Is Michael Moore a blowhard?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by JesseJames, Jul 27, 2004.

  1. JesseJames macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2003
    Location:
    How'd I get here? How can I leave?
    #1
    Well, is he?
    The guy is without a doubt a propagandist. He bends the truth for demagogue purposes.
    I think he serves some purpose; get people riled up and demand some answers.
    I don't like George Bush either but I think he's a good man who is most definitely not a visionary leader. Some of the claims Moore makes against Bush and his administration seem utterly ridiculous.
     
  2. Silencio macrumors 68020

    Silencio

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #2
    He's basically the Rush Limbaugh of the left, for better or worse.

    I don't think Bush is an evil man, but he surrounds himself with evil men and allows them to dictate his policies.
     
  3. LeeTom macrumors 68000

    LeeTom

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    #3
    Bush was the rush leader for his fraternity.

    'nuff said.

    Lee Tom
     
  4. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #4
    Now there's a distinction without a difference!
     
  5. GeeYouEye macrumors 68000

    GeeYouEye

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2001
    Location:
    State of Denial
    #5
    Yes.
     
  6. Perci Mac macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Location:
    In a state of perpetual waiting
    #6
    Many of his claims are utterly ridiculous, and the effect of his "documentary" has been limited. Americans know propaganda when they see it. Last I heard, a documentary was an unbiased, nonfiction exploration of a certain topic, not a completely biased exploration of half-truths and downright fiction. Little kids flying kites in Iraq, Saddam must have been a GREAT guy. :rolleyes:
     
  7. meta-ghost macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #7
    to quote jon stewart - the facts themselves are biased and against the administration...

    seriously - what are the claims you have a problem with in F/911?
     
  8. meta-ghost macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #8
    let's see, a nation that was lied to and taken to war (and subsequently made infinitely more insecure as a result) versus a clip of a kid flying a kite in iraq. i'll take the kite...
     
  9. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #9
    Half-truths and downright fiction? Which parts were so? If Moore has been lying about Bush, wouldn't he have been sued for libel/slander? Make your case.
     
  10. Perci Mac macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Location:
    In a state of perpetual waiting
    #10
    So are you saying it's better to be in a poor situation with only the possiblity of the situation becoming more voliatile, rather than risking increased turmoil in hopes of an eventual democracy and peace? Because if thats what you're saying, the United States would have been better off never to risk the revolutionary war. Now, I can't argue against the facts that the reasons Bush went to war were reasons based on false intelligence, but I would also encourage Democrats to look ahead to how exactly John Kerry would deal with the situation. Would he pull out right away, call it a victory and abandon our democratic allies, or would he deal with the situation. Something to think about.
     
  11. Durandal7 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2001
    #11
    As I recall some of the more colorful accusations during the 90's about President Clinton included:
    *Clinton is addicted to crack cocaine
    *Clinton is in collusion with the UN to take over the US
    *Clinton murdered dozens of people while Governor of Arkansas
    *Clinton is the anti-christ
    ...and there were many others. Do you recall any of them being sued for libel/slander? A highly public official such as the President will always be subject to numerous accusations, it doesn't make sense to sue everyone nutjob that comes along. Furthermore, if the President started suing all his critics wouldn't that basically be the President of the United States stifling free speech?

    The point is that a public official is subject to much different standards when it comes to slander and libel than a private citizen would be, especially if that public offical is prominent.
     
  12. Perci Mac macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Location:
    In a state of perpetual waiting
    #12
    I can give you nine.


    Fahrenheit Lie #1

    National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice is depicted in the movie telling a reporter, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.”
    The scene deceptively shows the Administration directly blaming Saddam and his regime for the attacks on 9/11 by taking her comments out of context. Now read the entire statement made by Ms. Rice to the reporter:
    “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 led people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.” (CBS News, November 28, 2003 Interview)
    Fahrenheit Lie #2

    In the film, Moore leads viewers to believe that members of bin Laden’s family were allowed to exit the country after the attacks without questioning by authorities. o The September 11th commission, on the other hand, reported that 22 of the 26 people on the flight that took most of the bin Laden family out of the country were interviewed and found to be innocent of suspicion. (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)

    The commission reported that “each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.”
    Fahrenheit Lie #3

    Moore claims that James Bath, a friend of President Bush from his time with the Texas Air National Guard, might have funneled bin Laden money to an unsuccessful Bush oil-drilling firm called Arbusto Energy.

