Religions > Atheism > VETS CHARGE: KERRY KILLED FLEEING TEEN; LIED FOR MEDAL! TYPICAL LIBERAL!!!!!!
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Hanoi Jane Fonda" |
| Date: |
21 Aug 2004 11:28:48 PM |
| Object: |
VETS CHARGE: KERRY KILLED FLEEING TEEN; LIED FOR MEDAL! TYPICAL LIBERAL!!!!!! |
VETS CHARGE: KERRY KILLED FLEEING TEEN; LIED FOR MEDAL! TYPICAL
LIBERAL!!!!!!
http://www.drudgereport.com/
Slaughters Animals, Burns Down Tiny Village
**Exclusive**
A veterans group seeking to deeply discredit Democrat John Kerry's
military service will charge in the new bombshell book UNFIT FOR
COMMAND:
"Kerry earned his Silver Star by killing a lone, fleeing, teenage Viet
Cong in a loincloth."
"And if Kerry's superiors had known the truth at the time, they would
never have recommended him for the medal."
The book also claims to detail how Kerry personally ordered the
slaughter of small animals at a small hamlet along the Song Bo De
River.
MORE
The book, set for release next week, hit #1 on the AMAZON hitparade
after the DRUDGE REPORT revealed details of the book -- a book the
Kerry camapign believes is the"the dirtiest of all dirty tricks ever
played on a candidate for the presidency."
The Kerry campaign is planning to vigorously counter the charges and
will accuse the veteran's groups of being well-financed by a top Bush
donor from Texas.
The vets have launched a blistering new TV commercial questioning
Kerry's honor and calling him a liar.
MORE
George Bates, an officer in Coastal Division 11, participated in
numerous operations with Kerry. In UNFIT FOR COMMAND, Bates recalls a
particular patrol with Kerry on the Song Bo De River. He is still
haunted" by the incident:
With Kerry in the lead, the boats approached a small hamlet with three
or four grass huts. Pigs and chickens were milling around peacefully.
As the boats drew closer, the villagers fled. There were no political
symbols or flags in evidence in the tiny village. It was obvious to
Bates that existing policies, decency, and good sense required the
boats to simply move on.
Instead, Kerry beached his boat directly in the small settlement. Upon
his command, the numerous small animals were slaughtered by
heavy-caliber machine guns. Acting more like a pirate than a naval
officer, Kerry disembarked and ran around with a Zippo lighter,
burning up the entire hamlet.
Bates has never forgotten Kerry's actions.
MORE
UNFIT FOR COMMAND, DRUDGE has learned, claims Kerry "earned his Silver
Star by killing a lone, fleeing, teenage Viet Cong in a loincloth."
ARE THE VETS TELLING THE TRUTH?
"They hired a ***** private investigator to dig up trash!" charged a
top Kerry adviser traveling with the senator late Tuesday. "This is
pay for play... How low can they go?"
Kerry supporters are comparing the effort by the veterans to the
Arkansas State troopers tell-all against Bill Clinton.
MORE
John O'Neill, co-author of UNFIT FOR COMMAND, believes that "Kerry's
Star would never have been awarded had his actions been reviewed
through normal channels. In his case, he was awarded the medal two
days after the incident with no review. The medal was arranged to
boost the morale of Coastal
Division 11, but it was based on false and incomplete information
provided by Kerry himself."
According to Kerry's Silver Star citation, Kerry was in command of a
three-boat mission on the Dong Cung River. As the boats approached the
target area, they came under intense enemy fire. Kerry ordered his
boat to attack and all boats opened fire. He then beached directly in
front of the enemy ambushers. In the battle that followed, the crews
captured enemy weapons. His boat then moved further up the river to
suppress more enemy fire. A rocket exploded near Kerry's boat, and he
ordered to charge the enemy. Kerry beached his boat 10 feet from the
rocket position and led a landing party ashore to pursue the enemy.
Kerry' citation reads: "The extraordinary daring and personal courage
of Lt. Kerry in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of
intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission."
Here's what O'Neill and the Swiftees say: "According to Kerry's
crewman Michael Madeiros, Kerry had an agreement with him to turn the
boat in and onto the beach if fired upon. Each of the three boats
involved in the operation was involved in the agreement." O'Neill
writes that one crewman even recalls a discussion of probable medals.
Doug Reese, a pro Kerry Army veteran, recounted what happened that day
to O'Neill, "Far from being alone, the boats were loaded with many
soldiers commanded by Reese and two other advisors. When fired at,
Reese's boat-not Kerry's--was the first to beach in the ambush zone.
Then Reese and other troops and advisors (not Kerry) disembarked,
killing a number of Viet Cong and capturing a number of weapons. None
of the participants from Reese's boat received Silver Stars.
O'Neill continues: "Kerry's boat moved slightly downstream and was
struck by a rocket-propelled grenade. . . .A young Viet Cong in a
loincloth popped out of a hole, clutching a grenade launcher, which
may or may not have been loaded. . . Tom Belodeau, a forward gunner,
shot the Viet Cong with an M-60 machine gun in the leg as he fled. . .
.. Kerry and Medeiros (who had many troops in their boat) took off,
perhaps with others, and followed the young Viet Cong and shot him in
the back, behind a lean to."
O'Neill concludes "Whether Kerry's dispatching of a fleeing, wounded,
armed or unarmed teenage enemy was in accordance with the customs of
war, it is very clear that many Vietnam veterans and most Swiftees do
not consider this action to be the stuff of which medals of any kind
are awarded; nor would it even be a good story if told in the cold
details of reality. There is no indication that Kerry ever reported
that the Viet Cong was wounded and fleeing when dispatched. Likewise,
the citation simply ignores the presence of the soldiers and advisors
who actually 'captured the enemy weapons' and routed the Viet Cong. .
.. . [and] that Kerry attacked a 'numerically superior force in the
face of intense fire' is simply false. There was little or no fire
after Kerry followed the plan. . . . The lone, wounded, fleeing young
Viet Cong in a loincloth was hardly a force superior to the heavily
armed Swift Boat and its crew and the soldiers carried aboard."
DRUDGE learns from UNFIT FOR COMMAND that if Kerry's superior officers
knew the truth, they would never have recommended the award:
"Admiral Roy Hoffmann, who sent a Bravo Zulu (meaning "good work"), to
Kerry upon learning of the incident, was very surprised to discover in
2004 what had actually occurred. Hoffmann had been told that Kerry had
spontaneously beached next to the bunker and almost single-handedly
routed a bunkered force in Viet Cong. He was shocked to find out that
Kerry had beached his boat second in a preplanned operation, and that
he had killed a single, wounded teenage foe as he fled."
"Commander Geoge Elliott, who wrote up the initial draft of Kerry's
Silver Star citation, confirms that neither he, nor anyone else in the
Silver Star process that he knows, realized before 1996 that Kerry was
facing a single, wounded young Viet Cong fleeing in a loincloth. While
Commander Elliott and many other Swiftees believe that Kerry committed
no crime in killing the fleeing, wounded enemy (with a loaded or empty
launcher), others feel differently. Commander Elliott indicates that a
Silver Star recommendation
would not have been made by him had he been aware of the actual
facts."
Developing....
-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge
Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
(c)DRUDGE REPORT 2004
.
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: VETS CHARGE: KERRY KILLED FLEEING TEEN; LIED FOR MEDAL! TYPICAL LIBERAL!!!!!! |
22 Aug 2004 12:55:23 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 00:28:48 -0400 the ET form known as Hanoi Jane
Fonda<hanoi_jane@N0SPAM.C0M> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
VETS CHARGE: KERRY KILLED FLEEING TEEN; LIED FOR MEDAL! TYPICAL
LIBERAL!!!!!!
More lies from an astroturf group.
BTW the story about Jane Fonda in Hanoi was also *****.
--
epicurus1*at*optusnet*dot*com*dot*au
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: VETS CHARGE: KERRY KILLED FLEEING TEEN; LIED FOR MEDAL! TYPICAL LIBERAL!!!!!! |
22 Aug 2004 12:08:14 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 15:25:23 +0930, Meteorite Debris <abuse@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 00:28:48 -0400 the ET form known as Hanoi Jane
Fonda<hanoi_jane@N0SPAM.C0M> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
VETS CHARGE: KERRY KILLED FLEEING TEEN; LIED FOR MEDAL! TYPICAL
LIBERAL!!!!!!
