
reason why I say that is because the top company for controling oil fires
and handling oil machinary is a Canadian company and George Bush would not
let any other country around the oil except for an american company, Why do
you say that happened or would you say I am lying to. China also has nucular
factories in operation and you dont see George Bush going after them and
that is because China already told George Bush dont start a war with them he
cant finish. I can go on forever with this and it would never get me anywere
I just wish people would open there eyes and confront the president and tell
him to step down for a new leader to take over before somthing bad happens
again. I will always say I am proud to be Canadain. Anytime you want to
argue with me bring it on and if you are really so golly then come to Canada
and meat with me fase to fase to argue this topic I would garuanty I would
convince you George Bush is bad news before you leave.
 


 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
God you suck!

Hopefully you will live and die painfully little red neck idiot!

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!

LOL


Nice try, Dave.  Nothing worse than an ambiguous writer.
The only real lie in Michael Moore's movie is George W. Bush.
From lying about weapons of mass destruction to keeping our country on edge with false reports of possible terrorist activities in this country, he will go down in history as one of the least intelligent, most manipulative self-centered presidents we have ever seen......he is truly evil.


My name is Simon, I live in a beautiful city in Australia. I am very interested in our own political relationship with America and American politics as well.
 
I have seen and read most of what Michael Moore has to say (as well as his critics..to find the balance), I can certainly see that his work is filtered through his own preconceptions of events and circumstances. I am reluctant, however, to believe that Mr. Bush is not an out right lire and cheat. I am reluctant not to place you in the same category as you claim Michael Moore is as deceitful and as a vehicle of Propaganda.
 
Maybe you could at least place a reference to the fact that this gathered material is of your own personal persuasion (you are giving seeminly credible refernce to your argumants as Michael Moore seems to on his site) and that you as well as Michael Moore are gathering information and arguging events from your own particular perceptions and convictions.
 
All I know is Mr Bush will go down in history (that is the history according to the other 5 billion + people in the world) as the most disliked American president of all time. Mr Bush has not by single hand ditroyed the American sentiment through out this world it is your collective arrogance...please sort your nation out so the whole world may have a little more peace and prosperity!!!!

Weak..weak...weak arguments.


     In regard to your list of deceits in Mr. Moore's film,  you claimed that Mr. Moore lied as a part of deceits 8-10.  "Moore says, "Or perhaps he just should have read the security briefing that was given to him on August 6, 2001 that said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes."   You claim his lie is that the president had not read the PDB.  However, I find it quite obvious that Mr. Moore's statement was merely a sarcastic criticism on the fact that Bush had not acted on this information, rather than a direct claim that he had not read the information.  Thanks for your time.


HAVE SEEN FAHRENHEIT 911. AT LEAST SOME OF YOUR CRITICISMS MAY BE VALID, BUT I STILL BELIEVE THE BASIC PREMISE IS TRUE BUSH AND CHEBEY HAVE LED US INTO AN ILLEGAL WAR AND NOW CLOSE TO A THOUSAND PRECIOUS AMERICAN LIVES HAVE BEEB LOST. ALSO, I DIDN'T SEE ANY CRITICISM FROM YOU ON THE COMMENTS BY THOSE IN THE ADMINISTRATION INCLUDING CONDELEEZA RICE SAYING IN THE SUMMER OF 2001 THAT SADAM WAS NO DANGER. THE FILM DID NOT CHANGE MY VOTE, THAT WAS MADE UP LONG AGO. ALSO. WITH TEN MINUTES LEFT TO VOTE I DOUBT 5,000 VOTERS WERE LEFT, WHAT ABOU THE ESTIMATED 19,000 OVERVOTES, ALSO, THE BUTTERFLY BALLOTS, ALSO, I HAVE HEARD OTHER COMMENTS THAN YOURSA WHERE AT LEAST HALF OF ALL SCENARIOS FAVORED GORE. ALSO, IF NADER WERE NOT IN THE RACE GORE WOULD HAVE WON IN BOTH FLORIDA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE IF NADER WERE IN THERE. PROBABLY AT LEAST HALF WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR GORE.I AM DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED IN BUSH, I VOTED FOR HIM LAST TIME, BUT NO MORE.


As a conservative and Republican.  I am left with the choice between "Kerry"  and "Words of Mass Deceptions" I chose Kerry.
You too have been less than honest. Even less honest than  Mike.

F 911 deserves a critical look at its honesty. As a Republican and conservative I would not have normally seen the film  I did see it partly because of your criticism. Your review  seemed a bit overboard and frankly made me a bit suspicious.  The movie  is "slanted" to say the least.  I have tried to look at the supporting  "facts" behind both your analysis and Moore's.  Unfortunately, you both do a very poor job, but on balance, Moore wins.   In my own opinion you were significantly less honest than he and he was very very slanted in his presentatons.   I think you are doing a great disservice to Republicans and true conservatives by supporting "Bush" regardless of what he does or how he acts.   Please take a second look.


since the two hour long f9/11 has been released, over 300 hours of fox
news content has been created and broadcast across america and around
the globe.

in looking over your site i only see an article on the 2 hour
contribution by michael moore to the public discourse.  not a jot about
even 2 hours of the 300 hours contributed by fox news.

and how many hours of content has cnn or abc or cbs contributed to
the public debate?  how many hours are rush limbaugh, bill o'reilly
and sean hannity on the radio for - how many hours of discussion have
they contributed?

but you took the time to fully investigate ALL two hours of mr. moore's
contribution to the public debate.

i wonder if chernobyl had safety inspectors like you?  weeks spent busily
making sure the tops of all the doors were free of dust...


I read your Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911 and it was the most embarrassing attempt something to fire back I've ever seen.  Most of it is just playing symantics. Let's go over it...?
 

Bush Presidency before September 11

Deceit 5

 

---- Hey did you ever think that just maybe the riots that had to do with Nixon also had something to do with Vietnam not his be elected. Dumbass. Oh yeah and way to point out he used a plural, OH NO, HE SAID EGG(s), real good flaw.

 

[Yes, the Nixon riots had a lot to do with Vietnam, but Moore is still completely wrong to claim, that no President had ever faced such a thing on inauguration day. A single jerk threw one egg; Moore tries to create the impression of widespread violence, which was not the case.]

 

Thursday, August 23
Briefly spoke with the press.
Visited Crawford Elementary School, fielded questions from students.

I don't know about you but I don't consider "Briefly speaking with the press" proof that he wasn't on vacation...

I mean if thats all the president did that's very sad.

 

[He also visited Crawford Elementary School on that day. It appears that he worked part of the day, and vacationed part of the day.]

 

Bush on September 11

Cheap Shot

 

--Is this a joke, one of Moore's deceits was changing the name The Pet Goat to My Pet Goat? Wow at this point you must of been really struggeling for 59.

[No. As the caption indicates, I didn't count this as a deceit.]

  This was just a few I felt like typing but wow your Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911 is the weakest thing ever.  I mean JESUS I know you really wanted to come off smart and witty but the whole thing is laughable.  Goodluck, keep s[   ]ing off of bush's d[  ]k. And the best part about Moore, that republican a[      ]s can't compare to is that he uses footage of documents and interviews and news reports to back himself up, not sh[   ]y opinionated vacation s[  ]t.  OWNED.


Hello. I just read your detail of the lies in Michael Moore's 911 movie, and
WOW! You are so full of s[   ]t! Anyway, keep greedily lapping up the lies that
your government in power pi[   ]es down to you, and maybe one day you'll be so
overflowed with their excrement, that you'll explode yours on others. wait-
that already happened.
-peace,


59 reasons you're innefectual


I would like to skip my critique of the general content of your site for now and first address the statements you made at the end of your report. "In Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore claims to support our troops. But in fact, he supports the enemy in Iraq-the coalition of Saddam loyalists, al Qaeda operatives, and terrorists controlled by Iran or Syria-who are united in their desire to murder Iraqis, and to destroy any possibility of democracy in Iraq..." "Moore's purported positions on some issues in Fahrenheit are different from his previous positions: whether people should have made a big deal about September 11, whether Osama bin Laden is guilty of the September 11 attacks, whether American families, including the Lipscombs, deserve to suffer the deaths of their children because they supported the war. But throughout Michael Moore's career, he has remained true to the central theme of Fahrenheit: capitalist America is the real terrorist state. Because America is a capitalist societ
 y, American use of force is necessarily evil."

These statements took me by surprise because I felt that your reporting on Fahrenheit 9/11 showed intelligence, diligence and a sincere quest to report the truth. The statements regarding Michael Moore with which you closed your report show profound ignorance and a lack of objectivity. It suddenly made me wonder what your 'angle' is. Why would you make such ridiculous assertions about Moore's character and motivations, destroying your credibility and any perception of objectivity in your reporting? If you leave the statements on your site I can only conclude that you are a liar, a fool and a bad American.

Your opinions may be believed by some but I myself have been a fan of Michael's since his first TV show (TV Nation). I have seen him perform numerous acts of humanitarianism in his two television shows. You seem to believe that his purpose is to aid and support terrorists. Do you also find some conspiracy theory in Moore advocating for a man who was getting railroaded by his HMO? Moore fought for this man's cause and got his insurance company to pay for the operation that saved the man's life. What benefit was that to Al Qaeda? What purpose did it serve to the Islamic religious fantasists? The truth is that Michael Moore is a humanitarian, a patriot and a compassionate American. He has endeavored to improve life in America and that is where his loyalty lies.

You claim that Moore's belief is that "people who are perpetrating suicide bombings against Iraqi civilians and American soldiers for the purpose of forcing a totalitarian boot onto Iraq are the moral equivalent of the American Founders". These are your words, not his. You borrowed the words from Ronald Reagan of course but it is far from anything that Michael Moore has stated. It appears that you fail to realize that Iraqis that lose family members, limbs, homes and communities due to American bombing raids are likely to seek revenge or some form of justice. What they are going to find is that the terrorist movements against America and American policy are sympathetic to their plight. Those movements are also the most advanced and committed. Iraqis that are not jihadists will likely align with these terrorist insurgents because when a person is treated unfairly they will revolt against their aggressors. What has happened is that we have committed unjust acts against many pea
 ceful Iraqis and we are asking them to just grin and bear it. This is not likely to happen. Most Iraqis that are mad about what we have done will fight against us and use the terrorist tactics that have been proven to effective.

I believe that this hopeless, confused, paradoxical situation frustrates Michael Moore because it frustrates me and I feel that Moore and I are of like mind. Knowing history and having objectivity we realize that the war in Iraq is not the way to win the war on terror. Michael Moore never stated that he felt that Americans who have lost family members in conflict deserve to suffer- you said that. Again you have put your words in his mouth and your foot in your own. The simple truth is that when we support such a war in a foreign land we can expect to be attacked in retaliation. Moore does not support the terrorist retaliation, instead this is why he opposes the war in the first place. He does not want our troops to be killed in this idealistic conflict. Only a moron would  draw another conclusion from his statements.

You speculate that Moore feels that the 9/11 attacks were insignificant. You are wrong here again. Would he have created a movie called Fahrenheit 9/11? Since an American is three times more likely to be struck by lightning as be killed in a terrorist attack (I believe this was Moore's assertion), is there really a need to start enacting a bunch of crazy laws that inhibit our freedom? (We don't have legislation that forbids people from going outside when it during thunder storms.) After all, these are the same freedoms that our forefathers DIED for. Now we are saying that we are too concerned for our own safety to be concerned about these liberties. How is this patriotic?

You also claim that Moore and other liberals would be angry with Bush had he quickly left the classroom when he was informed that the nation was under attack. First of all, I disagree that anyone would be upset if he reacted quickly rather than just sit there like an idiot. Secondly, don't you feel that such your claim is speculation and not fact? How can you create a report to criticize the speculation and inaccuracies in Moore's film and include so many of your own in the report? It really harms your credibility and since there are other blogs out there that support Moore's assertions and contradict yours, you appear to be the less-objective individual with a grudge.

Now on the content of your report:

You claim that Fahrenheit has no valuable facts. I would disagree with this. A lot of people in this country are unaware of the many follies of George W. Bush and would be enlightened. The facts in the film are far more powerful than the opinions, speculations and inaccuracies. For instance, the appointments of Unocal executives in political positions. Also, some damning footage in the movie can not be seen anywhere else. It has not been aired on mainstream media. These are things Americans should see but it has been censored to protect the Bush administration.

I don't believe that a person who watched the movie would believe that Bush did not read the August 6th PDB. I think that the claim was more of an attempt at Moore humor. It would explain why he did nothing when he got the news that Bin Laden was determined to attack the U.S. Moore's point here was not to speculate whether or not Bush read the bulletin but to point out that nothing was done. Bush could have demanded more airport security and demanded that the cockpits of all commercial planes were not accessible by passengers when he knew that hijackings were likely. This simple step would have prevented the hijackings and they could have been implemented with little knowledge  of the general public.

The question posed by Moore, "Who would want to fly..?" Isn't that a rhetorical question? If Moore decides to provide an answer, it does not qualify as a deceit. As for the rest of that segment, the individuals may have fled the U.S. after the grounding of commercial flights was lifted but they were flown around the country WHILE other flights were grounded. I think it is very deceitful that you left this part out of your analysis. The flight information, including dates can be viewed here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/homelandsecurity.pdf.

I think that it is humorous that people who have a beef with Michael Moore often bring up Bill Clinton as an example of a Liberal/Democrat that has made mistakes- as if Moore's political alliances are completely partisan. You have done this at least once in your report. As I have mentioned, I have been a fan of Moore's work for many years and I have seen him attack President Clinton and other Democrats. Moore, like many of us, want politicians that look out for us and make policy with our (the American citizens') best interests in mind. Is that an unusual request? Is there something wrong with wanting fairness from the politicians that we elect and pay to watch out for us?

In your report you insinuate that Bill Clinton was all for the Unocal pipeline deal- that it wasn't just championed by Republicans and Bushes. You did not mention that the Unocal pipeline deal went bust because Clinton bombed the crap out of Afghanistan in retaliation for their bombing of the U.S. embassies in Africa. Clinton did not care if this action condemned the pipeline deal, which it did until Bush was able to take over the country and prop up a puppet government.

In Moore's account of the coalition of the willing, I think he left out some of the major countries for two reasons. 1.) Everybody knows that England, Spain and Italy are in this with us. 2.) Most of the citizens of those countries (I have heard about 98%) do not agree with our war in Iraq, even though their governments have joined the coalition. I think that is a pretty important point.
 


I found your article about Fahrenheit generally interesting.  You made many good points. Have you considered applying the same scrutiny to major speeches  by Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Kerry?

[So much to scrutinize, so little time. Since I work on lots of issues, I spend most of my debunking time in researching my media analysis column for the Rocky Mountain News.]


The "Pet Goat" story. 
 
You seem to completely miss the point about this significant part of the film.  It does not matter what the president was reading.  It does not matter what the teacher thought of the president continuing to read. What matters is that a president of the United States hesitated for 7 full minutes while the announcement of the worst terrorist attack on our soil was taking place. 
 
Let me help you overcome your bias and denial of common sense, Mr. Kopel. Suppose that you are a guest speaker for an elementary school classroom and a trusted confidant comes into the classroom and tells you that your car is on fire just outside.  What do you do?  
 
Frankly, no matter how you imagine this situation, sitting there calmly and reading for 7 minutes is not what any normal person would probably say they would do.  And, I don't think a normal president would do anything less than immediately excuse himself from the situation and tend to the most important matter of this country, its security!!!   Something is seriously wrong in Washington, Mr. Kopel.  And, you do not help matters with absent-minded critiques trying to convince people against a natural common sense interpretation of a president who is walking on a very razor edge. 
 
The "Pet Goat" incident is just a tip of the iceburg that Michael Moore doesn't even nearly use well enough to take the carpet out from under a very deceitful (a word you so amply use in your critique, without the 'ful') and ill-conceived, personal agenda ridden president.  I'll bet you psychological studies applied here would offer some frightening thoughts to the American public.  How and why does one act the way the president did in a crisis situation such as 9/11.  I don't think the 'keeping the children calm' is flying as an appropriate excuse in the upper circles of consciously thinking humans. 

You can nit pick and documentary or biography and find errors. The fact remains Bush and Co. have the blood of thousands dead, wounded or mentally unstable. We can do without “war presidents”. I can think of no war that has solved anything but the increase in population.

[War solved the problem of Hitler, who was busy decreasing the population of Jews, Gypsies, and many others. It also solved the problem of Afghanistan being used as a terrorist training base.]


Why does the US and South Africa have more gun murders per head of
population than every other country in the world? Answer, because they have
more guns. you're a nut case.
Peace can never be found behind a rifle.
PS Your 59 lies article is the most poorly referenced article I have ever
seen.


Thanks for your informative rebuttal. Not to say I am a supporter or not, but why would any source you have be any more labeled as "truth"? Why would any census, survey, or reported event prove to be any more accurate ? Believe nothing that you read and only half of what you see. I know this leads to all questions (or answers) being mute. But unfortunately that is all that is factual. Nothing ! I must say at least you do your homework and you have possibly watched the movie (I presume) unlike most of the American "SHEEP" that just forge opinions without reviewing the information at hand (including those that just except F911 as well). You tend to "mislead" though as well as Moore does. Everyone will do this to make their opinions seem more valid. Half-truths maybe truths and omissions maybe deceits. So anything you omitted (whether they aid your viewpoints or not) can be seen as "deceits". If this is the case, even information that is omitted in the name of "national security" can be considered deceitful.
 
 
If Ignorance is bliss, THEN THERE IS A LOT OF HAPPY AMERICANS !!!!
 
Take care, continue to seek, even though you will never find because it is the thrill of the chase not necessarily the "catch".

 


Well this is an interesting piece you have writen here, that appears to be as one-sided and misleading as the movie you are accusing of being one-sided and misleading!
I must admit, I do agree with some of what you have written, however much of it I find misleading and taken out of context as much as you claim Fahrenheit 9/11 has. I will only bring up two cases here, mostly because I do not have time to look up all of the facts that I have learnt about Bush and his so-called "war on terror" from the many and varied books and articles I have read, and I don't want to quote things that I am not 100% sure about off the top of my head. But here are two that immediately spring to mind.

You jump to the defense of Bush about his handling of the breaking news of the attacks of Sept 11 at the Florida school, insinuating that Moore does not paint the full picture, and in paticular you say  "Also, since the President knew he was on camera, it was reasonable to expect that if he had suddenly sped out of the room, his hasty movement would have been replayed incessantly on television; leaving the room quickly might have exacerbated the national mood of panic, even if Bush had excused himself calmly."
Well, I invite you to take a look at the following website: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html.
It is a comprehensive account of what Bush did and did not do that morning. What he did have was plenty of opportunities to excuse himself in a calm manner that would not have incited panic, yet he stayed for a considerable amount of time, including participating in a photo-op at the end of the reading session. Remember too that there was much confusion that morning, and with a possible attempt on Bush's life the night before, his inaction could possibly have put those very children at risk. Doesn't sound much like the actions of a President of a country under attack does it?

In the section about Moore's claim that Saddam never murdered any American citizens, you are quite right, that one is somewhat misleading. But you make some outlandish claims of your own, including this pearler: "The no-fly zone was created to prevent Saddam's air force from being able to mass murder Iraqis". If that was the case then why, when the no-fly zone was negotiated, were Iraqi helicopters permitted to operate in these zones? Specifically their (American made) Hughes 500 helicopter gunships, which were used to devastating effect in the brutal suppression of the Shi'ite uprising in 1991?
You do remember that uprising don't you? You should, as they are the cause of many of the mass graves that the White House, Fox News and the like pointed to as justification for the war after the fact. The Shi'ites rebelled after being encouraged to by Bush Snr, believing that they had American support, support that of course never materialised, and they were slaughtered. I find it ironic when so many Americans see footage of of their troops now fighting Shi'ite militants in Najaf and Karbala, wonder "why do they hate us so much?". But I digress...

In any case, I think you have somewhat missed the point of the whole movie. Yes, Michael Moore does have a reputation of smudging the facts in his movies, but I would say that this is nothing more than a counter-punch to the lies and deceptions that stream out of the White House and such "fair and balanced" news orginisations such as Fox News every single day. Just where are those mythical weapons of mass destruction? Yes, Michael Moore may even be a liar himself, but who is the lesser of the two evils when his target's lies have caused the deaths of over 15000 Iraqis and counting?

And as a short postscript, I really don't place much faith in some of the "facts" you present, if their sources are from such enlightened ultra-right wing publications as the "Weekly Standard". I recall seeing Bill Kristol, the editor of this "news"paper in a John Pilger documentary actually denying that the United States has invaded, bombed, attacked or otherwise covertly subverted dozens of countries since the end of the second world war. Talk about living in denial...
 


