Fahrenheit 9/11 coming 6/25
Regardless, Moore's claim that the purge was conducted on the basis of race was indisputably false. As the Palm Beach Post details, all the evidence shows that Data Base Technologies did not use race as a basis for the purge. Indeed, DBT's refusal to take note of a registered voter's race was one of the reasons for the many cases of mistaken identity.
That's at least somewhat disingenuous. If Florida follows the pattern set by much of the country, the felon population of Florida is probably overwhelmingly populated by black and latino offenders, many of them for drug charges. I've always understood the argument to be that while the voter purge was of course not directly racist, those who carried it out enthusiastically and inefficiently surely knew/understood what the net effect of the policy would be. Does that make them culpable or even scheming, necessarily? No. But the connection is there.
That's at least somewhat disingenuous. If Florida follows the pattern set by much of the country, the felon population of Florida is probably overwhelmingly populated by black and latino offenders, many of them for drug charges. I've always understood the argument to be that while the voter purge was of course not directly racist, those who carried it out enthusiastically and inefficiently surely knew/understood what the net effect of the policy would be. Does that make them culpable or even scheming, necessarily? No. But the connection is there.
-------------
"Fuckin' Koreans" - Reno 911
"Fuckin' Koreans" - Reno 911
-
lukpac
- Top Dog and Sellout
- Posts: 4592
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
2000 Election Recount
Deceit 3
A little while later:
…Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential vote, “under every scenario Gore won the election.”
What Moore doesn’t show is that a six-month study in 2001 by news organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN found just the opposite. Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily Democratic counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida and the election.
Thomas Frank, “Film offers limited view,” Newsday, June 27, 2004.
And isn't *that* deceitful? To me "just the opposite" implies that Gore wouldn't have won under *any* scenario. From the LA Times:
Four examples:
* If Florida's ballots had been recounted using a restrictive standard that some Bush lawyers said they could accept, the study found that Gore would have won the state by 105 votes--as long as optical scanner overvotes showing clear intent were included. But if overvotes were left out of the count, the study found that Bush would have won by 908 votes.
* If the statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court had not been interrupted by the U.S. Supreme Court, Bush would have won by 493 votes. The reason: Nine counties were including overvotes, but 58 were not. (The Times' analysis of this scenario recorded each ballot according to the standard each county said it was using or planned to use at the time.)
* If the recounts Gore initially requested had been completed in four heavily Democratic counties (Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and Volusia), Bush still would have won by 225 votes. Those recounts focused only on undervotes, not overvotes--and the uncounted undervotes were not enough to swing the election to Gore.
* If a recount had been performed under the standards of a 1996 Texas election law signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush, Gore might have won by 42 votes. The Texas law provides that a vote should be counted if it reflects "a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter," including dimpled chads and overvotes on optically scanned ballots.
Most states that have revised their election laws in recent years consider those "clear intent" overvotes to be valid. In Florida, for example, aides to Secretary of State Katherine Harris proposed new recount rules in September that consider an improperly marked optical scan ballot valid as long as officials can see "a clear indication of voters' intent." When Gore asked for recounts in four Democratic counties last November, his aides didn't realize at first that a potentially critical trove of overvotes lay elsewhere--in counties that used optical scanner ballots.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD
Re: The Left Doesn't Need a Limbaugh
Mike Hunte wrote:If the American public responds to Moore's flick...the right-wing loudmouth machine has only itself to blame. They blurred the lines of propaganda, entertainment, and facts with their hit-and-run tactics long before anyone ever heard of Michael Moore.
Imagine the howls of remorse that will come from the right-wing loudmouths, when they realize this. Boy, are they going to be sorry!
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
Finally saw this last night. After thinking about it a bit, it seems to me the main problem is that Moore is a poor judge of how much is too much (a common failing of the wild-eyed faithful at either end of the spectrum).
It's as though the argument was a football game, and Coach Moore went for it on every fourth down and went for two after every touchdown. If he'd played a more pragmatic game, he'd have won easily, as on paper his side has the stats. As it is, he nearly beats himself.
Case in point: the treatment of pre-war Iraq. Moore had some great clips of administration officials talking pre-9/11 about how Saddam was contained and of little danger militarily. He also had some good Richard Clarke stuff covering the lack of connection between Iraq and 9/11. But he just couldn't stop there. He had to show the happy Iraqi kids flying kites and make technically true but misleading claims about how Iraq had never lifted a finger against the US. Why not quote the State Dept. report about how Iraq had no known terrorist activity against the US? Why go over the top and try to portray Saddam's Iraq as the Netherlands?
Also, there's the Rice quote that Kopel gets all worked up about. I'll talk more about in my Kopel comments, but I thought the whole quote was just as damning as the edited one. Why cut it and open yourself up for criticism?
And most damagingly, why spend so much time at the top of the movie with all the Saudi Arabia/Unocal/bin Laden family/Carlyle Group conspiracy stuff? Yes, it's interesting for the politics geek (and might have some truth to it), but Moore's stated target audience is the common voter. He's got more than enough ammunition to make the administration look like a joke, why bring in the tinfoil hat stuff?
