Leftist Outrage: Jamie Gorelick's Wall...

Gorelick, an appointee of Bill Clinton, is the one who constructed the wall of separation that kept the CIA and the FBI from comparing notes and therefore invading the privacy of nice young men like, say, Muhammed Atta and Zacarius Moussaoui. While countless problems were uncovered in our intelligence operations in the wake of 9-11, no single factor comes close to in importance to Jamie Gorelick's wall.

In fact, it was Gorelick's wall, perhaps more than any other single factor, that induces some people to blame Clinton himself for 9-11 since he appointed her and she acted consistent with his philosophy of "crime fighting." She put the wall into place as Deputy Attorney General in 1995.

source

=========================================

my favorite article about Jamie Gorelick's Wall...

Why the FBI didn't Stop 9/11
By Heather MacDonald
City Journal | November 3, 2002

click

Random Michael Moore Deceits [#59]

Moore's books

"Michael Moore makes at least 17 factual errors or misrepresentations in his latest book, Dude, Where's My Country?, ranging from stating disputed information as fact to repeating a media myth to twisting his own sources. As a companion to our article about Moore's mistakes in Dude and his history of such distortions, here is a list of all the errors that we found in the book:
CLICK HERE

"In his latest book Dude, Where's My Country? -- a polemic against President Bush -- liberal gadfly Michael Moore again demonstrates why he has a reputation as a slipshod journalist who has trouble getting his facts right."

click here

One Moore stupid white man

"With his factually challenged bestseller, Michael Moore becomes an unfortunate poster boy for dissent."

click here

"Dude, Where's My Country? is a remarkable work of unintentional humor. In this tome we learn "There is no terrorist threat," (p. 95) and Richard Nixon was the last liberal President, (p. 193). Oh, and Osama bin Laden probably didn't do it ("How could a guy, sitting in a cave in Afghanistan hooked up to dialysis, have directed and overseen the actions of nineteen terrorists for two years ...?)"

click here

"Moore's 2000 book, "Stupid White Men," is one more chapter in the Gospel According to Michael. Its very title reveals the core of Moore's appeal in this narcissistic age."

click here

Michael Moore is loathsome [#2]

Michael Moore and September 11.

"The first hint I had that all was not well with Michael Moore occurred the day after September 11, 2001. Moore scribbled and posted on his website Michael Moore.com a commentary about that day's awful events titled "Death, Downtown." In an act of extreme cowardice, he later removed from the original his offensive suggestion that had the terrorists attacked cities where pro-Bush supporters were a majority, the carnage would have been less disturbing. "If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California -- these were places that voted AGAINST Bush! ..." If you have ever been doused with a bucket of ice cold water, then you know the feeling I had internally after reading those words. Suddenly, the working-class funnyman and underdog hero of mine came across as a heartless, ideological, and seditious thug. During the days immediately after the September 11 act of war, estimates of the dead ranged from 7,000 to as high as 12,000. That the number of dead in New York City eventually came down to about 2,800 in no way minimized the horror. Yet for Michael Moore, with the number of dead still estimated in the highest range, the true horror of 9-11 was the violent elimination by "unknown suspects" of registered, anti-Bush Democratic voters from the surrounding precincts. He made matters worse when he entertained conspiracy theories, or at the very least, added to the various Internet-based anti-Semitic urban legends, that somebody other than Osama bin Laden or Arab Islamists carried out the evil deed. Since that fateful September day, Moore has continued on a virulently anti-American, malevolent magical mystery tour de force. As late as December 2002, in a televised debate [5] with Christopher Hitchens held at the Telluride Film Festival, Michael Moore used the word "if" (as in "If indeed bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were behind the attacks of 9-11"") when the matter of bin Laden's complicity in the 9-11 attacks was discussed. He has become the anti-American, part-time expatriate par excellence, frequently visiting Cannes, France, his true home away from home. Sometime this summer, his anti-American, conspiracy-mongering flick, Fahrenheit 9-11, will be distributed throughout a Middle East where discourse is polluted with anti-Jewish, anti-Western, and anti-American conspiracy theories."

source

Michael Moore is loathsome [#1]

Terrorists Supported Fahrenheit 9/11

As reported in the trade journal Screen Daily, affiliates of the Iranian and Syrian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah are promoting Fahrenheit 9/11, 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 Gianluca] 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 'Fahrenheit 9/11' in Mideast," WorldNetDaily.com, June 22, 2004.

Salon.com followed up on the story, and reported:

Gianluca Chacra, the managing director of Front Row Entertainment, the movie’s distributor in the United Arab Emirates, confirms that Lebanese student members of Hezbollah "have asked us if there's any way they could support the film." While Hezbollah is considered a legitimate political party in many parts of the world, the U.S. State Department classifies the group as a terrorist organization. Chacra was unfazed, even excited, about their offer. "Having the support of such an entity in Lebanon is quite significant for that market and not at all controversial. I think it’s quite natural." (Lions Gate did not return calls asking for comment.)

John Gorenfeld, "Michael Moore Terrorizes The Bushies!" Salon.com, June 24, 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. The main al Qaeda commander in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has worked with Hezbollah and has operated out of Syria.

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; translation of original Japanese interview with Moore.

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--and also an organization that works with Zarqawi and al Qaeda. Just to avoid a boycott on a dozen screens in a totalitarian terrorist state and its colony?

Moore is, with terrorist assistance, pushing the film in Syria and a Syrian colony, both of which are places which supply some of the fighters who are currently killing Americans and anti-totalitarian Iraqis. Fahrenheit presents the fighters as noble resistance, and the American presence as entirely evil. It's not that the content of Fahrenheit is all that different from the propaganda which pervades the state-controlled Arab media, or on al Jazeera. But Fahrenheit's may be more persuasive, to at least some of its Arab audience, because its denunciations of American and praise for the Iraqi insurgents comes from an American. It is reasonable to expect that such a film, when shown in Syria and Lebanon, will aid in the recruiting of additional fighters to kill Americans and Iraqis. In effect, the presentation of Fahrenheit in Syria and Lebanon--especially with explicit endorsement from a terrorist organization--amounts to a recruiting film for terrorists (or, in Moore's terms, "minutemen") to go to Iraq and kill Americans.

Hezbollah likes the film so much that the terrorist organization has shown it on one of its television stations:

Anti-American Arab television stations, including one owned by the Lebanese branch of the Hezbollah, have broadcast chunks of Moore's attack on Bush with commentaries more virulent than the original.

"We may not be able to drive the Americans out of Iraq," says Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader in Lebanon. "But we can drive Bush out of the White House by heating things up in Iraq." Bush is also seen as too pro-Israel in his Middle East policy.

