[Zimphire]

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fift...enheit-911.htm

There are many articles which have pointed out the distortions, falsehoods, and lies in the film Fahrenheit 911. This report compiles the Fahrenheit 911 deceits which have been identified by a wide variety of reviewers. In addition, I identify some inaccuracies which have not been addressed by other writers.

[DeathToWindows]

I've now seen it, and while I am no where near dumb enough to take everything Moore says as ex cathedra truth, I believe he raises some interesting issues... namely how we elected such an idiot.

bush is a war criminal : war under false pretenses, 10000+ iraqi civilians dead, 900+ us soldiers dead - for what? - Oil. Plain and simple.

[Spliffdaddy]

yep. oil is cheap and plentiful now.

try again, young grasshopper.

[Sod Off Sadr]

Originally posted by DeathToWindows:
bush is a war criminal : war under false pretenses, 10000+ iraqi civilians dead, 900+ us soldiers dead - for what? - Oil. Plain and simple.

So is Clinton a war criminal? He ordered attacks against Iraq and Afghanistan. US policy in the Middle East always goes back to oil: it cares about the region b/c of the oil. No oil = no U.S.A.

You left-wing bobbleheads need to stop with the 'war criminal' twaddle and drain the puss out of your politically infected wounds. Then maybe your oxygen-starved neurons can function without sounding like a broken record or TIMMAY!

[ambush]

Benphire, the leader of the Anti-Moore Jihad.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
yep. oil is cheap and plentiful now.

try again, young grasshopper.

DeathToWindows is right.

Spliffdaddy is wrong.

It is about oil. But oil does not come cheap because of the instability in Venezuela and the Middle East and the psyche around terrorism in Saudi Arabia. Take account also the lack of independant evaluations of the actual reserve in the world (ie: USSR) to add on trhe speculation.

This is also why the US government is expanding his reach throughout the African continent to secure resources, in competition with the French, especially in the last 2 years. (Nicolas Sarkis, Monde Diplomatique, July 2004*).

On the other hand, instability in ther Middle East is good, because there will still be oil flowing, the prices will keep on increasing, and more corporations will make lots more profits on insurance, security, safety, transactions, custom and whatever other business opportunities will be found there. (Pierre Abramovici, Monde Diplomatique, July 2004*).

I saw Moore's movie today: I agree with DeathToWindows. Moores paints with a very large b(r)ush, but the substance is good for his purpose; it is thick, viscuous, sticky, and very slow to dry...

I could have done without his comments though. The movie is self-explicit for his purpose.

*Note: articles available in English in August 2004

[spauldingg]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fift...enheit-911.htm

There are many articles which have pointed out the distortions, falsehoods, and lies in the film Fahrenheit 911. This report compiles the Fahrenheit 911 deceits which have been identified by a wide variety of reviewers. In addition, I identify some inaccuracies which have not been addressed by other writers.

I think one thing we can all agree on is that Mr Ashcroft has a lovely singing voice.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by spauldingg:
I think one thing we can all agree on is that Mr Ashcroft has a lovely singing voice.

I thought that "Let the Eagles soar ...." thing from the movie trailer was some sort of overdub 'til I saw the flick. OMFG !!!

[shmerek]

Not only did he sing it, he wrote it!

[MindFad]

[Nodnarb]

I don't understand how you guys can say it's about oil. No offense, but it takes some pretty uneducated people to believe that and think Bush is a bad president or a "warmonger". We've got Sadam, and many other terrorists and have stopped many attacks on the U.S.
What else do you want? It is a war that we are fighting because we need to. If we never went to war after 9/11, there would have been more attacks just like it, and that is proven. It boggles my mind how liberals can think differently than that. I know I'm gonna be yelled at by like 30 people in here for this, but there needed to be a conservative voice in this post.

[RonnieoftheRose]

The deceit page is even more speculative than Moore's observations. Moore admits to speculating at evidence and circumstance, stuff that the anti-Moore side won't even dare to speculate.