The second half is better than the first, where the conspiracy-mongering settles down and we get a good hard look at what the Bush Doctrine has wrought. There's a particularly powerful moment at the end where Moore says that the military is willing to die for the rest of us (and how they're mostly poor people dying for the benefit of the wealthy), and all they ask in return is that we don't send them to die for a lie. That's the kind of simple, direct argument the movie should have been filled with, but instead much of it was convoluted implication and fun but off-topic clips of Bush being stupid.
That said, it played to a packed house on a Monday night and got a hearty round of applause at the end. He's preaching largely to the choir, I assume, but if the movie makes at least some people question things they weren't questioning before, then its flaws can be forgiven.
Ryan
It's as though the argument was a football game, and Coach Moore went for it on every fourth down and went for two after every touchdown. If he'd played a more pragmatic game, he'd have won easily, as on paper his side has the stats. As it is, he nearly beats himself.
Case in point: the treatment of pre-war Iraq. Moore had some great clips of administration officials talking pre-9/11 about how Saddam was contained and of little danger militarily. He also had some good Richard Clarke stuff covering the lack of connection between Iraq and 9/11. But he just couldn't stop there. He had to show the happy Iraqi kids flying kites and make technically true but misleading claims about how Iraq had never lifted a finger against the US. Why not quote the State Dept. report about how Iraq had no known terrorist activity against the US? Why go over the top and try to portray Saddam's Iraq as the Netherlands?
Also, there's the Rice quote that Kopel gets all worked up about. I'll talk more about in my Kopel comments, but I thought the whole quote was just as damning as the edited one. Why cut it and open yourself up for criticism?
And most damagingly, why spend so much time at the top of the movie with all the Saudi Arabia/Unocal/bin Laden family/Carlyle Group conspiracy stuff? Yes, it's interesting for the politics geek (and might have some truth to it), but Moore's stated target audience is the common voter. He's got more than enough ammunition to make the administration look like a joke, why bring in the tinfoil hat stuff?
The second half is better than the first, where the conspiracy-mongering settles down and we get a good hard look at what the Bush Doctrine has wrought. There's a particularly powerful moment at the end where Moore says that the military is willing to die for the rest of us (and how they're mostly poor people dying for the benefit of the wealthy), and all they ask in return is that we don't send them to die for a lie. That's the kind of simple, direct argument the movie should have been filled with, but instead much of it was convoluted implication and fun but off-topic clips of Bush being stupid.
That said, it played to a packed house on a Monday night and got a hearty round of applause at the end. He's preaching largely to the choir, I assume, but if the movie makes at least some people question things they weren't questioning before, then its flaws can be forgiven.
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
Now that I've seen it, here's my comments on the Kopel list Patrick quotes above.
1) The "Florida Victory" footage -- Anyone with a passing familiarity with the facts knows that neither Gore or Bush ever celebrated victory on Election Night. The footage is dramatically effective in the context of the film (where it's presented as a "what-if" Gore-wins scenario). Nitpicking.
2) Timeline of election night predictions -- The essential points are that Fox was the first to call Florida for Bush, Bush's first cousin was the one at Fox making that call, and that all the other networks quickly followed suit. If Fox hadn't called, it's possible the others would have held off as well until the statistical tie became apparent. As it was, the call for Bush strengthened Bush's claim to victory. Moore does play fast and loose with the editing, but he does show what happened. This one's down to sloppiness on Moore's part, I think.
3) Gore would have won the recount -- Luke's dealt with this one nicely above.
4) Florida felon voter purge -- Xenu's already done this one.
5) Pre-9/11 Bush presidency problems -- I don't see any problem with this one. What Moore says and the facts line up fine for me.
6) "42% of the time on vacation" includes weekends -- Well, yes. I've never considered the Presidency a 40-hour-a-week position.
7) Vacations included visits with foreign leaders -- This is a valid point, but does not entirely defuse the fact that Bush is away from Washington a lot more than other Presidents have typically been.
7.5) Golf course clips talking about Palestinians, not al-Qaeda -- This is irrelevant nitpicking. The point is the tough-guy speech immediately followed by the preening.
Moore makes a big deal out of 9/11 while he had previously dismissed the odds of getting killed by terrorism -- What Moore said was a pretty dumb thing to say in public (even off-camera) a few days after 9/11. Still, it is dramatically effective and perhaps necessary to establish the true emotional impact of 9/11 in order to later on expose how it was exploited to pass the Patriot Act and rush to war with Iraq. Regardless of Moore's personal reaction, the fact is that 9/11 was widely assumed to be a traumatic event for the country, and F9/11 accurately documents this. (In fairness, Kopel allows that this may not count as a "deceit" and lets the reader make the call.)
9) Bush didn't run out of the room, which was a good thing -- I don't think anyone wanted or expected him to run out of the room in a panic. The point here is that after being told America was under terrorist attack, it might have been a good idea to (1) gracefull excuse yourself from the photo-op and find out what's going on and issue any needed executive orders (like the authorization to shoot down remaining hijacked planes) and (2) assume that you as POTUS are a target and not endanger the schoolchildren by remaining at the school. Instead, Bush sits there and stares nervously into the middle distance. You can argue about the value of that response, but Moore's treatment of it in the film is hardly deceitful nor a "cheap shot."
