What is it about Michael Moore that makes you so mad?

Fahrenheit 9/11 - what is incorrect or misleading?

Published on November 15, 2004 By Cappy1507 In Politics

I watched Fahrenheit 9/11 last night online.

I thought the film was interesting, and I've been working on a blog about the Bush Dynasty, especially their finances. Most of what Moore talked about in that regard I have found else where on the web. I don't think there is much argument about the fact that the Bush family is into Oil, and you can't be in the Oil Business with out being tied with the Saudis. I mean really, you can't deny that the two go hand in hand.

I think it is unfortunate that the President and his family have had a long term relationship with the family of the world’s most infamous terrorist, but their relationship goes back way before bin Laden was a terrorist. I think it does put GWB in a compromising position. I'm not sure why he ran for President knowing that these types of allegations could arise. I also don't think I would seek office again if I knew by doing so I would probably have to seek out the son of a friend and business partner and kill him if it came to that. But he did and we elected him. So gods bless him and his resolve.

What I don't understand is why Michael Moore makes Republicans recoil in horror at the mention of his name. After dinner this evening I mentioned to my step dad, a republican, that I had seen the movie and that it was both interesting and a bit over the top. I think that's a very fair statement. Being a moderate independent I think I have a clearer eye than most Democrats or Republicans.

I told step dad I was looking into the Bush Family finances for a blog I was working on, and he looked at me like I just killed god. I told him about the Prescott Bush information that I had found, and he told me it was a lie. I told him the Alien Seizure vesting order 248 specifically named Prescott Bush and the Union Banking company. I told him about the New York Times article that stated the firm had been relocated to the Alien Seizure Custodian offices but buried the seizure, which was quite out of the ordinary. Again he denied it as Leftist BS. I mean it's a matter of public record. Hundreds of records are entered in the US Alien Property records in the Justice Department records. Why would this be falsified?

I told him that I had also looked into the Carlyle Group and could verify on their own web page that George Bush Senior was in fact on the board as was a bin Laden only a few years ago. But again I was waved off as some kind of nut. I don't get it. I reminded him of Neil Bush's incontrovertible link to the S&L Crisis. I pointed out that George Bush Sr, had lied repeatedly about his involvement in Iran Contra, and that this had all been made public record in the commission report, and that entries in Bushes personal diary from the time made specific mention of meetings with Ollie North and John Poindexter despite his testimony otherwise. I decided that I had pushed his blood pressure to the safe limit, and backed down before it became an all out argument. But it makes me wonder....

So for you republicans that have seen F911 what is it exactly that you refute? I just want to get a feel for the republican take on the film.

Please do not say things like Michael Moore is a liar - or he's full of crap. I want specifics of what he said, and why it is false. I'd like a non confrontational discussion so if you’re not capable of that please move along. Think of this as not an opportunity to defend President Bush, but more of a chance to enlighten me (a non combatant at least on this blog) and set the record straight.

Comments (Page 1)

Genghis Hank

on Nov 15, 2004

OK, I'll take a swing at this one. Michael Moore plays with how he edits the truth. As an example, in Bowling for Colombine, he talks about how heartless the NRA was to come to Denver the week after the shootings. When he does this, he plays a clip from Heston giving his "From my cold, dead hands" line. Only, that was taken from a different time and place - a year later in a different state. The side I heard, the NRA was going to cancel the convention, and the Denver city officials talked them into staying.

Things like this make Moore have a credibility issue. So when some people see his movies as documentaries, it just inflames any discussions that he is brought up in.

