What does Michael Moore really think about America?
- Thread starter Sisco
- Start date
"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.’ Until then, few social observers had made the connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Paul Revere.” - Michael Moore
Michael Moore is someone that gives rise to legalizing the concept of retroactive abortion.
Michael Moore is someone that gives rise to legalizing the concept of retroactive abortion.
"Moore" lies:
"But for the moment, allow me to address the film’s final scene, a montage of clips “demonstrating” that “Bush lied” about Iraq’s supposed connection to 9-11; that the American people—a trusting, if simple, group—were buncoed into connecting “secular Saddam” to the zealots of Al-Qaeda. Let’s be clear about this, for it bears repeating: the administration has repeatedly and forcefully connected Iraq and Al-Qaeda—and, as recent evidence has shown, for good reason. What the administration has not done—contrary to popular belief—is publicly link Iraq to the attacks of September 11.
But, you protest, I saw Condoleezza Rice in Fahrenheit 9-11 tell a reporter that, “indeed,” there was a relationship!
ROLL FILM:
“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.”
CUT.
Pretty damning stuff, isn’t it? But that was the truncated, Michael Moore version. Now for the full, unexpurgated quote:
“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.”
Well that’s a different quote, Mike. So why the editing?"
"But for the moment, allow me to address the film’s final scene, a montage of clips “demonstrating” that “Bush lied” about Iraq’s supposed connection to 9-11; that the American people—a trusting, if simple, group—were buncoed into connecting “secular Saddam” to the zealots of Al-Qaeda. Let’s be clear about this, for it bears repeating: the administration has repeatedly and forcefully connected Iraq and Al-Qaeda—and, as recent evidence has shown, for good reason. What the administration has not done—contrary to popular belief—is publicly link Iraq to the attacks of September 11.
But, you protest, I saw Condoleezza Rice in Fahrenheit 9-11 tell a reporter that, “indeed,” there was a relationship!
ROLL FILM:
“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.”
CUT.
Pretty damning stuff, isn’t it? But that was the truncated, Michael Moore version. Now for the full, unexpurgated quote:
“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.”
Well that’s a different quote, Mike. So why the editing?"
Most of his comments are true, 90% of Amercans don't give a damn of whats happening to other people unless it will hurt there pockets in one way or another, the biggest example is american companies, car companies, etc. they produce garbage that only lasts a certain time so when it's out of warranty and starts breaking down we have to purchase another car. Customer service everywhere is garbage company owners, don't try to satisfy consumers any more, and why is this because people aren't honest, they don't care if a company goes broke because of there scams,and companies think everyone is trying to scam them, even the honest one's. 
So Mr. Moore isn't entirely incorrect, but I still don't think he should be telling this to foriegners though. As for those that don't agree open your eyes leave the country mentality and come see how it is in the big cities, I still also believe that there are some honest people but those that aren't, are bad enough to make us look bad. 
So Mr. Moore isn't entirely incorrect, but I still don't think he should be telling this to foriegners though. As for those that don't agree open your eyes leave the country mentality and come see how it is in the big cities, I still also believe that there are some honest people but those that aren't, are bad enough to make us look bad. There is an obsession with personalities on the subject of the actual attacks on 9/11, the invasion of Iraq etc, and now Moore's film. Whatever his personal shortcomings past or present, the film is largely (I understand) various pieces of actual film - no acting, no script, no special effects, and I intend to see the film to judge for myself what it represents.
Any .45, like Moore, is right. There is an increasing percentage of people in this country that are about as self-centered as one can get - and still go out and work, shop around, and wait in the same service line at a business with other people just long enough to get through a day - and that's about it.
Moore is correct on another point; there are many people in this country who are very ignorant of what's going on in the rest of the world. Part of it is not their fault - the term "education" in this country is not what it used to be in many places. News media is filtered, and there is a fair amount of geo-political programming that is affected in this way as well. On the other hand, many people are drowning in trash "entertainment" or obsessed with televised sports to the extent that they haven't the faintest idea of much of the outside world or it's history over the last 100 years - let alone the present.
Of course Europeans suffer from some of the same media control, decline in education, entertainment and sporting distractions. But I do not think they have become as detached as many on this side of the Atlantic. Perhaps it is the level of oppression they suffer under their current mostly communist regimes.