10) We don't know for sure that Bush didn't read the 8/6 PDB -- This is a valid complaint.
11) We don't know that if Bush didn't read the memo, it was because of the title -- Also valid, though the administration did try to downplay the memo by saying it didn't discuss al Qaeda threats, only to have that excuse blown out of the water when Rice revealed the title. The moment Moore used was explosive, but not for the reason in context.
12) The memo was too vague -- I don't think Moore substantially misrepresented the content of the memo. The memo warned that al-Qaeda was undertaking "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." That sounds actionable to me, if only at the level of ordering follow-up and re-examining intelligence.
13) Saudis flew out on or after 9/13 -- While you could definitely make the case that Moore shouldn't have stressed the travel ban so much, and thus created the implication that the flight took place during the travel ban, it remains fact that the Saudis got extraordinary cooperation from the government to get out as soon as possible, which ordinary travelers did not receive.
14) Not disclosing Clarke approved the flights -- After seeing the movie, I don't think such a disclosure was needed. Moore never implies that Clarke was against the flights, so I don't see a problem.
15) Lying about the Clarke disclosure being in the movie -- I have to agree Moore's statement to Tapper was pretty disingenuous. I saw the movie before reading Kopel's piece, and the presence of Clarke's name didn't register with me.
16) Not disclosing extent of partial interviews -- I don't find the facts much more comforting than Moore's portrayal, in which he indeed allows that some "interviews" were done. But the matter does deserve more thorough treatment.
17) James Bath invested his own money, not the bin Ladens', in Arbusto -- All we have there is Bath's say-so. Even so, Moore should have included this denial, though the fact that the bin Laden-financed Bath invested in Arbusto is still worth reporting.
17.5) Bath's name being redacted -- the "privacy" excuse makes some sense (I thought of it myself while watching the movie), but still that doesn't explain why the records that were released in 2000 didn't contain those redactions. Were the officials releasing the documents in 2000 more sloppy? Or was the White House in 2004 more careful?
18) The Saudis influence both parties -- True enough, though the evidence is substantial that the Bushes enjoy an unusually close relationship with the Saudis, even by Washington standards.
19-20) Bush did nothing wrong with Harken stock -- I think Harken is still a valid question. The only source Kopel cites for his view is from National Review Online, which is hardly a disinterested party. (NRO is the venue Kopel is preparing this article for.)
Whew. That's enough for now. More later.
Ryan
1) The "Florida Victory" footage -- Anyone with a passing familiarity with the facts knows that neither Gore or Bush ever celebrated victory on Election Night. The footage is dramatically effective in the context of the film (where it's presented as a "what-if" Gore-wins scenario). Nitpicking.
2) Timeline of election night predictions -- The essential points are that Fox was the first to call Florida for Bush, Bush's first cousin was the one at Fox making that call, and that all the other networks quickly followed suit. If Fox hadn't called, it's possible the others would have held off as well until the statistical tie became apparent. As it was, the call for Bush strengthened Bush's claim to victory. Moore does play fast and loose with the editing, but he does show what happened. This one's down to sloppiness on Moore's part, I think.
3) Gore would have won the recount -- Luke's dealt with this one nicely above.
4) Florida felon voter purge -- Xenu's already done this one.
5) Pre-9/11 Bush presidency problems -- I don't see any problem with this one. What Moore says and the facts line up fine for me.
6) "42% of the time on vacation" includes weekends -- Well, yes. I've never considered the Presidency a 40-hour-a-week position.
7) Vacations included visits with foreign leaders -- This is a valid point, but does not entirely defuse the fact that Bush is away from Washington a lot more than other Presidents have typically been.
7.5) Golf course clips talking about Palestinians, not al-Qaeda -- This is irrelevant nitpicking. The point is the tough-guy speech immediately followed by the preening.
Moore makes a big deal out of 9/11 while he had previously dismissed the odds of getting killed by terrorism -- What Moore said was a pretty dumb thing to say in public (even off-camera) a few days after 9/11. Still, it is dramatically effective and perhaps necessary to establish the true emotional impact of 9/11 in order to later on expose how it was exploited to pass the Patriot Act and rush to war with Iraq. Regardless of Moore's personal reaction, the fact is that 9/11 was widely assumed to be a traumatic event for the country, and F9/11 accurately documents this. (In fairness, Kopel allows that this may not count as a "deceit" and lets the reader make the call.)
9) Bush didn't run out of the room, which was a good thing -- I don't think anyone wanted or expected him to run out of the room in a panic. The point here is that after being told America was under terrorist attack, it might have been a good idea to (1) gracefull excuse yourself from the photo-op and find out what's going on and issue any needed executive orders (like the authorization to shoot down remaining hijacked planes) and (2) assume that you as POTUS are a target and not endanger the schoolchildren by remaining at the school. Instead, Bush sits there and stares nervously into the middle distance. You can argue about the value of that response, but Moore's treatment of it in the film is hardly deceitful nor a "cheap shot."
10) We don't know for sure that Bush didn't read the 8/6 PDB -- This is a valid complaint.