More lies from an astroturf group.
Astroturf would be an understandment.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -957 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hanoi Jane Fonda" |
|
| Title: Michael Moore Makes Fun Of Injured Soldier! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!! |
22 Aug 2004 01:14:13 AM |
|
|
Michael Moore Makes Fun Of Injured Soldier!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39466
An Army reservist who lost parts of both arms in the war in Iraq was
surprised to discover he appears in Michael Moore's anti-Bush film
"Fahrenheit 9/11."
Peter Damon, now recuperating at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in
Washington, D.C. from an October incident, is shown in the
controversial film in a hospital speaking to an off-camera
interviewer, The Enterprise newspaper of Brockton, Mass., reports.
His wife, Jennifer Damon, said neither she nor her husband were aware
the footage, from NBC Nightly News, would be used in the film.
"He's in there," she told the paper. "I saw it and I told him that he
should probably go see it too."
Damon was working on a Blackhawk helicopter in Balad, Iraq, Oct. 21
when a tire exploded. He appears in the clip with his injured arms in
bandages, speaking for about half a minute after a voice-over by Moore
introduces that part of the film.
Released June 25, "Fahrenheit 9/11" so far has earned $80.1 million.
In its scathing denunciation of President Bush, the film shows graphic
footage of bodies of U.S. soldiers in Iraq being burned.
John Gonsalves, founder of Homes For Our Troops, a group working to
build the Damons a home, said he learned from a neighbor of Peter's
appearance in the film.
"I was shocked. I would have expected if Peter was in the movie that
someone would have at least talked to him about it, which I thought
was kind of unfair," Gonsalves told The Enterprise. "I think for
Michael Moore to portray Peter in there without any knowledge is
terrible."
The Brockton paper said it received no response by press time from the
film's New York City publicity firm, Ken Sunshine Consultants Inc.
NBC News says it's the practice of all news organizations to license
its footage and, as a general rule, NBC does not obtain releases from
people who appear on their news programs.
But it would be the responsibility of Moore to get permission.
"When we do license footage - as in this instance - NBC includes a
provision that it is the responsibility of the licensee, not NBC, to
obtain all required consents and releases necessary to use the
footage," wrote spokeswoman Barbara Levin
Jennifer Damon told The Enterprise only her husband could comment on
the consent issue. The paper said it could not be determined by press
time whether Peter Damon signed any release form with NBC.
Transcript Sunday, August 31, 2003 Meet the Press
Oct. 9, 2002 MSNBC
MR. RUSSERT: I went back and re-read your speech on the floor of the
Senate October 9, and I want to share that with you and our viewers...
SEN. KERRY: Absolutely.
MR. RUSSERT: ...because you repeated many of exactly the same claims
and concerns that President Bush did.
SEN. KERRY: Correct.
MR. RUSSERT: Let’s watch.
(Videotape, October 9, 2002):
SEN. KERRY: Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is
capable of quickly producing weaponizing of a variety of such agents,
including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs,
missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which would bring them
to the United States itself.
In addition, we know they are developing unmanned aerial vehicles
capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.
According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree
that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that
Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.
In the wake of September 11, who among us can say with any certainty
to anybody that the weapons might not be used against our troops or
against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of
miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even
greater, a nuclear weapon?
Liberals Hate America!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore Makes Fun Of Injured Soldier! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!! |
22 Aug 2004 03:31:12 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 02:14:13 -0400 the ET form known as Hanoi Jane
Fonda<hanoi_jane@N0SPAM.C0M> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
Michael Moore Makes Fun Of Injured Soldier!
Given that you take your nick from a story that has been completely
debunked why should I take this little piece seriously. Manufactured
no doubt by some right wing think tank from some focus group work paid
for by by some lobbyist group who would then typically set up an
astroturf group to feed such finely tuned lies to. I have seen F911
and did not see any soldier made fun of. That is one of the 59
"deceits" handed out to astroturf groups. Of course after being
slammed for the fact of not actually being a deceit you, or your
handler, were careful enough not to call it one in this post.
Perhaps you should do some research on Hanoi Jane. OTOH look at this
below. Might be an idea to change your nic anyway. Dare say you're
hitting enough kill files with the old one by now.
<http://www.google.com.au/groups?q=+%22jane+fonda%22+group:alt.atheism
+author:meteorite&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
8&scoring=r&selm=MPG.15c502715105256b989c38%40news.dingoblue.net.au&rn
um=1<
or <http://tinyurl.com/62j9k>.
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 23:36:50 GMT Kronius<nitramrj@hotmail.com> did
eloquently compose:
I recieved one of those "chain letter" emails that encourage you to pass it
along, but this one seems different. It is about Jane Fonda's actions during
her visits to Vietnam: <story snipped>
It is false. An urban legend that has has been doing doing the rounds
for years. A few years back a journalist for an Aussie paper Michael
Warby who is also a member of the right wing IPA (Institute of Public
Affairs or as I know it as Institute of Plagiarists and Arseholes)
pulled the story off the net quoting whole chunks as his own the web
without crediting Jon E. Dougherty and was exposed to national
humiliation on Media Watch - than a TV program about media journalism.
The IPA is the same body attacking the ABC for bias and was left with
egg on its' hypocritical face. Jon E. Dougherty has admitted that the
story is not true.
http://www.about.com/culture/urbanlegends/library/weekly/aa110399.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s104817.htm
--
epicurus1*at*optusnet*dot*com*dot*au
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. 11D Ricardo MadGello" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore Makes Fun Of Injured Soldier! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!! |
22 Aug 2004 02:53:28 AM |
|
|
"Meteorite Debris" <abuse@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b92e1b6e1c7fd7b989e86@news.optusnet.com.au...
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
What is this link supposed to get to?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hanoi Jane Fonda" |
|
| Title: The 56 Lies of Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit-911” LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!! |
22 Aug 2004 03:58:34 AM |
|
|
The 56 Lies of Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit-911” LIBERALS HATE
AMERICA!!!!!!
Fifty-six Deceits in Fahrenheit 911
By Dave Kopel
[This is a preliminary version of an article that will be published on
National Review Online.]
There are many articles which have pointed out the distortions,
falsehoods, and lies in the film Fahrenheit 911. This report compiles
the Fahrenheit 911 deceits which have been identified by a wide
variety of reviewers. In addition, I identify some inaccuracies which
have not been addressed by other writers.
The report follows the approximate order in which the movie covers
particular topics: the Bush family, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and
Iraq. This report focuses solely on factual issues, and not on
aesthetic criticism of the film.
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.
Edward Koch, the former Democratic Mayor of New York City, writes:
A year after 9/11, I was part of a panel discussion on BBC-TV’s
“Question Time” show which aired live in the United Kingdom. A portion
of my commentary at that time follows:
“One of the panelists was Michael MooreŠDuring the warm-up before the
studio audience, Moore said something along the lines of “I don’t know
why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more
likely that you will be struck by lightening than die from an act of
terror.”ŠI mention this exchange because it was not televised,
occurring as it did before the show went live. It shows where he was
coming from long before he produced “Fahrenheit 9/11.”
Edward Koch, “Moore’s propaganda film cheapens debate, polarizes
nation,” World Tribune, June 28, 2004. (By the way, I don’t disagree
with the point that it is reasonable to consider the number of deaths
from any particular problem 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 the last word; the organization was
working on additional attacks, and if the organization obtained the
right weapons, millions of people might be killed.)
As we go through the long list of lies and tricks in Fahrenheit 911,
keep in mind that Michael Moore has assembled a “war room” of
political operatives and lawyers in order to respond to criticism of
Fahrenheit 911 and to file defamation suits. (Jack Shafer, “Libel Suit
9/11. Michael Moore’s hysterical, empty threats,” Slate.com, June 12,
2004.)
Of course if there are any genuine errors in this report, the errors
will be promptly corrected. Conversely, because Moore has a paid
expert staff which is monitoring criticism of the movie, it is
reasonable to assume that‹unless I have specifically retracted some
item in this report‹Moore and his staff have not offered a persuasive
rebuttal.
In this report, I number Moore’s deceits. Some of them are outright
lies; some are omissions which create a false impression. Others
involve different forms of deception. A few are false statements Moore
has made when defending the film.
2000 Election Night
Deceits 1-2
Fahrenheit 911 begins on election night 2000. We are first shown the
Al Gore rocking on stage with famous musicians and a high-spirited
crowd. The conspicuous sign on stage reads “Florida Victory.” Moore
creates the impression that Gore was celebrating his victory in
Florida.
Actually, the rally took place in the early hours of election day,
before polls had even opened. Gore did campaign in Florida on election
day, but went home to Tennessee to await the results. The “Florida
Victory” sign reflected Gore’s hopes, not any actual election results.
(“Gore Campaigns Into Election Day,” Associated Press, Nov. 7, 2000.)
The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. According to
the narrator, “Then something called the Fox News Channel called the
election in favor of the other guyŠ.All of a sudden the other networks
said, ŒHey, if Fox said it, it must be true.’”
We then see NBC anchor Tom Brokaw stating, “All of us networks made a
mistake and projected Florida in the Al Gore column. It was our
mistake.”
Moore thus creates the false impression that the networks withdrew
their claim about Gore winning Florida when they heard that Fox said
that Bush won Florida.
In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in
the evening‹before polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle,
which is part of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at
7:49:40 p.m., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in
the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for
Gore. And at 7:52 p.m., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never lets
the audience know that Fox was among the networks which made the error
of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at 8:02 p.m., ABC called
Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were
closed.
The premature calls probably cost Bush thousands of votes from the
conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that
their state had already been decided, and many voters who were waiting
in line left the polling place. In Florida, as elsewhere, voters who
have arrived at the polling place before closing time often end up
voting after closing time, because of long lines.
At 10:00 p.m., which network took the lead in retracting the premature
Florida result? The first retracting network was CBS, not Fox.
Over four hours later, at 2:16 a.m., Fox projected Bush as the Florida
winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 a.m.
CBS had taken the lead in making the erroneous call for Gore, and had
taken the lead in retracting that call. At 3:59 a.m., CBS also took
the lead in retracting the Florida call for Bush. All the other
networks, including Fox, followed the CBS lead within eight minutes.
That the networks arrived at similar conclusions within a short period
of time is not surprising, since they were all using the same data
from the Voter News Service. (Linda Mason, Kathleen Francovic &
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, “CBS News Coverage of Election Night 2000:
Investigation, Analysis, Recommendations” (CBS News, Jan. 2001), pp.
12-25.)
Moore’s editing technique of the election night segment is typical of
his style: all the video clips are real clips, and nothing he says is,
formally speaking, false. But notice how he says, “Then something
called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other
guyŠ” The impression created is that the Fox call of Florida for Bush
came soon after the CBS/CNN calls of Florida for Gore, and that Fox
caused the other networks to change (“All of a sudden the other
networks said, ŒHey, if Fox said it, it must be true.’”)
This is the essence of the Moore technique: cleverly blending
half-truths to deceive the viewer.
2000 Election Recount
Deceit 3
A little while later:
ŠMichael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying that
if ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential
vote, “under every scenario Gore won the election.”
What Moore doesn’t show is that a six-month study in 2001 by news
organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and
CNN found just the opposite. Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped
a statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily
Democratic counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida
and the election.
Thomas Frank, “Film offers limited view,” Newsday, June 27, 2004.
Bush Presidency before September 11
Deceits 4-5
The movie lauds an anti-Bush riot that took place in Washington, D.C.,
on the day of Bush’s inauguration. Moore continues: “No President had
ever witnessed such a thing on his inauguration day. And for the next
eight months it didn’t get any better for George W. Bush. He couldn’t
get his judges appointed; he had trouble getting his legislation
passed; and he lost Republican control of the Senate. His approval
ratings in the polls began to sink.”
Part of this is true. Once Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords left the
Republican party, Democrats controlled the Senate, and stalled the
confirmation (not “appointment”) of some of the judges whom Bush had
nominated for the federal courts.
Congress did enact the top item on Bush’s agenda: a large tax cut.
During the summer, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives
easily passed many of Bush’s other agenda items, including the bill
whose numbering reflected the President’s top priority: H.R. 1, the
Bush “No Child Left Behind” education bill. The fate of the Bush bills
in the Democratic-controlled Senate, as of August 2001, was uncertain.
The Senate later did pass No Child Left Behind, but some other Bush
proposals did not pass.
Did Bush’s approval ratings begin to sink? Not really. Moore shows a
screen displaying Bush with 53% job approval on May 3, and 45% on
September 5. Strangely, the screen shot includes no source for this
alleged poll.
University of Minnesota History Professor Steven Ruggles has compiled
a chart showing Bush’s approval ratings in 13 major polls throughout
his Presidency. According the chart, never during 2001 did Bush’s
approval rating fall as low as 45% in any of the polls.
Nor did Bush’s approval ratings really “sink” after inauguration day.
Bush’s popularity ratings rose significantly in April (when his tax
cut was the main issue in Congress), and then returned to more normal
levels in June. From Bush’s inaugural until September 10, almost all
of his approval ratings were in the 50-60% range, with only a few
results from an occasional poll either higher or lower.
Bush Vacations
Deceit 6
Fahrenheit 911 states, “In his first eight months in office before
September 11th, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the
Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time.”
Shortly before 9/11, the Post calculated that Bush had spent 42
percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route, including all
or part of 54 days at his ranch. That calculation, however, includes
weekends, which Moore failed to mention.
Tom McNamee, “Just the facts on ŒFahrenheit 9/11’ Chicago Sun-Times,
June 28, 2004. See also: Mike Allen, “White House On the Range. Bush
Retreats to Ranch for ŒWorking Vacation’,” Washington Post, August 7,
2001 (Many of those days are weekends, and the Camp David stays have
included working visits with foreign leaders.)
[T]he shot of him “relaxing at Camp David” shows him side by side with
Tony Blair. I say “shows,” even though this photograph is on-screen so
briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won’t recognize the other
figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at
least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.
The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf
course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and
then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that’s what you
get if you catch the president on a golf course.
Christopher Hitchens, “Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore,”
Slate.com, June 21, 2004.
September 11
Deceit 7
Fahrenheit presents a powerful segment on the September 11 attacks.
There is no narration, and the music is dramatic yet tasteful. Instead
of the oft-played images of planes hitting their targets, the visuals
are reaction shots from pedestrians, as they gasp with horrified
astonishment.
Moore effectively evokes the horror that every decent human being felt
on September 11.
But remember, Moore does not necessarily feel the same way. As New
York’s former Mayor Edward Koch reported, Moore later said, “I don’t
know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times
more likely that you will be struck by lightening than die from an act
of terror.”
Bush on September 11
Deceit 8
Fahrenheit mocks President Bush for continuing to read a story to a
classroom of elementary school children after he was told about the
September 11 attacks.
What Moore did not tell you:
Gwendolyn Tose’-Rigell, the principal of Emma E. Booker Elementary
School, praised Bush’s action: “I don’t think anyone could have
handled
it better.” “What would it have served if he had jumped out of his
chair
and ran out of the room?”Š
She said the video doesn’t convey all that was going on in the
classroom, but Bush’s presence had a calming effect and “helped us get
through a very difficult day.”
“Sarasota principal defends Bush from ŒFahrenheit 9/11’ portrayal,”
Associated Press, June 24, 2004.
Pre-911 Briefing
Deceits 9-11
Castigating the allegedly lazy President, 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.”
Moore supplies no evidence for his assertion that President Bush did
not read the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief. Moore’s
assertion appears to be a complete fabrication.
Moore smirks that perhaps President Bush did not read the Briefing
because its title was so vague. Moore then cuts to Condoleezza Rice
announcing the title of the Briefing: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike
in U.S.”
However, no-one (except Moore) has ever claimed that Bush did not read
the Briefing, or that he did not read it because the title was vague.
Rather, Condoleezza Rice had told the press conference that the
information in the Briefing was “very vague.” National Security
Advisor Holds Press Briefing, The White House, May 16, 2002.
The content of the Briefing supports Rice’s characterization, and
refutes Moore’s assertion that the Briefing “said that Osama bin Laden
was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes.” The actual
Briefing was highly equivocal:
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational
threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998
saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the
release of “Blind Shaykh” ŒUmar’ Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-held
extremists. Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates
patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with
preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including
recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
Saudi Departures from United States
Deceits 12-15
Moore is guilty of a classic game of saying one thing and implying
another when he describes how members of the Saudi elite were flown
out of the United States shortly after 9/11.
If you listen only to what Moore says during this segment of the
movie‹and take careful notes in the dark‹you’ll find he’s got his
facts right. He and others in the film state that 142 Saudis,
including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave
the country after Sept. 13.
The date‹Sept. 13‹is crucial because that is when a national ban on
air traffic, for security purposes, was eased
But nonetheless, many viewers will leave the movie theater with the
impression that the Saudis, thanks to special treatment from the White
House, were permitted to fly away when all other planes were still
grounded. This false impression is created by Moore’s failure, when
mentioning Sept. 13, to emphasize that the ban on flights had been
eased by then. The false impression is further pushed when Moore shows
the singer Ricky Martin walking around an airport and says, “Not even
Ricky Martin would fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one. Except
the bin Ladens.”
But the movie fails to mention that the FBI interviewed about 30 of
the Saudis before they left. And the independent 9/11 commission has
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.”
McNamee, Chicago Sun-Times. (Note: The Sun-Times article was correct
in its characterization of the Ricky Martin segment, but not precisely
accurate in the exact words used in the film. I have substituted the
exact quote.)
Tapper: [Y]our film showcases former counter-terrorism czar Richard
Clarke, using him as a critic of the Bush administration. Yet in
another part of the film, one that appears in your previews, you
criticize members of the Bush administration for permitting members of
the bin Laden family to fly out of the country almost immediately
after 9/11. What the film does not mention is that Richard Clarke
says that he OK’d those flights. Is it fair to not mention that?
Moore: Actually I do, I put up The New York Times article and it’s
blown up 40 foot on the screen, you can see Richard Clarke’s name
right there saying that he approved the flights based on the
information the FBI gave him. It’s right there, right up on the
screen. I don’t agree with Clarke on this point. Just because I think
he’s good on a lot of things doesn’t mean I agree with him on
everything.
Jake Tapper interview with Michael Moore, ABC News, June 25, 2004.
Again, Moore is misleading. His film includes a brief shot of a Sept.
4, 2003, New York Times article headlined “White House Approved
Departures of Saudis after Sept. 11, Ex-Aide Says.” The camera pans
over the article far too quickly for any ordinary viewer to spot and
read the words in which Clarke states that he approved the flights.
Some Saudis left the U.S. by charter flight on September 14, a day
when commercial flights had resumed, but when ordinary charter planes
were still grounded. When did the bin Ladens actually leave? Not until
the next week, as the the 9/11 Commission staff report explains:
Fearing reprisals against Saudi nationals, the Saudi government asked
for help in getting some of its citizens out of the countryŠ.we have
found that the request came to the attention of Richard Clarke and
that each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI
and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.
No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to
fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13,
2001. After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142
people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United
States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin
Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26
passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. We have found
no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian
nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national
airspace.
The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials,
primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose
a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI
with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the
country. Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed
by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private
security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed
questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent
contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist
activity.
The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin
Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear
whether the TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request,
the Terrorist Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals
on the flight manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current
TIPOFF watchlist. There are no matches.
The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six
flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11
attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those
attacks. To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this
conclusion.
Bush and James Bath
Deceit 16
Moore mentions that 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.
Matt Labash, “Un-Moored from Reality,” Weekly Standard, July 5, 2004.
See also: Frank, Newsday.
Bush and Prince Bandar
Deceit 17
Moore accurately points out the distressingly close relationship
between Saudi Arabia’s ambassador, Prince Bandar, and the Bush family.
But Moore does not explain that Bandar has been a bipartisan
Washington power broker for decades, and that Bill Clinton repeatedly
relied on Bandar to advance Clinton’s own Middle East agenda. (Elsa
Walsh, “The Prince. How the Saudi Ambassador became Washington’s
indispensable operator,” The New Yorker, Mar. 24, 2003.)
President Clinton’s former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Wyche Fowler,
has been earning a lucrative living as a Saudi apologist and serving
as Chairman of the Middle East Institute‹a research organization
heavily funded by Saudi Arabia. (Joel Mowbray, “Feeding at the Saudi
Trough,” Townhall.com, Oct. 1, 2003.)
I am not suggesting that Mr. Fowler is in any way corrupt; I’m sure
that he is sincere (although, in my view, mistaken) in his strongly
pro-Saudi viewpoint. What is misleading is for Moore to look at the
web of Saudi influence in Washington only in regard to the Republican
Bushes, and to ignore the fact that Saudi influence and money are
widespread in both parties.
Harken Energy
Deceits 18-19
Bush once served on the Board of Directors of the Harken Energy
Company.
According to Fahrenheit:
Moore: Yes, it helps to be the President’s son. Especially when you’re
being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. TV
reporter: In 1990 when M. Bush was a director of Harken Energy he
received this memo from company lawyers warning directors not to sell
stock if they had unfavorable information about the company. One week
later he sold $848,000 worth of Harken stock. Two months later, Harken
announced losses of more than $23 million dollars.
Moore:ŠBush beat the rap from the SECŠ
What Moore left out: Bush sold the stock long after he checked with
those same “company lawyers” who had provided the cautionary memo, and
they told him that the sale was all right. Almost all of the
information that caused Harken’s large quarterly loss developed only
after Bush had sold the stock.
Despite Moore’s pejorative that Bush “beat the rap,” no-one has ever
found any evidence suggesting that he engaged in illegal insider
trading. (Byron York, “The Facts About Bush and Harken. The
president’s story holds up under scrutiny,” National Review Online,
July 10, 2002.)
Carlyle Group
Deceits 20-22
Moore’s film suggests that Bush has close family ties to the bin Laden
family‹principally through 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.
Michael Isikoff, “Under the Hot Lights. Moore’s movie will make waves.
But it’s a fine line between fact and fanaticism. Deconstructing
ŒFahrenheit 9/11.” Newsweek, June 28, 2004.
Moore claims that refusing to mention of the Crusader cancellation was
alright because the cancellation came after the United Defense IPO.
But the cancellation had a serious negative financial impact on
Carlyle, since Carlyle still owns 47% of United Defense.
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).
Labash, Weekly Standard.
There is another famous investor in Carlyle whom Moore does not
reveal:
George Soros. (Oliver Burkeman & Julian Borger, “The Ex-Presidents’
Club,” The Guardian (London), Oct. 31, 2000.) But the fact that the
anti-Bush billionaire has invested in Carlyle would detract from
Moore’s simplistic conspiracy theory.
Saudi Investments in the United States
Deceit 23
Moore asks Craig Unger: “How much money do the Saudis have invested in
America, roughly?”
Unger replies “Uh, I’ve heard figures as high as $860 billion
dollars.”
Instead of relying on unsourced figures that someone says he “heard,”
let’s look at the available data. According to the Institute for
Research Middle Eastern Policy (a pro-Saudi think tank which tries to
emphasize the importance of Saudi money to the United States), in
February 2003 total worldwide Saudi investment was at least $700
billion. Sixty percent of the Saudi investments were in the United
States, so the Saudis had about 420 billion invested in the U.S.‹a
large amount, but less than half of the amount that Moore’s source
claims he “heard.” (Tanya C. Hsu , “The United States Must Not Neglect
Saudi Arabian Investment” Sept. 23, 2003.)
Special Protection for Saudi Embassy
Deceit 24
Moore shows himself filming the movie near the Saudi embassy in
Washington, D.C.:
Moore as narrator: Even though we were nowhere near the White House,
for some reason the Secret Service had shown up to ask us what we were
doing standing across the street from the Saudi embassyŠ. Officer:
That’s fine. Just wanted to get some information on what was going on.
Moore on camera: Yeah yeah yeah, I didn’t realize the Secret Service
guards foreign embassies.
Officer: Uh, not usually, no sir.
But in fact:
Any tourist to Washington, DC, will see plenty of Secret Service
Police guarding all of the other foreign embassies which request such
protection. Other than guarding the White House and some federal
buildings, it’s the largest use of personnel by the Secret Service’s
Uniformed Division.
Debbie Schlussel, “FAKEN-heit 9-11: Michael Moore’s Latest Fiction,”
June 25, 2004.
According to the Secret Service website:
Uniformed Division officers provide protection for the White House
Complex, the Vice-President’s residence, the Main Treasury Building
and Annex, and foreign diplomatic missions and embassies in the
Washington, DC area.
So there is nothing strange about the Secret Service protecting the
Saudi embassy in Washington‹especially since al Qaeda attacks have
taken place against Saudi Arabia.
Alleged Bush-Saudi Conspiracy
Deceit 25
Moore asks, “Is it rude to suggest that when the Bush family wakes up
in the morning they might be thinking about what’s best for the Saudis
instead of what’s best for you?” But his Bush/Saudi conspiracy theory
is contradicted by very obvious facts:
Šwhy did Moore’s evil Saudis not join “the Coalition of the Willing”?
Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional
military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud
dynasty live in each other’s pocketsŠthen how come the most
reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from
demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad? The
Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq’s recuperated oil
industry might challenge their near-monopoly. They fear the liberation
of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points
is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film’s “theory.”
Hitchens, Slate.
Proposed Unocal Pipeline in Afghanistan
Deceits 26-28
Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while Bush was governor,
over a possible pipeline deal with Unocal. But Moore doesn’t say that
they never actually met with Bush or that the deal went bust in 1998
and had been supported by the Clinton administration.
Labash, Weekly Standard.
Moore asserts that the Afghan war was fought only to enable the Unocal
company to build a pipeline. In fact, Unocal dropped that idea back in
August 1998.
Jonathan Foreman, “Moore’s The Pity,” New York Post, June 23, 2004.
In December 1997, a delegation from Afghanistan’s ruling and ruthless
Taliban visited the United States to meet with an oil and gas company
that had extensive dealings in Texas. The company, Unocal, was
interested in building a natural gas line through Afghanistan. Moore
implies that Bush, who was then governor of Texas, met with the
delegation.
But, as Gannett News Service points out, Bush did not meet with the
Taliban representatives. What’s more, Clinton administration officials
did sit down with Taliban officials, and the delegation’s visit was
made with the Clinton administration’s permission.
McNamee, Chicago Sun-Times.
Bush Administration Relationship with the Taliban
Deceit 29
Moore also tries to paint Bush as sympathetic to the Taliban, which
ruled Afghanistan until its overthrow by U.S.-led forces shortly after
Sept. 11. Moore shows a March 2001 visit to the United States by a
Taliban envoy, saying the Bush administration “welcomed” the official,
Sayed Hashemi, “to tour the United States to help improve the image of
the Taliban.”
Yet Hashemi’s reception at the State Department was hardly welcoming.
The administration rejected his claim that the Taliban had complied
with U.S. requests to isolate Osama bin Laden and affirmed its
nonrecognition of the Taliban.
“We don’t recognize any government in Afghanistan,” State Department
spokesman Richard Boucher said on the day of the visit.
Frank, Newsday.
Moore Claimed that Osama bin Laden Might be Innocent
Deceit 30
Fahrenheit 911 attempts in every way possible to link Osama bin Laden
to George Bush. Moore even claims that Bush deliberately gave bin
Laden “a two month head start” by not putting sufficient forces into
Afghanistan soon enough. However:
In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American
society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride
Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that
Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan,
he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified.
Something‹I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do
now‹has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as
guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so
all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a
dangerous “distraction” from the fight against him. I believe that I
understand the convenience of this late conversion.
Hitchens, Slate.
Afghanistan after Liberation
Deceit 31
we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that
there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO
responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military
alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing
against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a
million and a half of its former refugees have opted to returnŠ.[A]
highway from Kabul to Kandahar‹an insurance against warlordism and a
condition of nation-building‹is nearing completion with infinite labor
and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular
left‹like the parties of the Iraqi secular left‹are strongly in favor
of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore
chooses to deal.
Hitchens, Slate.
John Ashcroft
Deceit 32
Moore mocks Attorney General John Ashcroft by pointing out that
Ashcroft once lost a Senate race in Missouri to a man who had died
three weeks earlier. “Voters preferred the dead guy,” Moore says,
delivering one of the film’s biggest laugh lines.
It’s a cheap shot. When voters in Missouri cast their ballots for the
dead man, Mel Carnahan, they knew they were really voting for
Carnahan’s very much alive widow, Jean. The Democratic governor of
Missouri had vowed to appoint Jean to the job if Mel won.
McNamee, Chicago Sun-Times.
Rep. Porter Goss
Deceit 33
Defending the Patriot Act, Representative Porter Goss says that he has
an “800 number” for people to call to report problems with the Act.
Fahrenheit shoots back than Goss does not have such a number; the
ordinary telephone number for Goss’s office is flashed on the screen.
You’d never know by watching Fahrenheit, but Rep. Goss does have a
toll-free number to which Patriot Act complaints can be reported. The
number belongs to the Committee which Goss chairs, the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence. The number is (877) 858-9040.
Although the Committee’s number is toll-free, the prefix is not “800,”
and Moore exploits this trivial fact to create the false impression
that Goss lied about having a toll-free number.
As far as I can tell, the slam on Rep. Goss is the only factual error
in the segment on the misnamed Patriot Act, and while there are a few
good things in the Act, Moore’s general critique of the Act is valid.
The Act does contain many items which had long been on the FBI
wish-list, which do not have real relation to the War on Terror, and
which were pushed through under the pretext of 9/11. Similar critiques
are also valid for the Clinton “terrorism” bill which was pushed
through Congress in 1996. As for Moore’s claim that the motive of the
Patriot Act was to terrify the American people, I disagree, but it’s a
matter of opinion, and therefore beyond the scope of this report.
Saddam Hussein Never Murdered Americans
Deceits 34-35
Fahrenheit asserts that Saddam’s Iraq was a nation that “had never
attacked the United States. A nation that had never threatened to
attack the United States. A nation that had never murdered a single
American citizen.”
Jake Tapper (ABC News): You declare in the film that Hussein’s regime
had never killed an American Š Moore: That isn’t what I said. Quote
the movie directly. Tapper: What is the quote exactly?
Moore: “Murdered.” The government of Iraq did not commit a
premeditated murder on an American citizen. I’d like you to point out
one. Tapper: If the government of Iraq permitted a terrorist named
Abu Nidal who is certainly responsible for killing Americans to have
Iraq as a safe haven; if Saddam Hussein funded suicide bombers in
Israel who did kill Americans; if the Iraqi police‹now this is not a
murder but it’s a plan to murder‹to assassinate President Bush which
at the time merited airstrikes from President Clinton once that plot
was discovered; does that not belie your claim that the Iraqi
government never murdered an American or never had a hand in murdering
an American? Moore: No, because nothing you just said is proof that
the Iraqi government ever murdered an American citizen. And I am still
waiting for you to present that proof.
You’re talking about, they provide safe haven for Abu Nidal after the
committed these murders, uh, Iraq helps or supports suicide bombers in
Israel. I mean the support, you remember the telethon that the Saudis
were having? It’s our allies, the Saudis, that have been providing
help and aid to the suicide bombers in Israel. That’s the story you
should be covering. Why don’t you cover that story? Why don’t you
cover it?
Note Moore’s extremely careful phrasing of the lines which appear to
exonerate Saddam, and Moore’s hyper-legal response to Tapper. In
fact, Saddam provided refuge to notorious terrorists who had murdered
Americans‹and therefore Saddam was an accessory to the murders. Saddam
order his police to murder a former American President; they attempted
to do so, but failed. Yet none of these aggressions against the United
States “count” for Moore, because he has carefully framed his verbs
and verb tenses to exclude them.
But even with Moore’s clever phrasing designed to elide Saddam’s
culpability in the murders of Americans, Tapper still catches him with
an irrefutable point: Saddam did perpetrate the premeditated murder of
Americans. Every victim of every Palestinian terrorist bomber who was
funded by Saddam Hussein was the victim of premeditated
murder‹including the American victims.
So what does Moore do? He tries to change the subject. Moore makes the
good point that the U.S. media should focus more attention on Saudi
financial aid to Palestinian terrorists who murder Americans in
Israel. On NRO, I’ve pointed to Saudi terror funding, as have other
NRO writers. But pointing out Saudi Arabia’s guilt does not excuse
Moore’s blatant lie about Saddam Hussein’s innocence.
Saddam’s Threats
Deceit 36
Moore’s pro-Saddam allegation that Saddam “never threatened to attack
the United States” is true in the narrow sense that Saddam never gave
a speech in which he threatened to, for example, send the Iraqi navy
and army to conduct an amphibious invasion of Florida.
But Saddam did not need to make verbal threats in order to “threaten”
the United States. He threatened the United States by giving refuges
to terrorists who had murdered Americans, and by funding terrorists
who were killing Americans in Israel. Saddam gave refuge to terrorists
who had attacked the United States by bombing the World Trade Center.
Further:
In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous
Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long
time. After that same invasion was repelled‹Saddam having killed quite
a
few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime
and having threatened to kill many moreŠ
Š.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. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped
mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then
skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the
overthrow of SaddamŠ.On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported‹and
the David Kay report had established‹that Saddam had been secretly
negotiating with the “Dear Leader” Kim Jong-il in a series of secret
meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North
Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the
shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of
Baghdad, the coalition’s presence having meanwhile put an end to the
negotiations.)
Hitchens, Slate.
In short, the regime that sheltered the 1993 World Trade Center
bombers was attempting to obtain nuclear weapons. Saddam may not have
made verbal threats, but his actions spoke louder than words, and they
were extremely threatening. Moore shows Secretary of State Colin
Powell stating, “Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a
nuclear bomb.” The film suggests that Powell was wrong, but the
captured Iraqi documents prove that Powell was correct.
Iraq and al Qaeda
Deceit 37
MooreŠmakes light of the claimed Bush connection between Saddam and
Al-Qaeda. But what about the meeting between hijacker Mohammed Atta
and Iraqi Intelligence agents in the Czech Republic before 9-11? What
about the Iraqi training camp in Salman Pak where Al-Qaeda used
abandoned planes to train to hijack them? What about Ramzi Youssef,
the Iraqi Secret Service agent and mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing,
who is the nephew of 9-11 Al-Qaeda mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
What about Iraqi Intelligence and Secret Police (Mukhabarat) at a
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Al-Qaeda terror planning convention? These are
just some connections, and there are others in “The Connection,” by
Stephen Hayes, that you won’t see in Moore’s silver screen screed.
Schlussel.
The book which Schlussel cites is Stephen F. Hayes, The Connection :
How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered
America (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2004). Hayes is a writer for The Weekly
Standard and much of his writing on the Saddam/Osama connection is
available there for free; simply use the search engine and look for
articles by Hayes.
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:
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.
I agree with Hayes that there is significant evidence of Iraqi
involvement in 9/11, but Moore deceptively cut the Rice quote to fool
the audience into thinking she was making a particular claim which she
actually was not.
Iraq before Liberation
Deceit 38
Moore shows scenes of Baghdad before the invasion (read: liberation)
and in his weltanschauung, it’s a place filled with nothing but happy,
smiling, giggly, overjoyed Baghdadis. No pain and suffering there. No
rape, murder, gassing, imprisoning, silencing of the citizens in these
scenes. When he exploits and lingers on the tears of a mother who lost
her soldier-son in Iraq, and she wails, “Why did you have to take
him?” Moore does not cut to images of the murderers/terrorists (pardon
me, “insurgents”) in IraqŠor even to God; he cuts to George Bush. When
the soldier’s father says the young man died and “for what?”, Moore
doesn’t show liberated Iraqis to reply, he cuts instead to an image of
Halliburton.
Jarvis, Buzz Machine.
The most offensive sequence in “Fahrenheit 9/11”’s long two hours
lasts only a few minutes. It’s Moore’s file-footage depiction of happy
Iraq before the Americans began their supposedly pointless invasion.
You see men sitting in cafes, kids flying kites, women shopping. Cut
to bombs exploding at night.
What Moore presumably doesn’t know, or simply doesn’t care about, is
that the building you see being blown up is the Iraqi Ministry of
Defense in Baghdad. Not many children flew kites there. It was in a
part of the city that ordinary Iraqis weren’t allowed to visit‹on pain
of death.
ŠIraq was ruled by a regime that had forced a sixth of its population
into fearful exile, that hanged dissidents (real dissidents, not
people like Susan Sontag and Tim Robbins) from meathooks and tortured
them with blowtorches, and filled thousands of mass graves with the
bodies of its massacred citizens.
Yes, children played, women shopped and men sat in cafes while that
stuff went on‹just as people did all those normal things in Somoza’s
Nicaragua, Duvalier’s Haiti and for that matter Nazi Germany, and as
they do just about everywhere, including in Iraq today.
Foreman, New York Post.
Invasion of Iraq
Deceits 39-41
According to the footage that ensues, our pilots seem to have hit
nothing but women and children.
Labash, Weekly Standard.
Then‹wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American
imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I
can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers
getting the treatmentŠI remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was
or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and
he doesn’t now, either. I’ll just say that the “insurgent” side is
presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year
record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not
mentioned once. (Actually, that’s not quite right. It is briefly
mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when
Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah
Khomeini.)
Hitchens, Slate.
Major Coalition Partners Ignored
Deceit 42
Q: You mock the “coalition of the willing” by only showing the tiny
countries that have voiced support. But you leave out England, Spain,
Italy and Poland. Why?
Moore: “This film exists as a counterbalance to what you see on cable
news about the coalition. I’m trying to counter the Orwellian nature
of the Big Lie, as if when you hear that term, the Œcoalition,’ that
the whole world is behind us.”
Patrick Goldstein, “Truth teller or story stretcher?” Los Angeles
Times, June 22, 2004.
If it is a “Big Lie” to mention only the powerful and important
members of the Coalition (such as England and Australia), then it is
an equally “Big Lie” to mention only the small and insignificant
members of the Coalition.
Media Attitudes
Deceit 43
In very selectively edited clips, Moore poses the absurd notion that
the main news anchors‹Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, and Ted
Koppel‹wholeheartedly support Bush and the War in IraqŠ.Has Moore
forgotten the hour-long Saddam softball interview Rather did just
prior to the war, [or] Jennings’ condescending coverageŠ?
Schlussel.
Jennings is shown delivering a broadcast in which he says, “Iraqi
opposition has faded in the face of American power.” But Jennings was
simply stating an undeniable fact, as he stood next to a map showing
that Saddam’s army had collapsed everywhere, and all Iraqi cities were
in Coalition hands. Despite what Moore implies, Jennings strongly
opposed the liberation of Iraq. (Tim Graham, “Peter’s Peace Platoon.
ABC’s Crusade Against ŒArrogant’ American Power,” Media Research
Center, March 18, 2003.)
Support for Soldiers and Veterans
Deceits 44-47
Bush “supported closing veterans hospitals” says Moore. The Bush
Department of Veteran’s 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.
Moore does not say that the Department also proposed building new
hospitals in areas where needs were growing, and also building blind
rehabilitation centers and spinal cord injury centers. (For more, see
the Final Report of the independent commission on veterans hospitals,
which agrees with some of the Bush proposals, and with some of the
objections raised by critics.)
According to Moore, Bush “tried to double the prescription drug costs
for veterans.” What Bush proposed was raising the prescription co-pay
from $7 to $15, for veterans with incomes of over $24,000 a year.
Prescription costs would have remained very heavily subsidized by
taxpayers.
Bush, announces Moore, “proposed cutting combat soldiers’ pay by 33%.”
Not exactly. In addition to regular military salaries, soldiers in
certain areas (not just combat zones) receive an “imminent danger”
bonus
of $150 a month. In April 2003, Congress retroactively enacted a
special
increase of $75, for the fiscal year of Oct. 1, 2002 through Sept. 30,
2003. At first, the Bush administration did not support renewing the
special bonus, but then changed its position
Likewise, Congress had passed a special one-year increase in the
family separation allowance (for service personnel stationed in places
where their families cannot joint them) from $100 to $250. Bush’s
initial support for not extending the special increase was presented
by Moore as “cutting assistance to their families by 60%.” (Edward
Epstein, “Pentagon reverses course, won’t cut troops’ pay,” San
Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 15, 2003.)
Even if one characterizes not renewing a special bonus as a “cut,”
Fahrenheit misleads the viewer into thinking that the cuts applied to
total compensation, rather than only to pay supplements which
constitute only a small percentage of a soldier’s income. An enlisted
man with four months of experience receives an annual salary more than
$27,000. (Rod Powers, “What the Recruiter Never Told You: Military
Pay.”)
In 2003, Congress enacted a Bush administration proposal to raise all
military salaries by 3.7%, with extra “targeted” pay increases for
non-commissioned officer. NCOs are lower-ranking officers who
typically join the military with lower levels of education than
commissioned officers. (Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample, “Defense
Department Targets Military Pay Increases for 2004,” American Forces
Press Service.)
Congressional Children in War
Deceits 48-51
“Not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for
the war in Iraq,” announces Moore, after accosting Congressmen to try
to convince them to have their children enlist in the military.
Again, Moore’s phrasing is technically true, but duplicitous. Of
course no-one would want to “sacrifice” his child in any way. But
despite the impression left by Moore, Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son
of South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne
Division. The Division fought in Iraq. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden
also has a son on active duty. Earlier in the segment, Moore does note
that “only one” member of Congress has a child in Iraq, but this
statement is overshadowed by Moore’s dramatic conclusion about “not a
single member of Congress.”
How about Cabinet members? Fahrenheit never raises the issue, because
the answer would not fit Moore’s thesis. Attorney General John
Ashcroft’s son is on active duty. (Fahrenheit Fact.)
The editing of the Congressional scenes borders on the fraudulent:
Š.Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in
Fahrenheit 9/11, was censored by Michael Moore.
According to the Star Tribune, Kennedy, when asked if he would be
willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a
nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore
that his son was thinking about a career in the navy and that two of
his nephews had already served in the armed forces. Kennedy’s side of
the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking
bewildered and defensive.
What was Michael’s excuse for trimming the key segment? Kennedy’s
remarks didn’t help his thesis: “He mentioned that he had a nephew
that was going over to Afghanistan,” Moore recounted. “So then I said
ŒNo, no, that’s not our job here today. We want you to send your child
to Iraq. Not a nephew.’”
Kennedy lambasted Moore as a “master of the misleading” after viewing
the interview in question.
Fahrenheit Fact.
George Stephanopoulos, of ABC News, asked Moore about the selective
cuts in the Kennedy footage:
Stephanopoulos: You have a scene when you’re up on Capitol Hill
encountering members of Congress, asking them if they would ask their
sons and daughters to enlist Š in the military. And one of those
members of Congress who appears in the trailer, Mark Kennedy, said you
left out what he told you, which is that he has two nephews serving in
the military, one in Afghanistan. And he went on to say that, “Michael
Moore doesn’t always give the whole truth. He’s a master of the
misleading.” Moore: Well, at the time, when we interviewed him, he
didn’t have any family members in Afghanistan. And when he saw the
trailer for this movie, he issued a report to the press saying that he
said that he had a kid in‹ Stephanopoulos: He said he told you he had
two nephews. Moore:Š No, he didn’t. And we released the transcript
and we put it on our Web site. This is what I mean by our war room.
Any time a guy like this comes along and says, “I told him I had two
nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan,”
he’s lying. And I’ve got the raw footage and the transcript to prove
it. So any time these Republicans come at me like this, this is
exactly what they’re going to get. And people can go to my Web site
and read the transcript and read the truth. What he just said there,
what you just quoted, is not true.
This Week followed up with the office of Rep. Kennedy. He did have two
nephews in the military, but neither served in Iraq. Kennedy’s staff
agrees that Moore’s Website is accurate but insists the movie version
is misleading. In the film, Moore says, “Congressman, I’m trying to
get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go
over to Iraq.” But, from the transcript, here’s the rest:
Moore: Is there any way you could help me with that?
Kennedy: How would I help you?
Moore: Pass it out to other members of Congress. Kennedy: I’d be
happy to ‹ especially those who voted for the war. I have a nephew on
his way to Afghanistan.
This Week, ABC News, June 20, 2004.
So while Fahrenheit pretended that Kennedy rebuffed Moore, Kennedy
agreed to help Moore.
Fahrenheit shows Moore calling out to Delaware Republican Michael
Castle, who is talking on a cell phone and waves Moore off. Castle is
presented one of the Congressmen who would not sacrifice his children.
What the film omits is that Rep. Castle does not have any children.
Are Congressional children less likely to serve in Iraq than children
from other families? Let’s use Moore’s methodology, and ignore members
of extended families (such as nephews) and also ignore service
anywhere expect Iraq (even though U.S. forces are currently fighting
terrorists in many countries). And like Moore, let us also ignore the
fact that some families (like Rep. Castle’s) have no children, or no
children of military age.
We then see that of 535 Congressional families, there was one (Brooks
Johnson) with a child who served in Iraq. How does this compare with
American families in general? In the summer of 2003, U.S. troop levels
in Iraq were raised to 145,000. If we factor in troop rotation, we
could estimate that about 300,000 people have served in Iraq at some
point. According to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000
households in the United States in 2000. (See Table 1 of the Census
Report.) So the ratio of ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service
personnel is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1.
In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service
personnel is 535:1.
Stated another way, a Congressional household is about one-third less
likely than an ordinary household to be closely related to an Iraqi
serviceman or servicewoman. In other words, the gap between the
service rates of Congressional children and of other people’s children
is vastly less than the gap that Moore falsely suggests.
Of course my statistical methodology is very simple. A more
sophisticated analysis would look only at Congressional and U.S.
households from which at least one child is legally eligible to enlist
in the military. Moore, obviously, never attempted such a comparison;
instead, he deceived viewers into believing that Congressional
families were extremely different from other families in enlistment
rates.
Moore ignores the fact that there are 102 veterans currently serving
in Congress. Regardless of whether they have children who could join
the military, all of the veterans in Congress have personally put
themselves at risk to protect their country.
Lila Lipscomb
Deceit 52
Moore exploits the grief of Lila Lipscomb, the mother of a soldier who
died in Iraq. She denounces Bush and the War. But there are many
mothers and relatives of US soldiers, alive and dead, who served there
who don’t agree with her. Don’t look for them in this agit-prop
“film.”
Schlussel.
Fahrenheit wallows in pity for Mrs. Lipscomb. “I was tired of seeing
people like Mrs. Lipscomb suffer,” he claims. Yet Moore’s website
takes a different view:
I’m sorry, 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.
Michael Moore, “Heads Up... from Michael Moore,” MichaelMoore.com,
April 14, 2004.
Moore’s Pro-Saddam Source
Deceit 53
Washington Representative Jim McDermott appears in several segments.
McDermott was one of three Congressmen who went on Saddam’s propaganda
tour of Iraq in Fall 2002. The trip was funded by Life for Relief and
Development (LRD), a “charity” which laundered money to terrorist
group Hamas’ Jordanian operation. LRD is funded in part by Shakir
Al-Khafaji, a man who did about $70 million in business with Saddam
through his Falcon Trading Group company (based in South Africa).
LRD’s Iraqi offices were raided by US troops last week, and the
Detroit-area “charity” is suspected of funding uprisings, such as the
one in Fallujah. Its officials bragged of doing so at a recent private
US fundraiser.
Mr. Alkhafaji, one of two Americans named in Iraqi newspapers as a
participant in Saddam’s “Oil for Food” scam, gave Congressman
McDermott $5,000 in October 2002 for McDermott’s legal defense fund in
a lawsuit against himŠ.
Schlussel.
Celebrities
Deceit 54
He shows Britney Spears saying she supports the President on Iraq. As
if there weren’t a host of brain-dead bimbo celebs, (Madonna, Sean
Penn, Russell Simmons, Lenny Kravitz, Susan Sarandon, The Dixie
Chicks, etc.), spouting off on the other side.
Schlussel.
Moore Supports Terrorists
Deceit 55
In Fahrenheit 911, 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. Here is what Moore says about the forces who are
killing Americans and trying to impose totalitarian rule on Iraq:
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.
Michael Moore, “Heads Up... from Michael Moore,” MichaelMoore.com,
April 14, 2004.
Moore is Working with Terrorists to Distribute His Film
Deceit 56
As reported in the trade journal Screen Daily, the Iranian-backed
terrorist group Hezbollah is promoting Fahrenheit 911 and Moore’s
Middle East distributor, Front Row, is accepting the terrorist
assistance:
In terms of marketing the film, Front Row is getting a boost from
organizations related to Hezbollah which have rung up from Lebanon to
ask if there is anything they can do to support the film. And although
[Front Row’s Managing Director Giancarlo] Chacra says he and his
company feel strongly that Fahrenheit is not anti-American, but
anti-Bush, “we can’t go against these organizations as they could
strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria.”
Nancy Tartaglione, “Fahrenheit to be first doc released theatrically
in Middle East,” Screen Daily.com, June 9, 2004 (website requires
registration). The story is discussed in Samantha Ellis, “Fahrenheit
9/11 gets help offer from Hezbollah,” The Guardian, June 17, 2004; and
“Moore film distributor OK with terror support: Exec says firm doesn’t
want to risk boycott of ŒFahrenheit 9/11’ in Mideast,”
WorldNetDaily.com, June 22, 2004.
According to Screen Daily, Moore’s film will open in mid-July on ten
screens in Lebanon and two screens in Syria. Syria is a terrorist
state which invaded Lebanon in the 1970s and controls the nation
through a puppet government.
Moore accuses the United States of sacrificing morality because of
greed: “The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started
the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do
business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those
countries, which will make Americans rich.” David Brooks, “All Hail
Moore,” New York Times, June 28, 2004.
Yet it turns out that the self-righteous Moore is the one who is
accepting aid from a terrorist organization which has murdered and
kidnapped hundreds of Americans. Just to avoid a boycott on a dozen
screens in a totalitarian terrorist state and its colony?
Theoretically, it might be possible that Moore has no personal
awareness that his Middle East distributor is working with terrorists.
But such ignorance is unlikely for two reasons: First, Moore’s “war
room” staff monitors controversial articles about the film, and there
could hardly be anything more controversial than making common cause
with terrorists. Not only has the Hezbollah relationship has been
publicized in a leading film trade on-line newspaper, the
Moore-Hezbollah connection has been reported one of the very most
significant British newspapers, and in an important American on-line
newspaper.
Second, Moore was personally questioned about the terrorist connection
at a Washington, D.C., press conference. He at first denied the
terrorist connection, but was then confronted with the direct quote
from his distributor. He stonewalled and refused to answer. So the man
who spends so much time getting in other people’s faces with tough
questions is unwilling to explain why is knowingly receiving aid from
Hezbollah.
Recall the Moore quote from the beginning of this article: the
September 11 attacks on the United States were insignificant. Recall
that long after the release of an Osama bin Laden videotape
demonstrating his responsibility for the September 11 attacks, Moore
was asserting that the invasion of Afghanistan was wrong because Osama
should be considered innocent until proven guilty. (As if a
freely-given and videotaped confession were not proof of guilt.)
The conclusion of Fahrenheit quotes from George Orwell’s 1984, the
story of a totalitarian state perpetually at war. According to Orwell,
the true purpose of the war was to perpetuate “a hierarchical society”
based on “poverty and ignorance.” The real purpose of war as “to keep
the very structure of society intact.” Fahrenheit applies Orwell’s
lines to the United States of today.
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 society,
American use of force is necessarily evil.
Four days after September 11, Moore announced: “We, the United States
of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and
bloodshed that we better get a clue about the culture of violence in
which we have been active participants.” (The statement has been
deleted from Moore’s website, but is available through the web archive
service called the Wayback Machine.) This is the view of Fahrenheit
911: Iraq under Saddam was fine until America began terrorizing it.
Throughout American history, there have always been patriotic
Americans who criticized particular war-time policies, or who believed
that a war was a mistake and should be promptly ended. A much smaller
number of Americans, however, hated America. They cheered for the
fighters who were killing Americans. They belittled America’s right to
protect itself, and they produced propaganda designed to destroy
American morale and to facilitate enemy victory. To advance their
anti-American cause, they sometimes feigned love for the nation they
despised.
Today, there are many patriotic Americans who oppose some or all
aspects of the War on Terror. I am among them, in that I have strongly
opposed the Patriot Act from its first days, have denounced the Bush
administration for siding with corporate interests rather than with
public safety by sabotaging the Armed Pilots law, and have repeatedly
stated that the current Saudi tyranny should be recognized as a major
part of the problem in the War on Terror-despite the tyranny’s close
relationship with America’s foreign policy elite.
Do the many falsehoods and misrepresentations of Fahrenheit 911
suggest a film producer who just makes careless mistakes? Or does a
man who calls Americans: “possibly the dumbest people on the planet”
believe that his audience will be too dumb to tell when he is tricking
them? Viewers will have to decide for themselves whether the
extremist and extremely deceptive Fahrenheit 911 is a conscientious
work of patriotic dissent, or the cynical propaganda of a man who
gives wartime aid to America’s murderous enemies, and who accepts
their aid in return.
Dave Kopel is Research Director of the Independence Institute and an
NRO columnist. He has previously written about the deceptions in
“Bowling for Columbine.” Like Michael Moore, in 2000 Kopel endorsed
and voted for Ralph Nader.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hanoi Jane Fonda" |
|
| Title: More Moore deceptions!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!! |
22 Aug 2004 03:57:51 AM |
|
|
More Moore deceptions!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!
In BFC, Moore shows a Bush/Quayle campaign ad concerned with the
Dukakis work release program in Massachusetts. Moore showcases it as
the finale in the portion of the film dealing with race baiting:
fear-mongering at the expense of The Black Man.
However, the Bush ad did not play the race card. Not in the least.
Only Moore's redacted version of the Bush ad played the race card.
What proportion of the guys going through the revolving door were
black?
Looking at the original Bush ad at
http://www.ammi.org/cgi-bin/video/years.cgi?1988,15,ss,x,,
I see 13 whites, 2 blacks, 1 Hispanic and a couple who are obscured
enough that you can't tell their ethnicity.
Does this exaggerate the threat posed by blacks? Hardly. The ad came
out in 1988. I was able to find racial breakdowns for 1985, that show
a racial balance of 57% white, 33% black, and 10% Hispanic in
Massachusetts prisons. http://66.165.94.98/stories/maskdiv0501.pdf
(see tables in appendix)
The math is simple enough. Bush's ad portrays more whites in this ad
as criminals in the revolving door furlough program than their actual
proportion in the Massachusetts prison population -- by far. Far from
exaggerating the stereotyped threat of The Black Man, Bush's ad is
apparently steering very far from any possibility of being accused of
doing so (except, of course, by Moore's ilk). Bush shows 72% whites,
whereas their proportion in the prison population was only 57%. BTW,
in subsequent years the white proportion dropped (10% in 12 years), so
by 1988 the "exaggeration of this white menace" by the Bush campaign
(which was merely being circumspect by increasing the white numbers)
might have been even
more pronounced.
But there's more. The deceitfully redacted Bush ad piece was the
culminus -- the very last item -- in Moore's series of depictions of
exaggerations of The Black Menace by the media. It's Moore's climax,
but he has to be deceitful by creatively editing -- and indeed,
outright fabrication - to make it work as a capstone for that motif in
his film.
Here's Moore's narration during the ad:
"You know, the thing I love about this country of mine is whether
you're a psychotic killer or [the caption "Willie Horton Released.
Then Rapes a Woman" is on-screen here; this was inserted by Moore]
running for
president of the United States, the one thing you can always count on
[the caption "Paid for by Bush-Quayle88" is on-screen here] is white
America's fear of the black man."
Moore used the same font and color scheme for the Horton insertion as
the actual ad used for the "paid for" caption.
In conclusion, Bush's ad depicted 72% white proportions in
Massachusetts during a time when the actual proportion was 57%
trending toward 47%. Bush's ad exaggerated the white menace. It took
Moore adding the Horton caption (and eliding a full view of the
revolving door scene) to make it appear that Bush's ad was playing a
race card.
More typical Moore.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
