PDA

View Full Version : Fahrenhype 9/11


BCD
10-17-2004, 11:00 PM
Anyone see this yet. I rented it tonite. Much of what I expected. Basically, Moore is a lying propagandist. No shit!

If you thought Fahrenheit was a steaming pile of donkey poo, you'll like this! :thumb:

nychief
10-17-2004, 11:07 PM
Anyone see this yet. I rented it tonite. Much of what I expected. Basically, Moore is a lying propagandist. No shit!

If you thought Fahrenheit was a steaming pile of donkey poo, you'll like this! :thumb:


you are right, everything was made up.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-17-2004, 11:46 PM
Actually, the movie is 100% factually accurate. Moore even hired 3 independent legals teams to scour the movie for false claims.

I'm not sure why you claim Moore is lying.

I do acknowledge, just as Moore does, that this movie is not unbiased (i.e. it is biased).

Joe Seahawk
10-17-2004, 11:53 PM
Actually, the movie is 100% factually accurate. Moore even hired 3 independent legals teams to scour the movie for false claims.

I'm not sure why you claim Moore is lying.

I do acknowledge, just as Moore does, that this movie is not unbiased (i.e. it is biased).

:shake: this is sad..

Joe Seahawk
10-17-2004, 11:57 PM
Actually, the movie is 100% factually accurate. Moore even hired 3 independent legals teams to scour the movie for false claims.

I'm not sure why you claim Moore is lying.

I do acknowledge, just as Moore does, that this movie is not unbiased (i.e. it is biased).


2000 Election Night

Deceits 1-2



Fahrenheit 9/11 begins on election night 2000. We are first shown Al Gore rocking on stage with famous musicians and a high-spirited crowd. The conspicuous sign on stage reads "Florida Victory." Moore creates the impression that Gore was celebrating his victory in Florida. Moore's voiceover claims, "And little Stevie Wonder, he seemed so happy, like a miracle had taken place." The verb tense of past perfect ("had taken") furthers the impression that the election has been completed.



Actually, the rally took place in the early hours of election day, before polls had even opened. Gore did campaign in Florida on election day, but went home to Tennessee to await the results. The "Florida Victory" sign reflected Gore’s hopes, not any actual election results. ("Gore Campaigns Into Election Day," Associated Press, Nov. 7, 2000.)



The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. According to the narrator, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy….All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'"



We then see NBC anchor Tom Brokaw stating, "All of us networks made a mistake and projected Florida in the Al Gore column. It was our mistake."



Moore thus creates the false impression that the networks withdrew their claim about Gore winning Florida when they heard that Fox said that Bush won Florida.



In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in the evening—before polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle, which is part of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 p.m., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 p.m., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never lets the audience know that Fox was among the networks which made the error of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at 8:02 p.m., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were closed.



About an hour before the polls closed in panhandle Florida, the networks called the U.S. Senate race in favor of the Democratic candidate. The networks seriously compounded the problem because from 6-7 Central Time, they repeatedly announced that polls had closed in Florida--even though polls were open in the panhandle. (See also Joan Konner, James Risser & Ben Wattenberg, Television's Performance on Election Night 2000: A Report for CNN, Jan. 29, 2001.)



The false announcements that the polls were closed, as well as the premature calls (the Presidential race ten minutes early; the Senate race an hour early), may have cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that their state had already been decided; some last-minute voters on their way to the polling place turned around and went home. Other voters who were waiting in line left the polling place. In Florida, as elsewhere, voters who have arrived at the polling place before closing time often end up voting after closing time, because of long lines. The conventional wisdom of politics is that supporters of the losing candidate are most likely to give up on voting when they hear that their side has already lost. Thus, on election night 1980, when incumbent President Jimmy Carter gave a concession speech while polls were still open on the west coast, the early concession was blamed for costing the Democrats several Congressional seats in the West, such as that of 20-year incumbent James Corman. The fact that all the networks had declared Reagan a landslide winner while west coast voting was still in progress was also blamed for Democratic losses in the West; Congress even held hearings about prohibiting the disclosure of exit polls before voting had ended in the any of the 48 contiguous states.