11) We don't know that if Bush didn't read the memo, it was because of the title -- Also valid, though the administration did try to downplay the memo by saying it didn't discuss al Qaeda threats, only to have that excuse blown out of the water when Rice revealed the title. The moment Moore used was explosive, but not for the reason in context.
12) The memo was too vague -- I don't think Moore substantially misrepresented the content of the memo. The memo warned that al-Qaeda was undertaking "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." That sounds actionable to me, if only at the level of ordering follow-up and re-examining intelligence.
13) Saudis flew out on or after 9/13 -- While you could definitely make the case that Moore shouldn't have stressed the travel ban so much, and thus created the implication that the flight took place during the travel ban, it remains fact that the Saudis got extraordinary cooperation from the government to get out as soon as possible, which ordinary travelers did not receive.
14) Not disclosing Clarke approved the flights -- After seeing the movie, I don't think such a disclosure was needed. Moore never implies that Clarke was against the flights, so I don't see a problem.
15) Lying about the Clarke disclosure being in the movie -- I have to agree Moore's statement to Tapper was pretty disingenuous. I saw the movie before reading Kopel's piece, and the presence of Clarke's name didn't register with me.
16) Not disclosing extent of partial interviews -- I don't find the facts much more comforting than Moore's portrayal, in which he indeed allows that some "interviews" were done. But the matter does deserve more thorough treatment.
17) James Bath invested his own money, not the bin Ladens', in Arbusto -- All we have there is Bath's say-so. Even so, Moore should have included this denial, though the fact that the bin Laden-financed Bath invested in Arbusto is still worth reporting.
17.5) Bath's name being redacted -- the "privacy" excuse makes some sense (I thought of it myself while watching the movie), but still that doesn't explain why the records that were released in 2000 didn't contain those redactions. Were the officials releasing the documents in 2000 more sloppy? Or was the White House in 2004 more careful?
18) The Saudis influence both parties -- True enough, though the evidence is substantial that the Bushes enjoy an unusually close relationship with the Saudis, even by Washington standards.
19-20) Bush did nothing wrong with Harken stock -- I think Harken is still a valid question. The only source Kopel cites for his view is from National Review Online, which is hardly a disinterested party. (NRO is the venue Kopel is preparing this article for.)
Whew. That's enough for now. More later.
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
-
Bennett Cerf
- Posts: 739
- Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:54 pm
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
More Kopel stuff:
21) Bush administration cancelled United Defense Crusader project -- I don't really see the relevance of this. Moore's facts are accurate: the company went public based on the profit-making potential of 9/11 and made tons of money.
22) bin Ladens withdrew from Carlyle *before* the United Defense IPO -- This seems like nitpicking.
23) Moore doesn't mention George Soros as a Carlyle investor -- While that hardly rises to the level of a "deceit", it's a telling omission. (And another reason why I think Moore would have been wise to go light on the conspiracy stuff.)
23.5) Most of the $1.4 billion in Saudi -> Bush money is money to Carlyle from before Bush Sr. was a board member -- Yes, but the Bush family already had plenty of influence in Carlyle before Bush Sr. became a member of the advisory board. Bush Sr. Administration members James Baker, Frank Darlucci and Richard Darman joined soon after Bush Sr. left office, and that's when the Saudi money began to seriously flow into Carlyle.
24) Unger overstates Saudi investment in US -- I can't find any figures to dispute Kopel's claim, but no one seems to know for sure.
25) The Secret Service routinely protects foreign embassies -- Protecting foreign missions in Washington DC is indeed a stated function of the Secret Service. Kopel's right on this one.
26) Saudis and Bush aren't really that cozy -- This is based on Hitchens' piece which claims that since Saudi Arabia didn't support the Afghan and Iraq actions, the idea of a Bush/Saudi axis is bunk. I'd say the better question would be: why wasn't Saudi Arabia singled out for criticism in failing to back us the way France, Germany and Russia were slammed?
26.5) Moore ignores Israel -- This is indeed interesting, since you'd think a discussion of Middle East foreign policy would have to touch on Israel at some point.
God, this is exhausting, and I'm not even halfway through. More later.
Ryan
21) Bush administration cancelled United Defense Crusader project -- I don't really see the relevance of this. Moore's facts are accurate: the company went public based on the profit-making potential of 9/11 and made tons of money.
22) bin Ladens withdrew from Carlyle *before* the United Defense IPO -- This seems like nitpicking.
23) Moore doesn't mention George Soros as a Carlyle investor -- While that hardly rises to the level of a "deceit", it's a telling omission. (And another reason why I think Moore would have been wise to go light on the conspiracy stuff.)
23.5) Most of the $1.4 billion in Saudi -> Bush money is money to Carlyle from before Bush Sr. was a board member -- Yes, but the Bush family already had plenty of influence in Carlyle before Bush Sr. became a member of the advisory board. Bush Sr. Administration members James Baker, Frank Darlucci and Richard Darman joined soon after Bush Sr. left office, and that's when the Saudi money began to seriously flow into Carlyle.
24) Unger overstates Saudi investment in US -- I can't find any figures to dispute Kopel's claim, but no one seems to know for sure.
