1. Moore's "9/11" has tape of Jeffery Toobin saying that under every other counting method after the 2000 presidential election Gore would have one. Thus implying that Bush stole the election! In fact, a consortium of USA Today, NYTimes, WaPo, closely examined the vote and found that under virtually all other counting scenarios, Bush still wins. But not in Moore's fake-umentary mind! 2. Bush gave unjustifiable treatment to bin Laden's relatives after 9/11. See my posts on Carl's thread. (But besides: Usama is the "black sheep" of that Saudi family, and a wanted man there; so what would such special treatment mean anyway if it were true?) 3. Moore says "Bush's old National Guard buddy and personal friend James Bath had become the money manager for the bin Laden family, saying, 'James Bath himself in turn invested in George W. Bush.' The implication is that Bath invested the bin Laden family's money in Bush's failed energy company, Arbusto. He doesn't mention that Bath has said that he had invested his own money, not the bin Ladens', in Bush's company." [Source: see next below.] 4. "The family members who had disowned Osama were mainstays of American business, to the point that they were members of the nefarious Carlyle Group, a fact Moore naturally mentions, along with the fact that George's daddy was a member, too. One of the Carlyle Group's investments was United Defense, maker of Bradley Fighting Vehicles. Moore says September 11 'guaranteed that United Defense was going to have a very good year.' See it all coming together? Moore tells us that when Carlyle took United Defense public, they made a one-day profit of $237 million, but under all the public scrutiny, the bin Laden family eventually had to withdraw (Moore doesn't tell us that they withdrew before the public offering, not after it)." http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/278rxzvb.asp?pg=2 Nor does Moore mention that a rabid Bush critic, the billionare George Soros also invested $100 million in Carlyle. 5. "When the invasion of Afghanistan was complete, we installed its new president, Hamid Karzai," the "9/11" narration continues. "Who was Hamid Karzai? He was a former adviser to Unocal." This is a popular far-left rumor, but an unsubstantiated canard put into print by Le Monde, December 13, 2001. [See http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/m-fem/2001/msg00455.html and http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3210-7019-254716,00.html] I saw Karzai's interview on C-SPAN that winter when he came to Washington. Asked about the story from Le Monde, Karzai said no one at Le Mond had asked him if he had ever worked for Unocal; if they had, he would have said "no." The claim was also denied by Unocal. 6. But Moore's overarching modus operandi is straight-forward Marxist class analysis: the rich use the poor (US Army) to fight for their wealth, pitting the poor against the foreign poor. If it's all about class, it's all about material gain Having just completed a great deal of study of imperialism, there's more to unpack here later. But for now note that the Department of Energy's fact sheet on Afghanistan concludes that while there was a pipeline plan in the early 90s, "[N]o major Western companies have [recently] expressed interest in reviving the project." http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html And Daniel Yergin ("The Prize") has discussed Iraq's oil after Saddam. He emphasized the small role that Iraq will play in the oil market. By the time production ramps up in another four years, Iraq will still be a second tier producer, grouped with Norway and Mexico. No great bonaza. Read www.spinsanity.orgs sourced account of the origin and credibility of "it's the oil" arguments at http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011015.html --Orson
Instead of posting Moore's lies, why not try posting Bush's lies. (starting with his drug and alcohol abuse). Even if Moore is lying or exaggerating, no one gets killed. Everytime Bush lies, someone dies. Even Clinton didn't go that far. The poor have always served to a much greater extent in direct combat than the rich. That is hardly a Marxist class analysis, it is the truth. On the rare occassion that a rich man served in Vietnam, they were usually in the rear. I think if Bush were truly serious about his dogma, he would ask his daughters to serve. I find that very unlikely (unfortunately)
"6. But Moore's overarching modus operandi is straight-forward Marxist class analysis: the rich use the poor (US Army) to fight for their wealth, pitting the poor against the foreign poor. If it's all about class, it's all about material gain" From the foreign perspective 'all about material gain' is exactly how the US is perceived today, whether it be forcing free trade agreements on other nations while retaining Government subsidies for its own farmers, or allowing large media groups to buy and close down dissenting publishers for political reasons.
That's very funny, thanks George ! Michael Moore has his own rebuttal list on his website: Michael Moore
The best brief debunking to appear in the mainstream media so far neglects half the points I make above. Yet it is deeper and more nuanced. Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball of Newsweek: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/site/newsweek The WaPo's Richard Cohen weighs in dismissively with "Baloney, More or Less": "[T]he stunning box-office success of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' is not, as proclaimed, a sure sign that Bush is on his way out but is instead a warning to the Democrats to keep the loony left at a safe distance. Speaking just for myself, not only was I dismayed by how prosaic and boring the movie was -- nothing new and utterly predictable -- but I recoiled from Moore's methodology, if it can be called that. For a time, I hated his approach more than I opposed the cartoonishly portrayed Bush." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19320-2004Jun30?language=printer --Orson
"Perception" is one thing - facts are another. Your points lack illustrations. For example, where is the US "forcing free trade agreements on other nations?" In Jadesh Bagwati's "In Defense of Globalization" (OUP, 2004), developing countires tarrifs are still many times the subsidies the US (and the EU) have. Besides, has not the WTO slapped down US steel tarrifs - and now cotton subsidies? Most especially you need to explain THIS offense: "the US is...allowing large media groups to buy and close down dissenting publishers for political reasons." Huh? WHERE? Neither the Brits nor Canucks enjoy the wide breadth of freedom the US' First Amendment protections allow. If you have an outrage, I'm sure UCLA Law Prof and First Amendment specialist, Eugene Volok )at http://volokh.com/) would be all ears! --Orson
Mr. Engineer- I'm sure as a senior member you are welcome to start a thread on Bush's lies. But asfor "lies" about his alleged drug and admitted alcohol abuse, thay may be hard to find since he refuses to answer questions about them - a diplomatic technique Bill Clinton seems never to have learned; he prefers the outright lie to polite demurs. AS for the popular slogan "Everytime Bush lies, someone dies. Even Clinton didn't go that far" - your memory is surely deficient: There were guards at the Sudan Aspirin factory, and allegedly many Sudanese died from anti-biotics that could not be produced from it. (On the US side of the ledger, I believe 13 died in the USS Cole bombing; and hundreds in the terrorist attacks on two US embassies in Africa.) "The poor have always served to a much greater extent in direct combat than the rich." Of course - the young are typically poor in free countries. "That is hardly a Marxist class analysis, it is the truth." No - but Moore's claim that the US war's to benefit rich corporations IS. But the data I have show large corporations share of GDP and employment in the US dramatically shrinking - a falsifying fact Moore naturally neglects to tell you. Likewise nelected is the fact that 4 US Congressmen have family inour military, that John Ashcroft - a much vilified Bush Admin member - had a son serving in the Navy in the Persian Gulf. And what of Moore's claim that "not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrafice a child for the war in Iraq?" You believe it - but is it true? Minnesota Representative Mark Anderson appears in "Farenheit 911" - But Moore cut the dialog where after Moore asks if he'd help recruitment, Anderson replied "I'd be happy to. Especially those who voted for the war." Instead Moore deceptively cuts to Anderson leaving, portraying him risibly scurrying away. (Source: Duluth News Tribune June 4, 2004; Minneapolis Star Tribune June 24, 2004) In truth, Anderson has two nephews in the military and a son considering a Navy career. So Moore lies again. --Orson
What is so shocking... ... is how many outwardly seeming intelligent people actually BELIEVE Michael Moore! I have been somewhat pleased to see even some leftists have called this guy on the carpet. But he is so Goebbels in his approach. Hey, tell lies enough and with enough fervor and people start believing. Thank you to the public school system for producing these people. Michael is a man of the people, isn't he? He grew up in Davison, Michigan, a rich upper class suburb of Flint. A good union man, haha. OMG. A fool is born every minute. Except never have the stakes been higher.
Richard Clarke slams Moore Clinton-Bush counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke slams Moore's new film, June 30th: Former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke, who served as a principal source for conspiracy filmmaker Michael Moore's movie "Fahrenheit 9/11," said this week that the central premise of the film is "a mistake." In an interview with the Associated Press, Clarke took issue with Moore's criticism that President Bush allowed prominent Saudis, including members of Osama bin Laden's family, to fly out of the U.S. in the days after the 9/11 attacks. Saying Moore's version of the episode has provoked "a tempest in a tea pot," Clarke called his decision to make the bin Laden family flyout a big part of the film's indictment against Bush "a mistake." "After 9/11, I think the Saudis were perfectly justified ... in fearing the possibility of vigilantism against Saudis in this country. When they asked to evacuate their citizens ... ***I thought it was a perfectly normal request,"*** he explained. [***emphasis added: normal diplomatic protocal***] http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/1/00111.shtml
Re: Richard Clarke slams Moore Ah, but only a select few Saudis. There are many thousands here. How come all of them didn't get a free pass out? Oh, I see, only those Saudis that were personal friends of Bush (and Clarke). The conservative defense that foists the "blame" on Clarke is a red herring. You don't think it's possible that Clarke knew exactly who was a friend of the Administration and who wasn't? And you think perhaps that fact influenced his "decision" to let them fly out of the country? You just have to think a little deeper to debunk the debunking. Nice try though.