Any .45, like Moore, is right. There is an increasing percentage of people in this country that are about as self-centered as one can get - and still go out and work, shop around, and wait in the same service line at a business with other people just long enough to get through a day - and that's about it.
Moore is correct on another point; there are many people in this country who are very ignorant of what's going on in the rest of the world. Part of it is not their fault - the term "education" in this country is not what it used to be in many places. News media is filtered, and there is a fair amount of geo-political programming that is affected in this way as well. On the other hand, many people are drowning in trash "entertainment" or obsessed with televised sports to the extent that they haven't the faintest idea of much of the outside world or it's history over the last 100 years - let alone the present.
Of course Europeans suffer from some of the same media control, decline in education, entertainment and sporting distractions. But I do not think they have become as detached as many on this side of the Atlantic. Perhaps it is the level of oppression they suffer under their current mostly communist regimes.
It does no good that "actual film" was used. The same editing tricks are at work here as in BFC.
I could edit what you said to say that:
"Any .45 is about as self-centered as one can get - and that's about it."
Narrator states that Mr. LAK went on to say that Any .45 hasn't:
"the faintest idea of much of the outside world or it's history over the last 100 years - let alone the present."
Hell, he is going around on TV bragging that he beat the "Passion of the Christ." Just like his bragging that he sold out the theater near the military base--a small art theater with less than 80 seats!
The guy is a bull-feces peddler. He is the left-wing Mike Savage. A self-righteous, pompous, fruitcake.
I could edit what you said to say that:
"Any .45 is about as self-centered as one can get - and that's about it."
Narrator states that Mr. LAK went on to say that Any .45 hasn't:
"the faintest idea of much of the outside world or it's history over the last 100 years - let alone the present."
Hell, he is going around on TV bragging that he beat the "Passion of the Christ." Just like his bragging that he sold out the theater near the military base--a small art theater with less than 80 seats!
The guy is a bull-feces peddler. He is the left-wing Mike Savage. A self-righteous, pompous, fruitcake.
Greg Bell,
Certainly film can be edited. So can information.
I recall those photographs that were printed up (Time? Newsweek?) during the push for the attack on another sovereign country called Serbia. The photo in question depicted a group of men, one of whom was on the skinny side standing behind some barbed wire. Well, the misrepresentation was complete. The photographer was on the inside of a section of barbed wire fencing by some rundown building somewhere. The "inmates" were some locals that happened to be there, and the photo went on to be "proof" of "camps" in Serbian controlled territory.
Then there was the "proof" that Milosevic's troops had "murdered" Albanian muslim civilians at Racak. Well; the "massacre" at Racak was a collection of bodies from various firefights with the Serbs, many re-dressed in civilian clothing, and laid out in a ditch for the later cameras. The facts of the Racak Report by an independent forensic team from Finland were never reported in entirety on televised national news or the national press.
We have been told that Saddam Hussein "murdered" (figures vary widely) X-number of people and the "proof" has about been as taken for granted as that rendered in the attack on Serbia. The cherry picking of information - and the filtration of national news, a well as the Bush administration is noteworthy. I have not heard either mention the mass exchange of bodies between Iraq and Iran years after their war, all of which would have wound up in "mass graves", not to mention many of those killed during Desert Storm. And I would not attach automatic credibility to the other claims of atrocities by Hussein.
There are still many unanswered questions over the September 11 attack on the WTC and Pentagon and the pretexts for invading Iraq. I'd like to see our government release some documentary film of it's own. They could start with the twelve video surveillance tapes of the McVeigh getting out of his Ryder truck - and the "airliner" striking the Pentagon. And that's just a start.
In the meantime I will see F/911 for myself.
Certainly film can be edited. So can information.
I recall those photographs that were printed up (Time? Newsweek?) during the push for the attack on another sovereign country called Serbia. The photo in question depicted a group of men, one of whom was on the skinny side standing behind some barbed wire. Well, the misrepresentation was complete. The photographer was on the inside of a section of barbed wire fencing by some rundown building somewhere. The "inmates" were some locals that happened to be there, and the photo went on to be "proof" of "camps" in Serbian controlled territory.
Then there was the "proof" that Milosevic's troops had "murdered" Albanian muslim civilians at Racak. Well; the "massacre" at Racak was a collection of bodies from various firefights with the Serbs, many re-dressed in civilian clothing, and laid out in a ditch for the later cameras. The facts of the Racak Report by an independent forensic team from Finland were never reported in entirety on televised national news or the national press.