25) The Secret Service routinely protects foreign embassies -- Protecting foreign missions in Washington DC is indeed a stated function of the Secret Service. Kopel's right on this one.
26) Saudis and Bush aren't really that cozy -- This is based on Hitchens' piece which claims that since Saudi Arabia didn't support the Afghan and Iraq actions, the idea of a Bush/Saudi axis is bunk. I'd say the better question would be: why wasn't Saudi Arabia singled out for criticism in failing to back us the way France, Germany and Russia were slammed?
26.5) Moore ignores Israel -- This is indeed interesting, since you'd think a discussion of Middle East foreign policy would have to touch on Israel at some point.
God, this is exhausting, and I'm not even halfway through. More later.
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
Sports and deet. And Michael Moore.
Those clips were pretty funny.
"Let's talk about your movie, which isn't really a documentary, is it?"
"No, let's talk about what my movie is about: your news department, which is propaganda and fear-mongering."
"No, let's talk about deet. Will it kill your kids? Back in a minute."
I just can't decide whether to like Moore or not. He's flawed as hell, but who else is going to do this stuff? Someone suggested to me that he's more of a political cartoonist than a serious analyst. In that light, I like him just fine.
Ryan
Those clips were pretty funny.
"Let's talk about your movie, which isn't really a documentary, is it?"
"No, let's talk about what my movie is about: your news department, which is propaganda and fear-mongering."
"No, let's talk about deet. Will it kill your kids? Back in a minute."
I just can't decide whether to like Moore or not. He's flawed as hell, but who else is going to do this stuff? Someone suggested to me that he's more of a political cartoonist than a serious analyst. In that light, I like him just fine.
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
Here's my Kopel-deconstruction for the day. (Damn you, Patrick. I'm addicted.) He does pretty well today, overall -- the stuff in this batch are some of the things I most disliked in the film.
27) Taliban reps never visited with Bush over Unocal pipeline deal -- Moore never said that. He said that the Taliban reps visited Texas to meet with Unocal while Bush was governor, which is true.
28) Unocal deal fell through in 1998 -- This is true, and Moore omits this, which is IMO a deceitful omission.
29) Unocal project was a Clinton-era deal -- True. The pipeline stuff is very shaky, and Moore would have been better off to skip it.
30) Current pipeline agreement not related to Unocal proposal -- True.
31) Karzai was not a Unocal consultant -- This is apparently true, but Unocal evidently didn't deny this until two weeks before the film opened. Before that, it was reported in the media, including Le Monde and the Asia Times, that Karzai was indeed a former Unocal consultant. Assuming this assertion is false, it doesn't seem to be an intentional lie on Moore's part, since that's the information that was available at the time.
32) Bush admin didn't "welcome" the Taliban -- It does seem to me that Moore does in fact unfairly slant the visit. See here: http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh01032003.html
33) Moore claimed that Osama might be innocent -- No, Moore said that Osama should be considered innocent until proven guilty consistent with American justice. Still, in the film Osama's guilt is a foregone conclusion. This isn't deceitful, but it is an apparent change of opinion.
34) Moore opposed the Afghan war -- True, and in the film he complains that the war wasn't prosecuted strongly enough. Again, not deceitful but inconsistent with Moore's past views.
35) Afghanistan is a great place now -- By most accounts, Afghanistan is chaotic and the Taliban is still a viable power outside of Kabul. I'd hesitate to make the case that the Afghan operation was a net loss, but Moore is hardly deceitful when he says that Afghanistan remains screwed up.
36) Ashcroft lost to Jean Carnahan, not a "dead guy" -- What Moore says is true: Ashcroft lost the election to a dead man. The ballot was Ashcroft vs. (the dead) Carnahan. Carnahan won. Yes, the governor had made it clear that Carnahan's widow would be appointed in his place, but that doesn't change the election results. Besides, Kopel's version is hardly more flattering to Ashcroft.
37) Porter Goss has an 877 number -- Goss claimed to have an "800 number," which he indeed doesn't, but I'd say "800 number" and "toll free number" are sufficiently interchangable for most people that Moore's claim that Goss is lying qualifies as deceitful.
38) Saddam murdered Americans -- This is all semantics, and Moore would have been better off not including this claim. Moore claims that Iraq had never attacked or threatened to attack the United States. This is true, so far as I can tell. He also claims that Iraq had never murdered an American. (As opposed to killed in wartime.) This is trickier. The three counter-arguments are:
- Attempted assassination of Bush Sr. -- This didn't succeed, so it doesn't count. Moore said "murdered," not "attempted to murder."
- Safe haven to Abu Nidal -- Doesn't count, Nidal murdered Americans but at worst Iraq is an accessory.
- Funded Palestinian suicide bombers, who killed Americans -- This might count, since financing a murder is (AFAIK and IANAL) legally equivalent to murder.
Unfortunately, Kopel then trots out Laurie Mylroie, which is the kiss of death for a credible Iraq discussion.
39) I'm not sure what 39 is. The "Iraq Murdered Americans" bit is labelled as two, and I can't figure out what the second one is.