I AM UTTERLY AMAZED AT HOW YOU CLAIM THAT MICHAEL MOORE'S FILM FAHRENHEIT 911 WAS FILLED WITH DECEIT.  THERE IS NOT ONE LIE IN THIS FILM.  INSTEAD OF CLAIMING HE LIED, WHY DON'T YOU PROVE IT.    IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MICHAEL MOORE HIMSELF HAS OFFERED MONEY TO ANYONE WHO CAN PROVE A LIE IN THE FILM. 
 
HOWEVER, THAT SAID, IT IS OKAY.  IT IS YOUR RIGHT TO BE DECEITFUL.  WHY, IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CAN BLATANTLY LIE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, WHY CAN'T YOU.
 
IT IS OBVIOUS THAT YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN.  AND THAT TOO, IS OKAY.  THAT IS WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS ALL ABOUT.  IT IS ALSO, CLEAR THAT THERE WILL BE PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO WEAR BLINDERS AS TO THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH,  AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD.     I HAVE SPOKEN TO MANY MANY REPUBLICANS AND I AM ALWAYS ASTOUNDED AT HOW DIFFICULT IT IS FOR THEM TO ACCEPT THE TRUTH ABOUT THIS SITTING PRESIDENT, WHO DID, IN SPITE OF WHAT YOU SAY, STOLE THE ELECTION.   MR. BUSH DID NOT LEGALLY WIN THIS ELECTION.  HE HAS RUINED THIS COUNTRY.    FORTUNATELY, HE WILL NOT WIN ILLEGALLY THIS TIME, THANK GOD FOR MICHAEL MOORE AND HIS CAMERAS.   JUST AS HIS FATHER, HE WILL BE A ONE TIME PRESIDENT.
OH NO NOT ANOTHER RIGHT-WING BUSH VOTING NUT!!

i was just trying to find an essay generator for my little year 11 english extended response on the Australian film 'The Castle" but I found you!

oh well no need trying and convert u.. ur already gone!
 


I write to you in regard to your parsing of Michael Moore's F/9-11, and you
make many decent points regarding Mr. Moore's admitted bias. I must say,
however, that I find the seven minutes Mr. Bush sat reading (paralyzed by
fear?) children's books after being informed of the second plane hitting WTC
particularly frightening. Yes, Mr. Moore puts words into the President's
mouth--("What was he thinking...") But what was Mr. Bush DOING? NOTHING,
obviously. How does one explain the leader of the free world, in a
classroom, just sitting there, for seven minutes, doing nothing, while his
country is under attack?
FECKLESS. Which, pretty much, for me, sums up the Bush administration.


ead your list of deceits

and the first eight are rebuttals are spurious at best.

I'm sure there is some truth in there, similar to what I've found on other
sites

but your shaky defences make you sounds like a loser.

stick with the strong points, ditch the rest.


You are certainly correct that there are things to criticize about Moore's film, but in terms of accuracy many of your points reflect the same level advocacy that you would deny to Moore.  You are right and Moore is wrong that Saddam didn't kill Americans.  If no where else, Saddam was responsible for the death of Americans who fought to drive him out of Kuwait in the Gulf War.  But your attack on Moore is more an attack of views than accuracy.  You have linked Saddam Hussein with terrorists and the war on terrorism in a seamless fashion that could have been written by Dick Cheyney.  Although I disagree with you, I do agree that's what the debate is about.  Because if Saddam's Iraq was a fount of terrorism against the U.S., we were right to go after him.  If it was not, what with the absence of nukes and chemical and biological weapons arsenals, Moore is right that we went to war there based on deceit.  So we agree to disagree.

Do you need some specifics about your own exaggerations/misrepresentations?
Item: Abu Nidal.  Yes, he lived in Iraq.  Yes, he was responsible for the hijacking of a passenger ship (Aquille Lauro?) that included the brutal murder of an American--Isadore Klinghoffer.  But was a demand for Nidal ever made to Saddam?  Did our laws at the time of the crime even permit his prosecution in the U.S.?  I don't think so.  Was Nidal engaging in terrorist activity while he lived in Iraq?  You offer no evidence of that, nor to my knowledge has anyone else.

Item: The Taliban.  I don't what your documentation is for the statement that Bush never met with the Taliban, or for many other of your factual assertions.  But there is a glaring fact about the Taliban that you, and Moore, ignore.  That is that in the spring or early summer of 2001 the Taliban received $40 million in anti-drug money from the U.S. for its efforts to control the drug trade in Afghanistan--the one good thing it did.  Of course this was when Osama was operating there, with his madrassas teaching terrorism and hatred for the U.S.  But of course the $40 million payment is the fault of the Clinton Administration, right?

Item: How many members of Congress have children in Iraq?  Two?  Not one?  And this was the case when the film was wrapped?  Mortification.  And the Congressman who walked by Moore did so not because he had been warned to avoid him, as was so obvious, but because he had no children.  Okay.

Item: Children with kites.  Civilian casualties.  Well, the whole point was to show that even in Saddam's Iraq, in peacetime, if you weren't in Kurdistan in 1988, children could play with kites.  The juxtaposition is the horror of war and what it does.  The whole point of the movie was that war wasn't justified; is there a better way to show it? 

Item: The PDB of 8/6/01.  It said the FBI can't verify the threats of attacks on aircraft?  So do nothing, right?  But go to war in Iraq and spend  $4.5 billion per month, kill thousands of Iraqis, kill 800+ Americans and maim thousands more, based on information that can't be verified and some of which has been just plain refuted.  Bush can't be blamed for 911 entirely.  From the time hijackers in France tried unsuccessfully to force a pilot to fly into the Eiffel Tower, in 1994, the protocols on hijacking had to be reviewed, and the possibility that a hijacker would try to fly the plane had to be considered.  But there can be no doubt, as will be documented in the forthcoming 911 Commission report, that on Bush's watch there were warnings that weren't heeded. 

Item: Moore grew up in a white middle class suburb of Flint Michigan.  Oh, that makes him a liar.  Like when someone who grew up on Long Island says he comes from New York.  And let's forget about someone who grew up in a family which embodies "the Establishment," the grandson of a senator and son of a president, who went to Andover, Yale and Harvard, who spent his summers in Maine, trying to portray himself as a sodbuster or wildcatter from west Texas.

Item: Bush's standing in the polls.  You talk about Bush's standing in 2001.  Well, in May 2001 Bush had gone so far to the right that he drove a senator form his party.  By the summer of 2002 Bush's standing in the polls was way down, and Karl Rove was assuring the faithful that Bush would hold the House and win back the Senate because the issue in November would be WAR.  And of course from 9/12 the agenda of this administration was to use the events of the day before to justify going to war in Iraq.

One could go on.  But the main point of Fahrenheit is that 911 and the war on terrorism were transmuted into a war on Iraq for no valid reason, at a tremendous cost in blood and treasure, except to protect the political standing of the incumbent president.  Agree or disagree, that's Moore's point, and I submit that there are no facts, no evidence, that establish the seamless relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda and terrorism in general which Cheyney and you insist upon.  Of course, at the end of your article you have decided that the real link with terrorism is Moore's, but that's another issue.


why don't you want the public to know the truth? are you afraid of giving up that nice tax break ?, or is it just ignorance? you try to bash the truth with lies and technacalities, but we don't buy it. I wish you open your eyes and see that this country is headed in the wrong direction. Instead you'll keep spitting out political venom and lies, that will end up hurting us all in the end.

Sent email about your website to michael moore. I hope he sues are ass. You dirty republican in independents clothing.


After reading your critique, I felt compelled to say
something.  I wrote this expecting to post it in a
comments section.  I didn't see one, so I thought I'd
send it to you.  Thanks for keeping me thinking...

While I can't deny the compelling nature of Kopel's
arguments in opposition to Moore's film, having read
them in their entirety, I felt sick.  I am reminded of
having felt the same way about a film I saw recently.
Yes, Mr. Kopel is just as guilty of manipulating the
truth by creating a false or deceptive impression in
his critique as Moore is in Farenheit 9/11.  I will
first state that I don't believe Moore's film should
be considered a documentary.  It is much too obvious
that Moore edited, commented, and scored the film in a
manner that created an anti-Bush sentiment.  That
being said, if you apply the logic Kopel uses to
critique Farenheit 9/11 to his own critique, Kopel
sinks himself.  For almost every argument Kopel
presents, there is a counter argument in defense of
Moore that is not presented or innoculated against.
Kopel conceded about the same number of points, as I
would think Moore would concede.  Did Moore present
the other side?  NO.  Did Kopel present the other
side?  NO.  Granted Moore is a bit more radical, but
the one-sided nature of both Moore's film and Kopel's
critique make it nearly impossible to accept either as
a whole.  The length to which one will go to say, "I'm
right, and you're wrong" is absolutely sickening when
both sides have halve truths presented in their
arguments.  Get off of your high horses fellas.
You're both right, and you're both wrong.  God bless
America for letting you both speak your minds and for
keeping us thinking...


Your article only serves to bring more questions to my mind.
If you would have investigated the issues people have
about 9/11, the Saudis and a myriad of other issues surrounding
the Bush administration with as much detail and zeal as you
have taken with F9/11 you might be publishing a far different
web site. How about taking a long, hard look at what Fox News
does everydayon network TV. PRIME-TIME in your face. We're
not talking about packing your wife into the car and paying to see
a film. We're talking Fox News, masquerading as the press when
it is clearly bought and paid for Conservative Television. So if there
are any dragons to slay let's not stumble on Michael Moore on the
way to what we may be afraid to look at. Moore's masquerade as
a documentarian is a farcry from Fox News and it's poor excuse
for "Fair and Balanced" news coverage.

Moore is only the loud and demonstrative one in a vast crowd
of American patriots who believe in a free press, the Constitution
and many other things the Bush administration(s) have warped
through two terms in the White House.

I do, however, applaud your inclusion of comments from people
who support Michael Moore and also your attempt at a fair-minded
assessment of his film. The fact remains, George Bush is bad for
the World and bad for America, Moore got that part right as rain


  First off let me state that I am a proud liberal who believes the presedency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for our country. Having said that, I found your article "Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11" to be a very interesting read and would like to thank you for your effort in organizing and presenting the material. Personally, I found it to be equal parts informative and manipulative, which is precisely how I felt about Fahrenheit 9/11 itself, but a well-stated argument is always welcome. The truth, perhaps as always, lies somewhere in between.


  For example, how many deceits would you find in Bush's State of the Union speech? I hope you hold Mr. Bush and the others to higher standards than you hold Michael Moore.  Will you critique Bush's acceptance speech as the Republican candidate to the same level as you did Michael Moore's film?  Will you critique the ads put out by the RNC and by the DNC to the same level as you did Michael Moore's film?  Again, I would hope that you hold the RNC and the DNC to higher standards than you hold Michael Moore.   Finally, will you critique the news that is presented by Fox with the same zeal as you critiqued Michael Moore? Michael Moore does not claim to be fair and balanced so I would expect you hold Fox to higher standards than you hold Michael Moore.


Methinks thou doth protest too much.  Most of your so-called "lies" are less egregious than, for example, the president standing in front of boxes made in China where the "Made in China" stamp was covered with a "Made in the USA" stamp for salutory purposes of a photo op.  Only the party faithful will agree with your semantic use of "lie".

 
If you're bothered by the movie and want to make a difference in the debate, intellectual honesty is a necessity.  Your summary is being distributed by the GOP's most shrill supporters, which, when combined with the obvious but less than candid bent, only hurts your case at this point in the film's trajectory.
 
I don't know why I'm helping you, other than that I suppose you will likely discount this advice. 

I have to say- I've read your website and I really think 98% of your proven 'deceits' have holes big enough to drive a mac truck through them.  Every SINGLE one of your theory's is the definition of flimsy.

Let me just say- that if, as you say in your website- " To use lies and frauds to manipulate people is contrary to the very essence of democracy, which requires people to make rational decisions based on truthful information."   Then have you considered joining the massive fight against the completely fraudulent Fox New Network, and the Stalin-eque media war it is waging on the Democrats??

Well why not?  They're quoted about a THOUSAND times in then new 'Outfoxed' documentary spewing absolute rubbish, and ridiculous 'bush tv' propaganda.  Is that ok with you??
Guys like you are totally hilarious- because you think you're being so incredibly riteous with web-sites like that, but at the end of the day, as long as it fit's your bill of what you think- then it's ok.

I'm not even going to comment on 'Michaelmoorehatesamerica.com' - because to align yourself w/that ridiculous GOP funded nonsense sucks even more credibility from your site.

Oh- and in case your wondering, if you think George Bush is a good President- you're a fool.  That's been proven as well.  Talk about hating America, this guy has turned this country upside-down, inside-out, and doesn't give a damn.  How long do you think it will take to fix this country after he's gutted it for all his corporate buddies?  think again... about a
hundred years.


Your assessment of the Florida purge does not account for how many ‘felons’ were illegally removed from the voter registration rolls by the Secretary of State.  Nor do your or Moore call for the prosecution of the persons responsible.  Clearly (and according to you admittedly) voters were feloniously removed from the rolls.  So, should K. Harris be convicted and denied the right to vote?

[Erroneously removing a voter from the list of registered voters is not a crime in Florida, or anywhere else. So Moore was entirely right in not calling for people to be prosecuted for something which is not a crime.]


Last minute voters in Florida turned around and went home?  Voters that were in line left and went home?  There is more proof that voters were “dis-enfranchised” than what your have proposed in your diatribe; where is your proof that voters turned around and went home?  This statement is less provable than stating certain hanging chad ballots were for Gore or Bush.  So, already your credibility to call Moore a liar is in question.


I saw your 4-page write-up on the "Fahrenheit 9/11" movie. In as much as I am not an American, but as a world citizen, I personally feel America was wrong in going to war on the pretext of finding "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq. They fell flat on their face when they found nothing of such WMD's after having full control of Iraqi territory for over an year after the war. To that extent, President Bush deceived the American public and the world at large and he owes an apology for the lie he and his administration perpetrated right up to the UN forum.

America had no right to invade Iraq without the sanction of U.N. It did not heed the UN's advise, went into war to ravage a sovereign nation on a false pretext. Further, it could not bring order to the country during its occupation, greatly vitiated the civil life in that country. It also killed numerous American soldiers for such a dubious cause, which seems
to be more economics than reformation of the Iraqi society. The list is perhaps endless.

So in as much as you try to find very silly objections and reasons to oppose the Fahrenheit movie, I think many movie goers liked it because most of the facts were never known to the common public and to that extent it must be appreciated as a bold movie. As I said in the beginning, I am not a citizen of America, so I do not want you to read it from the American point of view.


 
I have seen the movie three times.  Did you ever just WATCH the movie, in particular the second half as a curious observer and not to just Challenge those against the war in Iraq?
 
Question, Had George W. not taken us to war in Iraq would we be just as safe?  Of course the answer is YES, therefore, the 17,000 innocent Iraqi citizens death was unnecessary, the 900 American Soldiers death was unnecessary, the 400 billion cost to American taxpayers was unnecessary, AlQaeda being given a recruiting call was another mistake for going to Iraq.
 
Bottom line, George W. is incompetent to be President.

[The figure of 17,000 innocent Iraqi civilian deaths is nonsense.]


Bush should've done what President David Palmer did (24) when he found out, while he was engaged in a nationally televised debate with Senator Keeler.  Upon receiving information of national security, Palmer calmly excused himself, apologised to Keeler and walked out of the debate.

PALMER FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!

[The writer is discussing an episode of the Fox TV series "24 Online."]


It was with interest that I read your review of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 as posted through the Independence Institute.  As a native of Colorado, having lived both here and in Michigan I have been exposed to Moore both early - Roger & Me - and often - with Columbine hitting so close to home.  I must say that I am not an ardent fan of Moore any more than I am a reader of the National Review.  What I do find compelling, however, is the way in which you have claimed to "debunk" the movie and unEarthed its many "falsehoods" by simply playing the other side of Moore and complaining about his "deceitful" efforts.  I thought it was especially cute when you cite Webster's in defining the term "deceit" - I wish you and others would apply this same analysis to the media coverage of the War since it started; the controlled and manipulated news that has made it to our frontpages and television sets.

To begin with, it's clear to any rational adult that what Moore is presenting is his slanted and intentionally biased view of both the war in Iraq and the Bush Administration.  Clearly his intent is to illustrate a point that has NOT been carried by the major media outlets, such as the facts that unlike the Saudi Kingdom, Iraq was in fact a very secular and Westernized nation and that - KNOWN evidence of torture aside - was inept militarily and perceived to be harmless by the rest of the International community.  Don't you think it's possible that after a decade and a half of being inundated with stories of how brutal "MadMan Saddam Hussein" (as Bush I referred to him ad nauseum) was as ruler, people did not need that
representation by Moore?!  Isn't it also possible that people who have been aware of geo-political events for a few decades now are also aware of the friendly ties between our government and that of Iraq in the past.  You - among others - seem to have reacted to F 9/11 as if it were raising issues for the first time - it is not.  It's simply representing a view in a biased way, much like the major media has, with the same vague and general nuances.

By and large, the critiques of this film are tedious at best (e.g. the time-line of the Major Networks calling Gore the winner in Florida and then recanting or "inaccuracies" with respect to the chronology of the news conferences highlighted in the film) and hardly indict the film as a whole. What is most striking to me is the frantic fervor with which the conservative side has reacted to the movie.  From name-calling on Fox this morning ("fat Socialist pig" was the choice phrase uttered to describe Moore) to indictments of the movie not as a whole, but in parts to - finally ... the SPIN that somehow Moore has in fact helped the Bush campaign with his efforts are all quite amusing.  It is evidence that there is fear among those who dislike what Moore has said - fear that the American people aren't intelligent enough to discern his point from that of the National Review or Fox News ... or MSNBC or the Utne Reader, for crying out loud.  It is a sign to me - a well-educated and politically active Independent - that the Right side is scared of what is being told.  Not scared that the truth is being
compromised, but that the truth is being compromised by someone with a voice loud enough and angry enough to be heard over theirs.

And Dave, there are a lot of people willing to listen to Moore - and like all other information - digest and interpret for themselves what they see and hear.  But for God's sake, don't act as if you have shed some Holy light on the "deceits" of the movie and don't for a minute think that the "Independence Institute" isn't regarded in the same way that Moore is - biased, with an agenda and with a soap box.

When Bush was campaigning against Gore, it was on the precept of "restoring dignity to the White House."  Don't think that although Moore made no mention of this in HIS movie, the American people have forgotten that.  A dignified President does not lie to his people any more than he denies sexual misconduct with an intern.  A dignified White House does not
manipulate its population with fear and half-truths.  A dignified White House does not insult the American people by blatantly lying to them in the face of evidence that is increasingly - with each passing day - in direct contrast to every claim made in justifying our current war.  These are the reasons MANY of us are ashamed of George Bush - not because he's a bad
person - but because he is a liar with alterior motives so convoluted that F 9/11 barely scratches the surface.

Reading the criticisms of F 9/11 both before and after seeing the film is like watching a dog chase its tail - there is a flurry of activity and energy, but in the end, the dog is getting nowhere.  And this is exactly what Moore would want, isn't it?


A friend of mine in the US forwarded an article you're writing on the deceits in Mike Moore's latest film which I have seen. I'm English, and whilst notparticularly interested in American politics, I'm unable to completely ignore it thanks to our own Prime Ministers attitude.

I read your first four deceits before I gave up - partly from disbelief, and partly from the urge to write to you. The time and effort you've spent on trying to discredit this film comes across as a personal vendetta against Moore, rather than providing anything constructive to the debate (I read you slagged off his anti-gun film too). Is this true?

[My article includes a link to my criticism of Bowling for Columbine]

Honestly? Can you look in the mirror and deny it to yourself? What have you got against Moore?

[His mendacious hate-riotism]

In England we've several comedians of Moore's style, and whilst they might not be as good/successful, their voice is an important part of keeping political debate within wider society rather than with a few commentators.

Why do I suspect your motives? Allegations of "cheap shots" in the film, and alleged comments which aren't even part of the film, strongly indicate it's personal, rather than a desire to balance the film's bias. If you wanted to do that you'd make your own film. I think that would be a useful exercise, also you'd see conveying information objectively - and being entertaining for two hours - inevitably means compromises to get your point across. You must know that, so why the cheap shots of your own? Accusing Moore of  generalisations, and biased views (to use your examples) that no Iraqi was grateful, and all the soldiers hated being there. It's naive to think that Moore's audience will be seeing the film's topics for
the first time. Anyone (even from the UK), who's watched or read the news in recent times knows enough about the war, or the US election, and even the Patriot Act to know that Moore is showing us his own angle on it.

[Not in many of the nations where the movie is being released, including Arab countries.]

Even if there are genuine deceits in the film, there are two other comments that raised my eyebrows to your motives. Firstly, why concentrate so much effort to find them in a film by a comedian, yet in the same article lightly brush off those being fed by the Bush administration? Which is more important? Perhaps you should rethink your priorities when doing
investigative journalism? I'd like to read an unbiasedview of why we've gone to war, and if enough (or too much) is being done to counter terrorism. You could be the one man to give us that.