We have been told that Saddam Hussein "murdered" (figures vary widely) X-number of people and the "proof" has about been as taken for granted as that rendered in the attack on Serbia. The cherry picking of information - and the filtration of national news, a well as the Bush administration is noteworthy. I have not heard either mention the mass exchange of bodies between Iraq and Iran years after their war, all of which would have wound up in "mass graves", not to mention many of those killed during Desert Storm. And I would not attach automatic credibility to the other claims of atrocities by Hussein.
There are still many unanswered questions over the September 11 attack on the WTC and Pentagon and the pretexts for invading Iraq. I'd like to see our government release some documentary film of it's own. They could start with the twelve video surveillance tapes of the McVeigh getting out of his Ryder truck - and the "airliner" striking the Pentagon. And that's just a start.
In the meantime I will see F/911 for myself.
Hey, Hezbolla likes him!
Hezbollah's Hollywood Hero
By Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 6, 2004
Fahrenheit 9/11 has sealed Michael Moore’s status as one of the richest figures of the crackpot Left. Projected to take in $100 million, the Bush-bashing film grossed $21.8 million in its first three days, topping the $21.6 million reaped by his 2002 box-office blast, Bowling for Columbine. But success has come at a price. Former leftie faithful are now less inclined to believe multi-millionaire Moore, with his ritzy spread on New York’s Upper West Side, is the champion of the great unwashed (despite his personal appearance).*Thankfully,*Moore has found a new audience receptive to his message: terrorists.
News that Fahrenheit 9/11 was coming to the Middle East has triggered delight among the region’s would-be suicide bombers. In fact, Front Row Entertainment, the United Arab Emirates-based distributor of Fahrenheit 9/11, was recently contacted by organizations affiliated with Hezbollah. Hezbollah asked if they could they please help Front Row promote the film? After some initial, short-lived hesitation, Front Row Managing Director Gianluca Chacra greenlighted the idea. “We can’t go against these organizations as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria,” he announced. Apparently, they could not: How could they disappoint all those smiling terrorists?
So how can one explain Moore’s appeal among the bloodthirsty? Moore’s longstanding sympathy for their work is a good place to start. Though it’s largely forgotten today, in the early '90s Moore was workshopping an idea for a movie about the Palestinian Intifada. The project, provisionally titled Yitzhak and Me or West Bank Story, was never made. But John Foren, a reporter for the Flint Journal in Michigan, Moore’s adopted hometown, had no illusions as to what it would look like. “If Michael touches that [the Intifada], you're going to see the real Michael," Foren told the Washington Times in 1990. "And it's not something that people are going to love."
*
Were Moore to make such a film today, all signs indicate it would be a valentine to the Palestinians’ newest terror campaign, the second Intifada. One clue comes from Moore’s book Dude, Where's My Country?, in which Moore contends that Israelis "know they are wrong, and...would be doing just what the Palestinians are doing if the sandal were on the other foot." (In other words, the world would be flooded with Jewish suicide bombers.) Another clue is Moore’s naked contempt for the Jewish state. As Moore told an audience in Liverpool, Israel is part of his personal axis of evil: “It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton.”
*
The terrorist attacks of September 11 only strengthened Moore’s view of the real enemies. Reflecting on the carnage of the day, Moore first denied al-Qaeda’s responsibility: “Am I being asked to believe that this guy who sleeps in a tent in a desert has been training pilots to fly our most modern, sophisticated jumbo jets...?” Then he thundered against the United States: “We abhor terrorism -- unless we’re the ones doing the terrorizing.” Finally, he screamed racism: “Maybe it’s because the Ay-rabs are much better foils. A key ingredient in getting Americans whipped into a frenzy against a new enemy is the all-important race card.” And that was all on September 12.
*
Which highlights yet another reason terrorists want more of Moore: he also wants Americans to die.*“I’m sorry,” he crowed on his site, “but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe—just maybe—God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.” But if he’s hostile to the American cause, Moore’s heart goes out to the mujahedeen. In the killers of Coalition troops and Iraqi civilians, Moore sees true heroes. "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy,’” Moore has fumed. “They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow—and they will win.”