    Bill Allison, managing editor for the Center for Public Integrity (an independent watchdog group in Washington, D.C.), on the other hand, said, “We looked into bin Laden money going to Arbusto, and we never found anything to back that up,” (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)
    Fahrenheit Lie #4

    The movie claims that the Bush administration “supported closing veterans hospitals.” o “The Department of Veterans Affairs did propose closing seven hospitals in areas with declining populations where the hospitals were underutilized, and whose veterans could be served by other hospitals” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)

    But Moore’s film fails to mention that the Department also proposed building new hospitals in areas where needs were growing, and also proposed building blind rehabilitation centers and spinal cord injury centers (News Release, Department of Veterans Affairs, www.va.gov, 10/24/03)
    Fahrenheit Lie #5

    Conspiracy theories abound about the reasons for the War on Terror, but none is more outlandish than the one propagandized in Moore’s film: that the Afghan war was fought solely to enable the Unocal company to build an oil pipeline (the plan for which was abandoned by the company in 1998).

    Moore “suggests that one of the first official acts of Afghan President Hamid Karzai … was to help seal a deal for … Unocal to build an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean. It alleges that Karzai had been a Unocal consultant.” (emphasis added) (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)

    Unocal spokesman, Barry Lane, says unequivocally, “Karzai was never, in any capacity, an employee, consultant or a consultant of a consultant,” and Unocal never had a plan to build a Caspian Sea pipeline. (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)

    Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while President Bush was governor to discuss a potential project with Unocal.

    While Moore implies that then-Governor Bush met with the Taliban, no such meeting occurred. The Taliban delegation did, however, meet with the Clinton Administration on this visit. (Matt Labash, “Un-Moored From Reality; Fahrenheit 9/11 Connects Dots That Aren’t There,” Weekly Standard, July 5-July 12 Issue)
    Fahrenheit Lie #6

    Even readily available figures are exaggerated for effect in Fahrenheit 9/11. The claims have a basis in reality, making them believable, but are false nonetheless. ü In the film, Moore asks Craig Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud, “How much money do the Saudis have invested in America, roughly?” to which Unger responds, “Uh, I’ve heard figures as high as $860 billion.”

    The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy reports that worldwide Saudi investment approximated $700 billion – a figure much lower than Unger alleges the Saudi government to have invested in the U.S. (Tanya C. Hsu, Institute For Research: Middle Eastern Policy, “The United States Must Not Neglect Saudi Arabian Investment,” www.irmep.org, Accessed 07/11/04)

    The Institute reports that 60 percent of that $700 billion – roughly $420 billion, less than half of what Unger “heard” – was actually invested in the United States by the Saudi government.
    Fahrenheit Lie #7

    “Moore’s film suggests that [President] Bush has close family ties to the bin Laden family – principally through [President] Bush’s father’s relationship with the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm. The president’s father, George H.W. Bush, was a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group’s Asian affiliate until recently; members of the bin Laden family – who own one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest construction firms – had invested $2 million in a Carlyle Group fund. Bush Sr. and the bin Ladens have since severed ties with the Carlyle Group, which in any case has a bipartisan roster of partners, including Bill Clinton’s former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt. The movie quotes author Dan Briody claiming that the Carlyle Group ‘gained’ from September 11 because it owned United Defense, a military contractor. Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman notes that United Defense holds a special distinction among U.S. defense contractors that is not mentioned in Moore’s movie: the firm’s $11 billion Crusader artillery rocket system developed for the U.S. Army is one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration.” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)

    “There is another famous investor in Carlyle whom Moore does not reveal: George Soros. But the fact that the anti-Bush billionaire [Soros] has invested in Carlyle would detract from Moore’s simplistic conspiracy theory.” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)
    Fahrenheit Lie #8

    Not revealing relevant facts is dishonest enough. But to paint the Bush Administration as sympathetic and friendly to the Taliban prior to September 11, is not only dishonest, but maliciously so. ü Moore shows film of a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban delegation, claiming that the Administration “welcomed” the Taliban official, Sayed Hashemi, “to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban.”

    But the Administration did not welcome the Taliban with open arms. In fact, the State Department rejected the Taliban’s claim that it had complied with U.S. requests to isolate bin Laden.

    To demonstrate even further the Administration’s contempt for the Taliban and its illegitimacy, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher – on the day of the terrorist regime’s visit – said, “We don’t recognize any government in Afghanistan.”
    Fahrenheit Lie #9

    Moore does more than simply downplay the threat posed to the U.S. by the former Hussein regime in Iraq. He goes so far as to assert that Saddam “never threatened to attack the United States.”

    If by “attack the United States” one interprets this claim to mean that Saddam never threatened to send troops to the United States, then Mr. Moore has a point. ü But Saddam Hussein clearly sought to attack the United States within his own sphere of influence, even though he didn’t have the resources to attack U.S. soil from his side of the world:

    On November 15, 1997, “the main propaganda organ for the Saddam regime, the newspaper Babel (which was run by Saddam Hussein’s son Uday), ordered: ‘American and British interests, embassies, and naval ships in the Arab region should be the targets of military operations and commando attacks by Arab political forces.’” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)

    In addition, “Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country,” (Source: New York Times, 12/1/03).