Secondly, you call Moore on giving "anti-American" statements. Is this American culture's biggest problem? What's wrong with acknowledging faults? How are you ever going to improve if you can't face up to your weak points? I applaud Moore for having the guts to do that, why can't you? What's your problem with him?

[I think Moore is wrong to claim that the U.S. is a uniquely stupid and harmful nation.]

Thanks for taking the time to read this.


With all due respect, how can one move beyond the petitio principii on the
page "Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11"?  The first sentence seems to
assume guilt before proving innocence:

"There are many articles which have pointed out the distortions,
falsehoods, and lies in the film Fahrenheit 9/11."

Yes, I'm sure there are. Did you consider that many more articles have not
mentioned any falsehoods? Am I then to conclude that there aren't any
errors in the film? No.  And a researcher who seeks to assess the accuracy
of any document can not start out with assuming "distortions, falsehoods,
and lies" without providing sufficient evidence up front.

One the one hand, in this slanderous style of writing, I could assume
intent and call Bush's errors "distortions, falsehoods, and lies."

On the other hand, please pay careful attention to the political
affiliations of the editors and journalists of the greater number of
periodicals who have seen "distortions, falsehoods, and lies." They read
like the litany of neo-con print. That's not to say that a neo-con can't
credibly identify an error, but just start with the facts.

I was looking for errors in the film, but I don't see anything here on this
page that would help me do that. Sorry, just too partisan.

I mean come on, the first thing I read was a misconstrued ad hominem attack
on Moore.

"To understand the deceptions, it helps to understand Moore's ideological
position. So let us start with Moore's belief that the September 11 attacks
on the United States were insignificant."

This statement has twisted and marred the truth beyond all recognition. I
stopped there. I have to laugh because critical terrorism scholarship has
been using that lightning statistic for years, its quite true, and Moore
was referring to the obvious impossibility of being attacked as frequently
as Homeland Security suggests.  It's fear-mongering.  Moore was not calling
9/11 trivial, he was calling the constant threats trivial.  Anyone can see
that those are two different things.

What we should really fear is the increasing death and potential "blowback"
that current U.S. foreign policy just might engender.  9/11 was on attack
on foreign policy, not one on "freedom," which, by the way, U.S. supported
client states rarely afford - to wit - Fahr. 9/11 is now banned in Kuwaiti.


I'm sorry, I don't know much about you.  I received a copy of "59 Deceits..." from my right-wing father-in-law who claims you are not a Bush supporter.   Regardless of your political leanings, it is clear from your website alone (which, again I apologize, I haven't studied) that you are getting a lot of play from this issue.  I only point that out because besides supporting the Republicans it's the only logical explanation that occurs to me as to why you would put together such a grand piece of distortion as this article.
 
What I think ironic and amusing is that you do exactly what you accuse Michael Moore of doing: distort and skew the facts to create the appearance of a much greater transgression than simply having a point of view.  Your title, "59 Deceits" would (intentionally, I believe) lead the reader to believe that Moore's film is chock full of lies -- that is, outright falsehoods deliberately presented as fact even though the filmmaker knew them to be false.  In fact, there are almost no instances in your article of Moore knowingly making outright misstatements of fact.  Where he does present "falsehoods" (such as how many Congressmen have children serving in the military), it seems more like a mistake or omission, albeit one in his favor.  What you list in your article are the instances where Moore presents something as true when in actuality an objective person would probably view it otherwise.  Probably.  But Moore isn't responsible for how other people would see things, and he certainly makes no secret of his prejudices.  It is also widely known (though maybe not among the non-reading public) that Moore has been accused of using tricks of editing and the like in every movie he's made.  So giving the impression one thing is going on whereas in fact something else entirely is happening is, indeed, an intentional deception.  But it is not a lie.  And in those instances where he does use the camera to deceive it is in service of making a point he believes to be absolutely true (such as the Bush Administration wanting people to believe there were ties to Al Quaeda within the Hussein regime and making deceptive statements to that end).  So what you have demonstrated with your article is that Moore, a known extremist, will go to extreme lengths -- short of lying outright -- to make his point.  Big revelation.  Congratulations.
 
What would seem to me moronic if, in fact, you have no agenda other than an independent citizen's search for the truth (as you seem to claim), is your implied contention that Moore somehow has a responsibility to present a fair and balanced (to borrow a phrase) picture of the President Bush.  Moreover, it is outright disingenuous to accuse Moore of practicing "deception" when he fails to present all sides of the argument, takes a cheap shot, makes a comment like "...perhaps he should have read the security briefing...,"  or uses any of his propagandist's tricks to make his point.  Anyone who has the slightest familiarity with Michael Moore knows his agenda.  It's not as if he's trying to hide it (like some people).   Of course he is going to present an extremely biased, slanted, yes, distorted view of the facts to make his point.  He's been doing that his entire career.  He's also been extremely to the left his entire career.  He's also been hyperbolic his entire career.  To suggest he is practicing deception is like accusing a professional boxer of practicing violence: "But your honor, he made it look like he was going to hit me with his right hand when he really intended to hit me with his left all along.  This man can not be trusted!!!"   Have you actually ever spoken to someone who came away from Fahrenheit 9/11 believing that Michael Moore had some special knowledge of whether or not President Bush read his security briefings?
 
Finally, you say that even if the Bush Administration did mislead the country (actually, you don't concede that, you just say that maybe Bush "lied" about a few things.  Interestingly you don't apply the same standard of "deception" to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, etc., as you to to Moore....hmmm), "two wrongs don't make a right."   C'mon.  You can't be serious.  I find Rush Limbaugh and his kind absolutely reprehensible, and I certainly understand lumping Moore into the same category, but it doesn't make what they do "wrong" per se.  They are cheap entertainment, and they debase the culture and cheapen the public debate and all that, but to even suggest their sins are somehow comparable to that of a government that would mislead its citizens into war is, frankly, disgusting.  Now, I take it you don't believe the country was misled into war and if you are correct, fine, Moore's obviously biased mischaracterization of the facts does the American public a disservice.  But if the Bush Administration did mislead the country about the actual threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his complicity in 9/11 and his connection to Al Quaeda, it is not only a breach of the public trust on a massive scale, it puts the blood of thousands of innocent lives, including what surely will end up being more Americans killed than in the 9/11 attacks, squarely on the hands of George W. Bush. 
 
Moore obviously believes to his core that he is essentially correct in his characterization of the Bush Administration's march to war and would tell you that the end justify the means.   He would rightly believe that if you somehow were convinced that his intention was to show you all sides of the issues then there's not much hope for you anyway.  Moore isn't on your or my payroll.  Bush is.  He needs to be held to a somewhat higher standard, I think, particularly where it involves people dying.
 
Get over yourself mate.
 
You piece on Farhenheit 911 has the same number of lies and inaccuracies as the movie itself.
 
The only diffeence is, you are not going to make $100m and influence millions of people !!.

I read some of the information in your website at
http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
and your/Edward Koch's comments about Michael Moore's comment on: "It
is three times more likely that you will be struck by lightning than
die from an act of terror."

To which you responded:
"By the way, I don't disagree with the point that it is reasonable to
consider the number of deaths from any particular problem, including
terrorism, in assessing how serious the problem is. Moore's point,
however, was willfully oblivious to the fact that al Qaeda did not
intend 9/11 to be the last word; the organization was working on
additional attacks, and if the organization obtained the right
weapons, millions of people might be killed. More fundamentally, even
if Moore's argument in London is conceded to be legitimate, it
contradicts Fahrenheit 9/11's presentation of Moore as intensely
concerned about the September 11 attacks."

The thing is, you aren't wrong... but I still don't agree with your conclusion.

I live in Israel and practically every person I know (including
myself) is 1 or maybe two degrees away from a victim of a terror
attack. The street I lived in had two bus explosions (busy street in
the center of Tel Aviv) a coffee shop I used to visit exploded with a
friends girlfriend in there (working as the barmaid). So its pretty
tough with terror around here. Just to make my stands clear I am still
very much left wing and think we have nothing to do in the west bank
or Gaza but I did serve in the armed forces (there is a draft so it
wasn't my choice, but I didn't weasel out either).

Anyway while Israel is the only true democracy in the middle east
civil liberties aren't as important as they are in the states. The
right for privacy isn't protected by law, there is no freedom of
information act, there is free press and the society is very much
inspired by US culture/values but there are "compromises".
When the situation started deteriorating 10 years ago we started
loosing our civil liberties inch by inch. Today you can't walk into
any public place without some asshole opening your bag and going
through your stuff and we still aren't "safe".
Terror WON!

The thing is, I always look at terror as just that: terror. Its the
intimidation that they seek.
So yes terror is a danger, but if we let it control our lives then we
lost something that at least to me is far more important: true
freedom. The Israel of my childhood was a really good place to live in
(maybe because I was a kid), there were wars but people walked around
and felt safe, free and on the right side. Today this isn't the case.

Now I know things aren't comparable but US citizens are lucky in a
way, the US has peaceful borders and quite a bit of firepower. This
isn't the case here, the army/CIA/FBI etc... should all be very alert,
but I think things like the Patriot act throw out the values that I
admire the most about your country.


  Re: your deceits #58 and #59.  Isn't that the problem with America today?  If you don't agree with President Bush's policies (including his useless Iraq war); you're un-Patriotic, hate America, hate the Military, glad 9/11 happened....bla....bla...bla... I say thank goodness for people like The Dixie Chicks, Sean Penn, and Micheal Moore standing up to this BS.
 
  As for the entire "F9/11" film, I can't go over every point; but there is one issue.  This whole...."Iraq had to be invaded because it was being ruled by a brutal dictator."  Based on that logic, I now expect the US to invade Cuba, North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe....etc....etc....etc....

[If you accept aid from a terrorist organization, then you're no patriot. I'm glad to see that the writer agrees with me that President Kennedy was justified in supporting an invasion of Cuba, and President Truman justified in supporting an invasion of North Korea.]


Methinks you do protest too much. What a Herculean effort of 'research' to debunk a film that one tabloid Talkback host who holds sway over the Moral Majority of Melbourne [Australia]  has dismissed as 'a tissue of emotional lies, which I have no intention of seeing!" There's real journalistic integrity for you.
Now here's a real challenge for you. How about a detailed 'expose' of the brilliant French doco., The World According to Bush and a doco, Control Room ( which showed to an overflowing house at last night's Melbourne International Film Festival.) It takes the viewer into the nerve centre of the Al Jazeera' reporting of the Iraq war. You will counter this by affirming that all three films are misguided, prejudiced, created by tools of Al Qada, terrorists hell bent on destroying the mighty and valiant US of America and its Coaltion of the Killing (the latter of which, to many Australians' shame, we have been an unholy part - thanks to our parvenu PM, aka Man of Tin and acknowledged Deputy Sheriff of George DER-bya Bush.)
Not even the most Machiavellian and manipulative film maker could manufacture a President so lacking any skerrick of grey matter. The man's gormlessness is positively terrifying. Which makes the contrast with the former incumbent all the more ironic and tragic. Recently interviewed by a brilliant and incisive journalist on our national television, - and unlike Howard, no sycophant to visiting celebrities - Clinton was described as a man with a prodigious intelligence. Yeah. A pity he sometimes thought through his dick instead of his hippocampus, but given the destructive and amoral creeps currently running the White House, Bill's sexual adventures fade into insignificance, of importance only to his long-suffering family. Unfortunately, now the entire world is paying for Clinton's excess libido.
I look forward to your coming reviews of the docos under scrutiny.


You say that two wrongs don't make a right, and that maybe true, but when the government uses deceit to win support for its own agenda's, why not reverse it and do the same thing -> deceive people and change their opinions and views against Bush? Isn't that then what Moore is doing? And if so, is that wrong? Many would say that Bush has done exactly that.


[One writer began with a stupid question, but then posed a provocative existential question.]

 

have you seen the movie..do you know who you are, we now know who you are and you are nothing. We will never watch you again nor read your BS! have a nice life on bush's ranch when we send his sorry ass back to texas.

 


your a moron

Like the subject title says, your a moron.  Your a tool for the repug mahchine

 


u make me sick


Firstly I'll state my own bias. I am an Australian citizen that is anti "War on Terror" (At least, in the method it was carried out) and pro-moore.
However I am glad that you have looked at and pointed out the errors within F.9/11.
I think the general gist of the film remains intact, and I actually agree with the quotation of Saddam's at the end, but I love balance.
I personally believe the greatest cause of problems, in the world in general, is the idea of Us and Them.
 
We have the Axis of evil vs Coalliton of the Willing. Bush Vs Gore (now kerry) Democrates Vs ReEpublican. For Moore or against. In Oz it's the same way. Liberal (Right wing) Vs Labour (Left Wing). It's phenonomal that we can't have a true democracy where people work together, not at each others throat to win political points and money. Saddam was no saint, but name a single country with blood on it's hands?
 
Do I support the war? No. Do I support Bush unquestionably. No. Moore, sadly, no. He should have made a (as close as possible) unbiased piece. It would have hit home with 1000 fold more strength.
 
However, I do believe the average joe (Oz as well as USA) will not read reviews such as yours. It's sad, but something on a movie will hit home, something to read wont.

Unfortunately I feel that your critique of Fahrenheit 9/11 is potentially as dangerous as the film itself. In a perfect world a person would watch the movie,  read your account (and those of others) of the movie, critically analyze it, research the authors, research the material, etc., but I find that Mr. Moore's film will only strengthen the partisanism of the left and your article (and those like it) those of the right. I consider myself to be a-partisan, by my definition this is not a fence sitter, but someone capable of seeing both sides without bias. This is extremely difficult to do (I can't do it, it's simply not possible to be a blank slate) and I feel that you have made a sincere effort to break down the movie factually; however, while reading your critique I found that you used just as much subjective reasoning as he did. Calling Mr. Moore a supporter of Iraq and detractor of American soldiers based on the fact that he is anti-war/anti-killing Iraqi civilians is as thin as many of the claims made by Mr. Moore (see how I skewed your point and you could in turn re-tool it and skew it back the other way). I don't think I need to cite any more specific examples and even if I were to do that I would fall into the same cicular trap that you have. Many of the issues in Mr. Moore's film are subject to interpretation, there is no doubt that the film aims to help you come to the conclusion that Bush is a dumb/ evil individual. Looking closely I can see that you've conceded a few points to Mr. Moore, but he used this same tactic by conceding a few points to the Republicans by dangling a few problems with democrats here and there. I believe that you are both trying to relate the truth "as you know/perceive it", but I think it's time for Americans who aren't on the inside to fess up to the fact that they really have no way of knowing what goes on at the top. We can only rely on a primarily liberal media, the same media that makes and breaks candidates and supports them monetarily, even if indirectly. As long as we have America's elite running all facets of upper eschalon government I think it's safe to assume that not everything politicians do is in the best interest of the middle/lower class that make up a majority of this country. This is not an issue of which party is right and which is wrong, it's an issue of misinformation, disinformation, cover-ups, lies, conspiracies, conspiracy theories (which can be both information and disinformation...who really knows), and the idea that at this point most Americans on the right will trust your judgement of the events more than the government because you are a perceived outsider who would never lie to them and Americans on the left: ditto for Mr. Moore. It's a sad day when we don't trust our politcal figures and need outsiders to "tell the story" for us. Shouldn't it be more transparent? Until I see hard evidence and not newpaper clippings or interviews with "experts" who argue semantics, I will file all such information as "needs validation".


Man, are you a Liar. If you were of any significance, someone could go through your website point by point and point out the lies. But you ain't worth the time.


very discerning.  it would all be simpler if senator mccain were nominated.  then either way i wouldnt wince with embarassment for my country every time the president gave a speech. maybe if bush jr were able to complete sentences with regularity he would not be the target of so much derision. i for one am pleased that politicians arent the only deceitful propogandists involved in this years elections. 


You must have too much time on your hands if you can afford wasting it writing rubbish of the sort found on the web page you call the report on "Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11".  You bring so many facts to the table, it’s scary.

 

You obviously know a lot about deceit, as that is all your country’s administration feeds you.  At least some Americans like Moore, and hopefully others once they have seen the movie, show that they have brains that they are willing to use instead of wondering through the American dream totally oblivious of what goes on elsewhere on the planet.

 

The indoctrinated ‘American Patriot’ is such a pathetic creature.  In spite and because of the ‘American Patriot’, the US ‘Empire’ is on shaky legs and will fall.  Don’t fool yourself, history shows that they all do soon or later just as history also shows that no war has ever proven useful.  You obviously don’t read or know anything about history so it will come as a surprise to you just as it was a surprise to many other fools to see the twin towers coming down.

 

Keep rockin and rapin, it’s what you do best!

 

From you friend north of the border,


[Answers interpolated]

I just don't know how poor little George Bush would survive without the help of Gullible guys like you. I am sad for you Dave. I voted for the clown and now wish I could take my vote back. If you want take 200 lies in Fahrenheit 9/11, that still doesn't make Bush honest. Better yet just find the answers to these questions and try to tell any of us that Bush deserves to be President.

1. Was he or his father connected to The Carlyle Group before 9/11? [His father was, as I stated in my article]
2. Was he or his father ever in meetings with the Bin Laden family prior or during 9/11? [Perhaps, although I haven't seen evidence of such a meeting.]
3. Is he and our Intelligence people putting puppet Governments all over the world?  [No. They've liberated 50 million people in 2 countries from hideous tyranny.]
4. Are we as citizens allowed answers to specific questions regarding his behavior past or present? [Yes]
5. Did he serve his country in Military service? [Yes]
6. Does he care more about money and power or the American people? [I think the latter.]
7. How many American jobs have been shipped overseas? [Go ask an economist.]
I could give you a thousand more questions just like these but my break is over and I must work.
To help if you will allow me. There was a man named Smedley Butler a Hero in WWI. Do a google search, read about perhaps the last great man from the top rung and you will know what many Americans are looking for in their President. Kerry probably is not it but I assure you he is closer to Smedley than Bush.

[Smedley Butler was an early 20th century American general who participated in American military actions in Central America, and later denounced them as having been undertaken for corporate interests. No foreign opponent that Butler ever defeated was as thoroughly vicious and evil as were the Saddam and Taliban regimes.]

Good luck trying to justify Georges behavior or for that matter his fathers. With any luck you like me will use your gut instead of your head to hear the answers.

[In a democracy, I think it's better that people try to think logically, rather than making decisions based on emotion that hasn't been mediated careful thought.]


Leave it to a scared Conservative to disprove Moore's partial truths with
his own partial truths.  I find your site on the 59 deceits of Fahrenheit
9/11 equally as misleading as the movie itself.  You have some great
citations.  I especially like that you drew a great deal of your facts from
OPINION articles.  Nice touch.


You point out simple inconsistancies and things irrelevant to the point in
an attempt to completely discredit and divert from the point that George
Bush is not the upstanding president that he wishes we all would think he
is.

You accuse Moore of singly portraying the Iraqi's as only victims and the US
soldiers as either dissillusioned or delusional, when in fact he was only
relaying to people that circumstances like this exist when they should not.

Your report is a disgrace to free speech, and it embarasses me to say that I
read it. Micheal Moore simply is an advocate for positive change, and I
fully realize that he misses points and does not go on to fully explain some
sections of his movies. But for a baby to walk, they have to walk under
their own power don't they? Moore isn't about to carry te American people to
awareness, they must come to it on their own, and they are.

The fact of the matter is, things need to change, and arrogance and
"pseudo-intellectuality" needs to stop. Moore has displayed himself to have
no "evil" motivations, and has done good things for his country, you offend
me in your attack upon him


Moore was right when he said that Americans are “possibly the dumbest people on the planet." At least a little less than 50% of them; those who voted for dubya. And when you add in the idiots who went for nader, that number grows to more than 50%. Congratulations! You've been counted.


I am a long time conservative and Republican.  Your comments about Fahrenheit 911 prompted me to see the film.
I continue to be a conservative and Republican.  I am now committed to removing Bush and your WMD "Words of Mass Deception"
The time has come for traditional Republicans and conservatives to regain control of our own party and stand behind things we can be proud of.

I watched a screening of Fahrenheit 9/11 last Friday in an inner-city Melbourne theatre that was filled to capacity.  I had to book to get a ticket and many of the earlier session were sold-out.

After viewing it I searched for responses to it on the WWW (as I did when I saw Bowling for Columbine).  I, of course, found your site and read your "Fifty-nine Deceits".  I like your articles --  including "Fifty-nine Deceits" and reading list.  If I were forced to fit my beliefs to that overused abstraction of the left-right spectrum I would say I fall mainly about the center with a bias towards freedom (in the Misesian and Hayekian sense) on many issues.  Incidentally, as an observer of US politics I am impressed with the extent to which the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" feature in American political and economic discourse.  The political universe appears to have been artificially simplified into two positions, viz. Liberal and Conservative and to two parties that represent these position, Democrats and Republicans, respectively.  In Australia, the two dominant parties are Labor and Liberal but neither party has (artificially) reduced their political and economic philosophies to a single (meaningless) word and there a multiplicity of minor parties (many with
members in state and federal parliament).