*
Does Moore seriously mean to say that Iraq would be better off under a reign of terror? Well, yes. Indeed, in what is arguably the most execrable of Fahrenheit 9/11’s serial lies, Moore insists Iraq was a far better place with Saddam Hussein running it. In Moore’s Iraqi Utopia, giddy kiddies spent their days flying kites (at least those who didn’t have their hands hacked off). Enter Coalition forces. In Moore's view, they inflicted a humanitarian disaster that dwarfs Saddam Hussein's cruelty. Fahrenheit 9/11 thus plays like an advertisement for Saddam and the Ba’athist torture machine, a point Moore happily concedes. As he recently told ABC News, “I'm just trying to present another side of the story.”
*
That this side of the story bears little relation to reality makes it singularly appropriate for Fahrenheit 9/11. For instance, Moore spends half the film contending that the Bush administration permitted members of the Saudi royal family to escape after September 11, allowing them to leave before U.S. airspace was opened. Unmentioned is this detail: the order to spirit the Saudi royal family from the country was actually given by Moore’s favorite anti-Bush official, Richard Clarke. Instead, Moore interviews an FBI agent who*states the Saudis should have been interrogated before being afforded special protection. Moore seems not to know that the FBI did in fact clear members of the bin Laden family, the vast majority of whom happen not to be infidel-smiting fanatics. Clarke, in turn, has defended his decision to green light the flights, telling ABC: “The Saudis had reasonable fear that they might be the subject of vigilante attacks in the United States after 9/11. And there is no evidence even to this date that any of the people who left on those flights were people of interest to the FBI.” Similarly lost on Moore are the findings of the 9/11 Commission, which determined that the Saudis flights did not leave before U.S. airspace was reopened. There is little wonder, then, that Moore’s conspiracy theory never gets off the ground.
*
Fahrenheit 9/11’s distortions don’t end there. A maestro of the deceitful edit, Moore whittles down a quote from Condoleezza Rice to suggest that the Bush administration is lying when it denies ever having alleged Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Says Rice in the film: “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.” Gotcha? Not quite. Here is the uncorrupted version of Rice’s quote: “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself, and his regime,*involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.”
*
It speaks to the consummate dishonesty of Moore’s approach in Fahrenheit 9/11 that even when he is being technically accurate, he is not telling the truth. Deploying a statistic from a Washington Post article, Moore claims that President Bush spends 42 percent of his time on vacation. What Moore neglects to point out is that this number includes weekends, cutting the more accurate number of vacation time to around 13 percent; or that many of the days he counts are actually working vacations, which Bush spends in the company of foreign and domestic leaders.
*
With duplicity in such great abundance, it should come as no surprise that Moore is feeling defensive about Fahrenheit 9/11 -- so much so, that he’s assembled a “war room” of experts to beat back any critic who would challenge the film’s accuracy. Plainly aware that the guardians of his credibility would have their work cut out for them, the millionaire filmmaker didn’t skimp on talent. He’s enlisted a team of fact-checkers, captained by a veteran of The New Yorker magazine’s crack fact-checking team; he’s also tapped Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist, to dig up dirt on his critical opposition. Shaken by the barrage of* condemnation of Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore’s even taken to consulting with lawyers to lodge defamation suits against anyone who “maligns” his new film or “damages his reputation.” Huffs Moore: “Any attempts to libel me will be met by force. The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court.”
*
The attempt to squelch any considered debate over his film is a typical Moore strategy, says Jason Clarke. Co-author (with David T. Hardy) of the recently released Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man and proprietor of Moorelies.com, Clarke notes that Moore’s work regularly raises more questions than the filmmaker wants to answer. “For many years,” explains Clarke, “Michael Moore has been consistently evading and deflecting any and all inquiry and skepticism into his work and his public persona.”
*
Clarke and Hardy’s book intends to change that. Having marshaled numerous examples of innuendo, wild speculation and flat-out falsehood from Moore’s 15-year career, the authors are determined to spoil Moore’s holiday from criticism. As for Moore’s “war room,” Clarke says: Bring it on. “We know from studying his persona closely that any challenge to Moore must be serious and direct,” observes Clarke, “to demonstrate that we will not be afraid of his attempts to marginalize us into conspiracies or worse.” If Clarke and Hardy have their way, Moore’s fact-free record will soon be public kn
Hezbollah's Hollywood Hero
By Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 6, 2004
Fahrenheit 9/11 has sealed Michael Moore’s status as one of the richest figures of the crackpot Left. Projected to take in $100 million, the Bush-bashing film grossed $21.8 million in its first three days, topping the $21.6 million reaped by his 2002 box-office blast, Bowling for Columbine. But success has come at a price. Former leftie faithful are now less inclined to believe multi-millionaire Moore, with his ritzy spread on New York’s Upper West Side, is the champion of the great unwashed (despite his personal appearance).*Thankfully,*Moore has found a new audience receptive to his message: terrorists.
