PDA

View Full Version : 56 deceits of Farenheit 9/11



Wally_in_Cincy
08-05-2004, 08:09 AM
Warning, this is very long, but it is a good resource for researching the lies of Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11

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

Ross
08-05-2004, 09:22 AM
And to see MM's side of the story for these claims see http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/ .

Also see http://houseofbush.com/index.php to see how the claims of MM's "deceits" are actually deceits themselves.

eg8r
08-05-2004, 10:06 AM
I think if anyone is really looking to MM to help them make an honest choice come November probably cannot be helped in the first place. MM is first and foremost doing this to make a dollar. His hatred of Bush will no doubt lead him to embellish and quite assuredly lie to get his agenda across. I personally don't care what he puts out there, because I feel that the average person going to see his crap is probably not going to vote, this is probably a good thing.

If MM's beliefs/theories were based on concrete evidence he would not have to embellish and get caught up in nitpicky stupid lies like the newspaper headline. This is the kind of crap that would lead any thinking person to question everything else he says. This could be good, as it would force that person to seek out the truth (if it is available).

eg8r

Singlemalt
08-05-2004, 10:37 AM
Well, let's not forget this one!

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

"We will never disarm any American who seeks to protect his or her family from fear and harm."

-- President Ronald Reagan

Ross
08-05-2004, 12:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>...
If MM's beliefs/theories were based on concrete evidence he would not have to embellish and get caught up in nitpicky stupid lies like the newspaper headline. This is the kind of crap that would lead any thinking person to question everything else he says. This could be good, as it would force that person to seek out the truth (if it is available).

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Well, lets' see. Several of the supposed "56 deceits" have been shown to fabrications themselves. (In fact, Newsweek published an apology for inaccuracies in it's article that accused Moore of lying.) So, by your logic, Eg8r, if Moore's critics' arguments "were based on concrete evidence [they] would not have to embellish." Also "this crap would lead any thinking person to question" everything else they say. So now we can't listen to Moore OR his critics. Confusing isn't it?

Actually, I agree with you somewhat, Eg8r. MM is angry because he sees a US run by and for big corperations. This anger drives him to make good films, but it also makes him a biased interpreter of the evidence. Conservatives are angry because they see the US going to "hell in a handbasket" under liberal leadership. And the conservative pundits' anger at Moore's criticism of the Bush administration makes them biased interpreters of the evidence as well. So anyone who is serious about knowing the truth would take Farenheit 9/11 with a grain of salt AND they would take one-sided analyses like the "56 deceits of MM" with a grain of salt as well.

The answer to all of this, from Eg8r: "This could be good, as it would force that person to seek out the truth (if it is available)."

Agian, I agree wholeheartedly - seek out the truth and don't be a sheep to either liberal or conservative orthodoxy .

But I don't think it is a good idea to throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because someone is wrong on some points, doesn't make them wrong on every point. Even if MM is not 100% accurate, he is making some valid points that are worth listening to. And even though the critics of Moore are not 100% accurate, they are making some valid points as well. Sift through the agendas and extract the nuggets of truth they both contain.

But what really drives me crazy is when people have a blatant double standard - one for liberals and one for conservatives. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. have made dozens if not hundreds of statements that could be validly criticized as biased, misleading, untrue, etc. This is doubly true for the Limbaughs, Drudges, and O'Reilly's of the world. Yet I don't see conservatives labelling these guys as "liars". Their biased and misleading statements for some reason never get the dreaded "liar" label. That term seems reserved for Democrats. Show some consistency guys!

highsea
08-05-2004, 12:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Well, lets' see. Several of the supposed "56 deceits" have been shown to fabrications themselves. <hr /></blockquote>Ross, would you care to elaborate a bit on this statement? I would like to know what fabrications are in Kopel's analysis. Please don't just point me to a web page and expect me to interpret it the same way you do. While references are appreciated, I would like to hear in your own words if possible exactly what the fabrications were.

Thanks,
CM

Ross
08-05-2004, 06:16 PM
Hi Highsea,

Sorry this is so long, but I don't know how to explain my point of view in fewer words.

Actually is was Isikoff's Newsweek article critical of MM that contained a few accusations that were completely off-base. They are spelled out fairly clearly in the link www.houseofbush.com. (http://www.houseofbush.com.)

