Has Michael Moore become a full blown Truther?

[Unsecured Coins]

i don't wish anybody harm, but if he were to die in a tornado filled with sharks, I wouldn't lose any sleep that night.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Bush installed former campaign workers in key government positions to suppress the truth about global warming reports. That's a crime.

And exactly how is this a crime? It might be very poor science, but what law was broken?

The other two I honestly don't know US law well enough to know if they are illegal or not.

Obstruction comes to mind. Suppression of science-based information that concerns the health and welfare of a nation - and even a planet - has to be viewed as a crime in some reasonable context. Would you agree with that? You want to take a guess as to how many people around the world will be adversely affected by global warming? I won't even do that. Reports I'm seeing talk about hundreds of millions.

And I mention "planet" - because we, the United States of America, are the planet's leading contributor to greenhouse gases.

So you'd think we'd be right out front, demonstrating our will, leadership and commitment to dealing with the ramifications of global warming. Europe is the one taking the leadership role, not us.

 

[Corsair 115]

For the record, the cartoon in Bowling For Columbine, which incidentally was written by Michael Moore, quite clearly claims that the KKK became the NRA...

Having just watched the clip, no, it does not clearly claim the KKK became the NRA. It does, however, imply that it did with the juxtaposition of the two and the description of the dates of the two groups' founding as "just a coincidence."

And therein lies the reason I think a lot of folks get upset with Moore. First and foremost, I would say Moore is a satirist. And what do satirists often do to make their point? They exaggerate, they juxtapose disparate elements, they use sarcasm, and so on. Which is exactly how I interpreted the linked cartoon as - satire. I couldn't but help think of South Park while watching it - indeed, the style of it even looks a lot like South Park. I wouldn't for a moment take that cartoon to be correct in terms of whatever historical specific detail it mentioned.

The problem is that Moore doesn't say he's a satirist, he claims his works are documentaries, and of course documentaries are defined by most to be a specific type of work dealing strictly with facts and the recounting of facts. Which of course gets him in trouble if he plays around with the facts to better make his point.

He'd be better served, in my estimatation, if he simply labelled his films as works of satire and left out the word documentary altogether. Then the changing around of facts wouldn't be an issue because that sort of exaggeration is expected in a satire.


Disclaimer: I have no particular love or hate for Michael Moore. I haven't seen any of his works in a long time, not since one of his TV shows from many years back. I do find the political furor which always seems to pop whenever a film of his comes out to be somewhat odd for the reasons I mentioned - his films strike me as works of satire and shouldn't be taken as documentaries or works intended to be straight factual accounts.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Oh, and if Bush is such a Criminal, why haven't the Dem's impeached him yet? They have had nearly a year in control of both houses to do it. Why haven't they?

It requires a 2/3 majority in the upper house.

On the topic of Moore being a Troofer, I can't fault him enormously for responding to an unscripted (if it was unscripted) question on a topic he may not have researched extensively, in a way that reveals ignorance of the topic.

There's a lot of Troofer nonsense floating about, a lot of it looks superficially plausible, and it takes significant effort to sort through it all and figure out that it's all a pantsload.

The idea that some members of the Saudi royal family had some connection to the 9/11 attacks is perfectly plausible, given the suspicious deaths of a couple of family members shortly after 9/11 which looked very much like a coverup or a housecleaning, although it's impossible to tell which. US Government complicity in covering up any such link is made fairly obvious by the fact that important Saudis with links so Osama bin Ladin were waved out of the USA as soon as commercial flights resumed rather than being retained for waterboarding like most potential information sources.

Start a new thread when he makes a prepared statement or releases a film putting forward Troofer rubbish and I'll join the dogpile.

 

[ConspiRaider]

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that when the voters swept the Democrats out of control of Congress in 1994 in a historic landslide and polls in early 1995 showed Clinton running fifteen points behind a generic Republican, Bubba wasn't riding too high.

But he sure came on like gangbusters, didn't he? WOW! Americans love a winner, and will not tolerate a loser. Eventually, that is.

That's why your 29 percenter Bush is such a pathetic loser. Not even a third of Americans approve of the job he's doing. OH WAIT! I think it's that "liberal media bias", don't you? (Oh God look who I'm asking )

 

[ConspiRaider]

Having just watched the clip, no, it does not clearly claim the KKK became the NRA. It does, however, imply that it did with the juxtaposition of the two and the description of the dates of the two groups' founding as "just a coincidence."