    Saddam Hussein also provided safe haven to terrorists who killed Americans, like Abu Nidal; funded suicide bombers in Israel who certainly killed Americans; and ran the Iraqi police, which plotted to assassinate former President George Bush.



    Enjoy.
     
  13. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #13
    All of the above was cut and pasted from one of the so-called "debunking" sites. What a bore.
     
  14. Perci Mac macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Location:
    In a state of perpetual waiting
    #14
    Perhaps. But it's true, and it's something to think about. You might actually have to open your mind to do that though. :rolleyes:
     
  15. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #15
    You're new around here so I'll give you a pass this time.

    The point being, all of these issues have been debated here at great length. Cut and paste arguments are a no-go here.
     
  16. meta-ghost macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #16
    you were discussing "propaganda" in the usa
    and my point was that i'd take the more than ambiguous image of a kid flying a kite to the outright lies of the administration:


    maybe (probably not) you can say bush didn't know in october, but he was certainly lying in march.

    even if (the highly unlikely) notion that it was a mistake, why in the world would we want to vote for someone who can't be trusted to perform due diligence?
     
  17. Dale Sorel macrumors 6502a

    Dale Sorel

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2003
    #17
    Oh yea, don't forget he also makes a ton of cash while doing it :(
     
  18. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #18
    you know some claims made by 'some officials' of the current US government were ridiculous as well
    so we have two sides making ridiculous claims
    *one is a little bit to heavy film maker who makes amusing (at least to me) movies who criticise the current government with 'ridiculous claims' to perhaps make more money
    *and the other one is the government of a country who spends more money on their army/navy than perhaps the rest of the world combined,who makes the ridiculous statements to justify a 'self-defense-war' thousands and thousands of miles away

    feel free to choose ...


    BTW:
    i don't know about some of you but i was _disgusted_ about the 'war coverage' on CNN (according to many people here the channel is 'left' which surprised me..i always thought it was very conservative)...
    i'm still surprised how militaristic the american news are...even on the 'left'...perhaps the US wants to be the prussians of the 21th century ;)
     
  19. meta-ghost macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #19
    have you actually seen it. cause i'd like to respond to all of the silly things you've cut a pasted but first want to know if we will be able to have a discussion about it. seen it?
     
  20. Perci Mac macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Location:
    In a state of perpetual waiting
    #20
    If going on the CIA's strong assertation that Iraq possessed WMD's and was a threat to the United States is lying, then yes, George W Bush lied. But think back, back right before the war was started. The congress was given the same intelligence as the president. The case for going to war was strong, and most everybody agreed, including Kerry, Edwards, and other intelligence agencies from other countries, that Saddam was a threat. It's easy to turn your back on something you initially supported and advocated when you're not the one taking the fall. I was under the impression that congress had to in some way vote to go to war. Did that happen for this war? If not, I'll be the first to say, why not? But if so, that proves the case to go to war in Iraq was very good, and initially supported by the majority of both parties. The recent anti-war talk certainly has merit, but the blaming of the individual of George W Bush is purely political.
     
  21. Perci Mac macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Location:
    In a state of perpetual waiting
    #21
    Well, I've actually been registered for a year and half, I know the rules. Is the reason that you discourage citing other websites for factual information is that you don't want to read the facts? Should we all just make stuff up to avoid going into the nasty outside world of the internet? That's quite amusing to me and it raises the question of how many Macrumors users actually read factual information and know what their talking about?
     
  22. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #22
    apparently, you don't. there're new ones for the political area. have you read them?
     
  23. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #23
    some of the intelligence presented to congress came from the WH, which used sources other than the CIA. many of these sources have been discredited. imo, it's disingenuous to forgive the WH for discredited intelligence, when it was responsible for its gathering and analysis in the first place.

    no, there was no official declaration of war.

    so where exactly does the buck stop, if it's not w/ the commander in chief?
     
  24. Bobcat37 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Location:
    Colorado
    #24
    Well... I AM new here, but I've debated politics countless of other times on another board, so I know how it works. Like Perci, I'm not following your logic, if "cut and paste" arguments are not allowed, then you should not be allowed to quote anything from Moore's "documentary" and use it in an argument against Bush, because that would be "cutting and pasting" from a movie, right? What's the difference? Heck, I could probably argue that ANYTHING you say political-related has been said by someone else in the past, and thus you are probably just copying them.

    Seems like your just finding an easy escape to avoid reading or listening to anything Perci cited. If a reliable person (which I realize could be subject to debate) has already done the research for you, why not just quote them (as long as you give them credit of course)? I dont think most of us have the time in our life to research Moore's claims ourselves for a little debate on a Mac website.

    Personally I would trust anything the Independence Institute has said over what Moore says. Maybe you wouldn't, but that doesn't give you an excuse to just dismiss his points.
     
  25. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #25
    How poignant. I was thinking the same thing as I read your copy/paste dissertation.

    You may want to mind your tongue.
     

Share This Page