News that Fahrenheit 9/11 was coming to the Middle East has triggered delight among the region’s would-be suicide bombers. In fact, Front Row Entertainment, the United Arab Emirates-based distributor of Fahrenheit 9/11, was recently contacted by organizations affiliated with Hezbollah. Hezbollah asked if they could they please help Front Row promote the film? After some initial, short-lived hesitation, Front Row Managing Director Gianluca Chacra greenlighted the idea. “We can’t go against these organizations as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria,” he announced. Apparently, they could not: How could they disappoint all those smiling terrorists?
So how can one explain Moore’s appeal among the bloodthirsty? Moore’s longstanding sympathy for their work is a good place to start. Though it’s largely forgotten today, in the early '90s Moore was workshopping an idea for a movie about the Palestinian Intifada. The project, provisionally titled Yitzhak and Me or West Bank Story, was never made. But John Foren, a reporter for the Flint Journal in Michigan, Moore’s adopted hometown, had no illusions as to what it would look like. “If Michael touches that [the Intifada], you're going to see the real Michael," Foren told the Washington Times in 1990. "And it's not something that people are going to love."
*
Were Moore to make such a film today, all signs indicate it would be a valentine to the Palestinians’ newest terror campaign, the second Intifada. One clue comes from Moore’s book Dude, Where's My Country?, in which Moore contends that Israelis "know they are wrong, and...would be doing just what the Palestinians are doing if the sandal were on the other foot." (In other words, the world would be flooded with Jewish suicide bombers.) Another clue is Moore’s naked contempt for the Jewish state. As Moore told an audience in Liverpool, Israel is part of his personal axis of evil: “It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton.”
*
The terrorist attacks of September 11 only strengthened Moore’s view of the real enemies. Reflecting on the carnage of the day, Moore first denied al-Qaeda’s responsibility: “Am I being asked to believe that this guy who sleeps in a tent in a desert has been training pilots to fly our most modern, sophisticated jumbo jets...?” Then he thundered against the United States: “We abhor terrorism -- unless we’re the ones doing the terrorizing.” Finally, he screamed racism: “Maybe it’s because the Ay-rabs are much better foils. A key ingredient in getting Americans whipped into a frenzy against a new enemy is the all-important race card.” And that was all on September 12.
*
Which highlights yet another reason terrorists want more of Moore: he also wants Americans to die.*“I’m sorry,” he crowed on his site, “but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe—just maybe—God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.” But if he’s hostile to the American cause, Moore’s heart goes out to the mujahedeen. In the killers of Coalition troops and Iraqi civilians, Moore sees true heroes. "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy,’” Moore has fumed. “They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow—and they will win.”
*
Does Moore seriously mean to say that Iraq would be better off under a reign of terror? Well, yes. Indeed, in what is arguably the most execrable of Fahrenheit 9/11’s serial lies, Moore insists Iraq was a far better place with Saddam Hussein running it. In Moore’s Iraqi Utopia, giddy kiddies spent their days flying kites (at least those who didn’t have their hands hacked off). Enter Coalition forces. In Moore's view, they inflicted a humanitarian disaster that dwarfs Saddam Hussein's cruelty. Fahrenheit 9/11 thus plays like an advertisement for Saddam and the Ba’athist torture machine, a point Moore happily concedes. As he recently told ABC News, “I'm just trying to present another side of the story.”
*
That this side of the story bears little relation to reality makes it singularly appropriate for Fahrenheit 9/11. For instance, Moore spends half the film contending that the Bush administration permitted members of the Saudi royal family to escape after September 11, allowing them to leave before U.S. airspace was opened. Unmentioned is this detail: the order to spirit the Saudi royal family from the country was actually given by Moore’s favorite anti-Bush official, Richard Clarke. Instead, Moore interviews an FBI agent who*states the Saudis should have been interrogated before being afforded special protection. Moore seems not to know that the FBI did in fact clear members of the bin Laden family, the vast majority of whom happen not to be infidel-smiting fanatics. Clarke, in turn, has defended his decision to green light the flights, telling ABC: “The Saudis had reasonable fear that they might be the subject of vigilante attacks in the United States after 9/11. And there is no evidence even to this date that any of the people who left on those flights were people of interest to the FBI.” Similarly lost on Moore are the findings of the 9/11 Commission, which determined that the Saudis flights did not leave before U.S. airspace was reopened. There is little wonder, then, that Moore’s conspiracy theory never gets off the ground.
*
Fahrenheit 9/11’s distortions don’t end there. A maestro of the deceitful edit, Moore whittles down a quote from Condoleezza Rice to suggest that the Bush administration is lying when it denies ever having alleged Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Says Rice in the film: “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.” Gotcha? Not quite. Here is the uncorrupted version of Rice’s quote: “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself, and his regime,*involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.”
*
It speaks to the consummate dishonesty of Moore’s approach in Fahrenheit 9/11 that even when he is being technically accurate, he is not telling the truth. Deploying a statistic from a Washington Post article, Moore claims that President Bush spends 42 percent of his time on vacation. What Moore neglects to point out is that this number includes weekends, cutting the more accurate number of vacation time to around 13 percent; or that many of the days he counts are actually working vacations, which Bush spends in the company of foreign and domestic leaders.
*
With duplicity in such great abundance, it should come as no surprise that Moore is feeling defensive about Fahrenheit 9/11 -- so much so, that he’s assembled a “war room” of experts to beat back any critic who would challenge the film’s accuracy. Plainly aware that the guardians of his credibility would have their work cut out for them, the millionaire filmmaker didn’t skimp on talent. He’s enlisted a team of fact-checkers, captained by a veteran of The New Yorker magazine’s crack fact-checking team; he’s also tapped Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist, to dig up dirt on his critical opposition. Shaken by the barrage of* condemnation of Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore’s even taken to consulting with lawyers to lodge defamation suits against anyone who “maligns” his new film or “damages his reputation.” Huffs Moore: “Any attempts to libel me will be met by force. The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court.”
*
The attempt to squelch any considered debate over his film is a typical Moore strategy, says Jason Clarke. Co-author (with David T. Hardy) of the recently released Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man and proprietor of Moorelies.com, Clarke notes that Moore’s work regularly raises more questions than the filmmaker wants to answer. “For many years,” explains Clarke, “Michael Moore has been consistently evading and deflecting any and all inquiry and skepticism into his work and his public persona.”
*
Clarke and Hardy’s book intends to change that. Having marshaled numerous examples of innuendo, wild speculation and flat-out falsehood from Moore’s 15-year career, the authors are determined to spoil Moore’s holiday from criticism. As for Moore’s “war room,” Clarke says: Bring it on. “We know from studying his persona closely that any challenge to Moore must be serious and direct,” observes Clarke, “to demonstrate that we will not be afraid of his attempts to marginalize us into conspiracies or worse.” If Clarke and Hardy have their way, Moore’s fact-free record will soon be public kn
Fred Hansen
New member
September 22nd, 2001
Mikey revealed in his own words what a fraud he really is.
Mikey revealed in his own words what a fraud he really is.
Aaaah, but there was still the thirty pieces of silver to collect from his fellow filthmongers in Hollyperv weren't there? No payment for the truth would be forthcoming. Oh no! Mikey had to stick to the party line for his crockumentary "Bowling For Columbine" to see the light of day. Not to mention for Mikey to see the greenbacks roll in.
How surprising.
Last edited:
Quartus,
Good; then what's the big secrecy over the surveillance footage? I have seen some footage of the aftermath - wreakage of some discription covered with blue tarps. Interesting that footage of an airliner striking a building - and some wreckage carted away is such a big secret. Must be a "matter of national security"
The alleged student pilot of that plane, Hani Hanjour, supposedly had a pilot's license of some description; but he was so bad, the people at the flight school refused to rent him a small single-engined prop after three flights with him. JetTech, which operate a flying school, thought he was so bad a pilot they thought his credentials might be false and submitted a report. Yet he supposedly flew a Boeing 757 off it's scheduled path towards the White House, and then in a manner that led air traffic controllers to believe it was a military fighter; pulled a fast and extremely tight turn, then a rapid decent of 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes, coming smoothly down to ground level and striking the Pentagon. Right Ask a few airline pilots how likely that is consider what is known about Hanjour.