And therein lies the reason I think a lot of folks get upset with Moore. First and foremost, I would say Moore is a satirist. And what do satirists often do to make their point? They exaggerate, they juxtapose disparate elements, they use sarcasm, and so on. Which is exactly how I interpreted the linked cartoon as - satire. I couldn't but help think of South Park while watching it - indeed, the style of it even looks a lot like South Park. I wouldn't for a moment take that cartoon to be correct in terms of whatever historical specific detail it mentioned.

The problem is that Moore doesn't say he's a satirist, he claims his works are documentaries, and of course documentaries are defined by most to be a specific type of work dealing strictly with facts and the recounting of facts. Which of course gets him in trouble if he plays around with the facts to better make his point.

He'd be better served, in my estimatation, if he simply labelled his films as works of satire and left out the word documentary altogether. Then the changing around of facts wouldn't be an issue because that sort of exaggeration is expected in a satire.


Disclaimer: I have no particular love or hate for Michael Moore. I haven't seen any of his works in a long time, not since one of his TV shows from many years back. I do find the political furor which always seems to pop whenever a film of his comes out to be somewhat odd for the reasons I mentioned - his films strike me as works of satire and shouldn't be taken as documentaries or works intended to be straight factual accounts.

Well said, C115. I mean sheez - I'm just a halfwitted Buckeye who's part Polish and I can clearly see that Moore's films are satirical, and are presenting material from his personal point of view. He uses facts within the films to underscore his message.

Well, we ALL do that. Everybody does that. Especially in politics, where the word "objective" has no real meaning. I do NOT agree with everything Moore says, but I absolutely celebrate that I live in a country where this kind of communication is still allowed. You can have your say. I think it's great. And no question about it: Moore can get people to think about things where otherwise they may not have.

If Moore comes right out and clearly states that he thinks 9/11 is an inside job, in pure twooferesque fashion? I'll nail his ass. BAM!

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

On the topic of Moore being a Troofer, I can't fault him enormously for responding to an unscripted (if it was unscripted) question on a topic he may not have researched extensively, in a way that reveals ignorance of the topic.

I'll refer you back to the article I linked to in my post, #91 in this thread. His "unscripted" remark was a rehash of a claim he published, including in his book, Dude, Where's My Country?

The idea that some members of the Saudi royal family had some connection to the 9/11 attacks is perfectly plausible, given the suspicious deaths of a couple of family members shortly after 9/11 which looked very much like a coverup or a housecleaning, although it's impossible to tell which.

Perfectly plausible, except there is no evidence whatsoever that that was the case. Plus, Moore didn't just question that there might be "some" connection between the Saudi government and 9/11. He postulated that elements of the Saudi Government planned, trained, and executed the 9/11 attacks. That is quite a stretch, especially when it is not backed by any evidence at all.

US Government complicity in covering up any such link is made fairly obvious by the fact that important Saudis with links so Osama bin Ladin were waved out of the USA as soon as commercial flights resumed rather than being retained for waterboarding like most potential information sources.

The flights were approved by Richard Clarke after he deferred them to the FBI. And he has stood by his decision to this day, in spite of being a pretty harsh critic of the Bush Administration.

Start a new thread when he makes a prepared statement or releases a film putting forward Troofer rubbish and I'll join the dogpile.

He published it in his book. What more do you want? I don't actually think Moore is a truther, but I do think he throws out wild theories without regard to evidence.

 

[Pardalis]

Pardalis, you're getting ridiculous.

Tell you what, if your claim is true, you shoudl be able to show the USA government that, and they can prosecute Moore for treason.

Of course, that would only work if your claim is actually true, and not simply demented crap.

If you can't see what's wrong with inflated, nonsensical claims, I can't help you, and no-one else can either.

My statement may have been exaggerated, it was more based on emotion. But his sidling with terrorists should raise some concerns.

 

[Pardalis]

If Moore comes right out and clearly states that he thinks 9/11 is an inside job, in pure twooferesque fashion? I'll nail his ass. BAM!

We now have this on record.

 

[Earthborn]

The problem is that Moore doesn't say he's a satirist, he claims his works are documentaries, and of course documentaries are defined by most to be a specific type of work dealing strictly with facts and the recounting of facts.

Only people who do not understand documentary film define it as such. People who I imagine could never have seen a documentary film before in their lives, or are just unable to see the tricks of persuasion documentary film makers use. It is not Michael Moore's fault that people do not understand the work he does.

He'd be better served, in my estimatation, if he simply labelled his films as works of satire and left out the word documentary altogether.

His films are opinion pieces, as most documentary films are.

 

[ConspiRaider]

We now have this on record.

I wouldn't even have to think twice about that one, Pard. Moore would be nailed, but good. By me.