40) Saddam was a threat -- Again, this is semantics. Saddam never formally threatened the US itself, but he in word and deed often threatened Americans abroad. On the whole, I'd say Moore's portrayal of Saddam's Iraq was deceitful, since he completely glosses over the ugly realities of Saddam's regime and, worse, misses the relevant issue. The pertinent question is not, "Was Saddam a bad guy?", it's, "Was Saddam such an imminent threat that a non-UN-sanctioned invasion was justified?" Arguing that Saddam's Iraq was a happy and innocuous place is doomed to failure.
41) There was an Iraq/al Qaeda connection -- A substantial, working connection has never been conclusively shown. Hayes' book is hardly the last word. To say, as Kopel does, that "there is no dispute that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with al Qaeda" is as deceitful as anything Kopel accuses Moore of.
42) Rice quote taken out of context -- This is an interesting one. What you see on the screen is Rice saying this:
The full quote is:
Moore's contention is that Rice asserted a tie between Iraq and 9/11 when there wasn't one. The full quote supports that assertion just as well as the edited one, IMO. Rice is clearly desperate to connect Saddam and 9/11 in the listener's mind, and what she wants the listener to hear is, "tie Iraq 9/11 Saddam regime 9/11 caused 9/11 hatred airplanes buildings New York." The factual essence of what she's saying -- that Iraq and 9/11 are connected because Saddam's a bad Arab guy and the people behind 9/11 were bad Arab guys -- is laughable. The facts don't support the case, but the clear hope is if they can find a way to use "Saddam" and "9/11" often enough in the same sentence, the American people would believe that Saddam was behind 9/11. It worked, according to opinion polls. And that's what Moore is showing. The deceit is Rice's, not Moore's.
43) Iraq wasn't paradise -- I've said many times that Moore's "kids flying kites" version of pre-war Iraq is shameful.
Ryan
27) Taliban reps never visited with Bush over Unocal pipeline deal -- Moore never said that. He said that the Taliban reps visited Texas to meet with Unocal while Bush was governor, which is true.
28) Unocal deal fell through in 1998 -- This is true, and Moore omits this, which is IMO a deceitful omission.
29) Unocal project was a Clinton-era deal -- True. The pipeline stuff is very shaky, and Moore would have been better off to skip it.
30) Current pipeline agreement not related to Unocal proposal -- True.
31) Karzai was not a Unocal consultant -- This is apparently true, but Unocal evidently didn't deny this until two weeks before the film opened. Before that, it was reported in the media, including Le Monde and the Asia Times, that Karzai was indeed a former Unocal consultant. Assuming this assertion is false, it doesn't seem to be an intentional lie on Moore's part, since that's the information that was available at the time.
32) Bush admin didn't "welcome" the Taliban -- It does seem to me that Moore does in fact unfairly slant the visit. See here: http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh01032003.html
33) Moore claimed that Osama might be innocent -- No, Moore said that Osama should be considered innocent until proven guilty consistent with American justice. Still, in the film Osama's guilt is a foregone conclusion. This isn't deceitful, but it is an apparent change of opinion.
34) Moore opposed the Afghan war -- True, and in the film he complains that the war wasn't prosecuted strongly enough. Again, not deceitful but inconsistent with Moore's past views.
35) Afghanistan is a great place now -- By most accounts, Afghanistan is chaotic and the Taliban is still a viable power outside of Kabul. I'd hesitate to make the case that the Afghan operation was a net loss, but Moore is hardly deceitful when he says that Afghanistan remains screwed up.
36) Ashcroft lost to Jean Carnahan, not a "dead guy" -- What Moore says is true: Ashcroft lost the election to a dead man. The ballot was Ashcroft vs. (the dead) Carnahan. Carnahan won. Yes, the governor had made it clear that Carnahan's widow would be appointed in his place, but that doesn't change the election results. Besides, Kopel's version is hardly more flattering to Ashcroft.
37) Porter Goss has an 877 number -- Goss claimed to have an "800 number," which he indeed doesn't, but I'd say "800 number" and "toll free number" are sufficiently interchangable for most people that Moore's claim that Goss is lying qualifies as deceitful.
38) Saddam murdered Americans -- This is all semantics, and Moore would have been better off not including this claim. Moore claims that Iraq had never attacked or threatened to attack the United States. This is true, so far as I can tell. He also claims that Iraq had never murdered an American. (As opposed to killed in wartime.) This is trickier. The three counter-arguments are:
- Attempted assassination of Bush Sr. -- This didn't succeed, so it doesn't count. Moore said "murdered," not "attempted to murder."
- Safe haven to Abu Nidal -- Doesn't count, Nidal murdered Americans but at worst Iraq is an accessory.
- Funded Palestinian suicide bombers, who killed Americans -- This might count, since financing a murder is (AFAIK and IANAL) legally equivalent to murder.
Unfortunately, Kopel then trots out Laurie Mylroie, which is the kiss of death for a credible Iraq discussion.
39) I'm not sure what 39 is. The "Iraq Murdered Americans" bit is labelled as two, and I can't figure out what the second one is.