(New York Post, Aug. 18, 2004). Fidel Castro likewise showed the film on Cuban state television, because the film fit his own message of the evil of the United States. (Since Fahrenheit is still in theatrical release, these broadcasts may not have been specifically authorized by Moore. But it does say something that Hezbollah and the Cuban tyrant find Fahrenheit such a congenial movie.)

Because of Syria's oppression of Lebanon and its support for terrorism in Iraq and other nations, Congress passed and President Bush signed the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. The Act authorizes the U.S. government to freeze the assets of individuals or organizations "who are determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to be or to have been directing or otherwise significantly contributing to" Syrian sponsorship of terrorist organizations or the destabilization Iraq.

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 been publicized in a leading film trade on-line newspaper, the Moore-Hezbollah connection has been reported in 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 he is accepting aid from Hezbollah.

By way of reply, Moore could have said, "I sold the Middle East distribution rights to FRE, so I can't legally control what they do. But I strongly condemn their relationship with Hezbollah, and I've already told them that if they don't stop cooperating with Hezbollah, they will never distribute another movie of mine. I think it's reprehensible for any business to accept terrorist assistance." But instead, he stonewalls. Likewise, his website has provided no explanation of Moore's conduct regarding Hezbollah.

source

Random Michael Moore Deceits [#58]

Ashcroft part 2

On a more serious note, after suggesting that Ashcroft was unconcerned about terrorism before September 11, Moore uses phrasing that exaggerates how widespread knowledge of the Al Qaeda plot was before the attacks inside the FBI and Justice Department:

"[Ashcroft's] own FBI knew that summer that there were Al Qaeda members in the US and that Bin Laden was sending his agents to flight schools around the country. But Ashcroft's Justice Department turned a blind eye and a deaf ear."

This implies far more prior knowledge about flight school activity than actually existed. As the 9/11 Commission found in a staff statement (72K Adobe PDF), the so-called "Phoenix memo" from an FBI agent in Arizona suggesting a possible effort by Bin Laden to send agents to flight schools was not widely circulated within the FBI and did not reach Ashcroft's desk:

"His memo was forwarded to one field office. Managers of the Osama Bin Laden unit and the Radical Fundamentalist unit at FBI headquarters were addressees, but did not even see the memo until after September 11. No managers at headquarters saw the memo before September 11. The New York field office took no action. It was not shared outside the FBI."

Before Sept. 11, the Minneapolis FBI also investigated Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, who was enrolled in a flight school there, but no Al Qaeda connections were discovered until after the attacks. Again, saying the FBI "knew" of a plot to send agents to flight schools is overstated.

source

Random Michael Moore Deceits [#57]

"Baghdad" Jim McDermott

"Washington Representative Jim McDermott appears in several segments. The McDermott quotes are, obviously, not like the deceitful quote of Condoleezza Rice, in which her words were chopped to mean the opposite of what she really said. McDermott is apparently quite sincere, and there is no indication that anything he said was taken out of context. However, McDermott's quotes about the alleged motivations of the Bush administration are supported by no evidence, and amount to nothing more than the speculative ravings of one of the very few pro-Saddam members of Congress--who also worries that bin Laden has already been captured, and will be brought out at an opportune time before the election. To rely on McDermott to explain the Bush administration's alleged secret intentions is akin to relying on a bitter atheist to describe an alleged secret conspiracy in the Vatican.

In any case, he does make one plain misstatement. McDermott claims, "Well you make them afraid by creating an aura of endless threat. They played us like an organ. They raised the le[vel], the orange up to red than they they dropped it back to orange." To the contrary, the threat level has never been raised above orange (high risk). It takes a highly paranoid mind to conclude that because changes were made in the announced threat levels, the changes must have been for the purpose of psychological warfare on the American people"

source

Random Michael Moore Deceits [#56]

Flint unemployment

"Discussing unemployment rates, Mrs. Lipscomb states, "But you have to take into account as well that when your unemployment runs out you're no longer counted." (Presumably she means that when your "unemployment insurance benefits" run out, you're no longer counted.) There is no reason to doubt her sincerity, but she is incorrect in this regard. The Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment rate counts all "Persons 16 years and over who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week." The rate has nothing do with whether the person is receiving unemployment insurance payments. (For more, see the detailed BLS explanation of how unemployment rates are calculated.)

A curious reader of this article wrote to the Michigan Dept. of Labor & Economic Growth/Bureau of Labor Market Information & Strategic Initiatives. An official with the Michigan Bureau sent back a document (which is apparently not on the Internet) titled "Labor Force, Employment, Unemployment, Unemployment Rate Estimates For States And Local Areas." The document explains how unemployment rates are calculated. In particular, the document explains the calculated rate specifically includes people who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits, but who are still unemployed. The unemployment rate includes:

An estimate of the number of individuals who have used up all of their unemployment benefits, but are determined, through estimation, to be still unemployed. A formula that utilizes the parallel relationship between the rate of unemployment and the duration of unemployment spells, and a quarterly Current Population Survey average state duration average, yields a survival rate for a particular area depending on that area's current labor market condition. Thus an area with high unemployment will have a larger percentage of its unemployment claims exhaustees included into its jobless total.

(Italics in original.) The Michigan official's letter explained, "In the official statistics we produce (in cooperation with the BLS) for the number of unemployed for the state and local areas, current unemployment claimants account for about 30 to 40 percent of the total unemployed.""

source

Random Michael Moore Deceits [#55]

Those Poor Stupid Recruits

go here

For those of us who were unfotrunate enough to sit through Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11, one scene that I'm sure will be remembered is the scene with "the recruiters". Moore painted a pitcure ( without actually saying it) that our Military recruiters actually seek out minority and poor Americans for recruitment for service in the armed forces. He showed edited scenes of two Marine Corps recruiters leaving one shopping mall where they were recruiting in favor of another mall which Moore explained was the "poorer" mall (implying that the recruiters would find easy prey there). I thoroughly explored this scene in my post last year on the subject. READ IT HERE.

My research for the article revealed two things;

1) Moore's contention that poor minorites are over-targeted for recruitment and over-represented in the Military is patently false.

2) Michael Moore is either stupid, or a liar, since an easy check of the demographics of those two malls shows the recruiters decided to work at the more affluent area, which is the opposite of what Moore claimed. ( my previous article spells this out pretty well, and the reader's comments expand on the research even more) I guess he never figured any one would ever check his story so closely.

Interestingly enough, since my article, another study has been done which shows Moore is more off-base than even I previously thought. After watching Moore's movie, one would certainly get the impression that people in the lower 40% of the economic scale were basically carrying the lion's share of the "burden" of our country's military service, while those who were in the top 40% were grossly under-represented. Shocker, Moore is completely wrong.

Mark Tapscott has the rest of the story.

"In fact, the percentage difference between the richest and poorest quintiles increases between 1999 and 2003! And the highest percentage is actually in the second richest quintile of recruits, followed by the richest quintile. It is no exaggeration to say America's most prosperous families bear the greatest share of the burden of fighting in America's defense."

By now, I don't think there is a person alive who believes Moore's movie if full of facts, in fact, proving him wrong is so easy, the sport of it is almost non existent anymore.

HOWEVER,

The fun of proving him wrong will probably never wear off, so surf on over to the Tapscott Copy Desk and check out the research. [http://tapscottscopydesk.blogspot.com/2005/10/data-shows-military-recruits-highly.html]"

source

Random Michael Moore Deceits [#54]

Joanne Duetsch

"RM: Joanne, please tell us about your scene in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

JD: It was March 2004, soon after the bombings in Spain. I was in Laffayette Park sitting on a park bench in front of the White House. I saw a woman walking towards me dressed in black. When the movie came out I found out this was Lila Lipscomb.

I thought she was an actress because when she was being filmed, she looked somber. When the camera came off of her, her demeanor changed as she talked to the man with the camera (who turned out to be Michael Moore-I did not know who he was at the time). He was telling her what to do. I thought they were part of the local news and it was being staged. It dawned on me that the media was filming her to create a scene to embarrass the President.

At the same time, an anti-war demonstration was also being staged with props and lights. In my mind, I remembered Vietnam and what our soldiers had to see. I didn't want them to have to come home and think we all hated them. They're at war, they need to know we support them and what they're doing. I did not want our troops to see this propaganda!

I went to Lila Lipscomb, who I still thought may be an actress. I asked what was going on and that is when I said the scene was staged. She explained that her son was killed in Iraq. I told her how sorry I was for her loss, I gave her a hug, and told her I couldn't even imagine what she was going through. I have a son, so I know how horrible it must be. My heart went out to her and I was teary-eyed. She said the President killed her son and I said "No, it was Al-Qaeda and these terrorists that shot down your son."

I said, "Many people have lost sons and daughters," and then a voice interrupted me and said, "Did you lose someone in Iraq?" I turned and saw I was being filmed. I said, "No, I was referring to 9/11!" Coming from New Jersey I know many people who have lost loved ones on 9/11, including some very close to me. I thought this was the local news, I still did not know this was for Michael Moore's movie.

In the movie, Michael Moore edited out what I said, edited out all the sympathies and emotion I expressed for Lila. When she said, "I lost my son," he edited it to make it appear as if my response was simply "Many people have lost sons and daughters," making me look heartless to the world. He knew I was referring to 9/11, he was right there listening.

RM: He never had you sign a release form?

JD: I never signed a release form.

RM: What has happened in your life as a result of the movie?

JD: I feel I did the right thing by trying to prevent him from demoralizing the troops with a phony demonstration. I acted like I felt an American should act.

I had anxieties and lost a lot of sleep over his misrepresentation of the facts. When the DVD came out before the election I felt worse. I left my yoga class when the instructor started talking about the movie. I felt like I was stabbed all over again and was very upset. My children saw the movie, they understood what happened. My niece contacted me crying from college. She said her friends thought I was a bad person. Michael Moore had just spoken at her college also.

Lila Lipscomb on June 30, 2004 did rounds of personal interviews on "Good Morning America," "Entertainment Tonight," etc., with clips showing me in front of the world. I never gave my permission to them!"

source

Random Michael Moore Deceits [#53]

coalition of the willing

He next proceeds to make fun of the nations working with the United States in Iraq and in the larger war on terror. He shows clips of Powell and Bush making reference to the "coalition of the willing" and then tells us that this coalition consists of nations which he does not think worthy of being taken seriously. A voiceover says, "The Coalition of the Willing roll call: The Republic of Palau. The Republic of Costa Rica. The Republic of Iceland." Then, showing us clips of people dancing and pounding rocks and riding donkeys, Moore says, "Of course none of these countries has an army or, for that matter, weapons." He has indeed picked those three out of the 30-nation coalition which do not have regular military forces, and whose support for the coalition consisted of civilian medical and humanitarian assistance. Such assistance is hardly irrelevant, and these countries should not simply be treated as laughingstocks.

But the "roll call" continues, naming Romania and showing a picture of a vampire. Morocco is mentioned next (although Morocco is actually not on the U.S. list of coalition members), and Moore says, "Morocco wasn't officially a member of the coalition, but according to one report, they did offer to send 2,000 monkeys to help detonate landmines." It is true that there was a report of a group in Morocco accusing the government of having made such an offer (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030324-064259-1443r), but it isn't clear that such an offer was ever really made.

Moore next mentions the Netherlands, and shows an image of a drug user, rather than an image of the 1,100 brave Dutch soldiers sent to serve in Iraq (http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:2-aov4yi54YJ:www.government.nl/actueel/dossieroverzicht/42_18993.jsp+&hl=en). Next he notes that Afghanistan is playing a role in Iraq through its new government, but he asserts that Afghanistan couldn't play a role since it has no army (like the nations mentioned above, it is participating in a small and non-military way). Moore of course leaves out the major contributors to the coalition, including England, Italy, Australia, Poland, and originally also Spain-who together have contributed tens of thousands of soldiers to the effort to liberate Iraq and establish a secure democracy there. When asked about this in a press interview, Moore said only that his film was not supposed to tell the full truth:

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 "coalition," that the whole world is behind us. (http://moorelies.com/news/specials/latimes_moore.cfm)

So his defense is that obscuring the truth is the appropriate way to tell the truth. Orwellian indeed. Incidentally, the following 31 countries currently (as of October 5, 2004) have troops in the American-led coalition in Iraq (and several other nations, including those Moore mentioned, have non-military civilian workers participating in the coalition and aiding the new Iraqi government): Britain, Italy, Poland, Ukraine, Netherlands, Romania, South Korea, Japan, Denmark, Bulgaria, Thailand, El Salvador, Hungary, Australia, Georgia, Norway, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Portugal, Latvia, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Slovakia, Albania, New Zealand, Estonia, Tonga, Singapore, Kazakhstan, Macedonia, and Moldova (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm).

Moore simply asserts there was no real coalition, and then blames the major media for not telling us so. He proceeds into a bizarre accusation that the networks were somehow in favor of the war, and hyped it up for the American people. He shows clips of reporters and anchors saying things like, "The rallying around the president, around the flag, and around the troops clearly has begun," and "The pictures you're seeing are absolutely phenomenal" none of which has anything to do with the coalition and none of which amount to advocacy for the war. He shows Dan Rather "admitting" that as an American he wants his country to win when it is at war, and shows Peter Jennings announcing that "Iraqi opposition has faded in the face of American power" (which was of course true). But anyone watching the news at the time of the Iraq invasion would find simply ridiculous the notion that reporters were cheerleaders for the war (http://www.mediaresearch.org/projects/gulfwar/welcome.asp)."

source

Random Michael Moore Deceits [#52]

only the British press covered it

"Almost as an aside, Moore then adds, "Only the British press covered this trip," and shows a screen image of a BBC report about the Taliban visiting Texas (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/36735.stm). It isn't clear what Moore is trying to imply with this statement, but once again, his basic fact is wrong: a LexisNexis search shows that other press outlets-including two major international news wire services, the AP and the AFP-covered the Taliban-in-Texas story."

source

Random Michael Moore Deceits [#51]

Harken Energy

"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:"Bush beat the rap from the SEC"

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. He did fail to file a particular SEC disclosure form on time. (Byron York, "The Facts About Bush and Harken. The president's story holds up under scrutiny," National Review Online, July 10, 2002.) For a detailed factual timeline, see James Dunbar, "A Brief History of Bush, Harken and the SEC," Center for Public Integrity, Oct. 16, 2002. [http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=196]"

source

Random Michael Moore Deceits [#50]

the Taliban got away

"Having finished talking about pipelines, Moore then says, "Oh, and the Taliban? Uh, they mostly got away. As did Osama bin Laden and most of al Qaeda." This is nonsense. The Taliban were overthrown and then their leadership and foot soldiers were killed, captured, or dispersed into the countryside. It would obviously have been better to kill or capture those that were dispersed (including the top leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar) but the notion that these people simply "got away" ignores the fact that they have been deposed from power, their regime dismantled, and a free government burgeoning toward democratic elections put in its place. (Some of the accomplishments of the coalition in Afghanistan are listed here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/afghanistan/). As for "most of Al Qaeda" getting away, over two thirds of the organization's leadership has been captured or killed since the 9/11 attacks (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/07/24/cia_official_says_agents_have_infiltrated_al_qaeda/).

Moore then implicitly criticizes the Bush Administration for not yet capturing Osama bin Laden, showing a video clip of Bush saying "Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just-he's-he's a-he's a person who's now been marginalized, so, I-I don't know where he is, nor-and I just don't spend that much time on it, Kelly, to be honest with ya." This is a clever bit of editing, designed to chop Bush's statement to pieces to make it seem senseless. The clip is from a presidential news conference on March 13, 2002, and the exchange which Moore cut up was this (with the sentences Moore included marked in italics):

"Kelly Wallace, CNN: Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part-deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of.

President George W. Bush: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is-really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just-he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is-as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide-if, in fact, he's hiding at all. So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did. And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Kelly Wallace: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

President Bush: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I-I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became-we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we-excuse me for a minute-and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things-part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money. And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html)"

It is certainly not too much to say that Moore, by his editing, has stretched the truth beyond all recognition.

But Moore is trying to imply that Bush did not care about Osama bin Laden. "What kind of president was he?" Moore asks sarcastically, and then shows Bush saying "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office, in foreign policy matters with war on my mind." The clip is from a Meet the Press interview with Bush in February of 2004, and the segment quoted was one in which Bush said: "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them." The point for Moore, though, is that Bush just wants to make war. And he tells us, "With the war in Afghanistan over and Bin Laden forgotten, the war president had a new target-the American people." Never mind that the operation in Afghanistan is not over, and that Bin Laden, to be sure, has not been forgotten. War on the American people? This is what passes for Moore's segue to a discussion of terror alerts at home and the USA PATRIOT Act."

source

Random Michael Moore Deceits [#49]

Ashcroft vs. dead guy

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.

When Mel Carnahan was alive, polls showed him to be tied with Ashcroft.

source

"He introduces us to Attorney General John Ashcroft, whom we see singing a patriotic song he has written. Moore tells us that, "in 2000, he was running for reelection as Senator from Missouri against a man who died the month before the election. The voters preferred the dead guy. So George W. Bush made him his attorney general." In fact, "the dead guy" was late Missouri governor Mel Carnahan, and after his death, the new governor announced he would appoint Carnahan's wife, Jean, to take the seat if Carnahan won the election-so while a dead man was technically on the ballot, the voters understood that a Carnahan victory would put the widow in office. The death naturally caused Ashcroft to strictly curtail his campaigning, and in the end Carnahan's widow won the race by just under one percent-after a state court allowed polling stations in heavily Democratic St. Louis to remain open an hour beyond the legally allotted time (http://www.mdn.org/2000/STORIES/SENSWRAP.HTM). (Despite those irregularities, Ashcroft gracefully declined to contest the election.) Jean Carnahan was appointed in her husband's place and served an abbreviated two-year term before being defeated by Republican James Talent in 2002."

source

Random Michael Moore Deceits [#48]

Moore's Bogus Biography

"Michael Moore was born and raised in the prosperous suburban community of Davison, Michigan. He attended Davison High School. Although there is no law preventing black people from owning a home in Davison, the town's African-Americans are only one half of one percent of its population. Davison is a haven for management types, not laborers. You'll never hear any of these truths from Michael Moore.

Moore's website, his speaker's bureau and his film Roger & Me have all pounded out the fiction that Michael Moore is a native of Flint, "where his father and most of his relatives worked in the automobile factories" according to his production company's website. In an interview with the People's Weekly World Moore explored the wellspring of his special empathy with the working man: "I think it's just a function of growing up in Flint, Michigan." His empathy is just another dimension of Michael Moore's total proletarian public-image package: the four-day facial stubble, the plaid shirts, the sprung belly and the baseball cap. It's all a costume affected by a working-man wannabee. In truth Michael Moore is a socially maladroit middle class white guy with an eating disorder who got filthy rich by exploiting a few cinematic gimmicks and by ignoring the truth. When he's not denouncing the wealthy in speeches for which he charges thirty to forty thousand dollars a pop, he's dividing his leisure time between his $1.9 million home in New York City and his $1.2 million vacation retreat in Michigan. It's tough being a working-guy wannabee."

source

"Mrs. Lipscomb is from Flint, Michigan, which Moore calls "my hometown." In fact, Moore grew up in Davison, Michigan, a suburb of Flint. Davison is much wealthier than Flint. According to the Census Bureau, 6 percent of children in the Davison public schools are from families living in poverty, whereas in Flint, 31 percent of children are. Calling Flint your "hometown" when you really grew up in Davison is like calling the Bronx "my hometown" when you really grew up in Westchester County.

"Flint is working class, industrial, down-at-heel, where the majority of the population is black or Latino. It's where the factories are.

Davison, where Moore grew up and attended Davison High School, is comfortable middle class, suburban, and white. Overwhelmingly white. It's where the managers and professionals live. While many of the children of Flint go on to work at the factories...the normal trajectory for the children of Davison is university. Michael Moore went to university (though didn't stick long). Unusually, he also went to Flint and tried his hand on the blue-collar front line with a job on the Buick assembly line for General Motors. He found the conditions under which the working class actually worked so appalling he quit the job after one day."

"Less is Moore," Sydney Morning Herald, July 10, 2004."

source

Random Michael Moore Deceits [#47]

military recruiters NOT at the poorer mall

"Moore starts here to make the case that the military seeks out the minority population to serve and die at the white population's leisure. To help develop this impression, he introduces the audience to two Marine Corps recruiters, and describes part of their recruiting strategy to bolster his "opinion":

Moore:
"They decided not to go to the wealthier Genesee Valley Mall in the suburbs. They have a hard time recruiting people there. Instead, they went to the other mall.(The Courtland center)"

-cut to a scene of the Marines driving and pointing out possible people they would want to interview as the head to the Courtland Center Mall.

I decided to look up these two malls:

"COURTLAND CENTER
G-4190 E. Court, Burton, 48509

With over 97 fine stores and restaurants, Courtland Center is anchored by JCPenney and Mervyn's. Courtland Center also features a food court, as well as Old Country Buffet. Courtland Center is conveniently located at I-69, Center Road and Court Street. Gift certificates and Michigan Lottery are available. Courtland Center's operating hours are: Monday - Saturday 10:00am to 9:00pm and Sunday 12:00pm to 6:00pm.

GENESEE VALLEY CENTER
3341 Linden Rd. (Linden/Miller intersection), Flint, 48507
(810) 732-4000
Super regional shopping center with 140 stores including J.C. Penney, Sears, Marshall Fields and Mervyn's.

visitFlint.com"

Actually, The Courtland center is in the suburbs of Flint, in Burton , Michigan, while Genesee Mall is closer to downtown. (I don't want to be accused of being nit-picky, that's just what the mapquest diagram showed me.)"

source

Random Michael Moore Deceits [#46]

cut in terrorism funding

"Or maybe Bush was wondering why he had cut terrorism funding from the FBI," Moore says. But as the 9/11 Commission Report also shows, the Bush Administration actually increased funding for counterterrorism in the FBI in its first year in office (before September 11th). Indeed they asked Congress for, and received, "the largest proposed percentage increase in the FBI's counterterrorism program since fiscal year 1997" (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf, p. 209). These amounts, of course, only increased further after the September 11th attacks."

source

Random Michael Moore Deceits [#45]

Veterans worse off under the evil Bush-Hitler?

"Rather than trouble himself with these facts, Moore reasserts his deception and piles on several more. He says, “While Bush was busy taking care of his base and professing his love for our troops, he proposed cutting combat soldiers’ pay by 33% and assistance to their families by 60%. He opposed giving veterans a billion dollars more in health care benefits, and he supported closing veteran hospitals. He tried to double the prescription drug costs for veterans and opposed full benefits for part-time reservists.”

These charges are all either deeply misleading or false. The “cutting combat soldiers’ pay by 33%” charge refers to so called “imminent danger” bonuses, which are bonuses of $150 a month given to soldiers serving in certain areas, including combat zones. In 2003, Congress and the Bush Administration increased imminent danger bonuses by $75 to $225 a month. In its 2004 budget, the Bush Administration at first proposed not to extend this increase, and so to bring the bonuses back to $150. This is what Moore calls a 33% cut in pay, but in fact it’s not a cut in the basic pay but in the bonus. In any case, the administration eventually reversed itself and this cut never actually took place at all.

The reference to cutting “assistance to their families by 60%” is equally distorted. Congress had passed a one-time increase in the “family separation allowance” given to soldiers with assignments on which their families cannot join them, from $100 per month to $250 per month. Again, the Bush Administration’s budget for 2004 had originally proposed returning these to their original levels, and Moore describes this as a 60% cut. But the administration changed its position, and no “cut” was ever instituted. Neither of these would have counted as cuts in pay, they applied to bonuses which are a very small portion of a soldier’s pay—and in any case, neither actually occurred (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2003/08/15/PAY.TMP, and on pay levels in the military see http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/joiningup/a/recruiter5.htm).

While in the movie, Moore says that Bush “opposed giving veterans a billion dollars more in health care benefits,” on his website Moore phrases the claim differently, saying Bush “proposed cutting $1.3 billion in veterans’ health care” (http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/index.php?id=21). The version in the movie is closer to the truth. During the debates about appropriating $87 billion of supplemental funding for the war in Iraq—the bill that Senator Kerry famously voted for before he voted against—legislators made dozens of changes. One of the changes made to the bill would have added $1.3 billion for veterans medical care, but the administration wanted to keep the bill focused on Iraq, so it opposed that addition (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100777,00.html). Congress eventually took the $1.3 billion out of the bill. The version on Moore’s website, saying Bush “proposed cutting” money from veterans’ health care, is a complete fabrication. But even the version in the movie is a distortion, for while the White House opposed one particular increase at one particular time, the overall trend has been to make vast increases in veterans’ care (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=144).

As for the charge that Bush supported closing veterans’ hospitals, this is a reference to a recommendation by the Department of Veterans Affairs, following the recommendation of the Independent Commission on Veterans’ Hospitals, that seven specific hospitals in areas with sharply declining populations of veterans be closed because they had become so underutilized that veterans in those areas would be better served in other nearby veterans’ hospitals. The department simultaneously proposed building new veterans’ hospitals in other areas where the veteran population had grown, and building a series of new rehabilitation centers. The total number of veterans’ hospitals would grow, not decline, under this plan, and the system would adjust itself to meet particular needs in particular areas (http://www1.va.gov/cares/).

The claim that Bush “tried to double the prescription drug costs for veterans” refers to a Bush Administration proposal to increase the co-pay for prescription drugs from $7 to $15, for veterans who earn over $24,000 a year. Technically, Moore is correct—it is more than an increase of 100 percent—but in real dollars the accusation comes to seem ludicrous. In any case, the increase never took place (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26166-2003Jul21).

As for giving full-time benefits to part-timers, it is true that such a proposal was made as an amendment to the $87 billion supplementary authorization for Iraq war costs, and the administration did originally oppose it (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100777,00.html). But Congress left the benefits in the bill, and the president ultimately approved them—and even signed them into law on November 6, 2003 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ106.108).

Most importantly, this litany of distortions leaves the viewer with the impression that veterans and soldiers have somehow been worse off under the Bush Administration than before. But that notion is simply ridiculous, and belied by the most obvious facts. In 2003, the Bush Administration pushed through Congress a pay increase for all active-duty military personnel of 3.7%, with an additional increase for non-commissioned officers as well as increased bonuses (http://www.dod.gov/news/Dec2003/n12092003_200312083.html). The Bush Administration has also increased funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs by a whopping 27% in its first three years, and if the administration’s 2005 budget passes, it will have increased spending on veterans by 37.6% (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=144). This utterly dwarfs the sorts of $8 increases in drug costs that Moore points to. Moore’s assertions are desperate attempts to distort figures to give an appearance that is simply the opposite of the truth.

Moore then mentions that “when Staff Sergeant Brett Petriken from Flint was killed in Iraq on May 26th, the Army sent his last paycheck to his family, but they docked him for the last five days of the month that he didn’t work because he was dead.” This story could not be readily confirmed but it is certainly plausible—it sounds like the sort of tragic bureaucratic error that can so hurt the family of a fallen soldier. But there is no reason to believe (and Moore in no way claims) that this has anything to do with Bush Administration policy in any way. What this story is doing in the film is not clear, although it does stand out as being a plausible and likely true part of an otherwise concocted list of grievances."

source

Random Michael Moore Deceits [#44]

Cooperation with 9/11 Commission

Moore then tells us that Bush tried to stop the independent 9/11 Commission from being formed and would not cooperate with it. We see a clip of commission chairman Thomas Kean saying "We haven't gotten the materials we needed, and we certainly haven't gotten them in a timely fashion. The deadlines we set have passed," and a clip of Bush on NBC's Meet the Press which makes it seem like he would not meet with the commission, as had been requested. In truth, though, Bush did meet with the 9/11 Commission (on April 29, 2004: http://www.9-11commission.gov/press/pr_2004-04-29.pdf) as did every other administration official the commission requested to see, and the clip of Kean is deeply misleading. It attempts to suggest that Chairman Kean was saying the White House was not cooperating, but here is what he (and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton) actually said in the statement from which this clip is cut, from a press conference in July of 2003:

QUESTION: "I'm with CBS News. Could you talk about what kind of cooperation you're getting from the various executive branch agencies in terms of the report; getting the access to the witnesses you want and getting the documents you've requested in a timely manner?

MR. KEAN: Yeah, we've if you look at the report that we issued yesterday, we go down agency by agency by agency, all through the administration. And in some of those agencies, the cooperation is quite good, and we got a number of things that we needed. In other agencies, where in some cases we've made massive requests, we've haven't gotten the materials we needed, and we certainly haven't gotten them in a timely fashion; the deadlines we've set have passed. We've got our own deadline; by statue, we've got to report by next May. So we can't brook that kind of thing. We've got to get the information we need to do our work. So while I think the White House is cooperating, I think they're trying to do their best to help us in a number of ways, some agencies, led at the moment by the Department of Defense, is not cooperating to the extent we need that cooperation. Now, it's better than it was, and it's moving in the right direction. But the next two or three weeks are going to be vital. Talk to me in another two or three weeks.

MR. HAMILTON: Let me just observe that we are, number one, asking for an enormous amount of material. We measure material not by pages, but by boxes. And we are getting and asking for not a few pages, but hundreds of thousands of pages. So the request to the executive branch departments and agencies is very, very large. It is understandable to me that they can't handle it quickly or overnight. I'm not apologizing for them, I'm just saying that we're making a very large request. Now, secondly, the requests that we are making are, in some cases, not in all, relate to very sensitive material. And it is understandable by both the chairman and myself that it takes a little while for those kinds of requests to work their way through the bureaucracy. This is a difficult task for us, and as the chairman has said, we must have that information. We must have it if we're going to do our job. We're going to get it. We're impatient. We think a lot of it has been slow in coming, but we understand the reasons. There is a bureaucratic inertia. These people have things to do other than to answer our requests. There are national security concerns. There are conditions that attach to our requests that we have to work out that are complicated to work it out so that it's mutually agreed upon. Under what kind of circumstances can we see the material, particularly when it's the most sensitive material that the government possesses? I think we're making good progress. We've got a long way to go. We certainly need the very strong support from the White House to help us, and I was most pleased with the statement I read in the paper this morning from the White House that the president remains very committed to cooperating with the commission and helping us get the material we need.

Moore has chopped the clip to make it appear as though Kean was complaining about a lack of cooperation from the White House, but when seen in context it is clear that Kean and Hamilton said exactly the opposite. And Kean said at the conclusion of the commission's work that "we were able to see every single document we requested and every single document in the files" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5488345/)."

source

Random Michael Moore Deceits [#43]

Misquoting Orwell..

Moore says, "George Orwell once wrote, that it's not a matter of "if the war is not real, or if it is. Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, but it is meant to be continuous. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance, this new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia but to keep the very structure of society intact."" It is a perfect ending, because in fact Orwell did not write this text. Moore wants us to think these lines come from Orwell's book 1984 (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/), and indeed bits and pieces of this statement, in a different order, do appear that book. But the quotation Moore reads actually comes from a movie version of 1984, and was not written by Orwell.

But perhaps it is not a matter of whether the quote is not real, or if it is. Honesty is impossible. The film Fahrenheit 9/11 is not meant to be real, but it is meant to be an overwhelming illusion, in the wake of which nothing is real. The anger it seeks to manufacture is only possible on the basis of deception and ignorance. The film produces a new version of the past and hopes that by insisting it is the truth it might become the truth so thoroughly that no other version can ever have existed.

source

Random Michael Moore Deceits [#42]

Lila Lipscomb

Fahrenheit 911, the movie that launched a thousand threads. I've read nearly every criticism and defense of the movie at least a dozen times.

Except.............

More...
Except for one segment. I would guess that most everyone would agree the least impeachable scene of the movie would be the Lila Lipscomb segment. How could anyone find a single criticism of that one genuinely human moment of the movie? Well, the segment has never really sat well with me, but due to the sensitive nature of the subject, everyone has found it difficult to examine for fear of coming off as heartless, yet I was curious about the life of Lila's son. We didn't learn very much about Sgt Michael Pederson from the movie.

It's been well documented that Moore manipulated the story line by editing the scenes to look like they met before her son, Sgt. Pederson was killed in battle. Whether or not Moore did this intentionally is not the point right now - what is important is the effect it had on the movie as a whole. It added to the desired effect of the film about how the death of a son in battle transforms a person.

However, it is crucial to remember that the upbeat, strong, patriotic Lila scenes were filmed after her son was killed. This reality is lost on Carrie Rickey, of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who wrote this about the scene:

"we share her conversion experience from flag-waving, yellow-ribbon-tying soldier's mom into a woman who finds solidarity with protesters in front of the White House."
Read it here Rickey criticizes the rest of the film , except for this scene, which many call "the emotional center" of the film.
The Guardian UK interview mirrors Ms. Rickey's sentiments in its interview.

"The power of Lipscomb's story lies in the sharpness of the U-turn she made and her eloquence in speaking about it."

That distortion, added with the absence of any more than just a passing detail about Sgt. Pederson left me with more questions than answers. For those of you like me who are wondering, Sgt. Michael Pederson was a loving father, a 7 year veteran of the Army who had just re-upped for another 7. He loved to work on cars and had a great sense of humor. He was a patriot, he was a hero. He was loved by his friends and his family and he will be missed by all of us.

To learn these details and more about the life of Sgt Michael Pederson, I began by Googling his name. Nearly every article was actually dedicated to Lila rather than to him. As a veteran myself, it stung me that one of our national heroes was being overshadowed by his mother. This man gave his life in service to his country,yet she is the one that illicits 11,500 Google hits. Her son, our national hero, only 906. I think that speaks volumes to the distorted perspective contained in this entire subject. Sgt. Michael Pedersen should be the one with 11,500 Google hits.

I also learned from my research that Lila is now on the lecture and magazine interview circuit. She's been handed the gift of relevance and fame from Michael Moore and she's trying to make the most of her 15 minutes. Now, please understand that I do not in any way wish to blame her for taking advantage of her newfound "gift". She is a grieving mother who has admittedly found an outlet. Good for her, but......

Now that she has her soapbox, she's taken to subscribing to every conspiracy theory ever concocted and waxing endlessly to anyone who will listen.

For example,"

source

Random Michael Moore Deceits [#41]

patriot act abuses?

Moore then proceeds to tell the story of a local activist group called Peace Fresno (http://www.peacefresno.org/), about which he says, "Unlike the rest of us, they've received an early lesson in what the Patriot Act is all about." He tells us that the group had been infiltrated and monitored by a member of the Fresno County Sheriff's Department in 2003. Such a step certainly seems excessive and unwarranted (although Moore does not quite give us an accurate impression of this very-active protest group, which among other things has suggested that the Bush Administration staged the September 11th attacks: http://www.indybay.org/uploads/550_the_march_begins.jpg) but Moore never explains how any of this is related to the Patriot Act. And indeed, it has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. The infiltration he describes was clearly undertaken by a local sheriff's department, not any arm of the federal government, and the Patriot Act does not permit the federal government to engage in any similar activity. As the Justice Department points out (http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm), the language of the act limits the definition of "domestic terrorism" in ways that would never permit a group that does not violate the law and endanger others to be considered a terrorist or terrorism-related group. The language of the act is clear on this point (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf) and Moore makes no effort whatsoever to provide any connection between the Peace Fresno story and the Patriot Act.

Moore then moves on to another story which also has no link to the Patriot Act. He tells us about Barry Reingold, who told some people at his gym that he thought George W. Bush was worse than Osama bin Laden. The people who heard him apparently reported him as a suspicious person to the FBI, and FBI agents then came to his home to interview him. Moore offers no explanation of what this might have to do with the Patriot Act, and no sense of what the FBI should do when people report someone as suspicious, even if the report seems weak and misguided. There is no indication that Reingold's rights were in any way violated, and although Moore does not make it clear, when Reingold told the FBI agents he did not wish to speak to them, they left and took no further action (http://www.progressive.org/webex/wxmc1219a01.html).

source

Random Michael Moore Deceits [#40]

disenfranchised voters [Fahrenheit 9/11]

Moore then says that a further element in "getting away" with "it" was to have the state of Florida "hire a company that's gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you. You can usually tell them by the color of their skin." This is a reference to the fact that following the fiasco of the 1998 mayoral election in Miami, which had to be decided by state courts after it became clear that convicted felons had been allowed to vote, in violation of Florida law- the state of Florida had hired a firm called Data Base Technologies (whose office Moore shows on the screen) to systematically remove convicted felons from the voter rolls. This process met with difficulties from the start, including issues relating to the fact that in some other states some convicted felons are allowed to vote, and Florida was not allowed to remove those people from its own voter rolls if they had moved to Florida after being released in another state. Florida's counties were aware of difficulties in this process, and so at least 20 of the counties simply ignored the Data Base Technologies lists of felons to purge from their lists, which meant that felons were removed in some counties but not others. It is true that when they vote, convicted felons vote for Democrats more often than for Republicans (http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article708.html) but it is also clear from an analysis by members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/final_dissent.pdf) that too many, not too few, convicted felons voted in the 2000 elections in Florida-that is, about 6,500 felons who were not legally allowed to vote did so anyway. So the result was likely many more (not fewer) votes for Gore. Finally, there is no evidence that any of this at any point had anything to do with race, despite Moore's implication. An investigation by the Palm Beach Post (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0527-03.htm) showed that the process used by Data Base Technologies at no point brought the race of individual convicted felons into the picture. Moore's charge is baseless and false."

source

Random Michael Moore Deceits [#39]

Congressional Children in War [from Fahrenheit 9/11]

Smearing Our Representatives

Michael Moore intones: ". . . out of the 535 members of Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq." His words are carefully chosen because he can't make his case without the restricting words "enlisted" and "son" and "Iraq." He wants you to mistakenly believe that those in power are shielding their offspring from danger while the rest of the America's families are being bled dry. It's another Michael Moore invention.

Military personnel have no control over where they are deployed. As of 2004 seven members of Congress were confirmed to have a son or daughter in the military. As for Iraq: Democrat Senator Tim Johnson's son fought in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division in 2003. Republican Representative Duncan Hunter's son quit his job after September 11 and enlisted in the Marines and served with an artillery unit in the heart of the war zone in February 2004. Moore doesn't include Hunter's son because he was a Second Lieutenant and was therefore not "an enlisted son." Recall that in Vietnam Second Lieutenants had the shortest life expectancy of any rank. Moore is also careful to exclude Attorney General John Ashcroft's son serving on the USS McFaul in the Persian Gulf. I guess cabinet members don't fit well with Moore's thesis either.

So, two congressional members have sons in Iraq. Is that an unusually low number? Well, . . . no. As of the summer of 2003 about 300,000 American troops had been rotated in and out of Iraq. According to the Census Bureau there were 104,705,000 households in America in the year 2000. Therefore the ratio of households to troops who have set foot in Iraq is 349 to 1. Since there are 535 congressional households and two Congressional sons serving in Iraq, their ratio is 268 to 1. Therefore, the average American family is 23 percent less likely to have a child serving in Iraq than is a congressional family. At least seven members of Congress are themselves military veterans. And so dies one of the Left's most cherished myths."

source

Random Michael Moore Deceits [#38]

Condi statement [from Fahrenheit 9/11]

"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 on the CBS Early Show, Nov. 28, 2003:

"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. This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they're all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East...."

Moore deceptively cut the Rice quote to fool the audience into thinking she was making a particular claim, even though she was pointedly not making such a claim. And since Rice spoke in November 2003, her quote had nothing to do with building up American fears before the March 2003 invasion, although Moore implies otherwise."

source

"Condoleezza Rice caught something of their relationship in November 2003:
"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 . . ."

Michael Moore uses Fahrenheit 9/11 to deny the existence of any relationship between the bigots and the tyrant. He took a stab at making Condoleezza Rice look foolish by presenting his audience with only the first line of the above quote: "Oh, indeed there was a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11" which elicited a derisive laugh from Moore's audience of self-styled "sophisticated thinkers." These suckers had been cheated out of the whole truth and they were sitting there laughing like know-it-alls."

source

Random Michael Moore Deceits [#37]

James Bath [from Fahrenheit 9/11]

"The film next makes clear why Moore goes to these lengths to try to imply some wrongdoing with the flights of Saudis: he wants to suggest an improper relationship between the family of George W. Bush and the Saudis (or even specifically the Bin Laden family). Moore then proceeds to unroll a convoluted scheme by which he seeks to connect Bush and the Bin Ladens. He begins by telling us that in early 2004 he (Moore himself) had called Bush a deserter in a speech and that "in response" the White House released copies of Bush's military service records. (The arrogant notion that these records were released in response to Moore's particular charge is ludicrous; they were actually released in response to an Associated Press Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that had nothing to do with Moore's remarks.) In any case, Moore argues that the records had a name blacked out which had not been blacked out in a copy of the same records he had obtained back in 2000. The name was that of James R. Bath. Moore asks: "Why didn't Bush want the press and public to see Bath's name on his military records? Perhaps he was worried that the American people would find out that at one time James R. Bath was the Texas money manager for the Bin Ladens." Well, actually the reason Bath's named was blacked out is that privacy laws prohibit the government from releasing the records-especially medical records, like the documents in question of persons without their permission (http://www.usdoj.gov/foia/privstat.htm). Bush gave permission to have his records released, but Bath had not done so (and had not been asked to do so, since the Freedom of Information Act request had nothing to do with him), and so his name had to be removed from common records.

Moore then says, "Bush and Bath had become good friends when they both served in the Texas Air National Guard. After they were discharged, when Bush's dad was head of the CIA, Bath opened up his own aviation business, after selling a plane to a man by the name of Salem Bin Laden, heir to the second-largest fortune in Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Binladin Group." He next tells us that James Bath was hired to manage money for the Bin Laden family in Texas, and then that when Bush tried his hand at the oil business, he got an early investment from his friend James Bath. We are supposed to conclude, of course, that Bath invested the Bin Ladens' money in Bush's company. Moore never actually says so, but he implies so. He fails to mention that Bath himself has plainly said the money was his own and not the Bin Ladens'. In fact, Craig Unger, who is interviewed in the movie, and whose book House of Bush, House of Saud is the source for most of Moore's absurd assertions in this part of the movie, himself doubts any connection here. Here is how Newsweek put it:

"Leaving aside the fact that the bin Laden family, which runs one of Saudi Arabia's biggest construction firms, has never been linked to terrorism, the movie "which relied heavily on Unger's book" fails to note the author's conclusion about what to make of the supposed Bin Laden-Bath-Bush nexus: that it may not mean anything. The "Bush-Bin Laden relationships" were indirect-two degrees of separation, perhaps-and at times have been overstated," Unger writes in his book. While critics have charged that bin Laden money found its way into Arbusto [Bush's company] through Bath, Unger notes that "no hard evidence has ever been found to back up that charge" and Bath himself has adamantly denied it. "One hundred percent of those funds (in Arbusto) were mine," says Bath in a footnote on page 101 of Unger's book. "It was a purely personal investment." (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/)

source

Help Stamp Out Pallywood!

Let's work together to help Stamp Out Pallywood for good!!

the first step: Spreading the Awareness:

"The term "Pallywood" refers to the staging of scenes by Palestinian journalists in order to present the Palestinians as hapless victims of Israeli aggression. They are able to succeed in this endeavor in large part due to the credulity and eagerness of the Western press to present these images, which reinforce the image of the Palestinian David struggling valiantly against the overpowering Israeli Goliath. Pallywood has led to astonishing lapses in Western journalistic standards in which badly staged scenes regularly appear on the news as "real events."

click here for a good history of Pallywood by the guy who coined the term...

=================================

How about checking out some videos on Pallywood and the Muhammad Al-Dura hoax:

Pallywood I - According to Palestinian Sources

Pallywood II - Al Durah - Birth of an Icon

Pallywood III - Icon of Hatred

Gaza Beach Tragedy: Exploiting Grief

Pallywood Strikes Again!

Pallywood Strikes Again 2: France2 vs. Evidence

=================================

Let's finish up by reading about some awful Palestinian media hoaxes:

1. the biggest one: Muhammed Al-Dura

Myth, Fact, and the al-Dura Affair

2. The Tale of Tuvia Grossman

Victim of the Media War

3. The Jenin "Massacre"

Jenin: Anniversary of a Battle

U.N. Report: (Jenin) Masscre Claim Unfounded

Jenin Jenin Film-Maker Admits Fraud

4. MYTH: Ariel Sharon's Visit to the Temple Mount Provoked the Riots

"FACT: Sharon came to the Temple Mount unarmed and without violence. Sharon's visit was so non-confrontational in tone that he was even accompanied on his visit by Arab members of the Israeli Parliament!

Palestinians say he shouldn't have been there in the first place. Yet why should the Moslem claim to their third-holiest site override Sharon's right as a Jew to set foot on the single most holy place for Jews?

Sharon's visit was an excuse for violence, not the real reason. Days before Sharon's visit, Arafat met with the tanzim, his armed militia, and told them to "be ready." Palestinian violence had already begun before Sharon's visit. The prior week, an Israeli Border Patrol soldier was murdered by a double roadside bomb inside of Israel. The morning before Sharon's visit to the Mount, a Palestinian policeman, on a joint patrol with an Israeli partner, used his automatic rifle to murder his partner, and then wounded another Israeli policeman.

The rioting that followed Sharon's visit was not spontaneous. When Sharon ascended the Mount, he saw the mounds of boulders which had been prepared in advance for pelting Jewish worshipers at the Western Wall below. The next day, the preacher at al Aqsa mosque called at prayers to "eradicate the Jews from Palestine." Official Palestine television began playing over and over archival footage of the Palestinian intifada of 1987-1993 showing young people out in the streets throwing stones. Arafat then closed the schools and declared a general strike, causing everyone to go out into the street."

source

5. the lynching of two Israeli reservists

The PA's Propaganda War

Leftist Literary Frauds and Martyrs

a nice long laundry list of leftist literary frauds...

1. Alex Haley (Roots)

2. Rigoberta Menchu

3. Margaret Mead

4. Michael Bellesiles

5. Walter Duranty

6. Herbert Matthews

7. Edward Said

8. Rachel Carson

9. Paul Ehrlich

and how about some fine upstanding leftist martyrs...

10. Margaret Sanger

11. Alfred Kinsey

12. Alger Hiss

13. Sacco & Vanzetti

14. Leonard Peltier

15. Ward Churchill

16. Mumia Abu-Jamal

17. The Rosenbergs

18. The Cult of Che

For more Leftist Fraud fun, I recommend the following two books:

1. "Hoodwinked: How Intellectual Hucksters Have Hijacked American Culture" by Jack Cashill

2. "Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas" by Daniel J. Flynn