But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, on Moore becoming a 911 twoofer. Somebody in this thread foolishly compared Moore to Dylan Avery. Wrong! One obvious difference: Moore is smart.

 

[Pardalis]

I think there's not that big of a stretch for Moore to become a twoofer. Like Rosie O'Donnell, I think it's the next logical step.

They both have the same rethoric, Rosie started to defend terrorists, and now she's become a complete 9/11 nutcase. So will Moore.

 

[Travis]

I find it interesting how divisive the subject of Michael Moore is on here. I guess it kind of comes down to this; for better or worse he is both intelligent and talented. That makes those that like him see him as a savior and those that have problems with him see him as a huge threat.

If he were just intelligent, but talentless, than he'd just be some boring intellectual that people could either ignore or quote depending on their attitude towards him.

If he were just talented, but lacking cerebral depth, he'd have all this flash, emotion and rhetoric but would be taken about as seriously as any of the hordes of film students produced every year with all style and no substance.

However Moore does have both. Whether he uses both traits for good or for bad depends on your own personal views of the individual issues at hand, but he is, inarguably, persuasive. That is where the emotions of the crowd come in. Those that agree with his views lionize and defend him because he has articulated what many of them had previously felt better than they had ever done themselves. Those that disagree will become aggressive in their defense due, directly, to how effective they judged the opposing arguments were made. After all an opposing viewpoint, poorly communicated, is not really worth fighting because it isn't perceived as much of a threat. An opposing viewpoint, done well, is most definitely more of a threat.

Just an observation.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Only people who do not understand documentary film define it as such. People who I imagine could never have seen a documentary film before in their lives, or are just unable to see the tricks of persuasion documentary film makers use. It is not Michael Moore's fault that people do not understand the work he does.

His films are opinion pieces, as most documentary films are.

Well that settles it. Time to pack up the wagons and go home people. We've all been wasting our time refuting Dylan and co's opinion pieces. Don't we feel foolish. Yup it's official, you can distort and edit the truth as much as you want and call it a documentary because everyone should remember that it's all just opinion. How stupid do we feel?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'll refer you back to the article I linked to in my post, #91 in this thread. His "unscripted" remark was a rehash of a claim he published, including in his book, Dude, Where's My Country?

Calling it a claim is a bit strong, seeing as you admit yourself he framed the "claims" as questions. Without knowing the publication date of his book and the release date of relevant information regarding the hijackers' identities and backgrounds, I can't say whether his questions were Troofer nonsense or legitimate questions when he asked them.

I still remember when the media was portraying OBL as a James Bond villain with a multistorey high-tech base hidden in the mountains of Afghanistan. If that sort of nonsense was the popular context in which Moore asked his first question then at the time he had a point.

Perfectly plausible, except there is no evidence whatsoever that that was the case. Plus, Moore didn't just question that there might be "some" connection between the Saudi government and 9/11. He postulated that elements of the Saudi Government planned, trained, and executed the 9/11 attacks. That is quite a stretch, especially when it is not backed by any evidence at all.

My opinion on that question would again depend on how much indepentently verifiable information about the Pentagon pilot was available at the time.

I don't think there's any argument that the pilot who hit the Pentagon was a shabby pilot who pulled off a tricky manoeuvre to hit the Pentagon the way he did. With the knowledge we have today it's reasonably safe to say that he just got lucky, of course.

The flights were approved by Richard Clarke after he deferred them to the FBI. And he has stood by his decision to this day, in spite of being a pretty harsh critic of the Bush Administration.

So what?

Since when is Richard Clarke magically able to tell whether or not a large group of people know anything relevant just by asking them? Does he have a crystal ball that told him none of them would turn out, days later, to have wired money to someone connected with 9/11, or to have made a phone call to someone connected with 9/11?

All Richard Clarke's standing by the decision proves is that he approves of the political reasons why they were released. It doesn't change the fact that a large group of important witnesses were allowed to leave the country before the investigation into the crime had even properly begun, and three of them died shortly afterwards in the usual way incovenient royal family members die in Saudi Arabia.

Prince Ahmad bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz had a heart attack, Prince Sultan bin Faisal allegedly died in a car crash on the way to Ahmad's funeral, and Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud Al-Kabeer "died of thirst while out for a drive". Two different journalists have separately alleged the three were fingered by high-ranking Al Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah under US interrogation.

He published it in his book. What more do you want? I don't actually think Moore is a truther, but I do think he throws out wild theories without regard to evidence.

I'd agree with that.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Calling it a claim is a bit strong, seeing as you admit yourself he framed the "claims" as questions.