Michael Moore is a propagandist and entertainer.  Moore -- as you correctly demonstrate -- does omit details that do not suit him and he plays many editorial tricks.  I wouldn't go so far as to  call him a liar though.  Moore's methods are not alien to Australian or North American mass media.  Political advertising in Australia and the USA employs the same methods, viz. omitting details that don't serve the position being advocated and creative editing.  Product marketing and corporate public relations are similar in their methods.  The "Diet Coke" campaign currently on Australian television suggests that I will be more sexually attractive if I drink "Diet Coke".  By the criteria you use to assess Fahrenheit 9/11, the Coca-Cola corporation is deceiving me.  Similarly, when the Labor Party criticized the Liberal Party for introducing a broad-based consumption tax they failed to mention that they too desired to introduce a similar tax.

For these reasons I find your critique sound but misplaced.  Opinions are altered, products are sold, reputations are restored and values are installed through the media by the use of propaganda.  The basic techniques of propaganda are simplification, emotion and the direction of attention.  Certainly, Moore uses these methods but so does everyone else that has a message to disseminate via the mass media.  I consider myself educated (I have a BA in Criminology and Philosophy and post-graduate study in Information Systems) and I prefer to be persuaded with fact and valid argumentation.  I imagine that is your preferred form of being persuaded.  Any other method of attempting to influence my beliefs I deem manipulative.  However, I discovered many years ago, much to my disappointment, that fact and argument are not sufficient to persuade everyone _en masse_.  Certainly, with individualised attention you could persuade someone -- irrespective of level of education and intelligence -- using fact and logic (so long as their core
values are not in conflict with the belief you are attempting to get the person to accept).  Mass communication requires a non-dialogical, non-Socratic method that is broadly accessible and largely emotive.  I think you know this, at least intuitively.

I recall that during the first Gulf War, George Bush Sr. told the world that US and coalition forces are entering Kuwait to restore freedom to the Kuwaiti people.  Clearly, this was a bold-face lie, more egregious that Moore's many deceits.  Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the Middle-East would have known that Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were (and the last two still) are oppressive, corrupt, murderous regimes.  It appears that whilst most of the world laughed when Bush Sr told the world that freedom will be returned to Kuwait much of the US public imbibed this lie.  Similarly, Bush Jr attributed the 9/11 attacks on envious Islamic fanatics that don't like the American way of life.  Certainly, those Muslims that would like to see the world's nations governed according to Shariah law will view all of the western liberal democracies (including Australia) as evil and sinful and perhaps the relative affluence of thewestern democracies will inspire envy.  However, these are secondary motives.  The primary motive of the attack has been
communicated in  many of Bin Laden's broadcasts and open letters (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1585636.stm).  As you know, Bin Laden and his ilk want (a) US military forces and US commercial
interests out of Saudi Arabia; (b) the cessation of USA military, commercial and diplomatic support of Israel and (c) the USA government (and its supporters) to keep out of and not involve themselves in Islamic regimes.  These details are conveniently overlooked by the Bush administration in its public communications because they do not suit its cause, viz. to keep the House of Saud in place and thereby assure the free-flow of oil from the country and to protect the territory of Israel and thereby maintain the favour of the Jewish-American lobby.  (Incidentally, I too would like for crude oil to continue being exported out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait at a low price since I don't want a repeat of the '73 OPEC oil crisis and I am of the view that Palestine belongs to the Jewish diaspora and that all of the land conquered by the Ottoman's should be returned to its rightful owners.)

  My point in the preceding paragraph is that propaganda -- as per Michael Moore -- is the standard form of mass communication, it is native to the post-industrial society.  Why can Moore not use the methods of mass communication employed by his government?

I, like many Australians, feel warmly towards America and its people.  The USA contributes much to Australia culturally and I am appreciative.  However, I am of the view that Bush Jr administration has been bad for America.  I am not convinced that the intelligence that could have averted the disaster of September 11 was properly handled and I am not convinced that the invasion/liberation of Iraq was a just cause.  These are the salient points raised by Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11.  These matters are moot, I understand, but I did not see any honest debate on these points (and the  broader international relations context in which they sit) on the US media.

It appears that much of the rage that Moore inspires is due to him skillfully using the propaganda techniques often employed by government, PR firms and advertisers to deliver a dissenting view.  Implicit in Randy Barnett's criticism of Fahrenheit 9/11 is that skillful propaganda construction and delivery is the special right of government and business.

I'll leave you with a quote from John Doe -- the serial murderer character played chillingly by Kevin Spacey on the film "Se7en" -- on his use of shock to get the public's attention:

    Wanting people to pay attention, you can't just tap them on the shoulder.  You have to hit them in the head with a sledgehammer. Then, you have their strict attention.


Really, your website is a thinly veiled cover for powers that don't want the truth to come out. While you can quibble on the ten minutes or so in which the 2000 elections were called, your point is rather irrelevant in
light of the obvious rigging of that election. Moore's point is true. You can't expect us to take a minion of NRO as a serious or "independent" critic can you?


I wonder what the point of your anti moore page is. Clearly it can't be very serious when you constalty use words like "lies" etc. If you wish to convince people, produce facts - don't impose your opinion all the time.
That's just what you accuse more of doing.


My friend is reading your stuff and is having a blast using it to trash a great movie called Fahrenheit 9/11. Now I want to join in the fanfare but I can't determine if you're a credible source to even consider anything you say. My friend feels that because you're a democrat and voted for Nader in 2000 that you must be credible to say that Michael Moore makes up facts for his movie. I've seen Fahrenheit 9/11 twice and would see it again. In addition to that, I know Michael Moore to be a great journalist and a great journalist is always one to be hated. I am an aspiring journalist who already has a degree in journalism and has even wrote opinion pieces.
 
What kind of credentials do you have for digging up unbiased facts?
 
Don't get stuck on the 'unbiased' part. Just tell me what credibility you have.
 

[Use your journalism skills to look at my website, and make up your own mind.]


I have just been to see the film by Michael Moore, and have decided to read your side of the story as recommended by the Sydney Morning Herald sunday edition. Although you have presented a number of clarifications to the film, the point remains that the Iraq war was unjustified. If it was such a good idea to overthrow a regime with an appalling human rights abuse history, then why isn't regime change occuring in places like Zimbabwe or Equatorial Guniea? There was one thing which Moore failed to address in his film, which was the opposition to the war by Germany, France and Russia. Why? Because they had their own financial interests in Iraq, whether it be the billions of dollars which were still owed to them, or the oil contracts which would become void after a regime change.

It is good to be firm on oppinions and even stubborn on occasion, but to remain that way will never solve anything. There is always two sides to the coin, and maybe once Americans and other right wing westerners start realising that they aren't always right when it comes to other people's business, particularly in the middle east, then progress can be made towards ending the standoff between the west and these 'terrorists'. Left wing propaganda wont solve problems either, but rather incite more controversy. It isn't an easy situation, but I think it's time for the leaders to try a new approach, involving a new way of thinking


Moore's account and yours to be misleading.  You cite opinions as facts, and you seem to believe that when you make a good argument somehow that makes you correct. Further, you draw attention to all the minor flaws in the movie (of which there are many) without truly acknowledging its salient points. As an attorney, I can recognize lawyer-speak when I read it. Your practice of making a huge production out of certain rather inconsequential flaws or inaccuracies, and then using inflammatory words such as deceits and lies to characterize them is turly saddening. It is certainly the technique of many lawyers to use a series of truths to paint a false picture. And in my opinion you are as guilty of that as is Michael Moore. You know that many readers are only going to read the section proclaiming "lies" and "deceits" anyhow, so why should you worry that your issues with the film are nit-picking and often inconsequential. I don't like Michael Moore, and I don't like his manipulative style. But the bottom line is that some of the images he uses, even out of context, speak for themselves. You are at the disadvantage, at least in this forum, of the fact that pictures speak louder than words. Why don't you try building something of your own to stand for your candidate, rather than using manipulative legal techniques to tear down this admittedly obnoxious film? I have a feeling if the film weren't pressing on a sore spot, you wouldn't have to work this hard to paint the film in a negative light. All this from a citizen who supported Bush in the last election!!


First of all I have NOT seen the movie, nor did I read your whole article. Mentally being pro-Moore, I just had to comment that in my opinion you are mixing terms rather ... deceitfully :-) First you talk about lies: "first part (Bush, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) is so permeated with lies that most of the scenes amount to lies. " Then you defined what is actually a deception, and on points 1-2 you comment "This is the essence of the Moore technique: cleverly blending half-truths to deceive the viewer."

I agree fully on your comment Moore's technique. But I would not call that lie, but a sort of deception. Saying something that is absolutely not true, is a lie. Giving an impression that a thing is something it really is not can be called a deception, but definately not a lie.

I should see the movie and read your article through. But I think what I'll mostly find are deceptions and impressions disguised as hard facts, but that really isn't lying. It's politics.


To see you compare what you call Moore's lies with that of the President's lies is rediculous.
One is the President of the United States, who affects our lives.
The other is just some guy giving his opinion.
Much like Bill O'Rielly calls his opinion "Fair and Balanced",  Moore  refers to his movie as a documentary.
What's the difference.
 
Your article would've been better if it stuck to actual lies instead of looking for little technicallities.  But I guess that would've made it too short.
Also, I'm interested in what credible source concluded that race was not a factor in the disenfranchising of voters.  You said yourself the mainstream media portrays a "world of illusions".

I guess you believe what you want to belive !!!!
Far too many reasons to believe Moore than who is in power.
But they say ingorance in Bliss.
Oh and look at all the money that has been made.
Just hope the people of the Good old US of A get to see it, but some how I dont think they will.


I HAVE SEEN FAHRENHEIT 911. AT LEAST SOME OF YOUR CRITICISMS MAY BE VALID, BUT I STILL BELIEVE THE BASIC PREMISE IS TRUE BUSH AND CHEBEY HAVE LED US INTO AN ILLEGAL WAR AND NOW CLOSE TO A THOUSAND PRECIOUS AMERICAN LIVES HAVE BEEB LOST. ALSO, I DIDN'T SEE ANY CRITICISM FROM YOU ON THE COMMENTS BY THOSE IN THE ADMINISTRATION INCLUDING CONDELEEZA RICE SAYING IN THE SUMMER OF 2001 THAT SADAM WAS NO DANGER. THE FILM DID NOT CHANGE MY VOTE, THAT WAS MADE UP LONG AGO. ALSO. WITH TEN MINUTES LEFT TO VOTE I DOUBT 5,000 VOTERS WERE LEFT, WHAT ABOU THE ESTIMATED 19,000 OVERVOTES, ALSO, THE BUTTERFLY BALLOTS, ALSO, I HAVE HEARD OTHER COMMENTS THAN YOURSA WHERE AT LEAST HALF OF ALL SCENARIOS FAVORED GORE. ALSO, IF NADER WERE NOT IN THE RACE GORE WOULD HAVE WON IN BOTH FLORIDA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE IF NADER WERE IN THERE. PROBABLY AT LEAST HALF WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR GORE.I AM DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED IN BUSH, I VOTED FOR HIM LAST TIME, BUT NO MORE.


I think you underestimate the intelligence of the masses. 

I assure myself, anytime I watch a documentary, or worse in the case of a docudrama, that the point of view will be one sided. Usually, the public has a perception and the driving desire to create a piece, is to present a new, different or opposing view. 

To believe their is deceit here is to believe we are all ignorant except a few intellectual (or I guess it is all) right wing view points. 

What Rush Limbaugh does in an hour of his broadcast is criminal if you truly believe all his listeners believe him word for word. He makes Michael Moore look like a socially conscience saint in comparison. 

 

Rush Limbaugh is a prime example, he along with others including Howard Stern present an exaggerated viewpoint of politics and culture to make statements and entertain. Often, the entertainment portion is  the listeners who call in and demonstrate blind devotion. 

 

I trust Stern, Limbaugh and Savage listener's are smart enough to glean the general message, be inspired to follow up on issue to come to their own conclusions and be open to debate with friends rather than blindly assume because "X" said it, it must be true. 

You point out technicalities but the overall perception is not invalid. 

The very first example of the election results are a great example. 

My assumptions when I saw the movie were similar to your clarifications of the facts.

I didn't believe that FOX had an in with someone but that Michael Moore was just trying to slam them because they are right wing and often take liberties of a Rush nature more than a CNN Nature. 

The bottom line gist of that segment was the election was close most experts expected Gore to take Florida and it was a surprise that Bush took it. It is also adds to the controversy that a brother happened to be Governor of the state that had the issues that changed the outcome of the election. 

Usually in non arms length transactions it is generally accepted protocol in business to err on the side of the non arms length party to validate an action. So, the questioning the situation is quite valid. 

I also believe in a lot of conservative values but I am afraid by you knocking Michael Moore's portrayal of Bush has you operating in Blind devotion as you must question Bush, as a lot of conservatives do, as to his motivations.  

In your presentation of the "deceit" you are using the same tactics as Moore, extrapolating specific facts to prove your point. You are the pot calling the kettle black. 

You don't have to live in fear, Even Kerry, who I do not support, would not destroy America or set it back on its heels.

It is Ok for your values to be true, but question your leadership.

That is freedom and that is America. 


Just read your entire response to Mike's last movie.  I guess you don't like him so much.

To keep this simple and save you the labour of having to make a fool of yourself I will concede that Moore did in fact do a wonderful job using the Footage and vaguaries of heresay and partial statements to make his point.

Do you know how disturbing it is to an intelligent man to realize that this is all you have to attack him with.  Most of what you are saying is obvious, and you of all know it.

Why are you afraid?  Who pays your way?

Speak of the media and you become a hypocrite, tear down the opposition for its work and you lose efficacy.  You have negated yourself, you have become a mathmatical insignificance. 

Complicated situations are often very simply explained when basic fundamentals can be used, I could have roasted Bush in about 10 mins givin the information Moore collected. I wouldn't have needed to grill him using the editing table, Moore did that for fun, Bush damn well deserved it.  I wouldn't have needed to play on the shock value of blood, destruction and domestic loss, he did that because many people know nothing more than that.  You should know Kopel, the people you defend operate this way constantly.  It comes down to common sense, when a guy, any guy, the guy that sells you papers every Sunday, or the President of the U S of A tells you one thing, then tells you another 8 months later it's a lie.  When thousands die, and a small few become massively rich, well, that deserves as much Proaganda as anything else, funny thing though, nobody is laughing in the White House today are they, I wonder id GW is fishing?  Perhaps Hitting balls? 


[A couple responses are interpolated]

 

You make some good points about the movie, but you really lose me at the end.  It shouldn't be so hard to believe that Iraqis are fighting not against democracy but against invaders who laid their country to waste and are responsible for millions of them having no drinking water, electricity, and the sanctions against them for many years which killed hundreds of thousands of children.  You also make the assumption that the interim government there is truly democratic, when in fact the ruling council is mostly handpicked by American interests.  Furthermore, true democracy in Iraq would splinter the country into civil war, so it is impossible for Iraq to be under democracy.  They would vote to disband, which would be very inconvenient for oil interests.

 

Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese on his side were fighting for independence, not Stalinism and genocide. 

[Well, Ho ended up perpetrating Stalinism and genocide, and had done so after he took control in the North after beating the French.]

 

The United States never had the interests of those countries at heart.  I don't understand how someone capable of such research and debunking of the film could believe that.  It seems much too simplistic a point of view from a man who so capable of meticulous research.  Just because the soldiers in Vietnam were American does not automatically make their cause just and the people fighting against them unjust.  To believe that would be having blind faith in patriotism.

[We agree about that]

 

 Do you also believe Noam Chomsky is a charlatan?  I'm not asking that question rhetorically.

[On at least some issues, he is very unreliable on the facts.]

 

"For example, during the Vietnam War, many sincere patriots--such as George McGovern and Robert Kennedy--opposed the war. But some people actively collaborated with the totalitarian government of Ho Chi Minh, and the totalitarian armies of the Khmer Rouge and the Pathet Lao. These people tried to convince the American public that the soldiers who were killing American troops were fighting in a just cause. They were not; they were fighting for Stalinism and genocide."

 


 

On Moore Supports Terrorists...

First, the quote:

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.
 

I disagree with your interpretation here. I think Moore was making the point from the notion of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." In their own eyes, the fighters in Iraq see themselves as heroes, revolutionaries and martyrs for a cause. I am sure many Iraqis see them the same way. I am reminded of the line from the Vietnam war
movie, Apocalypse Now..."Charlie had only two ways to get home... death, or victory." I'll concede the Vietnam analogy is not perfect, but in these respects, it is: We are an occupying force, unclear on our mission, unsure of the identity of the enemy, and uncertain of support from the local population. Those who we are fighting against can use
guerrilla warfare when it suits them and can fade into the populace when they need to. They can fight us on our terms, and while they may never match our tanks and planes, they know they only need to wear down the will of the American people to support a long drawn-out campaign.

In any case, the point Moore made here was an opinion, not a fact. To label his opinion as deceit is to perhaps borrow some of the tactics you accuse Moore of relying on.

 

[We disagree here. I don't think that people who bomb churches, or who kidnap and behead aid workers can be analogized to the American minutemen, in any way. Neither the al Qaeda fighters nor the Saddam remnants nor the Islamonazis can possibly be considered "freedom fighters." They want the opposite of freedom.]


 

You are just another apologist for murdering, power hungry money crazed fools.

As a English person, I was apalled that my country joined with yours in the oil motivated, immoral and illegal invasion of Iraq.

What a tragic waste of life on all sides.

When will people like you learn that war has never solved anything. Look at WWII - we wrested control of Europe from the hands of one murdering lunatic only to give more than half of it to the equally mad murderer Jo Stalin.

Look at Vietnam, look at the Civil War etc, etc, etc

You obviously have a fine mind. What a shame you cannot use it for good.

 

[If someone thinks it was wrong to fight against the Nazis, it's not surprising that he also opposes fighting a modern regime founded on Nazi ideology, as was the Ba'ath party, founded in 1943 as a synthesis of Hitlerism and Stalinism.]


Flint factory managers don't live in Davison, they live in Grand Blanc.  I know this because I'm from Grand Blanc.  If you're a golf fan you can come to the Buick Open, which is coming soon, and ask around.  The tournament is held at Warwick Hill in Grand Blanc.  Warwick Hills is also the name of the subdivision that the golf course is in and where all of the mangers live.  I wonder how much more of your article is incorrect or misguided.  Is your article actual investigation or have you been told what to do and what to say as well? 
 
p.s.  There is a reason that a GM sponsored golf tournament is held in Warwick Hills, Grand Blanc and not in Davison or the much more challenging Flint Golf Club.  All the important people from GM live in Warwick Hills in Grand Blanc. 
 
One other thing, anyone who lives in a Flint suburb (Grand Blanc, Davison, Flushing, Swartz Creek, etc) would say that they are from Flint unless they were talking to someone from Michigan.  People around the country have heard of Flint, but Davison hasn't been in the national news too often.  Also, because the surrounding cities depend on Flint and it's factories everyone refers to Flint as their "hometown."  I hardly think that Mr. Moore was trying to be misleading. 

 

[Well, I've only met one person from Grand Blanc, and he always said he was from "Grand Blanc." I understand that people sometimes state the nearby hometown for simplicity when they're talking to people from out of state. A person from Northglenn might say he was from "Denver." In Moore's case, however, his so-called "hometown" of Flint is part of a deceptive persona.]


While I agree with most of your article, and that Michael Moore does spin the facts on one side, I do take extreme issue with your comments about Davison, MI.

I live there.

Quote:

"... is comfortable middle class, suburban, and white. Overwhelmingly white. It's where the managers and professionals live. While many of the children of Flint go on to work at the factories...the normal trajectory for the children of Davison is university."

This is misleading on your part. A lot of people work outside of Davison, like in Fenton or Grand Blanc. Some even work in Flint. Yes, that includes factories.

My subdivision I live in is racially mixed.

Not all rich white people live in Davison. You didn't get us confused with Grand Blanc by any chance? (Of course, you cite a census; it is quite possible some demographics might have changed since)

All you need to say is that Moore says he's 'from Flint' when in truth he's from Davison. To imply that what happens in Flint does not effect the surrounding area is insane.

Aside from this, I again commend you on your stand; surprisingly, you don't comment on the MPAA fight with Moore or the Disney refusal for distribution. While I was for Moore's right to opinion and free speech, I was offended at his spin of what censorship is.


Just a few points about your sweeping demolition of "911".

Rightly or wrongly by our perspective there are many residents/observors in the Middle East/Islamic world that see the insurrection in Iraq as resistance. We were quite ok with Baathist tyranny under several administrations and didnt put Iraq on the terrorist list during some of his more egregious killing campaigns. We have numerous double standards of our own and are not a spotles template of innocence and virtue. We were quite happy form the Kissinger perspective when Iraqis and Iranians were butchering each other.

Does Hezbollah commit terror? Sure, but the assessment depends also on whose ox is being gored. H is acknowledged in Lebanon for leading resistance to Israeli occupation (the famous I word -one of the great blind spots of political discourse in the US, something that can't be rationally discussed (unlike Israel where former heads of security services can question these issues with some dispassion). H also performs a very broad and deep range of social and health and welfare services as does Hamas. These groups fill a void and it is altogether too simplistic to broadbrush them (leaving aside the existance of "state-terror" and its supportrers. By the way where is the evidence of Hezb support of al-qaida. Might be true but where is the verified content? Our British allies once classified many militias in Israel as terrorists.

Boy, are you picky with many of your points! Compare this litany to the full tilt obfuscation, rationalization and pap served up by an administration that now appears to be sizing up Iran as its next bete noir. I guess muslims should feel blessed and grateful to have Condy and Bush and Rummy and Blair and Wolfowitz and a legion of other well wishers who care more about them then they do. The ingrates!

Any kudos for saddam for killing off Abu Nidal?

That Soros may or may not be in the Carlyle group hardly discards the idea that it may or may not be a Bush "playground".

What is the extensive record of "collaboration" between Al Qaida and Iraq as opposed to "links" I mean we had links with the mujahdeen in Afghanistan, with the saudis. Don't intelligence services make it their business to have links?

Dont diplomats welcome and condemn each other all the time? The Bush admin gave over $40 Million to the Taliban pre 911 to fight v drugs. Ironic that since liberation one doesnt hear of the war against drugs much more. Prices of the raw material are at or near lows and business is good for the warlords and their

You write about good and bad reasons for patriots to to support or be against the Iraq war. But the reasons posted (oh, so many of them, one was bound to work) by the administration (which this movie bites and yelps at is sort of left floating as a given. Where is the logical reasoning of that originating postulate? So clumsy and misguided an effort (who thinks it rational to send a largely Christian army to the arab heartland without and arab or muslim allies unlike Bush Sr's effort in the first gulf war?) deserves a propagandistic and polemical counterpunch.

At any rate, I must off. Thanks for the opportunity to engage.


Give me a break; I'm not going to take the time to read the lawyers you bring out, but take the Lott study for instance.  How do you (or he) know who these votes were going to go to?  The answer is, you don't.  To quote an old bromide, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig". 
    The real truth is that the right wing conservatism are a coalition between three groups: the neoconsertives, the religious right, and the cooperationists.  I do not agree with the positions of any of these groups, and I will activity work to defeat them.  Their America IS NOT my  America.

If right wing Bush supporters applied 1% of the scrutiny to the president as you do Moore, George would be in prison right now, and awaiting trial on dozens more counts.

Your diatribe is pure tripe... not unlike latest attempt to skin Joseph Wilson alive (again) with untruths. 


I read your Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911 and it was the most embarrassing attempt something to fire back I've ever seen.  Most of it is just playing symantics. Let's go over it...?
 

Bush Presidency before September 11

Deceit 5

 

The movie lauds an anti-Bush riot that took place in Washington, D.C., on the day of Bush’s inauguration. He claims that protestors "pelted Bush's limo with eggs." Actually, it was just one egg, according to the BBC. According to Moore, "No President had ever witnessed such a thing on his inauguration day. " According to CNN, Richard Nixon faced comparable protests in 1969 and 1973. According to USA Today, the anti-Bush organizers claimed that they expected 20,000 protesters to show up, whereas the anti-Nixon protest in 1973 drew 60,000 people. (USA Today, Jan. 20, 2001).

 

---- Hey did you ever think that just maybe the riots that had to do with Nixon also had something to do with Vietnam not his be elected. Dumbass. Oh yeah and way to point out he used a plural, OH NO, HE SAID EGG(s), real good flaw.

 

 

-Thursday, August 23
Briefly spoke with the press.
Visited Crawford Elementary School, fielded questions from students.

I don't know about you but I don't consider "Briefly speaking with the press" proof that he wasn't on vacation...

I mean if thats all the president did that's very sad.

 

Bush on September 11

Cheap Shot

 

Fahrenheit mocks President Bush for continuing to read the bookMy Pet Goatto a classroom of elementary school children after he was told about the September 11 attacks. Actually, as reported inThe New Yorker, the book was Reading Mastery 2, which contains an exercise called "The Pet Goat." The title of the book is not very important in itself, but the invented title ofMy Pet Goatmakes it easier to ridicule Bush.

 

--Is this a joke, one of Moore's deceits was changing the name The Pet Goat to My Pet Goat? Wow at this point you must of been really struggeling for 59.

 
 
This was just a few I felt like typing but wow your Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911 is the weakest thing ever.  I mean JESUS I know you really wanted to come off smart and witty but the whole thing is laughable.  Goodluck, keep sucking off of bush's d[  ]k. And the best part about Moore, that republican a[     ]s can't compare to is that he uses footage of documents and interviews and news reports to back himself up, not s[    ]y opinionated vacation s[  ]t. 

I don't see why you give this movie so much attention if its as incorrect as you say it is. I don't have a website to disprove anything said in The National Enquirer, I know its not true. But I do truly appreciate to other side of the coin view you made available to me, I disagree with you just as much as I disagree with Moore, oh well


A freedom and democracy is based on freeedom of speech, meaning you can say what you want to say especiallyin regards to the truth. This means let me start withpoint one.
1.Michael Moore's Film 911- is much more than a filmit enlightens millions with information both true for humor ,but majority information found from allsources. This means it is true if more than one person turns up the same facts not propaganda like backgrounds of apresident.
2. George W. Bush- here's a guy who had to have a postponed vote in Florida to doctor a election, heavenforbid he is a doctor he can't seem to focus when on CRACK. He is not our President by choice with the people , he is by the Republican.
3. Waiting for something to fly abound into a building for 2004 election for Bush, is a really bad plan but when this is all you got honey, for chances of re-election might as well plan another attack like in Iraq. AIn't justified for correct reasons to go to war when Bush has smoked WMD(Weapons of Mass Dopamine) the man
smoked his WMD. He had a model airplane of the Pentagon attacks before 911.
4.They planned the model demonstration of what to do when election time rolled around and passed to ensure their definite role of new presidency. Bush I quote said''I have found WMD and it is in Iraq, very soon we will have it and Saddam Hussein in our custody. Bush has someone who is either from hollywood representing saddam or saddam knows he has kicked our asses in Iraq. he is not afraid of Bush. THen when he found saddam , what happened the wmd ran away. It was never found in the sand, it was never found in their land, but in our land and Bush's Hand.
5.If you want to make all the money in the world by bringing it in, you never shun it wise republicans. WRONG Big mistake with celebrities in life , you piss one off more than them will not show up for a show. Linda Rondstadt comments truth on 911 in the film, and rich people with each other's lips to their asses get upset. They threw out the lady from both the show and room in hotel. SHe and others will never come back and deserve not to for being hanged out dry because people love the truth like HOLLYWOOD.
I conclude by saying a quicker response will be greatly appreciated since all publicity is good publicity.
I am co-author of executive conspiracy? and studied Iraq War both pre-emptively and intelligently and come to the conclusion. After studying for a year and half, that something other than saddam needs to be in his hands our president not just rumors and lies.Book can be found at any online bookstore.


  I agree with all that you say about this country has got to know the truth and not let propaganda or Bush Adminstration stand in their way of voting; solely based on one people's chance of people bullying people from both sides of the fence in politics. Now with Fahrenheit 911, only a little bit was warped or doctored for the humor of the film for HOLLYWOOD, to say propaganda is this film, roll on brother but remember people already will decide for themselves who is President REAL looking back on HIDDEN facts on 2000. ANd look on with this truth for 2004, except when you put fear into our lives , and throw out a Patriot Act which says you cannot do or act against the President whether it be talking or anti-war rallies justified with NO WMD when President said he already spot it in eye view or had it in his hand. OHHH Wait that was a model of WMD and Bush tinkering with it and Kerry also. Kerry saying stop to Bush and Bush saying""You'll ruin my chances for popularity and trickery on Homeland Fatherland America.'' I conclude you are Republican but as co-author of truth since you simply the judge, jury, and decide from my book why this information isn't public and why is someone not guilty for war crimes. Also hear of Linda rondstadt, she's at the Aladdin Hotel in Vegas for performance last night ,and comments on the film 911 and gets thrown out of her hotel room same night. WOULDN"T you know there is bad service in Vegas amongst all bad politicians , head up the next person's ass, spoon in mouth, spank to your son everythings fine only the poor folk will serve in the military after draft reinstatement happens if war is ever justified. check out the book executive conspiracy? by me and co-author look forward to fast feedback any publicity is good publicity so bash me honey, bash away. so you know linda rondstadt said the 911 film was the truth , and if it ain't lies nobody cares too much for when it's lives they want, and justified war or '''WHere's the model, WMD,Daddy? - spoken from Bush at the age of CURRENT status President.


Try as you may, there is no disputing the fact that George W. Bush lied to we, the American people, to get us into this Iraqi mess.
Moore's movie proved that when faced with a crisis President Bush failed miserably.
A question for you to ponder:
How come the school was not immediately evacuated when learning we were under attack? I don't want to hear about they "didn't want to alarm the children" as that is nonsense.
Why is it Bush did not just excuse himself and get on the phone with NORAD or at least call Dick Cheney and ask him what to do?
Why did Bush feel safe sitting in that class when it was a known fact exactly where he would be? Strange don't you think?
You may have found things that you think are lies in Moore's movie sir but have you researched all the lies this administration has told to us?


i am very impressed with all this research and info discrediting michael moore.  you are right, michael moore was misleading in many ways. but we both know george bush has been as misleading as michael moore if not more. can you take the time and put in the same effort in discrediting the president? after all, research on the president would be alot more important. looking forward to it


Money. That's what its all about. Why should the average believe Bush ? Are the policies really in our interest?  

You accuse Moore of using facts which suit his movie but you do the same for your argument. I guess I believe Moore and the premise of who's you Daddy, you bet there going for the money and that's the tragedy


Just gotta say that I stumbled across your site, and I am appalled. 

I have to admit that my starting point is "Anyone but Bush". 

But why should anyone put any faith into your words?

 

I am opposed to Bush, not because I am in favor of anyone else, butbecause I am opposed to Bush, and virtually everything that he has doneand stands for.  Based entirely 100% upon his ACTIONS in the last 4 yearsand beyond.  And the IMPACT that HIS actions have taken PERSONALLYupon me and my environment. 

I am a Goldwater Conservative (57 years young).  Don't believe it?  Tough. 

Exactly what is your motive? 

Why should I not believe, based upon what I read in your site, that you arenot just another one of the many RNC "think" tanks that have just go onand on with blatherings looking for a right wing, mindless "christian" to support them? 

I watched Fahrenheit 911 last night, and my reaction is "yeah!!!"

 

I don't really care if some things were taken out of context.

All is fair.

Virtually EVERYTHING that Bush has done and said were taken out of context from the very beginning.  Where is YOUR BALANCE!!!  Where is your soul? 

So, of course, you have dismissed me as an idiot, just as I have dismissed YOU as an RNC idiot, of which they have many.  I turned in MY RNC card in 1981, when I learned that Reagan was another idiot, who you admire in another thread in your site.  More RNC dribble? 

Exactly what is your motive???? 

You would have us believe that you voted Nader Green?

What proof?  Why would you do such a thing?

Why would you throw away your vote and support to result in the environmental tragedies that are now reality yet you profess to defend? 

We are to hold you in esteem? 

Obviously you are well educated, well informed, and well spoken. 

This doesn't mean that you aren't using your "advantage" for your own personal gain, now

does it? 

 

If you are so educated (I am a PhD from Cornell), so informed, and so well spoken, and so motivated, and so Green, then why don't you don't do something truly useful like getting Bush out of office???? 

Sorry.  Looks like RNC.  Sounds like RNC.  Smells like RNC.  Carry your bucks to the BANK.

And to the HELL with your country and everything else. 

Until you do something truly useful, I hold you in complete contempt. 

Anyone but Bush.  What is YOUR motive??  Why should anyone believe YOU?? 

I am sorry if I am angry.  But Bush and his supporters like you have angered me.


Why not call them lies?  You neocons are pathetic traitors to the values of America, Truth, Justice and Freedom.


YOU SIR

ARE THE DUMBEST F[  ]K I KNOW YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE WORLD OF POLITICS FITS
ON A PIN AND YOUR BELIEF THAT REPUBLICANS ARE A TRUST WORTHY BUNCH OF
S[  ]T HEADS THAT KNOW HOW TO RUN A COUNTRY COULD NOT BE FARTHER FROM THE
TRUTH.  I S[  ]T ON PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT TAKE FOR GRANTED OUR FREEDOM OF
CHOICE AND FREEDOM OF DEMOCRACY THERE IS NO ROOM IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS AND POOR OR THE REST OF THE WORLDS MIDDLE CLASS OR
POOR.

MAY YOU DIE IN A NURSING HOME POORLY FUNDED AND NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD
YOUR DRUGS BECAUSE YOU FELT THE REPUBLICANS ACTUALLY CARED ABOUT YOUR
SORRY ASS


I haven't seen Moore's film, and have read your article first.  And I have felt that Moore makes a bit too much of some of the Bush/Saudi links - I imagine there is a lot less personalstuff going on here than he suggests.

BUT... Having read your 'rebuttal' I'm now not so sure!  Were you engaged by Mr. Moore?!?  The 'deceits' are so picky and many of them so inconsequential that one can't really escape the idea that while you criticise the art of documentary film-making (ALL DOCUMENTARY FILM-MAKING) you do not criticise Moore's central theses; these emerge largely unscathed from your very long and insubstantial critique.

I don't mean to be rude, but I was genuinely surprised.  That the 'deceits' were such things as the actual time some footage of Gore celebrating was filmed or why Moore only included contributions that agreed with his thesis (!!) is truly surprising.  Because you do not question the fact that, at one stage, Gore believed he had won.  So when the footage was taken from is simply part of the documentary film-makers' art.  Ask any documentary film-maker.  They don't have a camera ready for every second of the story they choose to tell, but the film needs to retain a visual aspect.  If some footage illustrates your point, then that is what you use.  I probably still think he made too much of the Saudi flights after 9/11, but not really any thanks to your slightly bizarre critique.


I've just read your first 2 deceits in Michael Moore's last movie Fahrenheit 9/11, and let me tell you something, I had to stop reading because I couldnt stop lauhging so loud. From your first words i realized it doesnt even deserve to go on. It would be a waste of time. I have better things to do man! Your arguments are just ridiculous and so stupid. You better admit you are paid for doing this. But you are very bad doing this man. Ive could done it better than you. But, dont worry, it doesnt matter how much you kiss Bush ass, you are already lost, Moore is a Genius!! You can not do anything to revert what he has done. You can not revert the consecuences of TRUTH!! HAHA!! America is awakening!!


I read your article about the deceits in Farenheit 9/11. It was very interesting as was the film. However, as usual the public is not given much credit. Are we really at a point when we need someone to tell us what is right and wrong? Do we really need columnists and reporters to tell us when we are seeing a biased presentation of the facts?  Sadly this seems to be the trend. What is even more unfortunate is that we as Americans seem reluctant to take cointrol of our society and our government. I must say that I don't really care if the fact that the president lied is wrapped in a half truth. What I care about is that he lied. Michael Moore is not my president and he can say whatever he wants. George Bush is my president and he owes it to me and every single American to be honest and to genuinely protect the interests of America. If that is too much to expect from him or any other politician, then we are failing as citizens of this country.


The fact of the matter is that Bush has too many freinds in high places and too many loyalties to other people than the american public to ever be able to act correctly and unbias for the american people. America is rotten to the core, the phrase "For the people by the people" is no longer inn affect. Its time to kill the corporate beast.


The only brain-dead bimbo "celeb" (you should be so lucky) is you, youname-calling dolt.

What a horrid waste of time your article is.  Why don't you step back, shutup, and open your eyes.


Fahrenheit 9-11 tells the truth

And your OWN personal Opinion of Michael Moore and the statements
regarding his Patriotism show your BIAS and Biggotry


  I can not believe you would actually be allowed to publish this bit of tripe.In all your prose you could not point out once that what Michael Moore presented was in fact a "deceit".In fact,you should probably view the movie a few more times to actually see what he was trying to say.At least he was honest,unlike yourself.He will readily admit his stance,why he made the movie,etc.You on the other hand ,under the guise of truth,have presented your case and not really said anything.DO YOUR RESEARCH!


Having read the first ten deceits, I've had enough. You have chosen WHAT AMOUNTS TO TINY DETAILS

or pointless points to make your case that Moore is deceitful. You, like many others Bush supporters, aren't talking about the real

issues raised by the movie, instead you use pointless points to create fifty nine deceits.

The article is a desperate attempt to discredit those whom you disagree with, which the way 99% of Republicans handle all issues.  

The truth is this movie reveals much about Bush, his family and how much his administration has messed things up.

Our President cannot think three sentences ahead, yet he's the leader of the free world. Get Real!


Most of the so called 59 deceits are not relelvant to the truth as I am sure you are aware. The "one is lead to believe" is not a factual representation of anything but gullability. That you adress so many artistic points of film making as falsehoods and are   quick to "assume " what the viewer believes beforehand stretches your own credabilty.  

I do agree that the "documentary" is a propaganda peice by Mr. Moore. But it does give some necessary insight into the president that is quite telling.  

Thanks for your efforts. The aiding the enemy part at the end though is pretty lame.


     i appreciate your in depth analysis of michael moore's movie.   instead of george w. bush being a lying, power hungry, egotistical messianic, crusading moron.  we now know he is just slightly less so? 

     it's like a lawyer telling a jury that his client didn't murder 25 people.....he only murdered 23 people.  the client is still a murderer.  bush is still a lying, power hungry, egotistical messianic, crusading moron.


After veiwing the Michael Moore movie, I was excited to find your "fifty-nine deceits in Fahrenheit 911" web article.  As a fair person, I am as eager to hear one side of a story as I am another.  But I was disappointed as I found your article weak...VERY weak.  The "deceits", as you point them out, are lame and petty and only minutely offer any value except to those who are diehard Bush enthusiasts.  The sheep will no doubt cling to the "deceits" you have proclaimed....so kudos to you for putting up this web page giving them something to cheer at/for.


[One writer brought up some spiritual issues.]

 

god will make you burn for your sins, you right wing dork.  you are part of the problem.  bush' weak and moronic lack of leadership cannot be justified.  he has made the world a much more chaotic and dangerous place.  [f--k] him and [f--k] you.


you are pathetic...- ps...with 56 supposed reasons to not see 9-11 (or how america was sold to the greedy sods!)....GIVE US 1 REASON FOR TO VOTE REPUBLICAN LET ALONE NEO-CON LET ALONE BUSH? (GEE JUST ONE WILL DO!)

ps...i live in nyc..have not worked since 9-11 (who did 9-11 hmmmmmmmmmmm?) and AM NOT A MALE BILLIONAIRE WITH A TEXAS ACCENT...SO GIVE ME ONE REASON TO VOTE FOR THIS GUY!

AND GIVE ME ONE REASON TO BELIEVE ANY OF YOU HAVE A SOUL, HEART OR CONSCIOUS...VIVE MICHAEL MOORE!


I found myself chuckling out loud when reading your piece attempting (perhaps quite honestly) to discredit Moore's film. Chuckling I think because of the futility of your article. After all, how many people are going to bother delving into such a detailed article? Much easier to pay 6 bucks or whatever and munch on popcorn while being entertained by Moore. It reminds me of the scientists who years ago criticized the revered Canadian writer Farley Mowat for his inaccuracies and artistic license in his books about the north (and Never Cry Wolf). For some reason,  they attacked him
with a vengeance, analyzing and dissecting his writings in great detail. Problem was the public didn't give a [s---] and continued to revere Mowat and buy his books. And you know what? Farley Mowat got it about right. Some of the details may not have been entirely accurate but the gist of it was true. Well, that is how I see Moore. He might not get all the details right, but he gets the broad picture.

What I find truly unfathomable is how the American public could have been taken in by people so obviously dishonest and deceitful as Bush and Cheney and Rumsvelt. Plus the rest of the gang of course. Bush is such a juvenile dimwit that I suspect he is little more than a mouthpiece for those around him (or hidden behind the curtain). I can almost see the strings when he speaks. I do agree that there are inaccuracies in the film. But I am convinced that the full story is much, much, worse than even Moore portrays. The small mountain of evidence for that has simply been ignored by the media, but search for it and you'll find it. All I can say is, Moore has done a great service to America and the world by exposing the Bush regime. And to think that a previous US president was impeached for a mere sexual
indiscretion. It boggles the mind. Many Europeans think Americans are nuts. ( It was well known that the French president had a mistress for years)


Better get a 6 pack and sit back and relax Dave. At least until you learn to focus on the Big Picture. Once you see it, you can then assemble the details to tell the story. And it may well be a true story even if a few details are not entirely accurate.


[This writer shared some secret information.]

 

You forgot one very important point...

The fact that Saudi Arabia is nearly dry of oil and that without the Iraq oil, the world economy will grind to a standstill, while Saudi Arabia collapses into civil war.
It is ok that you omitted this fact, as it is supposed to be a top secret item.
Have a nice day.


[This one suggests that selling dollars and buying foreign currency would be a good investment strategy.]

 

    Just read your dissection of Moores 911. Labelling all these points deceits does what exactly? You think you're article brings clarification to the subject matter? No. It is clearly intended to undermine Moores credibilty..no more no less, otherwise you would have merely challenged his research teams accuracy. The very subjectivity of your tone belies the  truth behind your label; Independance Institue. You have contributed nothing more than mud in the waters of Americas tainted media. The very existance of the "Rupert Murdoch the social Engineers" Fox station should be enough to worry any historian and you have merely provided more grist for their anti-democratic mill.

    This is the point. The election was and will always be contentious. For you to dimiss the ambiguity of your democratic process is treacherous. A six month study by media entities? Wake up to yourself! That was as independant as your lame 911 commission. All of Americas private life has now become fodder for the ultra capitalists that entwine the white house. That is a clear and demonstrable fact. You however, as one of the herd who blather oft repeated memes as truth, will no doubt see me as a conspiracy theorist.

    Moores work is a red flag sport. There's so much wrong with you country right now you cannot afford whatsoever to suppress the lone effective voice speaking against the 'system'. Bush is heading that system right now. If Kerry was in I'm sure he'd have issues with him too, but for you to issue such a vociferous attack on Moore can only be viewed as a funtion of the same machine he rails against.

    I've quickly gleaned some of you other articles and it is clear I'm wasting digital ink here. You're what used to be called a jingoist but has recently been re-branded as patriotic. My country right or wrong! Is that good enough for you Dave? You might want to to try veiwing the worlds assets as being entirely human and nothing more, instead of being chained to dirt and flags as you are.

 FYI: I am an Australia stockbroker. Your country is staving of bankrupcy with every known and unknown trick in the book right now and unless some reisistance is revived in you countries lamentable protest(?) system your currency will collapse 50 % or more. Hello banana republic!

    Who do you serve?


[This one seems to have come from the guy who lives across the street from me.]

 

About your internet site...

Ok, you think that what you wrote is actually believable??? It is a attempt, but a poor one; that I will agree on.

And yes....it really does make Americans look 'stupid'. Oh, greed....greed...greed..what it makes people do...Sad.

I think what the Bush administration is doing is immoral and just disgusting.

You Sir, are in DENIAL of REALITY. And like so many Americans, you are being brain washed!

Your friendly neighbor to the north....Who, I may add, didn't take part in that LIE in Iraq. We are not as foolish.

As a suggestion, instead of putting your money in weapons of Mass Distruction, put it into educating your population and free them from their chains.

Who really won that war anyway??? Americans are still being killed and your country is in a constant state of fear....Like everyone there is in gail...HA. geee....Guess that answers it.


Your right wing neo conservative diatrade on Michael Morre's brilliant documentary is pitiful and is a perfect example of how you right wing neo cons try and distort the facts of reality. You will not succede. The american public has been wakened to the realities of the war mongering right wing and their goals of world domination. All this in the name of the almighty dollar. Hope you chaok on
yours


Reading Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 I realize your blind agenda is stuck in stone.

 

Michael Moore is an integral part of the spine that allows the USA to have the ability to be honest, strong and great.  He is a true American and the truest of patriots.  God Bless his work and his combating an almost endless stream of white house lies.  MM's work is proof there is a God that restores balance when human greed for power sends the world awry.


Whatever it takes to vote Bush out of office, those are the lies that I’ll go for. :)


I just wanted to thank you for not-so-succinctly illustrating Moore's point about Americans being the "dumbest people on the planet." The American "way of life" has become one of such intense xenophobia and paranoia that the rest of the world views your ignorance and pretentiousness with jaws agape.Your column (and others of yours I have read) illustrated it perfectly. Is a vigilante band of truckers going to stop the next terrorist (or "dirty Islamist", to paraphrase one True American) attack? How about a continual ring of soldiers around every monument in the good-old USA? "We need 3,000 Marines around Plymouth Rock!" Your feelings of insecurity and vulnerability that generated such empathy from the global community after 9/11 have now become an eye-rolling punchline. The only way to fight terror (incidentally, you don't fight terror - you fight terrorism or terrorists or possibly a terror) is to completely scrap your inane, impotent, foreign policy and to begin working with the world to towards a common goal of not killing each other. Give it a try - it's contagious


including as I recall the failure of his administration to take the Al Qaeda threat seriously
despite warnings from the outgoing Clinton administration

  

WELL, as you have CROSSED OVER THE LINE SO MANY TIMES IN YOUR CRITIQUE (you didn't stay on the film, and THUS added info with YOUR KNOWLEDGE, as opposed to the poetic license YOU SEEM TO allow MOORE TO HAVE ARTISTICALLY)..the question:

warnings from the outgoing Clinton administration were given to BUSH.......SINCE CLINTON DID NOTHING BUT WARN....what SHOULD BUSH HAVE DONE.

 

WITH THE INTELL.....ALL KNOWN, and READ...WHAT SHOULD THEY HAVE DONE?

 

You must be OUT OF YOUR COTTON PICKING MIND if you think for ONE ITTY BITTY second, WE, THE USA , AND ALL THE KINGS HORSES could have prevented ON IOTA of what was to come.

 

ISRAEL, EG, CATCHES 99% of the INCOMING ATTACKS from the FANATICS.

teh 1% IS WAY TOO MUSH, as ISRAEL IS SMALL.

 

WE CATCH 98%, and with as MANY PEOPLE AS WE HAVE, THAT Ain't bad!

 

AND ISRAEL HAS YEARS (since the 60's) OF SEEING HIJACKINGS up to HOMICIDE bombings.....

SO IF CLINTON SAID (AS OSAMA DID LAST YEAR) IN ONE YEAR, I HEAR THERE'LL BE HIJACKINGS!....what could have been done?

 

I hear the PATHETIC NEW YORKERS saying THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN WARNED.....JERKS!

When the TERROR ALERT WS RAISED to ORANGE a while back (OR WAS IT ECRU`?), they should have FILMED THE GRAND CENTRAL STATION, and PENN STATION!

 

I would EAT MY HAT if ONE PERSON LESS was on the platforms at rush hour.

3-5000 EVETY MORNING could be gotten.

 

AT LEAST THE FBI COULD SAY "WE TOLD YOU SO"........

WITH ALL THE WARNINGS IN THE WORLD,,,,nobody does anything!

WHEN AIDS CAME OUT...you know what MOST PEOPLE DID?

NOTHING!

with ONLY A 1 in TEN CHANCE.........it wasn't like 50-50 YA KNOW!

 

That was the only point that I would let pass....but when you digressed off the CINEMA-CORRECTIONS, You strayed into my territory.

 

AFTER the killings, THESE MOUTHS will complain they should-a been warned.

BUT WHEN WARNED, they take NO PRECAUTIONS.

Like the TANKS ROLLING UP ORANIENSTRASSE in BERLIN......they wouldn't TAKE ME...NOOOOOO...I delivered theior BABIES,,,I;m a DOCTOR,,,THEY LOVVVVVEEEEE ME.

 

So whether CLINTON SAID ANYTHING TO BUSH ON THE WAY IN (????WHERE DID YOU HEAR THAT?) OR THE CIA and FBI HEARD ABOUT IT.......UNTIL it happened, HOW ON EARTH could we figure ARABS TRAINING TO BE PILOTS was the key?

 

They have PATIENCE, and TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK is FINE WITH THEM.

 

YOU nor I, will EVER SEE THEM COMING....it's like the expression a "JAP PUNCH" (in a bar, while a person talks to you calmly, or appears to be leaving, they SUDDENLY TURN AND PUNCH YOUR LIGHTS OUT), coined for their abrupt attack.

 

IF YOU RIDE THE TRAINS, and see STATE TROOPERS (NY) on them, in uniform....TELL THEM IT'S GREAT TO SEE THEM,,,,and WHY ARE THEY ON THE TRAIN!

 

The answer (If they tell) will shock you.

They are currently there, when intel shows a possibility of a MANHATTAN attack.

YOU MAY THINK...TO GRAB THE BAD-GUYS?

TO WATCH FOR VIDEO EQUIPMENT OF PEOPLE filming EXITS, or ROUTES?

TO SEE IF BACKPACKS ARE TICKING?

 

NOPE!

 

FOR AFTER the BOOM< to access the best routes for SURVIVORS, and MEDICAL CREWS, or HAZ-MAT (BIO) STAFF for the least colateral.

THAT IS RIGHT...TO HAVE A FLASHLIGHT SO IF YOUR TRAIN MAKES IT< to guide you through the sewers to the surface, if the surface is BREATHABLE.

 

THAT, IS OUR CONTINGENCY, at thie point.

 

SOrry so long, but the thought that someone telling you "WHEN YOU LEAST EXPECT IT, EXPECT IT" is a WARNING...is ludicrous.


A curse on you................


Nit pick all U want.  THis film has enough truth and obvious lies and deceptions from the Administration for all of your nit pickin' to fall by the wayside.  I am fully aware of who Michael Moore is and what he stands for and as far as I am concerned this film, agit-prop or not does what the overall Megalomaniac Corporate owned media did everything possible to cover up the truth on the war(s) and to discourage the public from seeing this film.  MM has been skillfull and has beat back the Reactionary scum of the Media and others and the lines to see this film prove once again that:"you can't fool all of the people all of the time!"  What are U going to do to the latest Documentary: 9/11 Hidden in Plain view?  All of you fraudulent Think tank Reactionaries are always there to " stir the pot and create CONfusion, working for the system that allows your existence.  The point is that these NEO-CONS(NAZIs here since 1944 Operation Paperclip) have CONsolodated their power and are now posing as  the legitimate power structure.  Do a little research into that history and lets see how many falsehoods you come up with.  NO Mr. KOPEL, Michael Moore is NOT the ENEMY here and YOU sir, seem to be surrepititiously working for the Bastroid Bullshes and their ilk.


Big deal.  You spent all that time compiling 59 whatevers.  The joke's on you.  Most people who saw the movie knew not everything would be presented as linear truth, no matter what Michael Moore says.  But he's still right because he exposed the right wing's own ignorance and hypocrisy regarding their own propaganda.  Are you only angry because the right wing lost its monopoly over half truths, short stick presentations, and arguments based on presumptuous conclusions?  Why don't you put as much energy and analysis into Rush Limbaugh's daily broadcasts before you take on the cause of creative clarity with such snubbing elitism? 

Or are you one of those who believe that because he communicates so well he's just "right".  Kinda like Mike and his movies.


Idiot!


You have way too much time on your hands.  Not only in the font you pick irritating so is your meaningless diatribe.
Most of what Moore said is true and when Moore said that about terror before the show he was talking about how the idiots in the White House used 911 to for their own agenda.  The acceptance and the loss of civil liberties was a ridiculous reaction. 

Why don't you quit distorting the truth?  Moore's message was right on target.  The real terrorists are the pieces of crap residing in Washington.  That is the truth.  The other pieces of crap are the journalists who do not do their job and cry foul when Moore does. 


[This writer apparently believes that Bush was involved in planning 9/11]

 

Is this the best you can do?

 

Your sources are crap. If you haven’t noticed, America is a country with zero credibility. The majority of the stuff printed in the mainstream press from the U.S is lies. Everything Bush and his criminal cohorts claimed about Iraq has been found to be a lie. There are so many lies being told about what actually happened on 911 – most of the world has no idea what really occurred. You should acquaint your pathetic little self with the Sibel Edmonds story amongst others.

 

I won’t bother going into detail about how stupid your arguments and commentary really are. I will only point out one matter for consideration.

 

Andy Card whispered into Bush’s ear that America was under attack. Planes were hijacked, off course, changing direction and flying into buildings. Bush’s itinerary was changed about 4 days before he went to that school. It was publicly known Bush was going to be there several days before 911.

 

With all the madness going on of the morning of 911, Bush being told by Card America was under attack – why wasn’t Bush removed immediately from that building and rushed away to a destination where the public (and terrorists) didn’t know his location? How could Bush or the Secret Service who were there with him possibly have known he would have been safe at that location? Ask yourself that one simple question.

 

Terrorists trained on US military bases, Terrorists in touch and living with FBI informants prior to 911, the Visa Express program, Terrorists named by the FBI who are still alive, the collapse of WTC 7, the little hole in the pentagon wall, continuous video of the pentagon impact never released, bullshit anthrax attacks, jets not launched in time and then flying slowly, the Project for the New American Century who wanted pre-emptive attacks prior to 911 and stated they “needed a new Pearl Harbor” prior to 911.

 

Think about all of these things when you think about why Bush stayed put at the school when America was under attack and his location was well know. You might figure out who the real terrorists are.


First off, I would just like to tell you how interesting and informative your article is, and how interesting and valuable it is to know some of the provided information. 

However, I strongly believe you are in error factually on the deceit numbered 11, in which Michael Moore asserts that "the memo's title is offered as an excuse for not reading the memo." Michael Moore is no stranger to bitter sarcasm and he uses it often in his work. The title of the memo in question is "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S." In the film Moore suggests Bush did not read this briefing... this is a deceit, deceit number 10 in fact. However, you say that Moore's suggestion "perhaps he did not read it because the title was so vague" is also a deceit, because the title is clearly not vague. This is not a deceit though, as Moore immediately follows that statement with Condollezza Rice reading the title of the briefing. If he were trying to decieve anyone here he would have kept the title to himself. All that Mr. Moore is doing is being sarcastic for the direct purpose of showing that there would be no reason for Bush not to read the report. Perhaps he is contradicting himself by providing evidence against his suggestion that Bush did not read the report, but he is certainly not decieving anyone by sarcastically stating the title was vague, then providing the title for everyone to see that it was clearly not vague (and possibly provoke a laugh or two). 

If someone is looking for an object they misplaced, tells you, and you notice it is sitting in plain sight on the table in front of you both, perhaps you might say to them sarcastically, "gee, I wonder where it could be," then a few moments later hand them the object or point to the object so they may see it. This is the same sort of sarcasm as used in the film, the only difference being the goal of this sarcasm is to make the person in search feel foolish. 

I hope you understand what I am trying to express, and I would appreciate it if you appended a note to that section about how #11 is not really a fallacy or deceit, or simply removed it from the list altogether, for the sake of accuracy. Thank you.


I watched this film and about halfway through I felt similarly to you - by the end however, after seeing the injured US soldiers and their families, as well as peace protestors being shown, you cannot help but leaving with a feeling that war begets war and that the rich constantly use and abuse the lives of soldiers for profit........

I think you fail to see that this film would not recruit anyone: the rampant ant-arabic/islamic hollywood films already do a great job in that respect, not to mention the aggressive and blase US foreign policy in the area (not to mention images from Ghraib etc).

I don't agree with anything you say but thanks for a few interesting points (Soros and Carlyle is the best I had missed) -

Even if Moore had lied his ass off 10x more than you claim I think  - sometimes you have to fight fire with fire...It seems that FOX news and other media outlets have not been doing a good job of this...fuelling the
fire instead of solving problems.


I read the rebuttal to the "facts" in the movie Fahrenheit 911. and will agree that Micheal Moore's agenda is to rip apart the reasoning behind our involvement in Irak. The deceit is blatant on both sides of the issue. How can one believe that the oil in Irak is incidental to the whole mess we,ve got ourselves into. Or that we treat Saudi Arabia with undeserved respect. To say that the Bush family has no personal ties to that country is redicules. Every President that comes into office brings along baggage.History has shown that favors owed are often paid for by the American people. I wish that the right and left ideologist would quit making excuses for those they deem their heros. I find much of what Mr. Moore does distasteful. What's going on in Irak I find tragic.
 I lived through the Viet Nam years and bought into President Johnson's rhetoric. Later I rejected it with my conscience. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water when dealing with this movie. I walked into the theater to see the movie and felt a sense of freedom. I knew I could speak freely to the people in attendance and not fear a right wing attack of my patriotism. I love my country as much as anyone. But I won't make excuses for our mistakes or deceit. Thank you for reading this and please keep an open mind.


After all, it is much harder to lead people over a cliff with their eyes open! The attacks on Moore and attempts to keep people from the film, as opposed to dealing with the issues, should raise a red flag for Americans.
We patriots of a free country deserve to hear all sides of an issue before drawing our conclusions. We are not incapable of understanding, nor unable to discern fact from opinion, nor should we allow ourselves to be led
blindly! Knowledge is power, and it is time we become indignant at those who attempt to rob us of it!

The critics of Fahrenheit 9/11 seem more obsessed with attacking Michael Moore than in engaging the arguments he makes in his film. The facts that serve as the basis for Moore's critique have yet to be disputed.


[This one arrived a week after I updated the article to provide a point-by-point discussion of the "facts" presented in Moore's "war room." This writer apparently didn't notice.]

 

You need to visit M. Moore's warroom.

After seeing Fahrenheit 9/11, I came across your site and read your arguments. I wondered more about Moore's points in the movie, and decided to look online to see if he addressed certain criticisms.  He did even better than that. He disclosed his sources for just about every line in the movie.  You need to visit this link.  Your arguments vs. his arguments make you look ridiculous.  You have no point on any of your issues, except to do some absurd whining about the way he made certain things "look" when he used actual footage that if gone back to doesn't change the context one bit.

 

You are on the wrong side.  You should be on America's side, not this liar's.  You need to start thinking for yourself, and quit parroting the assinine rhetoric that the bush administration constantly spews out at us through the media.  Our country has been nothing but divided and living in fear since that no brain W took office, and I do mean took. He certainly was not elected.  And your attempted point about the recount was ridiculous, as there was no recount...it was stopped before it could get started good, because of W's contacts in high places.

 

Things have been snowballing since he took office and he's stolen our rights as American's. It's time to take back our country. It's time to ELECT a real American...Kerry, with his lifetime of experience, will make an excellent president and the sooner you admit that to yourself the easier it'll be for you.


read your story

That's all BS.

For example you are saying:


Fahrenheit shows Condoleezza Rice saying, "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11." The audience laughs derisively.
Here is what Rice really said on the CBS Early Show, Nov. 28, 2003:

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. This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a
peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they're all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful
and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East....

Moore deceptively cut the Rice quote to fool the audience into thinking she was making a particular claim, even though she was pointedly not making such a claim. And since Rice spoke in November 2003, her quote
had nothing to do with building up American fears before the March 2003 invasion, although Moore implies otherwise.


Well, words cut or not cut, the truth is that there is no proof between 9-11 and Iraq, and that's what Mrs Rice should have said. Everything else is a lie. You seem to know more than the 9-11 Comission, so why didn't you alert them?

BTW, are you aware that 15 of the 9-11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia? Then, why did we invade Iraq?


I saw the movie and read your rebuttal.

However, it is a know fact about the Bush family (Preston, Daddy and baby) ties to the Nazi Party, during WW2, the Saudi Royal family, Bin Ladin, oil and government contracts.  It is all about making money, lying, cheating, misrepresentation and deception.  The Bush family, Ron Reagan and all their Washington "buddies" are not in it for America but to pad their own pockets.

GW Bush never did ANYTHING for Texas and after Ann Richards stepped down,and Bush got in, it is the only time in TX history that a multi billion dollar debt was created.

I reside in Houston and have now seen the downward slide of this American Empire. Hell, even the Romans, Germans and British could not hold onto power forever.

Bush has destroyed everything he has touched.

Now who is the real enemy?

Michael Moore is waking-up America and God Bless him!


If the documentary is soooooooooo filled with lies, then why hasn't Michael Moore been sued? The simple answer is the fact that it is NOT filled with lies....only the bu$h administration is filled with lies...and his lies kill Americans.  Wake up America!  bu$h is commonly called the International Terrorist and he is certainly living up to it.


Wow, Moore sure has a lot in common with Bill O’Reilly! 

I eagerly await your take down of that other blowhard who millions of Americans get their “news” from every evening, free of charge.


I don't see why you give this movie so much attention if its as incorrect as you say it is. I don't have a website to disprove anything said in The National Enquirer, I know its not true. But I do truly appreciate to other side of the coin view you made available to me, I disagree with you just as much as I disagree with Moore, oh well


If just one tenth of what Mr. Moore illustrates in his movie is truth, shame on Mr. Bush.  Maybe you should highlight the truths instead of the deceits.  The title of this article, "59 Deceits..." is quite contrary to the title of your organization, "Independence Institute."  How about "59 Deceits and 59 Truths in Fahrenheit 9/11"?  That sounds much more balanced.


I have read with interest yours and Justin Raimondo's review of Michael Moore's latest film, "Farenheit 9-11". 

I have not yet seen this film (intend to see it on Sunday), but I have seen his "Bowling with Columbine" and I have read some of Moore's books and articles. 

 

Before we analyse the veracity of facts in his films or books, we need to remember that Moore is a "rebel" working within a society and system of intricate progaganda, half-truths, and long term deception.  As a writer and a documentary film producer, Moore is attempting to awaken Americans and to encourage them to seek the truth.  And as history has taught us with the downfall of many cililisations, the "truth" depends on the perception of the storyteller....we all have our own versions of what is "real" and what is "right". 

 

Over the past four years I have read countless versions of "what really happened".  Theories about the "truth" range from incredible conspiracy theories with President Bush and his 'neocons' plotting to take over the world to sinister connections with the Mossad and a new Israeli-world order promulgated by Zionists.  The danger with many of these theories is that they foster and encourage the same racial profiling that the dissidents are attempting to "expose".  An interesting historical parallel is the Nazi's rise to power in the early 30's when Hitler was perceived as a leader who would help the common German people whose economy was devastated by previous wars and the profiteering of victors.  In turbulent times of change, the versions of truth swing dangerously from extreme right to exreme left.  I admit that I do not yet know the truth, and I suspect that history will eventually show that the "truth" is somehwere between these extremes.

 

If Michael Moore is able to awaken thousands of Americans to the point where they start to seek the facts for themselves, then he will have succeeded.  The details of whether a particular film segment is presented in the right context are, I believe, irrelevant.  Most educated viewers are well aware of the need to cut and paste, to edit, and to present a story that keeps the viewer interested and most importantly, encourages the viewer to check out the facts for themselves. 


[I interpolated some answers in brackets below.]

A couple of quick questions on your article on Fahrenheit 911, as I am afraid that I am not convinced of your impartiality on the subject of anything to do with Michael Moore ( I am aware of your position on Gun Law and Bowling for Columbine, but this is not what I am interested in hearing about).

If you were to write an article listing the truths in Fahrenheit 911, how many would they number? Have you tried to count them?

[I don't know. As my main article says, the main method of F9/11 is to rearrange small snippets of truth in order to deceive. I haven't counted the snippets of truth.] 

Do you support the Bush administration?

[Sometimes.]

Do you believe it was necessary to go to war with Iraq? If so, on what grounds?

["Necessary" could be debated. I certainly think it was a good idea: To stop Saddam's active support of international terrorism and his pursuit of WMDs, and to remake the balance of power in the Middle East, by eliminating a major terrorist base. And to frighten other pro-terrorist regimes into changing their behavior--as Libya has already done. Also, to destroy an evil tyranny.]

I would be grateful for any comments you might have. I personally do not support the Busg administration, and am suspicious of America’s foreign policy, as I believe there is an inherent conflict of interests between sales of arms and perpetuation of war. On this point, I believe you have “done a Michael Moore” in your articles quotation of George Orwell’s novel 1984.

As a journalist I believe it is your responsibility to scrutinize the policy of the men who govern your country. I personally find it hard to think of any benefit the Bush administration has done to the world at large through his gung-ho attitude to world politics, particularly in ignoring the United Nations and proceeding in going to war with Iraq. Please let me know of any areas in which you believe the current government is excelling.

[Tax cuts. Afghanistan.]

Any articles you may have written that are critical of the Bush administration, I would take great interest in reading.

[Some articles criticizing Bush administration terror policy:

Air Neglect. What's wrong with trained pilots having guns? The TSA is strangling the armed pilots program.  National Review Online. July 2, 2003.

Wasted. Can’t the DEA or Congress find a better way to use the DEA’s resources? Medical marijuana raids in California. National Review Online, Nov. 26, 2001.

Don’t Press the Panic Button.The antiterrorism legislation before Congress is dangerous.  National Review Online. Sept. 21, 2001.]

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, could you tell me why you felt it necessary to write such a long article, intent on nit-picking, and seemingly ignoring the overall message of the film.

[I don't think I ignored the over-all message. I attempted to show that the over-all message was a fraud, based on collection of particular frauds.]


I'm from Sweden. I read your article about Fahrenheit 9/11, and even if I don't agree to half of your article, I'd like to point out especially one thing:

"I agree with Lee Hamilton, the Vice-Chair of the September11 Commission and a former Democratic Representative from Indiana: 'Bush made the right decision in remaining calm, in not rushing out of the classroom.'"

The above reaction is ofcourse only suitable if you already know the outcome of the attacks. Let's pretend this was the first attacks of a hundred, followed by a full scale attack?

It's a nice gesture to stay with the children in school, and calm everyone in the room, but seriously, the only correct thing to do when your intelligence service informs you, the president of the united
states, that the country is under severe attack, is of course to excuse yourself, explain that you are needed somewhere else, walk out the room and then rush to an open phone line with the defence
generals.

There's really no other option unless you already know the outcome.


There are a couple glaring ommissions I would like, if I may, to point out about your article 59 Deceits in Farenheit 9/11.  First of all, let me say that at 23 years of age, I only started following or even caring about politics after the September 11th attacks.  I'm a High School grad, with no other education.  The opinions I'm going to share with you here, I mention only because most everyone I know who's in my situation (working for the man, if you will) agrees with these things.  I don't wish to discuss whether or not Moore has lied, but rather, a couple quotes from G.W. Bush in the film.  He made two statements that shocked me. 

 

First, he said "I'm a war president.  I make decisions in the oval office regarding foreign policy. with WAR on my mind."  Well, regardless of what context it was in, this is a direct quote, and frankly, it startles all the christians I know who've seen the movie.  We don't want a war monger running our country.  We will not strengthen OUR OWN society by fighting someone else's.  If they had decided that Iraq or Afghanistan were threats to us, I wouldnt say this, but they haven't.  The people want a president who will focus on local issues.  Where's the free healthcare?

 

Secondly, while speaking at a banquet to some rich people he said "Some people call you the elite.  I call you my BASE."  Everyone I know has interpretated that to mean that those (the elite) are the one's he's working for the most.  A base is a foundation, something on which you build.  Name one blue collar worker who wants a president whose foundation is the elite.

In closing, Mr. Kopel, I think it's safe to say that with all the focus on the falsely so-called lies of Michael Moore, many politicos are just trying to draw attention from what forms the backbone of this movie, which
is the quotes from Bush, Cheney, and all the other lying liars.  No amount of arguing can discredit the things they say.  And what about that guy who said "Do you think we have time to read ALL the bills we pass"  It's a sad state.


What you are saying is that 21% of the 142 Saudis onboard were asked if they had any involvement or information on Bin Laden? What did you expect them to say? 'Sure, that Bin, he's such a kidder... in fact, I just spoke with him the other day...' Under the Patriot Act, shouldn't they have all been kept for more 'in depth' questioning? I mean if we can all be in more trouble for downlading atomic bomb details from the internet, surely they should have been kept from going anywhere? Oh, they just wanted to get home to thier families... just like Michael Moore... now you sound like a sympathizer... Another... come on man, wake up, smell the coffee...


It is with great interest that I have just read your piece on the 59 deceits in Fahrenheit. Whilst I would not go so far as to count every one of them as a deceit, I believe that you have done an important service in working out these issues. Moore is an over-stylized provocateur who is in danger of discrediting more credible critics of Bush.

 

And yet, in regard to your comments that this film will increase anti-American sentiment, and maybe even terrorist acts, I was wondering if not the opposite could also be possible.

 

Simply because Michael Moore sells himself as a true American and the movie is so popular in the USA, one could expect that it thus might also be more difficult to vilify all of the US in the Arab world. I believe that Moore's film has the power to disrupt the notion of the USA as one coherent target, an assumption which forms the basis for any terrorist attack, and many an Arab Weltanschauung.

 

In this sense, whilst Moore is engaging with questionable techniques he might actually be forcing the rest of the world to regard the US as a more nuanced entity, than simply George Bush's country. This is not because of what he says, but who he is. Due to F-911's popularity the most popular, and propagandistic, critique of Bush's policies comes from within the USA. I think that this might have a more important and longlasting impact than Moore's embarrasing editing.


wow dave,what an interesting day! first i go to see the movie and am very moved by it,moved to tears and rage and laughter like most in the audience.then i come home and resume doing research on michael moore and this movie(as i have been doing the last month).and it gets all so confusing because we all really want to believe that we are being presented the truth,whether it comes from a lefty filmmaker, or the leader of this nation.and i realize that we are NEVER going to get at the truth as long as there is a reason for those in power to withhold it.and of course we both know that this administration does play very loose with the truth.but it does disturb me to think this movie was so entertaining and moving simply because it chose to use creative editing to make its point.but as a seeker of truth i am willing to consider all the information you have provided.


I happen to share Michael Moore's views about the war in Iraq, and I believe he is sincere in those views, like the majority of people around the world.  I don't find him cynical or manipulative.  I looked at some of your list (59 deceptions is too many to read and I think you should cut them down to 10 main ones to make your case better; otherwise people will not read your piece, like they won't be able to read Christopher Hitchens' piece).  I found most of your criticisms not really deceptive at all.  I think Moore believes he is telling the truth and that what he has presented are facts to the best of his knowledge.  This film is an anti-war statement that will transcend the politics of the moment and shows who profits from war and who pays the price in all wars through history.  As an academic who has studied the middle east, married to a middle easterner, I think I am not speaking out of ignorance. I personally may not agree with everything Moore believes in the film (one can argue about Bush's motives for war), but I never was convinced Iraq was a threat to the United States, even if it had weapons of mass destruction (which I doubted).  It is true that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, but we choose to remove him; he was not threatening us.  I think if we really wanted to encourage democracy in Iraq we would be going about it in a completely different way, without war profiteering and attempts to install a government we can easily control and will not look out for its own interests.  In any case, Moore only had two hours to make a case against the war, and he did it as an artist with the same theme as his other films--the burden on the working class, and questioning the motives of those who took us into war.  He might have done better to have focused less on the Saudis and more on the people around Bush, but a film is not a book and must leave a lot out to have coherence. 

 

The Bush Administration has used propaganda brilliantly during the last four years with the help of an uncritical media, and we should be focusing on Bush's deceptions more than Moore's, but Moore is an easier target! What you said about Bush's deceptions are just a drop in the bucket.   I don't want to take on the numerous deceptions of the Bush administration, but it was obvious there were not WMD's before the war and no links to Al-Qaeda, so Bush's stated reasons for going into war were pretexts. 

 

I think we should follow the golden rule in criticism and not judge people's motives but look at their case as a whole and present out counter arguments. 

 

I understand you voted for Ralph Nader in the last election, as did I.  I see Nader's position on the war and his anti-corporate stance as close to Moore's, which could have been predicted, so I'm a little confused about why you voted for him.


I just read your piece on the deceits you found in Michael Moore's new film.   I actually worked as an intern on Bowling for Columbine, and have avidly followed Michael Moore's career.  I was disturbed by some aspects of his new film, but generally pleased.  I was very impressed with your breakdown,  though I think at times you mistake issues of tone for factual errors.  Moore's voiceover is often sarcastic and humorous.  Obviously, a lot of people wanted to fly home to relatives after 9/11.  You don't have to like his use of biting humor, but I would put that more in the opinion category.

However, the reason I decided to write you is that your piece made me incredibly sad.  I have lately read a great many critiques of Farenheit 9/11, many breaking it down into tiny disputable facts.  And it occurred to me that this is rarely if ever done with actual news events occuring in our world.  What we see on TV and hear on the radio is often the briefest sound bite.  It sometimes feels like real investigative journalism is dead.

In the end, Farenheit 9/11 is a movie.  I'm not convinced it will have much success ousting Bush or converting terrorists as you claim.  Maybe it's a piece of lying s[--]t.  Maybe not.  The sad thing is, with the current state of reporting, Moore remains one of the few individuals willing to delve into an issue past the surface layer.  If you don't like how he does it, and since you clearly have the skills and ability to do a more thorough job, I think the best course of action is to encourage fellow writers and reporters to take up the torch, present a fuller, more in depth picture of the world, so that when inaccuracies (either thrown out by a filmmaker or president) occur, the American public has the background to spot them for themselves.


Your 59 deceits article was very interesting. I wonder how long it took you to debunk Michael Moore's movie and your reason for doing so. If you are an actual truth seeker then I have a great suggestion for you. Don't worry, I didn't copyright it so you can use it free of charge. Its called 108 deceits, but it's the deceits are from the Bush administration.

There are tons of websites pointing out in-depth the "inaccuracies" of the Fahrenheit 9/11, but the authors of those same websites aren't interested in the LIES of Bush and his cronies. Go way back into the past of President Bush up until now, and you will find enough lies to fill the white house several times over.

I wonder if you even read these emails... If you do consider this a challenge. If you are all for fairness and the truth, make a website about the lies and propaganda spread by the Bush administration. I bet you won't even reach the half-way mark before the end of the century.


I appreciate your views in your article outlining the '59 deceits' of Micheal Moore's film (need I enter the title?). I have to say that the republican right is either stupid or ignorant of truth in anything that points fingers to the party... I question also your insight into the truth... did it ever strike you as odd that the voting (cards/ballots) got so f[---]ed up in a state that is run by the brother of President to Be Shrub? Did it ever once strike you as odd? Or did you sit back and say well 'it just must be a coincedence' - you can't be that dumb or blind... As for the Saudi Nationals leaving this country on 09/13... are you saying they never left the country except after the ease of flight restrictions? Who gives two shits when they actually left, I don't give a s[--]t about exact time... the fact remains they left this country WITH government protection AND assurances... sheesh, you can't be that stupid too? Can you?

And, isn't it standard law enforcement investigative practice in this country to question relatives and close friends of parties suspected of committing crimes? Especially in a murder/homicide investigation? Were the Saudi's who left questioned at all? As yourself that... and, I know you aren't that stupid... come on man, wake up and smell the coffee. You and the rest are really depressing the rest of us...


P.S. Feel free to sling your poison this way anytime... just like WMD in Iraq, I just can't seem to find my protective clothing around the house here, and the duct tape and plastic onmy house is really starting to look bad... you can't be this stupid...


You are a friggin' idiot.


you are a jackass and a tool. too bad you're not over there right now.


First before I go into my tirade, I’m neither a Republican nor a Democrat and I vote for who I think the best candidate at the time.  What I would like to know is how you can claim you’re an independent when all you really are is a Michael Moore hater!  You bashed Bowling for Columbine(I own a gun for home protection) and I’m really surprised you haven’t bashed Roger and Me.  No one reads any of your stupid columns or has seen your website of the 59 deceits of the movie (the only reason I came across your right wing opinion was when a republican friend of mine in D.C. sent me the link after I watched this powerful movie).  I think you’re just downright jealous and you only wish you could get your so-called Independent view to a 1/4 amount of the people that have seen this movie.  You pretty much pick through every scene in the movie and call it false!  I’d say you’re about as Independent as Michael Moore is Republican…you should get a job at Fox News Channel!  This movie isn’t all about Democrats/Republicans/ it’s about Bush and his motives/lies for leading us into war!  Sit back in anonymity and keep writing your bullshit that no one reads.  Oh and go ahead waste another vote on Ralph Nader who’s funded by Bush supporters Jack Ass!


If you beleive that Mr. Moore is so full of deciet then why have you not told him yourself?


I just finished reading your report over Fahrenheit 9-11 by Michael Moore.  Personally, I found your information mainly false and ridiculous.  Why support a man who believes it is ok to kill our youth so that we can "stick our nose" into a country where we don't belong?  You didn't even address the points of Michael Moore's positive points in your article.  Does is not deserve that?  There were many points that Michael Moore did not even bring up in his documentary that proves our president may not be as well suited for his position as many thought.  For instance, the report he wrote on why we should attack Iraq.  The report ended up being a lousy paste and cut job.  The information chosen to be pasted and cut were actually theories in general and not actual information.  Yet we, the powerhouse nation we think we should be, chose to go to war over this information.  Maybe it is not the president who is ignorant but the people who elected him.  I would like to thank Michael Moore for portraying what is really happening in Iraq.  Maybe if more people watch it my friends and family can come home alive.  It's about time people heard what's is really going on instead of what our government would like us to think.  Think about it Dave.  How much can we really trust what we hear that is put out by our own government officials?  Maybe Michael did twist some of what he put on.... but it's nice to know another opinion instead of only hearing a one sided story by the people who run our nation.


You wrote:  "Second, say the Moore supporters, what about the Bush lies?

Well there are lies from the Bush administration which should concern everyone. For example, the Bush administration suppressed data from its own Department of Health and Human Services which showed that the cost of the new Prescription Drug Benefit would be much larger than the administration claimed."

You have equated Bush lies with a lie from his administration.  Are you a moron?  If a policeman in Durham NC lies does that make the mayor a liar?  Get real.

Further, it is apparently true that it was a member of the D-HHS that refused to allow the truth to be told and worse he was legally able to so.  The problem here is not Bush, THE LAW IS THE PROBLEM.

I am not a Bush fan and will not vote for him in November.


 Amazing that some people worry more about the deceits in a movie than the deceits, distortions, exagerations, and misleading information we were given by this administration, which have already sent nearly nine hundred Americans to their death, made many more invalids, resulted in the death of thousands of civilians, and added billions on to an already huge deficit. Newsflash, less than half the country still thinks we should have gone to war with Iraq. Of course that means nearly half are still in a coma!


I read some of your article regarding Mr. Moore's latest film and am wondering why? I find your motivation suspicious in that you take issue with statements made in the film but not the overall information. Like, with the purging of voters. Voters were unjustly purged, thousand of them. What difference does it make that 1000 were not african american. You don't share exact numbers of how many were. Despite the fact the fact that NOBODY should have been purged based on the similarity of their name to a felon's.


Even if only half of the movie is factual...we are still a society in trouble. 


 I respect your attempt to deconstruct Mr. Moore's presentation, but it seems to me you can't see the forest for the trees. Even we "liberals" take Moore with a heaping spoonful of salt; but we don't need his voice-over narrative (and indeed, I dismiss Moore's speculations in this segment) to explain what we're seeing when the President sits in that kindergarden classroom: a man profoundly out of his depth.

You see, while "facts" are important, it is men's hearts that determine the course of events. Neither factual information, nor their own protestations, will convince me that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld et al. have my best interests at heart. I read their characters not by what they say, but by how they comport themselves.

I read Michael Moore the same way; so of course I'm aware that he's a polemicist. But do I feel the very real empathy within this flawed man? Absolutely. And that's what filmgoers are responding to.


I read your 59 deceits article.  I still don't believe I was deceived.  I applaud you on your accuracy in terms of trying to show all sides.  By doing so, you really support Moore.  Very little of his movie is inaccurate or deceitful.  If anything, it reinforced my patriotic duties and beliefs.  As a citizen of the best country that the world has ever known, I feel terrible when we perform acts that are diametrically opposed to our essential founding beliefs.  Even you have to admit that some of W's actions are suspect and must be questioned.  This is not about Republican or Democrat; rather, it is about having someone in office who looks out for the best interests of ALL citizens, not just the ones who are multi-millionaires and whose children are home, away from harm's way.  Why defend a character (Bush) who is arguably shadier than Clinton?  At least Clinton's lies about sexual experiences didn't lead a country to an unjust and unwarranted war whereby the lives of our patriotic soldiers are in jeopardy as well as the USA's integrity with the world community.  

Your diligence on this movie is admirable.  But are you choosing to be blind for the sake of partisanship?  Read your own words again and contemplate if you can really support the status quo. 


I found your article while Googling for 'Michael Moore Lies'; you were linked up from Moorewatch, I believe. I was happy to see that someone was sitting down to do a thoughtful, thorough analysis of the movie 'Fahrenheit 9/11', as I wanted to be prepared with facts for whatever I was shown on screen if I ever saw the movie.

However, I found your piece to be an unbalanced, shoddily cobbled together opinion piece, rather than the incisive fact-based evisceration i was expecting. Michael Moore is obviously known for his callous manipulation of truth and outright lies, and so one would think that exposing him would be like shooting fish in a barrel. Obviously one would be mistaken. I am not familiar with your writing, but if it is all of this atrocious standard of quality, I would suggest a backup profession.


I just re-read your take on Iraq pre-invasion, and it appears YOU are theone with the real inaccuracies...

Iraq WAS a peaceful sovereign nation prior to the illegal invasion and themany bombings un-reported by US media leading up to the real theater...

You obviously have never been to the Middle East, and your depiction of gassings, murders and "silence in the streets" reveals you to be a complete and total idiot -- the type so completely misinformed and xenophobic that you swallow wholesale the lies and "deceits" told to you by your lying government and other interested parties in the oppression of the Iraqi people.

Your whole article is now suspect, and although the National Review is a worthless periodical with a shoddy low-brow reputation among us real journalists, you should never write another word for publication again. This type of pseudo-journalism is dangerous and maligns those of us who do try to relay the truth in our writings, however editorialized they may be. You sir are worse than Jayson Blair...as a journalist, I feel you should be ashamed,very ashamed.


[Same author as the message above]

 

While it seems to me that you are not the typical conservative that tries to discredit Mr. Moore's "lies" in order to hide the greater truth, I am curious as to your motivation. (Your first argument early in your "deceits" article about how Moore doesn't present a glaring truth is flimsy and laughable.)

It appears you are not necessarily a Bush-backer, and are in fact from what I gather some sort of an NRA gun nut or militia freak (given your obsession with the outdated and unnecessary 2nd amendment), therefore your infatuation with Michael Moore intrigues me. I would imagine someone exposed to our government's lies, corruption, and systematically failing to protect its people would either outrage you or energize you in the fact that Bush's inability to recognize threats to our safety legitimizes the need for a militia. And thus you would applaud Mr. Moore's efforts.

But what I find most laughable is the way in which all of Moore's detractors have yet to recognize one simple fact. Moore is a filmmaker, not a political figure. His words and accusations are relayed via the always inaccurate and biased media of film; and any documentary bears the stamp of its creator and is never taken as an objective portrait by anyone with half a brain. More important (no pun intended), everything Moore states is 100% constitutional to boot. Just as you are free to search for tiny inaccuracies in what is ultimately a touching, poignant and spot-on film, Mr. Moore is free to shoot his celluloid mouth off as he pleases. Fortunately, Moore scores all the points, and scores them first, and your efforts to change the trusth he created are in vain. It is like the page 24 retraction of the headline accusing an innocent man of rape. Sure, the errata has been corrected, but righting public opinion is much more difficult.

But in reality, Moore most likely will not sway any conservatives away from the axis of evil that is the Bush administration, so why shed extra light on what is simply a well made film? Or is it that deep down you know his points are valid, and just, and that this country needs to collectively wake up, but the deep sleep we've been in is a lot easier to continue than actually making the effort to change for the better?


I thank you for allowing another side of a debate be heard.  I am a firm believer in acts of "devil's advocate."  Propaganda films are distasteful in my opinion but I had to see what the fuss was all about.  So I watched F9/11.  To be honest, Moore makes it difficult to defend Bush, which is the point of the film.  But I must say you do a good job however of shedding some light on overshadowed facts.  However, I believe your article is a piece of propaganda as well; it is a tool used to discredit Mr. Moore.  Like all propaganda, yours contains stretched truths.  You claim that Mr. Moore is responsible for presenting "deceits" in his film, and by all means I can see that he has.  But you are guilty as well.  To be honest, there is far too MANY to count but I'll give you a few examples.  You say that Moore changed his opinion about the tragedy of 9/11. NOT TRUE.  His comment seems contradictory but it does not explicitly say that he has no sympathy for those died and those who lost loved ones.  You stated that Moore gave a cheat shot when portrayed Bush as a sitting duck in the class room.  Mr. Kopel, when you decide to run for President, you must understand that you are the leader of the free world.  People look to you for guidance and protection.  President Bush just sat there and did nothing while he was told that "America is under attack." What is more important: reading to kids or getting to work immediately on a grave situation?  I'm not saying he should have panicked and hastily run out of the room.  He could have calmly stated to this kids that an emergency came up and that he had to leave.  He should have done that and didn't. As for the Wolfowitz comb, that was a BIG stretch.  I watched the film and thought it was just funny.  I didn't discredit the man just because he was grooming himself.  He's not dirty; if anything, he cares about how he looks and that's respectable.  Moore had no underlying meaning as you suggest in your article.  At the end of your article, you presented some shocking facts: you stated that Moore voted for NADER! But that means nothing Mr. Kopel.  Yet again, you try to discredit Mr. Moore without looking at the big picture.  Moore doesn't like Bush; therefore, he didn't vote for him.  I do agree with you on the issue of the 2000 election.  Mr. Moore makes leaps and bounds that are laughable.  I was also shocked that you stated that Mr. Moore had made careless mistakes in his film. I disagree.  He made some leaps and bounds but I believe he did his research.  How about you Mr. Kopel? I found that you are guilty of the crime yourself as presented in your article.  I can site many more examples if you so wish.  I am not saying that you are completely wrong.  I believe it to be a good thing that both sides of the story is being told.  For that, I thank you.  But I think that you are guilty of misleading "dumb" America with some of your accusations.  You are no different than Moore.  If you read this far, I thank you.

I'm reading your article exposing F911 deceits--haven't finished it yet, but its helpful and interesting so far. Quick comment on a tendency I'm perceiving from you which may be problematic in your effort. It seems you view these matters largely in terms of Republican vs. Democrat, and this tendency may taint your conclusions. Your 'deceit 18' for instance criticizes Moore for not also pointing out the Saudi influence on the Clinton administration. To me, this is besides the point. Bush can still be criticized for being too close to Prince Bandar and for putting too much interest in Saudi affairs. Maybe many in our government deserve similar criticisms but this does not absolve Bush or hold him any less accountable. See what I mean? Bush's actions/relations should stand alone. Conversely, if a future democratic president were to be accused of wrongdoing, I don't think he should justify it by pointing out a previous republican's similar actions.

Hope you get what I'm trying to say, and I look forward to finishing your article.


Having just watched the film and now having read your critique on his facts, I am compelled to respond. I have enjoyed Moore's antics since his first film; I think he's a great filmmaker, and, even when he manipulates footage to create a context that never happened in a literal sense, it's usually done creatively and sincerely. In other words, as a journalist he's very poor (though no poorer than the journalists working for all major newspapers and networks) but as a filmmaker, as an artist, he's very good- hence, my support. Even so, I was rather disappointed by his latest film. As much as I have worked hard to alert people that Bush has done some very terrible things, I found Moore's oversimplistic rendition rather unsettling. He plays the American public like a fiddle, puprosely (as you've pointed out) focusing on big bad Bush and avoiding several other factors equally responsible for the atrocities this country has committed, not the least of which is the American public itself, who has been willfully ignorant of our government's motives over the last couple of years. Bush (and co.) wouldn't have gotten very far if Americans were doing their true patriotic duty.

Regardless, your own refutation of his film is troublesome as well; while it *seems* well-researched and factual itself, it is, in several cases, not very accurate itself... which brings up a very frustrating truth few people care to deal with: no one REALLY knows what the truth is about anything. Even if we're 100% sincere in our attempts at being impartial (and you seem to be), it will always be dependent on the sources we choose to use, and just what sources we choose to use is, itself, a very subjective thing. Though Moore's tactics are not always on the level, I know his motives have always been sincere, at least. Assuming yours are, as well, where does that leave a critical, skeptical and truth-seeking American?

I started writing a point-by point refutation of the errors you make, but I find this to be a frustrating spiral; everyone keeps criticizing everyone else's little flaws and faults, and we end up with what, in the end? A muddy picture of what is actually the truth. For example, Florida's 2000 voter scam may not have happened exactly like Moore painted it, but it was far more corrupt than what you imply. I'm sure you're familiar with Greg Palast's work, and that remains the most evidence-backed account I've seen yet on the issue... a far cry from what you claim. Another example: Moore does leave out the "significant fact" that Bush Sr. was head of the CIA... except that his being head of the CIA is a well-known fact, and not something that Moore needs to remind us of, especially when it's irrelevant to his point. How can any human being NOT let the information that a top government agency might provide influence his extremely-profitable business dealings? Your implication that Bush might "just be curious" about how his ol' boys are doing the same way a retired baseball player might still follow his old team is just silly. Moore can exaggerate sometimes, but his suspicion here is well-founded.

And so on... you downplay Bush's stock dealings around the time of the Gulf War, but look up any of a number of credible sources and you will see plenty of evidence of insider trading. What you won't find is any actual convictions, and if you dig deep enough you might find that the person in charge of the investigation had business links to Bush himself... but I would think you were aware of that already. Perhaps federal law required the White House to black out James Bath's name, but that doesn't change the fact that Bath has plenty of connections to Bush and the Saudis, which was the main point of that scene. Moore may or may not have different personal ideas about Sept. 11, but ideas exist independently of their originators; as you put it, if a klansman made an accurate portrayal of Rosa Parks, it not be a deceit, it would be an accurate portrayal of Rosa Parks. 500 years after that klansman died, it would remain an accurate portrayal of Rosa Parks.

And so on.

My point in all of this is simply to ask- why do we play this game? Will we ever really know the truth about any current event we aren't personally connected to, and, if not, then on what basis do we form an opinion? Statistics and "facts" can be manipulated at our will. Personally, I focus on the principles. Absolute power does corrupt absolutely; human beings are too weak to prevent it to happen. Do I believe that the Bush's and Bin Laden's drink from the same cup? Absolutely. The evidence may be inconclusive, but the nature of humans isn't. Ridiculous conspiracy theories are one thing, but when enough facts (that even right-wingers don't dispute) are present, I'll go with the time-tested human formula every time. And so I ask you- despite your nit-picking of Moore's factual basis, do you honestly believe his main point is so outlandish? Do you really think, even if some of the facts are technically wrong, that Bush is anything other than guilty of the main thrust of Moore's claim? The strongest part of your critique is this: Moore's previous beliefs have definitely changed or been subdued for this film. Your comments touch upon this fact, but don't really delve into the story behind it. It doesn't make for a deceitful film, but it does make for an insightful look at Moore as a public figure, which is that he is slowly watering down his "lefty" beliefs in order to appeal to a wide range of Americans. He knew that his rise in fame and power would always be capped by his liberal ideas, and that his long-time fans would never be enough to make him a household name. The saddest thing about Farenheit 911 is Moore's own ass-kissing of America. Rather than holding everyone guilty responsible for the last couple of years, he pins it on a simple icon, and we cheer him on. This, to me, is worth noting (which is why I'm writing an article about it) since, I believe, we'll be hearing more from Candidate Moore soon.

thanks for reading.


I had a good read through your fahrenheit 911 page. You raise some
very good points but other times I felt you were just clutching at
straws. Do you think that trying to get extra milage from some of your
weaker points weakens your overall argument?
Some of the film did not sit easy with me (especially portraying iraq
as some sort of paradise) but I think overall it does make some good
points. I don't nessecarilly agree with all of the problems you have
raised, but Its good to get some balance for what is a biased movie.


Mr. Kopel, who is fooling whom?  If these things are so deceitful, where are the libel suits?  There certainly must be some bit of truth in all the screen displays, otherwise I am sure GW's machine would be all over the place with suits!  You and others like you go through life with blinders on.  Let me ask you, do you have a son or daughter in Iraq?  I'll bet dollars to donuts that if you do have kids that age, they are safely in college.  Let some poor slobs' kids die for your war.  GW won't be happy until we are in an Armageddon and he and Cheney and the ilk have their hands on all that oil money.  We may soon all become Saudi Arabians in this thing!  The reason for attacking I raq was to have a middle eastern base area.  it is all about oil, it is all about money.

I saw the Michael Moore movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, last night. Did we see the same movie? I am at a loss to find all those 59 Deceits


Dave, thanks for your dissertation on the 59 Deceits of F-911. Interesting reading to say the least. I am comforted to know that the majority of the American public will never analyze the movie as you have, much less ever read your article. And that's exactly as it should be. It's exactly as this administration wants it. Sure, Mr. Moore uses some creative license...but not near as much as license as is taken by the current administration, the media, and blowhards like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity who constantly twist and manipulate actual events to put forth their political views. Here is my simple question: Do we really need to analyze this so deeply? You are obviously an educated man and someone who puts tremendous thought into things. Not to belittle your research in any way shape or form, but ASIDE from the 59 deceits, would you not agree that there is something very SHADY going on with this administration? Would you not agree that there is something wrong here? Don't you think there are just way too many coincidences here not to be asking the kinds of questions Mr. Moore asks? What about the big picture here?
  Most of the so called 59 deceits are not relelvant to the truth as I am sure you are aware. The "one is lead to believe" is not a factual representation of anything but gullability. That you adress so many artistic points of film making as falsehoods and are   quick to "assume " what the viewer believes beforehand stretches your own credabilty.  I do agree that the "documentary" is a propaganda peice by Mr. Moore. But it does give some necessary insight into the president that is quite telling.  Thanks for your efforts. The aiding the enemy part at the end though is pretty lame.

I don't even know where to begin.  I'll leave it at this:

The National Review, The New York Post, MSNBC, Isikoff, WorldNet Daily, the Media Research Center, Christopher Hitchens, the Washington Times, and the Weekly Standard are as biased as Michael Moore is but mendaciously present themselves as "news."  So most of your cites for support of your points raise more questions in my mind than they answer.


I simply do not understand what the point is in refuting Michael Moore's movie.  He clearly has stated that he wants to prevent Bush from being reelected.  The American public is not so naïve to realize that his movie will include biased and misleading information.  So what?   None of the errors and inaccuracies that you have pointed out contributed to the success or emotional impact of this movie.

The power of this movie are the personal experiences of Ms. Lipscomb and the disgruntled soldiers and the greedy business interests and the fact that Bush mislead us in order to overthrow Hussein.

I don't care if Moore's facts are not entirely accurate because I expect this from a hollywood movie.  This movie is an honorable attempt to show how the folks in control can manipulate even the watchdog organizations (Congress, media) to go along with their viewpoints and agenda.

This story needed to be told.  Since nobody else had the chutzpah to tell it in a way that anyone would listen, Michael Moore deserves all of the accolades he has been given.  I hope his DVD breaks rental and sales records because the people who truly need to watch this movie are those who won't go to the cinema but they will certainly rent the DVD to watch in the privacy of their homes.


I have just come from seeing "Fahrenheit 911" and am sitting down to look at response to it by others. Your site comes up with its boldfaced "59 deceits (the word you're looking for is deceptions)."

Do you really believe what you say? How then is it possible that the widespread knowledge of such extreme falsehood has not made it to prime-time, even on state-run FOXNews?

Try as you might, there is no denying the agenda of these arch-conservatives, many of whom are either too disconnected from real life to understand it, or, like you, simply too ignorant.

Good try. Few are listening. Those of us who wish to give peace a chance will unseat Bush-Cheney in November.


[Before reading this letter, I had not idea that Bush was going around and toppling poles. This seems like a terrible form of vandalism, and he should stop. I agree with the writer that Americans should stop worrying about plasmoid clouds--an issue which is apparently of concern mainly among anti-Israel nuts.]

 

This is going to be the most vicious Presidential election campaign on record and potentially the most dangerous. Bush’s actions have politically polarized the American electorate and Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 documentary has made a bad situation for Bush far worse. We can see why the Mickey Mouse boys were terrified to touch this. They are very vulnerable and an infuriated Bush gang would take out their revenge on them for such a film.

 

The danger lies in what probable actions Bush might take to swing the election that now is moving strongly against him. He is appealing to far right Christian groups, something that is sure to outrage more centrists and moderate religious groups. When these groups get the bit in their teeth, they become very vocal and often very vicious. More important, however, is the distinct possibility that Bush will start another military adventure, just before the election. Rumor at high levels has it that he will declare a state of emergency, based on faked reports, that North Korea and/or Iran are about to launch nuclear strikes against the American homeland and that he has ordered counterstrikes to defend this country

 

There are a significant number of Americans who would go for this. Hell, there are many Americans that believe Hussein controlled Al Quaeda, that the WTC was blown up by CIA missiles or plasmoid clouds or that Bush has helped the American economy instead of absolutely destroying its future growth.

 

Unfortunately, both of these countries do have the Bomb and both are capable of retaliation or, worse, preemptive strikes against our troops in South Korea, Iraq or even Japan. Between Israel beating the drums for a US attack on Iran and Syria and Bush’s toppling pole numbers, most of us are now seriously afraid of some Godawful adventure on the part of the ‘Mission Accomplished’ lad.

[This writer raises the interesting question: "If Clinton was Bush, can you imagine what you would be saying about him?" In this situation, I would probably be criticizing Clinton for the same things about which I have criticized Bush. The criticisms I made of Clinton in 1993-2000 would probably be inapplicable.]

 

 After reading your article I can only conclude that you either are being paid by the government or are completly oblivious.  If Clinton was Bush, can you imagine what you would be saying about him?  Do you realize who owns mainstream news, or are you part owner?  Your pissed off because for once there is another perspective on things rather than the same old right winged propaganda.  Replace the word terrorist with communist and lets all be real patriots.

P.S.  People all over the world hate the republicans and the Americans are turning on the Bush administration. 


A good Republican friend e mailed a link to your site.  My friend has not viewed Fahrenheit 9/11 but has an opinion about it based on your opinions.   That's a funny thing you Republicans do but that is another opinion I wont force you to read. 

My opinion of your opinion is that your beliefs are as twisted and convoluted as a drug addicted right conservative on AM talk radio. 


Kopel?  Isn't that a Jewish name?  Ah!  Well *THAT* explains everything.


[And there were a few writers who didn't like Moore or me...]

 

As an engineering physicist I drew my conclusions about 911 long before Michael Moore's film, and you can be darn sure I don't take anybody's word for anything.

I never saw the film.  There is no need to feed Zion with my entertainment dollars.

Fahrenheit 911 is Hollywood and nothing more.  But no matter--Bush & his friends still committed mass murder on 911 and no amount of wishful delusion on the part of a nontechnical propagandist like you will ever change the physics of what happened on 911.

Too many people know.

You Neocon mass murderers and war criminals are all going to political and social hell soon.  I expect that many of you will finally end up behind bars, where you belong.

That's it--go ahead and call me a liberal leftist.  Yeah right, like hell I am a liberal leftist.


W ell Mr Kopel, you write as if you were one of the Jewish Tribe. I have seen your assessment of the Michael Moore film 9-11 and it includes ever imaginable twist and turn, except the JEWISH TWIST. THE ZIONIST TWIST, eh?? A little strange to leave the Jews out of the picture, isn't it?

After all, isn't this where the problem began; with the reation of the bastard state of Israel? Sure it is

Neturei Karta-  Guardians of the City- Home The Rabbi's  at Neturei Karta (http://www.nkusa.org/), old hard-line Jews, say that Israel is a bastard state that must be disolved; that the Jews are the guilty parties. That's not what I say, that is what THESE JEWISH RABBI'S SAY.

Israel stole the Arab people's land, and continue doing so, murdering their people, and somehow, you managed, as did Michael Moore, to ignore all this.

Your paper (webpage), attempting to discredit Mr. Moore, is simply another grand decpetion. One con-artist, trying to out-do another con-artist.


[Another writer agreed]

 

What a catastrophe the Western world has become! It has painted itself into a corner and now is almost void of any realistic alternative national leadership. Where has it come off the rails?
 

Both yourself and Moore miss the most obvious point and ironically Saddam get it right:
"Those who do not want to harvest evil, should not plant evil...Despite the contradictory humanitarian feelings on what happened in America, America is harvesting the thorns that its rulers have planted in the world...Nobody has crossed the Atlantic carrying weapons against America, but it has crossed the Atlantic carrying death and destruction to the whole world." (I would add all the oceans)
 

Is this just too hard for a critical mass of Americans to acknowledge they have become a criminal nation and then take remedial action?

This hasn't happened exclusively as a result of the Bush regime. The phenomenon of a Bush-like leadership was a predictable and inevitable event. It is an indicative measure of America's demise, where the sense of right and wrong, good and bad is no longer distinct.

Certainly a large part of America's waywardness is indicated by its blind support of Israeli injustices. Everyone, including yourself, focus on "the terrorist Palestinians", and for some strange (but then not so) reason completely ignore and deny the fact that the Palestinians are (again predictably and inevitably) retaliating against injustices inflicted upon them by successive Israeli regimes exclusively supported by the US http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/roguestate.html How can Americans wonder why they are hated by people like Osama Bin Laden when they reserve themselves the right to dispense injustice and barbarity when where and when they like?

The US sanctions and splattering of DU munitions against Iraq (and for that matter, Afghanistan and Bosnia also) contributed to the death and misery of between half and one million Iraqi civilians, most of them children. Madeline Albright, when questioned on this, even had the audacity to go on record saying "We think it was worth it". Why on earth would you think people like Saddam shouldn't be thinking of ways to get a monkey off their backs? Now you have gone and poisoned another big chunk of Iraq for another 50 years with your despicable DU weapons and your gangster military and you call that liberation! When all is said and done, you will also be billed for the injustices resulting from most of the 13 years of sanctions, because it now appears clear Saddam did comply with UN demands to disarm. The US stands self-evidently accused and its time of not signing the ICC Statutes of Rome is quickly expiring.

The so called "Coalition of the Willing" is nothing but a bunch of prostitute nations or outright US-rape-case-nations. Bush wanted the blood of innocent people on as many nations as possible to give the illusion of world community participation after failing to get UN approval, so he either bought the nations or threatened them into participation, or both. Aren't you disgusted with your nation and the fact that you have a death-junkie executioner leading you - a fake pro-lifer?

Many of your points about Moore's Fahrenheit 911 seem to be accurate, but like him you totally avoid and/or deny the real issues.

 

Share this page:

| More

 

Kopel RSS feed Click the icon to get RSS/XML updates of this website, and of Dave's blog posts.

Follow Dave on Twitter.

Search Kopel website:

Make a donation to support Dave Kopel's work in defense of constitutional rights and public safety.
Donate Now!

Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action. Please send comments to Independence Institute, 727 East 16th Ave., Colorado 80203. Phone 303-279-6536. (email) webmngr @ i2i.org

Copyright © 2014