In what I've read of of Kopels "56 Deceits" (it is pretty tedious reading so I skimmed parts of it) I don't see any outright lies. But then Kopel has done some editing of his own over time to remove incorrect claims. He had the benefit of publishing (on the net) his claims and then revising them after he got the feedback from the readers scrutinizing his list. Moore didn't have that luxury since once the film is released, and the feedback starts, there is no going back to change it.

Interestingly though, the majority (not all) of Kopel's accusations are that MM has not been balanced in what he implied with his film, not accusations that MM actually lied. That is, he is mostly saying that Moore presented a biased and sometimes unfair interpretation of the facts.

But the exact same accusation can be made of Kopel. Many of his explanations of so-called MM deceits are written in a way to cast MM in the worst possible light, while ignoring more innocent and reasonable interpretations. Here is just one of many examples I noticed:


Kopel's Deceits 8 - 10:

<font color="red">Castigating the allegedly lazy President, Moore says, "Or perhaps he just should have read the security briefing that was given to him on August 6, 2001 that said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes."

Moore supplies no evidence for his assertion that President Bush did not read the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief. Moore’s assertion appears to be a complete fabrication.

Moore smirks that perhaps President Bush did not read the Briefing because its title was so vague. Moore then cuts to Condoleezza Rice announcing the title of the Briefing: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Here, Moore seems to be playing off Condoleezza Rice's testimony of the September 11 Commission that the contents of the memo were vague.

However, no-one (except Moore) has ever claimed that Bush did not read the Briefing, or that he did not read it because the title was vague. Rather, Condoleezza Rice had told the press conference that the information in the Briefing was "very vague." National Security Advisor Holds Press Briefing, The White House, May 16, 2002.

The content of the Briefing supports Rice’s characterization, and refutes Moore’s assertion that the Briefing "said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes." The actual Briefing was highly equivocal:

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" ‘Umar’ Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

(Some readers have wondered how this short segment qualifies as three deceits: 1. that Bush did not read the memo, 2. that the memo's title was offered as an excuse for not reading the memo, 3. omitting that the memo was equivocal, and that the hijacking warning was something that the FBI said it was "unable to corroborate.")
</font color>

So here is the actual data that Kopel starts with:

Moore's makes two statements -

"Or perhaps he just should have read the security briefing that was given to him on August 6, 2001 that said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes."

and

"maybe Bush didn't read the memo because the title was so vague."


Kopel takes these two statements and spins them into 3 different "deceits".

The first being that Moore said that Bush didn't read the memo. Well, technically Moore doesn't say that - he says "perhaps he should have" and "maybe Bush didn't". And, taken in context, Moore's comment sounds more like a sarcastic criticism than a literal argument about whether Bush literally read the words. Sort of like after you screw something up and your wife says "Well, maybe you should have read the directions first."

The second "deceit" is just a total misinterpetation on Kopel's part. He says that Moore falsely accuses Bush of not reading the memo because the title was vague. Well, duh, the Moore comment about the title ""Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." being "vague" was clearly sarcasm. That is a joke, not a deceit. (In fact, I remember either Leno or Letterman making the same sarcastic comment in his dialogue.) And if you want to be picky, then Kopel's claiming it is a deceit is a deceit in itself. So now do we start talking about the "liar Kopel?"

Then, Kopel incredibly takes Moore to task for a third "deceit." He says it was deceitful for Moore to not mention that the memo was "equivocal"! Kopel supports this claim by repeating the part of the memo that said the FBI was unable to corroborate some of the claims, but the memo also said:

"Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

So Kopel concludes that Moore is a deceiver not because of what he said, but because he didn't stick Kopel's interpretation of this memo as being "equivocal"?! The memo is a pretty starkly worded bit of intelligence, especially for a summary, and it isn't deceitful to point it out as such, as the Senate hearings did.

So, yeah, if you want to call putting your own biased spin on things deceitful, then Kopel is wrong on at least 2/3 of his accusations here - not a very good batting average. To be consistent with the Moore bashing maybe we should all now call him "the liar Kopel?"