40) Saddam was a threat -- Again, this is semantics. Saddam never formally threatened the US itself, but he in word and deed often threatened Americans abroad. On the whole, I'd say Moore's portrayal of Saddam's Iraq was deceitful, since he completely glosses over the ugly realities of Saddam's regime and, worse, misses the relevant issue. The pertinent question is not, "Was Saddam a bad guy?", it's, "Was Saddam such an imminent threat that a non-UN-sanctioned invasion was justified?" Arguing that Saddam's Iraq was a happy and innocuous place is doomed to failure.
41) There was an Iraq/al Qaeda connection -- A substantial, working connection has never been conclusively shown. Hayes' book is hardly the last word. To say, as Kopel does, that "there is no dispute that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with al Qaeda" is as deceitful as anything Kopel accuses Moore of.
42) Rice quote taken out of context -- This is an interesting one. What you see on the screen is Rice saying this:
Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.
The full quote is:
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.
Moore's contention is that Rice asserted a tie between Iraq and 9/11 when there wasn't one. The full quote supports that assertion just as well as the edited one, IMO. Rice is clearly desperate to connect Saddam and 9/11 in the listener's mind, and what she wants the listener to hear is, "tie Iraq 9/11 Saddam regime 9/11 caused 9/11 hatred airplanes buildings New York." The factual essence of what she's saying -- that Iraq and 9/11 are connected because Saddam's a bad Arab guy and the people behind 9/11 were bad Arab guys -- is laughable. The facts don't support the case, but the clear hope is if they can find a way to use "Saddam" and "9/11" often enough in the same sentence, the American people would believe that Saddam was behind 9/11. It worked, according to opinion polls. And that's what Moore is showing. The deceit is Rice's, not Moore's.
43) Iraq wasn't paradise -- I've said many times that Moore's "kids flying kites" version of pre-war Iraq is shameful.
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
-
lukpac
- Top Dog and Sellout
- Posts: 4592
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
Here's some interesting stuff:
http://filmlinc.com/fcm/online/fahr911interview.htm
Neil Young's "Rockin' in the Free World"
At the end of the film Bush says "Fool me once, shame on… me. I won't get fooled again." Clearly that moment demands that we hear Roger Daltrey scream, "Won't get fooled again!" That's how I had it cut. Pete Townsend blocked it, would not allow the song to be used. Word came to us that he is not a fan of Michael Moore's and in fact supports the war and supports Tony Blair and doesn't want the song used in any way that would make Blair look bad. Harvey personally made an appeal to him to reconsider. And he wouldn't. At that point, we're about a week away from going to Cannes. So, I remembered while I was driving in Michigan "Rockin' in the Free World" came on the radio and I thought this would be a cool song to have in the movie. So we said, "Let's see how this works," and it worked perfectly. Called up Neil Young and he said, "Whatever you need. Absolutely. It's yours." Once we started playing it in the movie, we quickly forgot about The Who. In fact, after Cannes, we got a call from their manager who said they might be willing to reconsider. And I said, "No, uh uh. That's bad karma. This is Neil Young's moment." People leave the theaters, that's what I want them hearing. In fact I don't want them hearing a song that has the line, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Because the new boss I sincerely hope won't be the same as the old boss. I don't want that song. It gave me a chance to have a line at the end too, cause you can't go right into "Rockin' in the Free World." So I get to say "For once I agree with Bush…we won't get fooled again."
http://filmlinc.com/fcm/online/fahr911interview.htm
Neil Young's "Rockin' in the Free World"
At the end of the film Bush says "Fool me once, shame on… me. I won't get fooled again." Clearly that moment demands that we hear Roger Daltrey scream, "Won't get fooled again!" That's how I had it cut. Pete Townsend blocked it, would not allow the song to be used. Word came to us that he is not a fan of Michael Moore's and in fact supports the war and supports Tony Blair and doesn't want the song used in any way that would make Blair look bad. Harvey personally made an appeal to him to reconsider. And he wouldn't. At that point, we're about a week away from going to Cannes. So, I remembered while I was driving in Michigan "Rockin' in the Free World" came on the radio and I thought this would be a cool song to have in the movie. So we said, "Let's see how this works," and it worked perfectly. Called up Neil Young and he said, "Whatever you need. Absolutely. It's yours." Once we started playing it in the movie, we quickly forgot about The Who. In fact, after Cannes, we got a call from their manager who said they might be willing to reconsider. And I said, "No, uh uh. That's bad karma. This is Neil Young's moment." People leave the theaters, that's what I want them hearing. In fact I don't want them hearing a song that has the line, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Because the new boss I sincerely hope won't be the same as the old boss. I don't want that song. It gave me a chance to have a line at the end too, cause you can't go right into "Rockin' in the Free World." So I get to say "For once I agree with Bush…we won't get fooled again."
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD
-
lukpac
- Top Dog and Sellout
- Posts: 4592
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
And the follow-up:
http://www.petetownshend.co.uk/diary/di ... zone=diary
7 July 2004
Fahrenheit Moore or Less
Michael Moore has been making some claims – mentioning me by name - which I believe distort the truth.
He says – among other things – that I refused to allow him to use my song WON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN in his latest film, because I support the war, and that at the last minute I recanted, but he turned me down. I have never hidden the fact that at the beginning of the war in Iraq I was a supporter. But now, like millions of others, I am less sure we did the right thing.