The captain of Flight 77 was Chic Burlingame, a Naval Academy graduate who flew F-4 strike fighters in Vietnam, and a fitness fanatic. It is very doubtful that he would have vacated his command for some middle eastern thugs with box knives. He obvious course of action would have been to bank and roll the plane over in such a way as to make the hijackers goals impossible. Ask some ex-military fighter pilots now working for airlines the same question and see how many of them would have relinquished their command in such a circumstance.
Good; then what's the big secrecy over the surveillance footage? I have seen some footage of the aftermath - wreakage of some discription covered with blue tarps. Interesting that footage of an airliner striking a building - and some wreckage carted away is such a big secret. Must be a "matter of national security"
The alleged student pilot of that plane, Hani Hanjour, supposedly had a pilot's license of some description; but he was so bad, the people at the flight school refused to rent him a small single-engined prop after three flights with him. JetTech, which operate a flying school, thought he was so bad a pilot they thought his credentials might be false and submitted a report. Yet he supposedly flew a Boeing 757 off it's scheduled path towards the White House, and then in a manner that led air traffic controllers to believe it was a military fighter; pulled a fast and extremely tight turn, then a rapid decent of 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes, coming smoothly down to ground level and striking the Pentagon. Right
Ask a few airline pilots how likely that is consider what is known about Hanjour.The captain of Flight 77 was Chic Burlingame, a Naval Academy graduate who flew F-4 strike fighters in Vietnam, and a fitness fanatic. It is very doubtful that he would have vacated his command for some middle eastern thugs with box knives. He obvious course of action would have been to bank and roll the plane over in such a way as to make the hijackers goals impossible. Ask some ex-military fighter pilots now working for airlines the same question and see how many of them would have relinquished their command in such a circumstance.
Greg,
I bet they are.
Quartus is right. There were witnesses. Unfortunately they don't all agree on what they saw. But here's one just for example:
QUOTE "The eeriest thing about it, was that it was like you were watching a movie. There was no huge explosion, no huge rumbling on ground, it just went ‘pfff.’ It wasn’t what I would have expected for a plane that was not much more than a football field away from me.
“The first thing I did was pull over onto the shoulder, and when I got out of the car I saw another plane flying over my head, and it scared ...me, because I knew there had been two planes that hit the World Trade Center. And I started jogging up the ramp to get as far away as possible.
“Then the plane -- it looked like a C-130 cargo plane -- started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround" - John O’Keefe ENDQUOTE
Yep; getting on for one hundred tons of 757 travelling around 350 or 400 miles per hour hit the side of the Pentagon about the length of a football field away from this guy, and it went "pfff". Right
And he "imagined" what he thought was a C-130 right behind it. There were other witnesses who saw a second aircraft - the FBI acknowledged it too but merely said they could not "confirm" it. Interesting; so why is all the air traffic control data on that subject such a big secret now? "National security"? Right.
http://www.nylawyer.com/news/01/09/091201l.html
I bet they are.
Quartus is right. There were witnesses. Unfortunately they don't all agree on what they saw. But here's one just for example:
QUOTE "The eeriest thing about it, was that it was like you were watching a movie. There was no huge explosion, no huge rumbling on ground, it just went ‘pfff.’ It wasn’t what I would have expected for a plane that was not much more than a football field away from me.
“The first thing I did was pull over onto the shoulder, and when I got out of the car I saw another plane flying over my head, and it scared ...me, because I knew there had been two planes that hit the World Trade Center. And I started jogging up the ramp to get as far away as possible.
“Then the plane -- it looked like a C-130 cargo plane -- started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround" - John O’Keefe ENDQUOTE
Yep; getting on for one hundred tons of 757 travelling around 350 or 400 miles per hour hit the side of the Pentagon about the length of a football field away from this guy, and it went "pfff". Right
And he "imagined" what he thought was a C-130 right behind it.
There were other witnesses who saw a second aircraft - the FBI acknowledged it too but merely said they could not "confirm" it. Interesting; so why is all the air traffic control data on that subject such a big secret now? "National security"? Right.http://www.nylawyer.com/news/01/09/091201l.html
Fred Hansen
New member
Only because the NeoCon 5000 mind control emitter malfunctioned.