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 15, 2004

If as you said that you have done your research, then you should know Michael Moore is a liar. If you don't even know that, then you should go back to do some more researchs before posting an article. To be honest, I am embarrassed for you, and you should too. For one, Moore in his film points to the decision to wage war on Iraq has made us relocate the military power from Afghanistan to Iraq, thus caused our chance in capturing Osama bin Laden. First, that is just a unfound accustion, which clearly proves either Moore himself does not read history or his fans do not. Wars are usually wage in multiple fronts. For example, during World War 2, America was attacked by Japan. Why did we spent most of our war resource on Nazi German then? German never attacked us. Another example, we won the Cold War because we wage a silent war on every fronts. The Russian couldn't keep up. Also if the Cold War is between United States and USSR, how come all the conflicts are elsewhere like Vietnam and Korea. I can keep naming wars with multiple front. The 1200 A.D. Mongol expansion is a multi-front operation: attacking China, Korea, Japan, Persian, Ayrain (Caliphs), Poland, Russia, Hungry.... Literally attacking every directions. Moore seems to think wars can only be waged in his vision. When did he become a military expert? If not, how come he said things complete contradict historical successful wars. Second, what do Moore care about Osama bin Laden escaping anyway? He should be glad as a matter of fact because he believes Osama bin Laden and Taliban are innocent. Before the Iraq War was bought to table, Moore insisted that the Afganstanisn War is unjusted. Osama bin Laden and the Taliban were not proved guilty of any crime, and we should not persue these people. So what do he care if we attack Iraq and let these "innocent" men escape?

Bush family was into oil, but that doesn't mean they are close to Saudi Royal Fmaily because of their oil/gas business. They were closed to Saudi when they are in politics, just like any president. The concept of Bush family is close to Saudi because they used to be in oil is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. This really prove when people what to believe in something, they stop asking questions because they are already what they were told are lies. You might well say people behind Boering and AirBus are good friends because they make airplanes. Has it ever occcur to you that Xbox and Playstation2 are competitiors? Do you know what kind of energy business the Bush faimly was into? They are into the business of getting oil and gas from the America underground. George W. Bush in his younger years was in the business of buying and selling oil/gas fields in America, not in Saudi Arabia. He drilled many dry holes and his oil career was one unsuccessful story, and no way Saudi would know him because of his failed business. Your logic of Bush into oil, and Saudi has the most oil, therefore Bush and Saudi, are close is horrible. That is the same logic for saying anyone who open a Chinese restuarent is related to Chinese government, or anyone who raps is a Black person. Really unfounded.

Here is a quote describing W Bush business from washingtonpost:

"On July 6, 1977, George W. Bush celebrated his 31st birthday with little to show in the way of a resume or significant career prospects. Since arriving in Midland, Tex., in the summer of 1975 after finishing Harvard Business School, he had worked as an entry-level land man in the oil business, spending his days in the courthouse researching titles to mineral rights and negotiating deals to lease them. He lived in a cluttered bachelor apartment above a cinder-block garage, his bed held together by one of his ratty ties.............As world oil prices plummeted in the winter of 1985-86, George W. Bush faced the most serious crisis of his 11-year career as a West Texas oilman. Spectrum 7, his exploration and development company, had reported a net loss of $1.6 million in 1985, due to the fast-deteriorating value of its holdings. As the price of oil fell from $25 to $9 a barrel, the firm was on its way to losing another $402,000 by mid-1986. Bush's company owed more than $3 million in bank loans and other debts with no hope of paying them off in time. His investors had disappeared."

The following is from PBS:

"1975: George W. returns to Midland with money left over from his education trust fund and starts to work in the oil business. He begins as a freelance "landman," a middleman who researched land titles for potential oil prospects and attempted to lease the land on behalf of an oil company."

"1979: George W.'s Arbusto Oil company begins active operations. The company had been incorporated in June 1977 so Bush could use it as a credential in his congressional campaign. Although the Bush name attracted many investors, most lost money due to Arbusto's average performance. "

"1982: Arbusto Oil is renamed the Bush Exploration Company. Bush took the company public and received a $1 million investment from Philip A. Uzielli, a New York investor who had attended Princeton with James Baker. Over the next two years, Bush found it increasingly difficult to find investors in the oil business. "

Texas Wahine

on Nov 15, 2004

I've actually seen the film and I find it interesting that the people that are so dead set against it have never even watched it. Hopefully little whip will pop in on this thread, because she's a Republican and I know that she's seen it and can therefore speak about it with a bit more authority.

As a side note, Michael Moore's book, Will They Ever Trust Us Again, Letters From the War Zone is a very good read . . . it's comprised of emails written by deployed soldiers and their family members. I read it and thought it was very touching.