You mean he was "Just Asking Questions?"

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You mean he was "Just Asking Questions?"

Heh. Decide for yourself if Moore crossed the boundary between just asking questions, which is a perfectly laudable skeptical endeavour, and "Just Asking Questions" in the sense we mock.

 

[Earthborn]

We've all been wasting our time refuting Dylan and co's opinion pieces.

I said "most", as in "not all" and "there are exceptions". Some documentaries -- often fairly boring ones, unless you are really into the subject -- purport not to present the opinions and interpretations of the film maker, but claim to present the truth. They may show graphs, present scientific arguments as to why the viewer should consider some things true and others false. Such films have a much more matter of factly style than most of the documentaries you might see. They require that the film maker needs to be much more careful and do far better research than for opinion pieces, as falsehoods are much more serious. They are also more likely to be used as propaganda.

Loose Change is such a documentary film. It tries to disseminate the truth instead of merely presenting an opinion. It makes very definite statements about what is supposed to be possible and what is not. Dylan Avery definitely strikes me as a person who seems to think that documentary films all need to be 'facty' and 'neutral' and 'objective', which may be an explanation why a film school didn't see a talented film maker in him.

He made the wrong choice of style for his film, as he is piss-poor at doing research. A 'factual style' documentary film is much more likely to convince people, and therefore a film maker has a much greater responsibility for getting the facts correct. A bit like a writer of school books has a greater responsibility for accuracy as a newspaper columnist; both works are non-fiction, but one is expected to present a more balanced view than the other.

Michael Moore makes documentary films that are obviously (to anyone with a sligh understanding of documentary film making, or anyone who bothers to listen to his opinionated commentary) opinion pieces. His research is fairly good.

Dylan Avery makes documentary films that claim to correct widely held but incorrect views, tries to educate the public and make very definite claims and accusations. His research is so piss-poor that it denies even the most basic facts.

I hope you can see the difference.

Yup it's official, you can distort and edit the truth as much as you want and call it a documentary

A documentary film maker can distort and edit the truth as much as s/he wants and call it a documentary film, because that is the sort of film it is. Whether it is a good documentary film depends on other things; if it is an opinion piece, it depends on how well the film maker manages to persuade the viewer, if it has a factual style it depends primarily on how accurate it is.

 

[gumboot]

Nope. Not true. This is what happens when you go to Web sites specifically setup to discredit Moore. It's hate peddling. Like for Hillary Clinton. Like for Cindy Sheehan. Michael J. Fox (via Rush Limbaugh). These sites, run by right wingers, have the money and motivation.

Here is Charlton Heston's speech given in Denver that day, which in fact was 10 days after the Columbine shooting:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/heston.php

No it wasn't. The NRA annual meeting was on 1 May, 1999, and the Columbine Massacre was 20 April, 1999. 20 April to 1 May is 11 days:

1. 21 Apr
2. 22 Apr
3. 23 Apr
4. 24 Apr
5. 25 Apr
6. 26 Apr
7. 27 Apr
8. 28 Apr
9. 29 Apr
10. 30 Apr
11. 1 May

See here.

I also think you missed an important point:

The opening statements with which Heston was introduced were not from the Denver meeting. In addition, Moore assembles together fragments of multiple sentences from all over Heston's speech, and presents them as a single commentary, with cut aways hiding the jumps in the speech, to manipulate and later the context and meaning of what Heston is saying. This is no different than what 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists do when they mangle the comments of firemen. The only difference is Moore is better at it.

Here's something from Moore, on Bowling for Columbine. Note that he does NOT say all of the movie is a fact. Only that those facts presented in the movie are true:


Here's Moore's entire statement on the subject:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

Oh come on. The film is packaged as a DOCUMENTARY. For christ's sake, it WON THE FRIKKEN OSCAR FOR BEST DOCUMENTARY. Audiences expect and consider documentaries to be factual. In fact, one of the requirements of the "Documentary" category of the Academy Awards is "nonfiction". In addition, many of the "facts" in his film simply ARE NOT TRUE.

-Gumboot

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Calling it a claim is a bit strong, seeing as you admit yourself he framed the "claims" as questions. Without knowing the publication date of his book and the release date of relevant information regarding the hijackers' identities and backgrounds, I can't say whether his questions were Troofer nonsense or legitimate questions when he asked them.

October, 2003 is when it was published, long after the identities and backgrounds of the hijackers had been revealed. Here is George Tenet's public testimony from 2002 in which he goes over their backgrounds in some detail, including Flight 77.

And yes, Moore is very good at avoiding anything that sounds like a direct claim. He just uses many very specific, but of course hypothetical, "what if" questions which sound suspiciously like claims. For example, "what if September 11 was not a "terrorist" attack but, rather, a military attack against the United States?" "What if these weren't wacko terrorists, but military pilots who signed on to a suicide mission?" "What if they were doing this at the behest of either the Saudi government or certain disgruntled members of the Saudi royal family?"

I still remember when the media was portraying OBL as a James Bond villain with a multistorey high-tech base hidden in the mountains of Afghanistan. If that sort of nonsense was the popular context in which Moore asked his first question then at the time he had a point.

I must have missed those broadcasts. Were you watching Fox?

My opinion on that question would again depend on how much indepentently verifiable information about the Pentagon pilot was available at the time.

I don't think there's any argument that the pilot who hit the Pentagon was a shabby pilot who pulled off a tricky manoeuvre to hit the Pentagon the way he did. With the knowledge we have today it's reasonably safe to say that he just got lucky, of course.

Yet this thread was started because Moore repeated almost the exact claim urr.. "questions" that he asked in regards to the Pentagon flight, only he did it a few days ago. And, he went even further into Truthdom:

I've had a number of firefighters tell me over the years and since Fahrenheit 9/11 that they heard these explosions-- that they believe there's MUCH more to the story than we've been told. I don't think the official investigations have told us the complete truth-- they haven't even told us half the truth."

So what?

Since when is Richard Clarke magically able to tell whether or not a large group of people know anything relevant just by asking them? Does he have a crystal ball that told him none of them would turn out, days later, to have wired money to someone connected with 9/11, or to have made a phone call to someone connected with 9/11?

He can't, which is why he didn't decide anything before first deferring to the FBI. You can read Clarke's testimony here.

He specifically notes that the Saudi Embassy asked to evacuate some people. He refused to approve the request until the FBI had reviewed it. And here is what he says in regards to the FBI and the bin Ladens:

I was aware, for some time, that there were members of the bin Laden family living in the United States.

And, let's see, in open session I can say that I was very well aware of the members of the bin Laden family and what they were doing in the United States. And the FBI was extraordinarily well aware of what they were doing in the United States. And I was informed by the FBI that none of the members of the bin Laden family, this large clan, were doing anything in this country that was illegal or that raised their suspicions.

And I believe the FBI had very good information and good sources of information on what the members of the bin Laden family were doing.

He later goes on to say that the FBI later still saw no reason to interview those individuals. It seems the FBI kept tabs on the bin Ladens in the country, and they didn't see anything that led them to believe they had anything to do with the attack. It sounds like they had plenty of information already on the bin Ladens in the US, and they hadn't found anything incriminating. An interview probably wasn't going to do much for them. The FBI, the experts on that particular issue, advised Clarke and he took their expert advice. And there has been nothing to show otherwise.

All Richard Clarke's standing by the decision proves is that he approves of the political reasons why they were released. It doesn't change the fact that a large group of important witnesses were allowed to leave the country before the investigation into the crime had even properly begun, and three of them died shortly afterwards in the usual way incovenient royal family members die in Saudi Arabia.

It shows that it is misleading to claim "the US Government" was complicit in a coverup. The US Government, in this case, was Richard Clark and the FBI, and they both evaluated the issue from a law enforcement/counterterrorism standpoint. Unless you have some evidence that Clarke, or the FBI, had any political pressure to release these individuals against their own better judgement, it would be pretty tough to claim that the flight was some sort of knowledgeable coverup, or even complicity in a Saudi coverup, on the part of the U.S. government.

Plus, calling them "important witnesses" is quite begging the question. The entire point is whether they were witnesses to anything. The FBI said then, and still says, that they weren't important witnesses, and that there isn't any evidence that they were.

Prince Ahmad bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz had a heart attack, Prince Sultan bin Faisal allegedly died in a car crash on the way to Ahmad's funeral, and Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud Al-Kabeer "died of thirst while out for a drive". Two different journalists have separately alleged the three were fingered by high-ranking Al Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah under US interrogation.

Interesting if true, except that all that we have are two journalists as evidence that there was any connection between these three individuals and Al Qaida. As such, I would evaluate that as a "maybe." This Salon article casts a lot of doubt on those claims.

Even if it were true, it doesn't prove that the FBI had any reason to believe that those individuals were involved in the attacks. None of the three people you mention above were bin Ladens, and there was no indication that Saudi Royal Family members in the U.S. were part of the attack. Should we have questioned all the Saudis officials in the U.S. at the time?