When first approached I knew nothing about the content of his film FAHRENHEIT 911. My publisher informed me they had already refused the use of my song in principle because MIRAMAX the producers offered well below what the song normally commands for use in a movie. They asked me if I wanted to ask for more money, I told them no.
Nevertheless, as a result of my refusal to consider the use, Harvey Weinstein – a good friend of mine, and my manager Bill Curbishley – interceded personally, explained in more detail to Bill what the movie was about, and offered to raise the bid very substantially indeed. This brought the issue directly to me for the first time. Bill emailed me and told me how keen Harvey and Michael Moore were to use my song.
At this point I emailed Bill (and he may have passed the essence of what I said to Harvey Weinstein) that I had not really been convinced by BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, and had been worried about its accuracy; it felt to me like a bullying film. Out of courtesy to Harvey I suggested that if he and Moore were determined to have me reconsider, I should at least get a chance to see a copy of the new film. I knew that with Cannes on the horizon, time was running short for them, and this might not be possible. I never received a copy of the film to view. At no time did I ask Moore or Miramax to reconsider anything. Once I had an idea what the film was about I was 90% certain my song was not right for them.
I believe that in the same email to my publisher and manager that contained this request to see the film I pointed out that WGFA is not an unconditionally anti-war song, or a song for or against revolution. It actually questions the heart of democracy: we vote heartily for leaders who we subsequently always seem to find wanting. (WGFA is a song sung by a fictional character from my 1971 script called LIFEHOUSE. The character is someone who is frightened by the slick way in which truth can be twisted by clever politicians and revolutionaries alike). I suggested in the email that they might use something by Neil Young, who I knew had written several songs of a more precise political nature, and is as accessible as I am. Moore himself takes credit for this idea, and I have no idea whether my suggestion reached him, but it was the right thing to do.
I have nothing against Michael Moore personally, and I know Roger Daltrey is a friend and fan of his, but I greatly resent being bullied and slurred by him in interviews just because he didn’t get what he wanted from me. It seems to me that this aspect of his nature is not unlike that of the powerful and wilful man at the centre of his new documentary. I wish him all the best with the movie, which I know is popular, and which I still haven’t seen. But he’ll have to work very, very hard to convince me that a man with a camera is going to change the world more effectively than a man with a guitar.
Pete
http://www.petetownshend.co.uk/diary/di ... zone=diary
7 July 2004
Fahrenheit Moore or Less
Michael Moore has been making some claims – mentioning me by name - which I believe distort the truth.
He says – among other things – that I refused to allow him to use my song WON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN in his latest film, because I support the war, and that at the last minute I recanted, but he turned me down. I have never hidden the fact that at the beginning of the war in Iraq I was a supporter. But now, like millions of others, I am less sure we did the right thing.
When first approached I knew nothing about the content of his film FAHRENHEIT 911. My publisher informed me they had already refused the use of my song in principle because MIRAMAX the producers offered well below what the song normally commands for use in a movie. They asked me if I wanted to ask for more money, I told them no.
Nevertheless, as a result of my refusal to consider the use, Harvey Weinstein – a good friend of mine, and my manager Bill Curbishley – interceded personally, explained in more detail to Bill what the movie was about, and offered to raise the bid very substantially indeed. This brought the issue directly to me for the first time. Bill emailed me and told me how keen Harvey and Michael Moore were to use my song.
At this point I emailed Bill (and he may have passed the essence of what I said to Harvey Weinstein) that I had not really been convinced by BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, and had been worried about its accuracy; it felt to me like a bullying film. Out of courtesy to Harvey I suggested that if he and Moore were determined to have me reconsider, I should at least get a chance to see a copy of the new film. I knew that with Cannes on the horizon, time was running short for them, and this might not be possible. I never received a copy of the film to view. At no time did I ask Moore or Miramax to reconsider anything. Once I had an idea what the film was about I was 90% certain my song was not right for them.
I believe that in the same email to my publisher and manager that contained this request to see the film I pointed out that WGFA is not an unconditionally anti-war song, or a song for or against revolution. It actually questions the heart of democracy: we vote heartily for leaders who we subsequently always seem to find wanting. (WGFA is a song sung by a fictional character from my 1971 script called LIFEHOUSE. The character is someone who is frightened by the slick way in which truth can be twisted by clever politicians and revolutionaries alike). I suggested in the email that they might use something by Neil Young, who I knew had written several songs of a more precise political nature, and is as accessible as I am. Moore himself takes credit for this idea, and I have no idea whether my suggestion reached him, but it was the right thing to do.
I have nothing against Michael Moore personally, and I know Roger Daltrey is a friend and fan of his, but I greatly resent being bullied and slurred by him in interviews just because he didn’t get what he wanted from me. It seems to me that this aspect of his nature is not unlike that of the powerful and wilful man at the centre of his new documentary. I wish him all the best with the movie, which I know is popular, and which I still haven’t seen. But he’ll have to work very, very hard to convince me that a man with a camera is going to change the world more effectively than a man with a guitar.
Pete
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD