Wednesday, June 30, 2004

The Lies of Michael Moore

Well S, we finally have a chance to talk. I certainly appreciate the opportunity you have given me to answer your charge that there are NO lies in Michael Moore's "masterpiece" Fahrenheit 9/11. I saw the film on opening night because, as the saying goes, "keep your enemies closer."

Now, I will preface by citing some influences and sources I have checked out myself:

Chris Hitchens, Slate, great article:

A good fact check:

Ok, onto SOME of the lies...
1) The film's major theme is that Bush is an illegitimate president. He supports this claim with the statement that Bush lost every recount done since the election and only won because the Supreme Court stopped the recounts. As I watched my mouth dropped open...huh? Because, as I recalled, all of the media and state recounts done AFTER Bush became president showed that indeed HE had won. So, I decided I would make sure I was right. And it took me approximately 2 minutes to find out I was:

Oh, and by the way, Fox News had nothing to do with Bush being declared the winner in Florida at 2:00 AM the night of the election: the Voter News Service projected him the winner. The other networks followed suit because they ALL used VNS. Fox was the first to declare (I am certain Banshee remembers that happening!) but the film fails to mention the fact that Florida was declared "too close to call" from around 11 pm on...

2) Moore claims that Osama bin Laden still has connections to his family and thus Bush and the bin Ladens are profiting from Osama's work, possibly purposely...

In 1994 the House of Saud officially kicked Osama out of their country. Originally, they wanted to keep it quiet, knowing that it would discredit his family if they were to make it public. However, by 1994, his family decided it was not in their best interest to be associated with him and so they made concerted efforts to detach themselves from him. So then the Saudi government was able, with American pressure, to remove Osama's citizenship and freeze whatever assets they could.
If a bin Laden did visit Osama months before 9/11, it really means nothing. As reported continuously, the bin Laden family is huge, consisting of hundreds of members. Those that were in the US, however, have no loyalty to Osama. They represent the main core of the bin Laden family. But if you know anything about Islam or about Arabia, the rules about family are very complicated. Its a big deal to cut off a family fact it is illegal to deny a family member his rightful inheritance. But they have done just that (or tried).

3) Moore says that the flights being authorized showed how connected Bush is to the Saudis and the bin Ladens.

Ah ah ah...guess who happened to authorize the flights of the Saudis? None other than Moore super-hero Richard Clarke. And he says, without equivocation, that it was his call to send them out. And why? Because he knew they were not a risk to the nation. Instead, they were at risk being here because of potential backlash against Muslims, Arabs, and specifically bin Laden's family that many suspected would occur. And the people sent out were checked out by the FBI. And, interestingly, Moore's "investigation" never yielded any information that would support the idea that these people had ANY tie to Osama.

4) Moore says tobacco companies pressured Bush (who is their puppet?) to allow lighters on planes so they could make money off of smokers who light up as soon as they get off flights.

What? Ok, I have no idea where this could be researched, but the claim is made with NO evidence to back it up. So I urge you, Mr. or Ms. S to prove it to me. Otherwise, I count it as lie.

5) My final lie will be Moore's claim that Iraq and the Iraqi government never hurt, killed, murdered, threatened, or whatever an American...

Double HUH? Ok
Threatened: Tried to kill GHW Bush in 1994. Shot at our planes everyday from the beginning of the No-Fly Zones to the end.

Murdered: Missing Americans in Iraq from the first Gulf War are reportedly still imprisoned there, but most likely were killed by the Iraqi government while in captivity. Supported terrorists Abu Nidal and PAID terrorists to kill people (including Americans) in Israel. Not to mention that Iraqi foriegn representatives had meetings with Al Qaeda.

Harmed: Originally compiled and used weapons of mass destruction. Developed weapons with range to hit US bases in Saudi Arabia. Launched missiles into Israel during Gulf War that hurt/killed civilians.

Now, the fact is, yes, Mr. Hussein did not directly threaten the US in 2002. But, he had in 1991 via his potential accumulation of both Kuwait and, had the US not intervened, eventually Saudi Arabia. Now, what do these three countries have? Ah yes, 50% of the world's oil. Had Mr. Hussein acquired such power, he would have most definitely been able to harm the US. And it would be naive for us to think that he didn't intend for this to happen again in the future. In fact, had the world continued to turn a blind eye to him, it would have only been a matter of time before it would have happened.

Now, one of the best things about F9/11 is Mr. Moore's insistence on taking all sorts of stands on issues. For example, he says it is illegitimate for us to attack Iraq because they didn't hurt us, but he claims we should have DONE MORE to overthrow the Taliban. The Taliban did nothing to harm us (by his definition) except harbor terrorists and try to spread its radical message to others. So why should we have sent MORE troops to Afghanistan? I won't even begin to ask why NOW Mr. Moore wanted us to send MORE troops to Afghanistan when in 2002 he publicly decried sending ANY troops!

His premise is also that Mr. Bush is a fool. Totally incompetent. Borderline mentally disabled. But then portrays him as an absolutely diabolical madman whose genius in the 1970s and 80s was so keen that he set this whole thing up back then. Oh and then we are supposed to hate him because he is rich. And connected. And supported by a lot of people who know people. Very dissimilar to Michael Moore himself (or anyone else in politics today)...I think not.

I think Hitchens puts it best when he says that Moore's argument should be with the SYSTEM, not with Bush.

If ANYONE wants, debate me on the issues. Pick something out of the film and challenge me on it. I think this film was DANGEROUS because it was untruthful. It was very similar to propaganda used in authoritarian regimes around the world. In fact, Saddam himself had a movie made about his heroics in the overthrow of the Iraqi government in the early 1970s. Of course, that film was chock full of lies (it fails to mention, for example, that Saddam was shot in the leg by one of his accomplices in a failed coup), but it served Saddam's purpose. In the same sense, this film fails to mention that the Patriot Act had bipartisan support and has not yet caused any significant rights violations to this day (or, I should say, really fails to establish that it has by virtue that its two examples of supposed problems had nothing to do with the Patriot Act).

So, I ask you, S, does this satisfy you?