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 15, 2004

I don't think there is much argument about the fact that the Bush family is into Oil, and you can't be in the Oil Business with out being tied with the Saudis

Greatest logic written here in Joe User. I mean I am just too dumb to follow all the high-level math. But I am sure you are correct. I like to eat Cuban food, and I can't be in Cuba food without being tied to the Communist Cuban government. Yeah, I must be a communist and I didn't know it. Thank you for showing me the truth. By the way, I am also into chemistry research, and I guess I can't be into chemistry without being tied to chemical companies like Johnson&Johnson or Dow Chemical. Yeah, I think I will ask them for my next paycheck.

kingbee

on Nov 15, 2004

this is off-topic in that it has nothing to do with michael moore nor is it directly related to the bush family finances. are you familiar with 'team b'? if not, you might want to look into it because it could help you fill in some of the blanks regarding the ascendancy of ghw bush to the whitehouse and the apparent continuum linking his administration to that of the current president. here's a link to an overview of 'team b' chronology i posted a while back. Link

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 15, 2004

I read your article. I am not going to comment everything, but one thing is out of place. Rumsfeld is not a neocon and your artcile seems to imply that. People who doesn't know what a neocon would say that. Also Rumsfled was not in power for a long time. He did start early and regained power in his late age, but he was powerless for a long time. Nixon hated him. George H. W. Bush dislikes him alot, supposively something happened between these two men. In fact, he was offered no position during George H. W. Bush era. He then went to private sector. In short, Rumey was in power early under President Ford and now back under W. Bush. It is inaccuarate to say he was in power for a long time. It is also inaccurate to say Rumsfeld is a proof for continum from GHW Bush to GW Bush. In fact, counter-proof. A proof shows that GW Bush used a man hated by his dad.

kingbee

on Nov 15, 2004

Rumsfeld is not a neocon and your artcile seems to imply that.

imply? hell if one of the founders of project for a new american century and a signatory to the pnac's 1998 letter calling on clinton to invade iraq and overthrow hussein (essentially the program that was put into play under the current president and the reason it appears so obvious that this was part of the bush administration agenda since long before 9/11) isnt a neocon, he musta developed antineocon vaccine while he was with searle. he's been associated with them, appointed them, worked with them and may be about to go down for/with them.

Rumsfled was not in power for a long time

you mean he wasnt a cabinet member for a long time i believe. during the years he was not an official member of the reagan and ghwbush administrations, rumsfeld was appointed to a number of commissions and was reagan's special envoy to the middle east (that's when he met with hussein to firm up whatever unholy alliance the us forged with iraq). although he was less of a presence during the former bush presidency, his associates (wolfowitz, perle, etc) kept the chain intact.

GW Bush used a man hated by his dad.

hmmmm ill let that one simmer a while uncommented; it really is too tempting but...

Dr Guy

on Nov 15, 2004

You based your blog ona misconception. Conservatives do not fear Michael Moore. They do despise him for he is just a propagandist, but why fear such a pathetic and impotent individual?

As for your lies, I would have to agree with ChemicalKinetics. If you have done any research at all, you could have easily found them. Since you do not seem capable of doing any research, I will post them here for your easy reading:

http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/59_lies/

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Finally, since your research is so bad, I would say you are a very good desciple of Michael Moore. His sucks as well. At least he did have the decency at the end to say his movie was not a documentary, but just entertainment. Which is more than I can say for most of his lemmings. (pun intended).

Don Bemont

on Nov 15, 2004

Cappy1507, I am not a Republican, so I know that you aren't really asking me... but let me toss my two cents in here.

I would tell you that, although Moore is far from a reliable authority, the vehement attacks on him show a lot more about the attackers than they do about Moore.

The right has done very well using political information immunized against careful truth checking, through the use of humor. Rush Limbaugh is the poster child for this movement. However, they are outraged that such a tactic should be turned back against them.

There is a little bit more to it, though. The effectiveness of Limbaugh (as opposed to Savage, for example) is that he is generally deemed acceptable listening to much of middle American. People say that they don't believe him particularly, but they enjoy his humor, so they listen. (My wife who was more pro-Kerry than I was listened to him on the way home every day for years.) I believe that some of the tacticians on the right made a decision that the left's answer to Limbaugh needed to be thoroughly villified, to prevent a parallel audience from developing. The best way to do that is to saturate the audience with general ad hominem arguments (liar, etc.) and then follow up with a supply of specifics which might not be relevant or important, but convince the inattentive that the overall message has been disproved.

Moore's message is essentially populist, and populism raises a lot of hackles in America. For him, it is very significant that the African American crowds pelted George W. Bush with eggs during his first inaugural parade, that many in the House wanted to challenge the election results, but that the more upper crust Senate (including Democrats) would have no part in it. It is very significant that, similar to old European royalty, the ruling family of our country may have closer ties to the leading family of another country than to you and me. It is very significant that huge, international corporations have such power over the lives of everyday Americans. He clearly is skeptical of both big government and big business, and he questions extreme capitalism.

All of these viewpoints are debatable -- but they deserve open debate... and I can tell you that very little of America's power structure wants any of this on the agenda for debate. Thus the blizzard of mud slinging and nitpicking.

If we are to take our own forum members as representative:

In the ad hominem department we have Chemicalkinetics resorting to the generalized term of "liar" and saying he is "embarrassed" for you and your research. Little Whip takes two paragraphs to attack Moore's claim of coming from Flint, when he actually comes from a Flint suburb. (Abe Lincoln didn't grow up in a log cabin, either, so I guess that pretty much refutes his work, eh.)

Chemicalkinetics is typical of the factual debunking when he cites the many countries that have fought on multiple fronts, so how dare Moore attack our administration for diluting our effort on two fronts. There is no logic at all to Chemicalkinetics' attack, since most military people would agree that multiple fronts is something you try to force on your enemy and avoid for yourself -- but truly this is only a lead-in to another ad hominem argument: "When did he [Moore] become a military expert?" However, arguments such as Chemicalkinetics' work well because they so effectively draw listeners far from Moore's populist point.

I respect Genghis Hank's point about Moore's misleading editing, but the fact that many of the criticisms of Moore boil down to this sort of thing is telling. I teach a course in media studies, and one of my main goals in the course is to show how every screen representation of public affairs does exactly this. I can bring in a random newscast from any of the networks, and I never have to let the tape roll for very long before we find misleading editing. Pictures "prove" what is being discussed -- but the pictures are technically of something totally unrelated. Past footage is interspliced with current footage, graphical representations with real, etc. Without trying to do my entire lecture here, let me just say that Moore's films are well within the norms of current news broadcasting standards. You could, if you so wished, pick apart any network news broadcast similarly -- if you were opposed enough to the message therein to bother to do so.

The right gets its message across in the media, the middle gets its message across in the media. When the wolves howl over Michael Moore's message, in truth, they are trying to shut the left out of the discussion. The current dominant media is the screen, and screen communication is more entertainment-centered than logic and accuracy-centered. If populists are not allowed to communicate by the same standards, then they are effectively shut up... Which I think is the real point here.

Daiwa

on Nov 15, 2004

Don -

1. Calling Moore the "left's answer to Limbaugh" is just nuts. Al Franken, maybe, but even that's a stretch. I don't particularly care for Limbaugh's floss ("half my mind tied behind my back") which I'd be glad for him to lose, but he is a legitimate political analyst with a sound intellectual footing. Moore's a propagandist moviemaker, pure and simple, and not a particularly good one.

2. Moore's whole shtick is suckering people into being exposed as something they're not. Perfectly legit to skewer him for pretending to have Flint origins. Nothing ad hominem about it, unless you're willing to concede everything Moore's done is ad hominem.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Grim Xiozan

on Nov 15, 2004

Michael Moore was a Green and Nader Supporter yet complained about a man he did not vote for losing plus he uses the Movie line from 1984 not a part written by George Orwell as a quote and credits it to George Orwell.
If anything, Moore has proven himself to be another in a long line of Orwellian (or my personal flavor Blairian) Documentary / Media people claiming to proclaim the truth.

Objectivity in News and Documentaries are dead...Long live the age of Propaganda and subjectivity!! Eric Blair would be proud!

Yes, I have seen Fahrenheit 9/11, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenhype 9/11, so far and I am trying to see Celsius 41.11...TRUE knowledge is power and I always seek to increase my power!!

Castle

on Nov 16, 2004

I think it's really rather simple as to why so many Americans are not fond of Michael Moore. Personally, I could care less how many leftist propaganda pieces he wants to pass off as "documentaries". We all have the right to express our opinions in what ever medium we have access to and Moore takes full advantage of that. However, there is a price to be paid when you insult a rather large percentage of the population and then look down your nose at them when they take issue with it. Here is a quote or two (out of many made by Moore) that should clear things up a bit.

"They [Americans] are possibly the dumbest people on the planet"
"We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.

If Moore wants to speak for himself, thats fine, but comments like this will get him to the bottom of my $hit list in record time. It's obvious that Moore is laughing all the way to the bank while many American's stew over his insults - and again......thats fine with me. Having said that, I'm quite sure that few will shed a tear when his self absorbed, condescending, fat ass falls out of the lime light and into the "has-bin". When his biggest audience is the crickets in his backyard, he might finally understand the price I spoke of was greater than the sum of his ticket sales..

-Z

messybuu

on Nov 16, 2004

"They [Americans] are possibly the dumbest people on the planet"
"We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.

What's funny is that people try to say that he's patriotic for what he does and what he says and that he does it and says it because he loves American. Although this is a bit offtopic, when one thinks about it, people who bash the French are actually patriotic of France!

Champas Socialist

on Nov 16, 2004

"Please do not say things like Michael Moore is a liar - or he's full of crap. I want specifics of what he said, and why it is false. I'd like a non confrontational discussion"

"If as you said that you have done your research, then you should know Michael Moore is a liar. If you don't even know that, then you should go back to do some more researchs before posting an article. To be honest, I am embarrassed for you, and you should too."

And my dear Chemical, I am embarrassed for you. Cappy did do research and was asking for what it was that you refute. Moore's alleged distortion is debatable, but you can't just blanketly decide that everything he says is a lie. I mean, you do agree with him that George Bush lives in the White House, right?

Don, B ,you get an insightful from me.

What I have seen of the criticisms of Moore largely relate to one of the following:
1. The critic simply didn't get the joke.
2. The critic didn't realise it was a joke.
3. Moore stated his opinion or his interpretation straight after he had presented a fact, and the critic didn't make the same interpretation and thus decided the fact was incorrect, not just Moore's interpretation
4. The critic doesn't understand hyperbole and the importance of context.
5. The critic picked on the really unimportant points in an attempt to discredit everything Moore says. I've lied on occasion in my life, most of us have, but that doesn't mean I can't speak the truth.
6. The critic misunderstood the point Moore was making.

There are some legitimaite criticisms, as there are of any journalist. Contrary to the impression they like to give, they are simply fallible human beings. Moore is no different.

Don Bemont

on Nov 16, 2004

Calling Moore the "left's answer to Limbaugh" is just nuts. Al Franken, maybe, but even that's a stretch. I don't particularly care for Limbaugh's floss ("half my mind tied behind my back") which I'd be glad for him to lose, but he is a legitimate political analyst with a sound intellectual footing. Moore's a propagandist moviemaker, pure and simple, and not a particularly good one.

Daiwa, my first reaction is to say that you have it the wrong way around. My own (admittedly small) sampling of Limbaugh has included mostly silly statements, wild exaggerations, and showmanship. At least Moore has a serious point.

But as soon as I thought this, I realized that the argument itself isn't much worth pursuing because all I am doing is showing up the impossibility of having a political discussion dominated by entertainment based media. The Limbaugh crowd "gets" the serious point behind his bombast and the humor. The Moore crowd "gets" the serious point behind his. But this this isn't really promoting a political discussion.

Which really only brings me back to my original belief. It is not that Moore is a good source of information, nor that I am glad that this is how we do politics -- but if the right and the middle are going to have these entertainer-propagandists, the left will have to as well.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!