Imagine the Reichstag fire being blamed on Jews and Germans not even speculating as to what really happened. Or Roman citizens not speculating as to who really started the fire of Rome. This is not to say New York wasn't attacked by terrorists (although many of the named terrorists happened to be regular people doing regular jobs elsewhere and are still alive), but the freedom to speculate and ask questions is what makes a nation free.

It's a great irony for rightwing leaning people to scream freedom on a daily basis when they would love to shut up anyone who displays an ounce of free thinking. Or is the freedom they rant about the freedom to exploit the poor, the freedom to brainwash, the freedom to censor, the freedom to diseminate religious propaganda and the freedom to infiltrate the economies of other nations?

That's not freedom. Remember the words 'liberal and liberty' go hand in hand and mean freedom. A freedom that comes with great responsibilities. The word 'conservative' means to maintain a status quo. And in nearly all cases it's a status quo that is backwards, refuses to learn from history, and refuses to innovate for the future.

[Spliffdaddy]

huh?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by DeathToWindows:
bush is a war criminal

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
The deceit page is even more speculative than Moore's observations. Moore admits to speculating at evidence and circumstance, stuff that the anti-Moore side won't even dare to speculate.

How does debunking BS make the site more speculative than Moore's FUD?

What kind of spin was that?

All of Moore's movies are basically the Enquirer or Star on film. Nothing short of a Jerry Springer episode.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
How does debunking BS make the site more speculative than Moore's FUD?

.

Because it does a poor job of debunking. Each point made alone would take a chapter of a book to debunk rather than just a few rather poorly and agressively made statements.

Even more amusing is those who debunk without watching the documentary. And for more irony, they happen to be the very same people who flocked to The Passion of Christ and won't stand for any debunking of that piece of mythology. We've seen their behavior on this and many other forums as the internet is simple an intracosm of what's out there in the physical world.

What we see is that the leftwing are willing to watch Michael Moore's documentaries and take them for what they are - his views. Why can't the rightwing think as individuals? Why such harsh reactions? Why not just "Michael Moore is entitled to his opinions without a mad reaction from myself. If I have time I'll think about what he said. Maybe some of it is true maybe some of it isn't?"

Why is it that the rightwing reaction is not like that but to simple point out what they think isn't true and then promptly ignore what does stand up to scrutiny? This last question of mine is most important and I'm willing to bet it will go ignored for the rest of this discussion thread.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
Because it does a poor job of debunking. Each point made alone would take a chapter of a book to debunk rather than just a few rather poorly and agressively made statements.

No, I read it. Did a pretty good job from what I saw.

Even more amusing is those who debunk without watching the documentary.

Who has been doing that?

Christ and won't stand for any debunking of that piece of mythology. We've seen their behavior on this and many other forums as the internet is simple an intracosm of what's out there in the physical world.

Who are "They" ? Christ's life can't be debunked. If it could, Christianity would not exist.

What we see is that the leftwing are willing to watch Michael Moore's documentaries and take them for what they are - his views.

Is that why I keep hearing a lot of the left wing use MM's movies as proof in their points before? There is a reasons why these people are known as "Mooreons"

Why can't the rightwing think as individuals?

You'll really go far in this forum with those kind of idiotic comments.

Maybe some of it is true maybe some of it isn't?"

Yes, I I am sure you "want to believe"

Why is it that the rightwing reaction is not like that but to simple point out what they think isn't true and then promptly ignore what does stand up to scrutiny? This last question of mine is most important and I'm willing to bet it will go ignored for the rest of this discussion thread.

I have ALWAYS said Michael Moore takes truthes, and puts them together in false ways in "What if" and "maybe" type of questions.

This is knows as FUD and propaganda. Again, nothing short of The National Enquirer.

It would be like you asking me to take it seriously.

I mean I am sure PARTS of it ARE true! But that doesn't mean it's something I would waste my time wondering over.

[RonnieoftheRose]

No, I read it. Did a pretty good job from what I saw.

That's a perfect example of rightwing argument. You see it as right and there's no question.

Christ's life can't be debunked. If it could, Christianity would not exist.

Using that same argument all religions along with their mythological baggage are right because all these religions exist.

Is that why I keep hearing a lot of the left wing use MM's movies as proof in their points before?

I haven't seen this. Most of what Moore includes in his documentaries are things people have been saying already without needing to quote him.

Yes, I I am sure you "want to believe"

You're stuttering now. I haven't said I believe everything Moore included in his documentary or that I saw or liked his work. I don't need to because it's stuff that's not exclusive to him.

I have ALWAYS said Michael Moore takes truthes, and puts them together in false ways in "What if" and "maybe" type of questions.

This statement makes no sense. A 'what if' or a 'maybe' cannot be concluded as a falsity. The very nature of them is non-conclusive.

I mean I am sure PARTS of it ARE true! But that doesn't mean it's something I would waste my time wondering over.

Why's that then?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
That's a perfect example of rightwing argument. You see it as right and there's no question.

No, I said it was of my opinion that it did a good job.

Using that same argument all religions along with their mythological baggage are right because all these religions exist.

What kind of responses are you giving? Your record is broken. What I said was the truth. If you are saying I am wrong, fine. I have no problem with that. But at least show some evidence to back it up.

I haven't seen this. Most of what Moore includes in his documentaries are things people have been saying already without needing to quote him.

Moore takes these things, and put them together in ways making "what if" and assuming. This is called FUD.

You're stuttering now.

Stuttering? Tell me. How does one stutter when one types? I looked back. I repeated no letters.

This statement makes no sense. A 'what if' or a 'maybe' cannot be concluded as a falsity. The very nature of them is non-conclusive.

Sure it can. It can falsely put ideas into people's had about things that did not happen or exist.

Take for example. "You know I bet Michael Moore has male sex slaves in his basement that all wear Bush masks"

Why's that then?

Would you waste time over reading and wondering about the National Enquirer?

Would you defend the writers of that crap?

[Atomic Rooster]

Zimphire is Moores love slave.

How many threads on Moore has he started now. Kinda think there is something unnatural going on in Zimph's brain cavity.

[Zimphire]

Not as many ones started about Bush I know that.

Someone said in here once that no one has pointed out any "lies" in this movie.

I was just posting it as reference. That is all.

[chalk_outline]

http://www.sundayherald.com/43167

---Can adian--- WTF????????


But, if true it does you know what to your special little places.

You know. He is not a money grubbing **********!

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

No, I said it was of my opinion that it did a good job.
[/b]
What kind of responses are you giving? Your record is broken. What I said was the truth. If you are saying I am wrong, fine. I have no problem with that. But at least show some evidence to back it up.
[/b]
Moore takes these things, and put them together in ways making "what if" and assuming. This is called FUD.
[/b]
Stuttering? Tell me. How does one stutter when one types? I looked back. I repeated no letters.
[/b]
Sure it can. It can falsely put ideas into people's had about things that did not happen or exist.

Take for example. "You know I bet Michael Moore has male sex slaves in his basement that all wear Bush masks"


Would you waste time over reading and wondering about the National Enquirer?

Would you defend the writers of that crap? [/B]

You're like a devil in holy water.

Soooo funny!

LOL

[ebuddy]

Good post Zimphire. They're pretty much left speechless on this one. Certainly doesn't stop them though I love it; "you, you, you...uh...POOPYSTINK BUTT!!!!!"

[ebuddy]

We are implanting democracy right smack dab in the middle of the Middle East. This administration is convinced that if we removed the dictator, gave them their country back under sovereign rule, they'd embrace freedom and we will have at least taken their 100% pure hatred for us to 40% dislike for our culture while thankful for democracy.

They will be less likely to aide and fund terrorism against the US in the future. Yes, Iraq was connected to Al Queda. Yes, they were going to bring war to us again. Yes, taking Saddam out was the right thing to do. Yes, it's difficult, but necessary.

Moore? Well, he's just a big fat idiot and while the 50 falsehoods in his movie do not shock me in the leat, I can see where this means nothing. Fact is not important to the commie-lib, it's how you FEEL that matters.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
We are implanting democracy right smack dab in the middle of the Middle East. This administration is convinced that if we removed the dictator, gave them their country back under sovereign rule, they'd embrace freedom and we will have at least taken their 100% pure hatred for us to 40% dislike for our culture while thankful for democracy.

They will be less likely to aide and fund terrorism against the US in the future. Yes, Iraq was connected to Al Queda. Yes, they were going to bring war to us again. Yes, taking Saddam out was the right thing to do. Yes, it's difficult, but necessary.

Moore? Well, he's just a big fat idiot and while the 50 falsehoods in his movie do not shock me in the leat, I can see where this means nothing. Fact is not important to the commie-lib, it's how you FEEL that matters.

Where are your facts again?

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
We are implanting democracy right smack dab in the middle of the Middle East. This administration is convinced that if we removed the dictator, gave them their country back under sovereign rule, they'd embrace freedom and we will have at least taken their 100% pure hatred for us to 40% dislike for our culture while thankful for democracy.

They will be less likely to aide and fund terrorism against the US in the future. Yes, Iraq was connected to Al Queda. Yes, they were going to bring war to us again. Yes, taking Saddam out was the right thing to do. Yes, it's difficult, but necessary.

Moore? Well, he's just a big fat idiot and while the 50 falsehoods in his movie do not shock me in the leat, I can see where this means nothing. Fact is not important to the commie-lib, it's how you FEEL that matters.

We are? You, and apparently a number others, still seem to be under this illusion. The Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, want to live their lives according to their religious principles; they don't have a clue, nor do they give a damn about, what democracy is. Just because we come in there, install another puppet government, and tell them that they're free, doesn't mean squat, other than assuage our own egos and show the world our typical American arrogance. We've already been betrayed by the likes of Ahmad Chalabi, who was a known crook, and these puppets that we've installed as a "government" (while we're really still pulling the strings) aren't going to create democracy just because we say so. There are people in the United States, including many at the highest levels of government, who don't even care whether the U. S. is a democracy, including, obviously, you. Your typical "commie-lib" reaction clearly shows that.

There is a growing body who believe that the war in Iraq has actually increased the possibility of worldwide terrorism, as Muslims worldwide are beginning to take this action as an assault on Islam. This war on ideology is creating a backlash against the U. S. http://motherjones.org/cgi-bin/print...07/07_401.html

We're not seen in many places in the world as some omnipotent saviors; that's just how we see ourselves.

[gatekeeper]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
The deceit page is even more speculative than Moore's observations.

What else is new.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Good post Zimphire. They're pretty much left speechless on this one.

Unreality: They are left speechless.
Reality: They aren't so obsessed about Michael Moore's film that they will spend all day trying to convince people it is all a lie.
Reality 2: Some of us actually have lives and also need 8 hours sleep.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Take for example. "You know I bet Michael Moore has male sex slaves in his basement that all wear Bush masks"

Would you waste time over reading and wondering about the National Enquirer?

Would you defend the writers of that crap? [/B]

Your analogy is so far off base that it makes you seem uncredible.

Your example "You know I bet Michael Moore has male sex slaves in his basement that all wear Bush masks" shows you don't know the difference between speculation, assumption and definitive statement. Is English your first language?

-What you make above is an assumption, that is a bet based on a guess with not even circumstantial evidence.
-The National Enquirer makes definitive false statements based on fictions that are not based on any evidence.
-Michael Moore makes non-conclusive speculation based on circumstantial evidence.

Thus...
-You know I bet Michael Moore has male sex slaves in his basement that all wear Bush masks.
-Nazi base camp revealed on Saturn's surface.
-The Bin Ladins were given special clearance after 9/11 and we want to know what makes them special.

...are three very different things. Your statement is close to National Enquirer material, Moore's isn't.

[Spliffdaddy]

Moore is much worse than any tabloid.

[MacGorilla]

Never mind. Not even worth it.

[TheMosco]

Well, the claimed deceit 3 is very deceptive, haha.

Yes, under certain recount methods, Bush would have one.

Its actually very funny, in the method that the Democrats wanted, Bush would have won. But, if they did it the republican way, Gore would have won.

This is a quote from a cnn article on the newspaper recount that your website mentioned(which cnn was a part of):

Ironically, a tougher standard of counting only cleanly punched ballots advocated by many Republicans would have resulted in a Gore lead of just three votes, the newspaper reported.

The newspapers' review also discovered that canvassing boards in Palm Beach and Broward counties threw out hundreds of ballots that had marks that were no different from ballots deemed to be valid.

The papers concluded that Gore would be in the White House today if those ballots had been counted.

So that page itself is claiming that Moore is deceitful by being deceitful itself. I haven't even read the other ones yet, i just randomly picked number 3, its just this website makes it seem that under no circumstances Gore would have won, which is false. I wouldn't be surprised if many more of these were false and deceitful.

[Tater Salad]

Zimph, you're a wee to zealous.
Personally, I think he is like one of those guys you see in a Golden Coral that thinks 7.50 buys you four plates of food. He's like a fatter Lenin, but has alot more hair.

Can we please stop with the Mikey Moore threads?
And this whole "war for oil" is like those nuts waaay back who said we went to war for the munitions industry. If we wanted oil, wouldn't it be more effective take out the royal family and take Saudi Arabia? Or be cheap and go south of the border? All of this war for oil stuff is an easier way of saying there's a conspiracy. And after living in D.C. (Prince Willaim County), and going down there every week or so, you understand one thing: The government can't even secure our borders from illegal trash. What makes you think they can conspire with several companies and the armed forces to invade Iraq, with the help of other countries, who would have to have known it was a conspiracy, and get away with it. There would be thousands of people who would have known what was going on. And not ONE person spoke up? Or slipped something while getting hammered?

Nice try.
The oil industry is as complicated as the stock market. No cheap accusation (of oily politicians) without full knowledge of how oil works is useless. What's your next talking point? Try Bush in front of a room of child molesters in Brussels for freeing millions from a mass murder a la Hitler?
On a side note, I wish Saddam was found dead so he wouldn't get a trial. The man deserves a Mussolini death. But on the bright side, you have to admit that the man makes some stupid looking expressions.

[dialo]

From the article:

What is misleading is for Moore to look at the web of Saudi influence in Washington only in regard to the Republican Bushes, and to ignore the fact that Saudi influence and money are widespread in both parties.

From The Prince

But a smaller moment may have cemented the bond between the elder Bush and Bandar. When George and Barbara Bush visited the troops in Saudi Arabia during the Thanksgiving holiday in 1990, Bush called Bandar, who was in Saudi Arabia at the time. Bandar went to the private quarters in the royal palace where the Bushes were staying. Bush had tears in his eyes, and Bandar, worried, asked what had happened. Bush explained that Dorothy, their recently divorced daughter, was alone at the White House with her children. They had called her from the airplane and learned that Bandar�s wife, Haifa, had invited Doro and her children to spend Thanksgiving with her. (�I don�t have parents now,� Haifa told me. �The Bushes are like my mother and father. I know if ever I needed anything I could go to them.�)

Along with 100 other things that make the Bush/saudi relationship unique.

Not to mention that one of the "deceits" is the fact that Moore showed footage of pedestrians on 9/11. Among many other problems with the article.

The only deceit here is by those who try to pretend this article is anything other than basic anti-moore drivel.

I haven't seen the movie yet. Bowling for Columbine was deceitful. I felt that part of the trailer for F911 was deceitful. But this article is obviously FOS and just a way for ignorant trolls to cite something that supposedly justifies their beliefs.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by dialo:
From the article:

From The Prince

Along with 100 other things that make the Bush/saudi relationship unique.

Not to mention that one of the "deceits" is the fact that Moore showed footage of pedestrians on 9/11. Among many other problems with the article.

The only deceit here is by those who try to pretend this article is anything other than basic anti-moore drivel.

I haven't seen the movie yet. Bowling for Columbine was deceitful. I felt that part of the trailer for F911 was deceitful. But this article is obviously FOS and just a way for ignorant trolls to cite something that supposedly justifies their beliefs.

Agreed.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
You're like a devil in holy water.

That made no sense.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Tater Salad:
(...)
And this whole "war for oil" is like those nuts waaay back who said we went to war for the munitions industry. If we wanted oil, wouldn't it be more effective take out the royal family and take Saudi Arabia? Or be cheap and go south of the border? All of this war for oil stuff is an easier way of saying there's a conspiracy. And after living in D.C. (Prince Willaim County), and going down there every week or so, you understand one thing: The government can't even secure our borders from illegal trash. What makes you think they can conspire with several companies and the armed forces to invade Iraq, with the help of other countries, who would have to have known it was a conspiracy, and get away with it. There would be thousands of people who would have known what was going on. And not ONE person spoke up? Or slipped something while getting hammered?
(...)

How about securing both Iraqi AND Saoudi?



The actual movement is to secure all oil reservers in Africa. The control is close to total in the Middle East.

Of course, a couple permanent military bases will do fine. And how about removing a dictator under false presumption, nonetheless morally acceptable from an international viewpoint (not so diplomatic though mind you!) to justify the implantation of such bases? And let's make a show of superiority by kicking a half dead corpse (Iraq's Army) to show the neighbours and the rest of the world that it is all fair and square and then justifiable to make a nice nest there?

No need for conspiracy; it's International Politics 101.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Moore? Well, he's just a big fat idiot and while the 50 falsehoods in his movie do not shock me in the leat, I can see where this means nothing. Fact is not important to the commie-lib, it's how you FEEL that matters.

And this thread proves that.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
Your analogy is so far off base that it makes you seem uncredible.

Heh projection anyone? It's not far off base. Not at all. He does the SAME THING the National Enquirer does. Takes bits of truths and mixes a bunch of BS with it.

Your example "You know I bet Michael Moore has male sex slaves in his basement that all wear Bush masks" shows you don't know the difference between speculation, assumption and definitive statement. Is English your first language?

I was showing an example. I know the difference. You are now just arguing semantics. This is known as a strawman.

...are three very different things. Your statement is close to National Enquirer material, Moore's isn't.

Yes Moore's is. I could easily see a "Bush had ties with Osama!" on the headlines. Full of FUD on the inside making assumptions and full of lies.

Just like F9/11 was. Just like this article proved.

You know, the people who read and believe the Enquirer and the Michael Moore supporters are two of the same ilk.

They both want to believe regardless of the facts.

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

No, I read it. Did a pretty good job from what I saw.
[/b]
[/B]

I don't see how it does



heres the first thing i read:

A year after 9/11, I was part of a panel discussion on BBC-TV�s �Question Time� show which aired live in the United Kingdom. A portion of my commentary at that time follows:


�One of the panelists was Michael Moore�During the warm-up before the studio audience, Moore said something along the lines of �I don�t know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you will be struck by lightening than die from an act of terror.��I mention this exchange because it was not televised, occurring as it did before the show went live. It shows where he was coming from long before he produced �Fahrenheit 9/11.�


they try to criticize this...I dont get it, did they not see the movie? This is explained. Then they somehow call this a 'Lie'.

[Zimphire]

He wasn't calling that a lie. He was showing what an asshat the man really is.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Heh projection anyone? It's not far off base. Not at all. He does the SAME THING the National Enquirer does. Takes bits of truths and mixes a bunch of BS with it.
[/b]
I was showing an example. I know the difference. You are now just arguing semantics. This is known as a strawman.


Yes Moore's is. I could easily see a "Bush had ties with Osama!" on the headlines. Full of FUD on the inside making assumptions and full of lies.

Just like F9/11 was. Just like this article proved.

You know, the people who read and believe the Enquirer and the Michael Moore supporters are two of the same ilk.

They both want to believe regardless of the facts.[/B]

Just like you want to believe this article even though there are clearly holes in this article as shown in this thread already.

Why don't you reply to those posts, the ones that show this article is wrong?

You criticize people for believing what moore has to say, yet you base your whole argument against him on some random article written by some random person who is also full of ****. way to go zimphire.

You should probably do some research on that article. If I was able to randomly pick one of them and prove it was deceitful, I bet it could be done with many many more of these.

[TheMosco]

Some of these deceits aren't really even deceits.

Deceit number 8:

Fahrenheit mocks President Bush for continuing to read a story to a classroom of elementary school children after he was told about the September 11 attacks.

What Moore did not tell you:

Gwendolyn Tose�-Rigell, the principal of Emma E. Booker Elementary School, praised Bush�s action: �I don�t think anyone could have handled it better.� �What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?��

She said the video doesn�t convey all that was going on in the classroom, but Bush�s presence had a calming effect and �helped us get through a very difficult day."

Right, because the best person to say whether Bush reacted the right way to the national security threat is a elementary school principal.

Considering that we know that everything was a mess that morning, wouldn't it have been appropriate for bush to act like a leader and take charge of the situation immediately after it happened. Didn't he claim that he heard about the attacks from a phone call before he entered the class room? Then he is quoted as saying he say the attacks on tv before he went in while in the school corridor. Its unclear what exactly happened because bush can't get his lies straight. It seems to me that since he is the "Commander and Chief" that it might be in the best interest of the country for him to take charge.

I mean honestly, he said he saw the attacks on tv before he went into the classroom. He said that he thought "it was just a bad pilot" when the weather was perfect and the fact that plane was perfectly aligned to hit the building. But he also said he first heard about the attacks when he got a call from Rice about it. So which is it?

I guess its more important to sit and a classroom to keep the children that didn't have any idea what was going on in NY calm then take charge of the nation.

[TheMosco]

I even scrolled to end and read 52 to 56 (48 t0 51 seemed too long to read, lol).

All of those are ****.

Deceit 52_

Moore exploits the grief of Lila Lipscomb, the mother of a soldier who died in Iraq. She denounces Bush and the War. But there are many mothers and relatives of US soldiers, alive and dead, who served there who don�t agree with her. Don�t look for them in this agit-prop �film.�

Fahrenheit wallows in pity for Mrs. Lipscomb. �I was tired of seeing people like Mrs. Lipscomb suffer,� he claims. Yet Moore�s website takes a different view: _

I�m sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.

Michael Moore, �Heads Up... from Michael Moore,� MichaelMoore.com, April 14, 2004.

First, how is this a deceit? Where did he claim that there weren't family members who supported the war? He didn't say that. Obviously the point of his film his to convey a message, but its not as if he said, "All family members of those that died hate george bush"

Celebrities

Deceit 54_

He shows Britney Spears saying she supports the President on Iraq. As if there weren�t a host of brain-dead bimbo celebs, (Madonna, Sean Penn, Russell Simmons, Lenny Kravitz, Susan Sarandon, The Dixie Chicks, etc.), spouting off on the other side.

Schlussel.

Come on! you have got to do better than this. You can tell at the end of the article he is just grasping for whatever he can get.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
Just like you want to believe this article even though there are clearly holes in this article as shown in this thread already.

Er someone showed holes in the article? I saw lots of excuses and "I don't understands" but no "holes"

You criticize people for believing what moore has to say, yet you base your whole argument against him on some random article written by some random person who is also full of ****. way to go zimphire.

Er I didn't base any argument against him with this article. I just posted it. You sir are projecting. And he does make good points. Do I agree with all of it? No. Did I say I did? No.

It's funny to see the MM fan club come to his rescue.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Er someone showed holes in the article? I saw lots of excuses and "I don't understands" but no "holes"
[/b]
Er I didn't base any argument against him with this article. I just posted it. You sir are projecting. And he does make good points. Do I agree with all of it? No. Did I say I did? No.

It's funny to see the MM fan club come to his rescue. [/B]

I think you are in denial.

Oh! Wait!

You are Clinically Insane!

Oh yeah. You are in denial...

[Zimphire]

Yeah, I'm the one in denial..



That will go far.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yeah, I'm the one in denial..

We know.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yeah, I'm the one in denial..



That will go far.

Go and the read those "deceits". We not the one grasping at straws here.

I don't even really like MM, but come on, that list of "deceits" is just stupid.