And most of the other "deceits" that I read on Kopels lists were a blend of valid criticism seasoned with biased and selective corroboration. I don't have the energy to go into them though.

Which get's me back to my original point - there is usually SOMETHING valid to be gleaned whether you are reading strong conservative or strongly liberal points of view. You just have to use the same critical eye for both - unless your goal is limited to "proving you are right and they are wrong."

Wow, are my hands tired!

eg8r
08-06-2004, 05:26 AM
[ QUOTE ]
So, by your logic, Eg8r, if Moore's critics' arguments "were based on concrete evidence [they] would not have to embellish." Also "this crap would lead any thinking person to question" everything else they say. So now we can't listen to Moore OR his critics. Confusing isn't it?
<hr /></blockquote> No it is not confusing, you are correct in your argument that it can go both ways, however it still does not deter from the fact, that, if MM would base his info on concrete evidence he would not have to embellish. Simply because some Conservatives act in the same way (on their own side of the fence) does not make what MM is doing, right. I have said it here before, a little more self-responsibility would go a long way in this country. Just because the other guy is embellishing does not mean MM has to. If he has a point and his goal is to put it out there to inform the public, then he should not have to embellish the issue.

Surely MM knows there are Conservatives out there that are so vain, they are going to scrutize every detail in an effort to derail him. It is the nature of the beast. Why not understand that in the beginning and remove the temptation. Once doubt is instilled, people will question everything, and this is what MM should spend some extra time removing. Lying about the headline, seems to be pretty trivial, however when you actually look at the dates you will see it is a pretty big screwup on his part, however I believe it is calculated also. He knew if he used the "real" date, then the headline would have meant nothing on top of the fact that the article was not even a headline rather it was buried in the paper.

This is funny to me, after re-reading your quote above I remember when Rush was found to be a drug addict. He had ranted and ranted on the air about how drug addicts should go straight to prison and yet here he was hypocritically using drugs himself. Just because Rush is doing drugs himself, does not deter the fact that what he says can also be true. It is just a shame he did not live up to what he says. Sure it is the pot calling the kettle black, but the bottom issue is that the drug addicts should be dealt with. Rush was just too hypocritical to believe he should be part of the group. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif



eg8r

highsea
08-06-2004, 11:15 AM
I appreciate your reply, Ross. Is the PDB analysis the biggest criticism of Kopel you have? It seems like a pretty minor point to me.

When I look at this issue, certain things jump out for me, like the Bush/Saud conspiracy theory, the claim that Bush let the bin laden family leave the US without FBI vetting, (before the airports had opened back up), the misquoting of Rice on the Iraq/al-qaeda connection, the insinuation that Bush was lazing around his ranch all the time instead of taking care of business, the silliness about Fox somehow calling the election, the Taliban-Unocal connection, the "have and the have mores" quote, just to name a few.

Kopel calls these deceits, I call them lies of omission. I know a lot of people (not here, but in real life) that have taken MM's version as truth. This kinda scares me, because they haven't spent the time sorting out the facts that I have. Too many people take things at face value, imo.

MM has mass-media support, in a big way. He will probably get another Oscar, which is okay by me, I don't pay much attention to Hollywood. But it lends him a credibility that I don't think is deserved.

Anyway, I appreciate your response. I know you're still for Kerry, but I know it isn't a blind thing. I know you give thoughful consideration to the issues, and though come to a different conclusion than I do, you do give thought to it. I wish everyone took it as seriously as you do. But I'm curious, and you don't have to answer this, but are you "for" Kerry, or "against" Bush? Just wondering.

-CM

Wally_in_Cincy
08-06-2004, 11:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> ...are you "for" Kerry, or "against" Bush? Just wondering.

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

I have another question for Ross. Why do you hate America?

/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif just kidding /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Arguing about all this is fun but it's really all a moot point. Kerry is too liberal to be elected. When his voting record is scrutinized he will be revealed as such.

Ross
08-07-2004, 11:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> I appreciate your reply, Ross. Is the PDB analysis the biggest criticism of Kopel you have? It seems like a pretty minor point to me.

<font color="blue">No, it wasn't just the PDB analysis. That was just an example that pointed out how Kopel was working to put MM in the worst possible light instead of doing a straight analysis of MM's accuracy and truthfullness. </font color>

When I look at this issue, certain things jump out for me, like the Bush/Saud conspiracy theory, the claim that Bush let the bin laden family leave the US without FBI vetting, (before the airports had opened back up), the misquoting of Rice on the Iraq/al-qaeda connection, the insinuation that Bush was lazing around his ranch all the time instead of taking care of business, the silliness about Fox somehow calling the election, the Taliban-Unocal connection, the "have and the have mores" quote, just to name a few.

<font color="blue">While MM implies more than he can prove, his film takes the "where there's smoke, there's fire" point of view. Most viewers took it that way - the near universal reaction I've heard from those who have seen it is "it raises some interesting questions that make you think."

I think the "FBI vetting" of Saudi's before letting them leave is another example of where MM is right to ask questions. According to the 9/11 Commission:

"Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity."

So that means that 112 were NOT vetted. And -- be honest here -- how lame is the comment that none of the passengers stated they were terrorists or associated with Bin Laden! Well, that certainly is reassuring! We know terrorists wouldn't lie about it. LOL.

And of course, the Commission then goes on to note "it is unclear whether the Tipoff terrorist watchlist was checked." (That sounds like bureaucratese for "they didn't check it but we can't prove it.")

Kopel's criticism of MM for not mentioning that Clarke signed off on these guys leaving is a legitimate one. But, if he wanted to be fair, Kopel could have also pointed out that MM had a valid point in questioning why these Saudi's were allowed to leave without undergoing any meaningful investigation first, and that because of this some terrorist supporters may indeed have slipped out on those days after 9/11, and finally that the Commission report is not as near as critical as it could have been, but he didn't. Nor does Kopel anywhere state that MM actually did say in the film that some of the Saudi's were interviewed.

I could go on and on about why I think Kopel's analysis is at least as biased as he accuses MM of being, but I already have gone on and on so I'll stop. LOL!
</font color>


Kopel calls these deceits, I call them lies of omission. I know a lot of people (not here, but in real life) that have taken MM's version as truth. This kinda scares me, because they haven't spent the time sorting out the facts that I have. Too many people take things at face value, imo.

MM has mass-media support, in a big way. He will probably get another Oscar, which is okay by me, I don't pay much attention to Hollywood. But it lends him a credibility that I don't think is deserved.

Anyway, I appreciate your response. I know you're still for Kerry, but I know it isn't a blind thing. I know you give thoughful consideration to the issues, and though come to a different conclusion than I do, you do give thought to it. I wish everyone took it as seriously as you do. But I'm curious, and you don't have to answer this, but are you "for" Kerry, or "against" Bush? Just wondering.

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">I'm "for" most of the policies that Kerry lists on his platform - making health care available to more US citizens, cutting taxes on businesses that create jobs in the US, cutting taxes on middle and lower class workers, raising the minimum wage, allowing importation of Canadian drugs, tax credits up to $4,000 for parents paying college tuition. I also believe he will be more careful about protecting our environment against short-sighted business interests. I'm for keeping abortions legal - I think outlawing them will work as well as Prohibition did. I don't give a damn whether gays get married or not - in fact I feel sorry for them if they do! (jk married folks!) Finally, I think Kerry is likely to be better at working with our former allies around the world, and might be able to restore the US to being a respected nation around the world.

Personally, Kerry seems OK. He is obviously bright, ambitious, and hard working fellow. He is a bit too preppie for my personal tastes, but that doesn't disqualify him in my mind. I don't find him to be more honest or dishonest than most politicians. I doubt he could run 3 balls, so that is one cut against him though.

I don't like Bush because I think he has an oversimplified ideology that gets him and us into trouble. His creative solutions to world problems seem to be limited to "kicking butt." I think he is more of a friend to the rich than to the working class. I think he would sell out the environment in a minute if he could get away with it. I think he surrounds himself with men that are too arrogant (Cheney, Rumsfeld) to really hear opposing points of view. I don't like religion getting mixed in with politics. I do like his support of schools getting serious about maintaining educational standards for all students. And I doubt Bush could run three balls either, so I guess on that issue Kerry and Bush are tied.

Take care Highsea- time to go hit some balls and try out the ideas given to me on the pool side of our board!
</font color>