Even if the premature television calls affected all potential voters equally, the effect was to reduce Republican votes significantly, because the Florida panhandle is a Republican stronghold. Most of Central Time Zone Florida is in the 1st Congressional District, which is known as the "Redneck Riviera." In that district, Bob Dole beat Bill Clinton by 69,000 votes in 1996, even though Clinton won the state by 300,000 votes. So depress overall turnout in the panhandle, and you will necessarily depress more Republican than Democratic votes. A 2001 study by John Lott suggested that the early calls cost Bush at least 7,500 votes, and perhaps many more. Another study reported that the networks reduced panhandle turn-out by about 19,000 votes, costing Bush about 12,000 votes and Gore about 7,000 votes.



At 10:00 p.m., which networks took the lead in retracting the premature Florida win for Gore? They were CNN and CBS, not Fox. (The two networks were using a shared Decision Team.) See Linda Mason, Kathleen Francovic & Kathleen Hall Jamieson, "CBS News Coverage of Election Night 2000: Investigation, Analysis, Recommendations" (CBS News, Jan. 2001), pp. 12-25.)



In fact, Fox did not retract its claim that Gore had won Florida until 2 a.m.--four hours after other networks had withdrawn the call.



Over four hours later, at 2:16 a.m., Fox projected Bush as the Florida winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 a.m.



At 3:59 a.m., CBS took the lead in retracting the Florida call for Bush. All the other networks, including Fox, followed the CBS lead within eight minutes. That the networks arrived at similar conclusions within a short period of time is not surprising, since they were all using the same data from the Voter News Service. (Mason, et al. "CBS News Coverage.") As the CBS timeline details, throughout the evening all networks used VNS data to call states, even though VNS had not called the state; sometimes the network calls were made hours ahead of the VNS call.



Moore’s editing technique of the election night segment is typical of his style: all the video clips are real clips, and nothing he says is, narrowly speaking, false. But notice how he says, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy…" The impression created is that the Fox call of Florida for Bush came soon after the CBS/CNN calls of Florida for Gore, and that Fox caused the other networks to change ("All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'")



This is the essence of the Moore technique: cleverly blending half-truths to deceive the viewer.



[Moore response: On the Florida victory celebration, none. On the networks calls: provides citations for the early and incorrect Florida calls for Gore, around 8 p.m. Eastern Time, and for the late-evening network calls of Florida for Bush around 2:20 a.m. Doesn't mention the retraction of the Florida calls at 10 p.m., or that CBS led the retraction.]



2000 Election Recount

Deceit 3



How did Bush win Florida? "Second, make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote count woman." Actually Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris (who was Bush's Florida co-chair, not "the chairman") was not the "vote count woman." Vote counting in Florida is performed by the election commissioners in each of Florida's counties. The Florida Secretary of State merely certifies the reported vote. The office does not count votes.



A little while later, Fahrenheit shows Jeffrey Toobin (a sometime talking head lawyer for CNN) claiming that if the Supreme Court had allowed a third recount to proceed past the legal deadline, "under every scenario Gore won the election."



Fahrenheit shows only a snippet of Toobin's remarks on CNN. What Fahrenheit does not show is that Toobin admitted on CNN that the only scenarios for a Gore victory involved a type of recount which Gore had never requested in his lawsuits, and which would have been in violation of Florida law. Toobin's theory likewise depends on re-assigning votes which are plainly marked for one candidate (Pat Buchanan) to Gore, although there are no provisions in Florida law to guess at who a voter "really" meant to vote for and to re-assign the vote.



A study by a newspaper consortium including the Miami Herald and USA Today disproves Fahrenheit's claim that Gore won under any scenario. As USA Today summarized, on May 11, 2001:

"Who would have won if Al Gore had gotten manual counts he requested in four counties? Answer: George W. Bush."

"Who would have won if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount of undervotes, which are ballots that registered no machine-readable vote for president? Answer: Bush, under three of four standards."

"Who would have won if all disputed ballots — including those rejected by machines because they had more than one vote for president — had been recounted by hand? Answer: Bush, under the two most widely used standards; Gore, under the two least used."

Throughout the Florida election controversy, the focus was on "undervotes"--ballots which were disqualified because the voter had not properly indicated a candidate, such as by punching out a small piece of paper on the paper ballot. The recounts attempted to discern voter intentions from improperly-marked ballots. Thus, if a ballot had a "hanging chad," a recount official might decide that the voter intended to vote for the candidate, but failed to properly punch out the chad; so the recounter would award the candidate a vote from the "spoiled" ballot. Gore was seeking additional recounts only of undervotes. The only scenario by which Gore would have won Florida would have involved recounts of "overvotes"--ballots which were spoiled because the voter voted for more than one candidate (such as by marking two names, or by punching out two chads). Most of the overvotes which were recoverable were those on which the voter had punched out a chad (or made a check mark) and had also written the candidate's name on the write-in line. Gore's lawsuits never sought a recount of overvotes, so even if the Supreme Court had allowed a Florida recount to continue past the legal deadline, Bush still would have won the additional recount which Gore sought.



A separate study conducted by a newspaper consortium including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal found that if there had been a statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes, Gore would have won under seven different standards. However, if there had been partial recounts under any of the various recounts sought by Gore or ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, Bush would have won under every scenario.

A very interesting web widget published by the New York Times allows readers to crunch the data any way they want: what standards for counting ballots, whose counting system to apply, and how to treat overvotes. It's certainly possible under some of the variable scenarios to produce a Gore victory. But it's undeniably dishonest for Fahrenheit to assert that Gore would win under any scenario.

Moore amplifies the deceit with a montage of newspaper headlines, purporting to show that Gore really won. One article shows a date of December 19, 2001, with a large headline reading, "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won Election." The article supposedly comes from The Pantagraph, a daily newspaper in Bloomington, Illinois. But actually, the headline is merely for a letter to the editor--not a news article. The letter to the editor headline is significantly enlarged to make it look like an article headline. The actual printed letter looked nothing like the "article" Moore fabricated for the film. The letter ran on December 5, not December 19. The Pantagraph contacted Moore's office to ask for an explanation, but the office refused to comment.

The Pantagraph's attorney sent Fahrenheit's distributor a letter stating that Moore's use of the faked headline and story was "unauthorized" and "misleading" and a" misrepresentation of facts." The letter states that Moore infringed the copyright of The Pantagraph, and asks for an apology, a correction, and an explanation. The letters asks Moore to "correct the inaccurate information which has been depicted in your film." Moore's law firm wrote back and claimed that there was nothing "misleading" about the fabricated headline.

Richard Soderlund, an Illinois State University history professor, who wrote the letter to the editor that The Pantagraph published, told the Chicago Tribune, "It's misrepresenting a document. It's at odds with history."


[Moore response: Cites articles consistent with my explanation. Fails to acknowledge that the only scenarios for a Gore victory involved recounting methods which Gore never requested in his lawsuits. To tell viewers that Gore would have won "under every scenario" is absurd. No explanation for The Pantagaph fraud.]



Florida Purge of Convicted Felons from Voter Rolls

Deceit 4



According to Fahrenheit, Bush cronies hired Data Base Technologies to purge Florida voters who might vote for Gore, and these potential voters were purged from the voting rolls on the basis of race. ("Second, make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote count woman. And that her state has hired a company that's gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you. You can usually tell 'em by the color of their skin.") As explained by the Palm Beach Post, Moore's suggestion is extremely incomplete, and on at least one fact, plainly false.



The 1998 mayoral election in Miami was a fiasco which was declared void by Florida courts, because--in violation of Florida law--convicted felons had been allowed to vote. The Florida legislature ordered the executive branch to purge felons from the voting rolls before the next election. Following instructions from Florida officials, Data Base Technologies (DBT) aggressively attempted to identify all convicted felons who were illegally registered to vote in Florida.



There were two major problems with the purge. First, several states allow felons to vote once they have completed their sentences. Some of these ex-felons moved to Florida and were, according to a court decision, eligible to vote. Florida improperly purged these immigrant felons.



Second, the comprehensive effort to identify all convicted felons led to a large number of false positives, in which persons with, for example, the same name as a convicted felon, were improperly purged. Purged voters were, in most cases, notified months before the election and given an opportunity to appeal, but the necessity to file an appeal was in itself a barrier which probably discouraged some legitimate, non-felon citizens from voting. According to the Palm Beach Post, at least 1,100 people were improperly purged.



The overbreadth of the purge was well-known in Florida before the election. As a result, election officials in 20 of Florida's counties ignored the purge list entirely. In these counties, convicted felons were allowed to vote. Also according to the Post, thousands of felons were improperly allowed to vote in the 20 non-purging counties. Analysis by Abigail Thernstrom and Russell G. Redenbaugh, dissenting from a report by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, suggests that about 5,600 felons voted illegally in Florida. (The Thernstrom/Redenbaugh dissent explains why little credit should be given to the majority report, which was produced by flagrantly ignoring data.)



When allowed to vote, felons vote approximately 69 percent Democratic, according to a study in the American Sociological Review. Therefore, if the thousands of felons in the non-purging 20 counties had not been illegally allowed to vote, it is likely that Bush's statewide margin would have been substantially larger.



Regardless, Moore's suggestion 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.

DBT's computers had matched these people with felons, though in dozens of cases they did not share the same name, birthdate, gender or race...[A] review of state records, internal e-mails of DBT employees and testimony before the civil rights commission and an elections task force showed no evidence that minorities were specifically targeted. Records show that DBT told the state it would not use race as a criterion to identify felons. The list itself bears that out: More than 1,000 voters were matched with felons though they were of different races.

The appeals record supports the Palm Beach Post's findings. Based on the numbers of successful appeals, blacks were less likely to have been improperly placed on the purge list: of the blacks who were purged, 5.1 percent successfully appealed. Of Hispanics purged, 8.7 percent successfully appealed. Of whites purged, 9.9 percent successfully appealed. John R. Lott, Jr., "Nonvoted Ballots and Discrimination in Florida," Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 32 (Jan. 2003), p. 209. Of course it is theoretically possible that the appeals officials discriminated against blacks, or that improperly purged blacks were not as likely to appeal as were people of other races. But no one has offered any evidence to support such possibilities.



[Moore response: Cites various articles about the felon purge. Offers no evidence to support the claim that voters were targeted on the basis of race.]



Bush Presidency before September 11

Deceit 5



The movie lauds an anti-Bush riot that took place in Washington, D.C., on the day of Bush’s inauguration. He claims that protestors "pelted Bush's limo with eggs." Actually, it was just one egg, according to the BBC. According to Moore, "No President had ever witnessed such a thing on his inauguration day. " According to CNN, Richard Nixon faced comparable protests in 1969 and 1973. According to USA Today, the anti-Bush organizers claimed that they expected 20,000 protesters to show up, whereas the anti-Nixon protest in 1973 drew 60,000 people. (USA Today, Jan. 20, 2001).



Moore says, "The plan to have Bush get out of the limo for the traditional walk to the White House was scrapped. But according to the BBC, "Mr. Bush delighted his supporters by getting out of his limousine and walked the last block of the parade, holding hands with his wife Laura."



Moore continues: "And for the next eight months it didn’t get any better for George W. Bush. He couldn’t get his judges appointed; he had trouble getting his legislation passed; and he lost Republican control of the Senate. His approval ratings in the polls began to sink."



Part of this is true. Once Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican party, Democrats controlled the Senate, and stalled the confirmation of some of the judges whom Bush had nominated for the federal courts.



Congress did enact the top item on Bush’s agenda: a large tax cut. During the summer, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives easily passed many of Bush’s other agenda items, including the bill whose numbering reflected the President’s top priority: H.R. 1, the Bush "No Child Left Behind" education bill. The fate of the Bush bills in the Democratic-controlled Senate, as of August 2001, was uncertain. The Senate later did pass No Child Left Behind, but some other Bush proposals did not pass.



Moore says that Bush's "approval ratings in the polls began to sink." This is not entirely accurate, although I haven't counted this issue as a "deceit." From January 2001 to September 2001, Bush's approval ratings in almost all polls fluctuated pretty narrowly in a 50-59% range. Moore accurately cites a Christian Science Monitor poll with 45 percent approval for Bush on September 5, 2001, but the low result here is an outlier compared to the overall poll trend. What really changed for Bush, pollwise, was not that his approval ratings were sinking, but that his disapproval ratings had risen. The national polls showed that the approve/disapprove gap for Bush was much larger in January 2001 than in the late summer of 2001. So Moore is correct that Bush's polls numbers had deteriorated, although Moore's phrasing is not correct.



"He was already beginning to look like a lame duck President." Maybe in Moore's imagination. No serious political commentator made such a claim in 2001.



Bush is quoted as saying, "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." What Moore fails to note, though, is that the quote, from July 26, 2001, is a facetious joke, like Moore's claim in Dude, Where's my Country? that he did not have sex until age 32.



Another Bush joke is presented as an obvious joke, although important context is missing. Near the end of the movie, Bush speaks to a tuxedoed audience. He says, "I call you the haves and the have-mores. Some call you the elite; I call you my base." The joke follows several segments in which Bush is accused of having started the Iraq war in order to enrich business. As far the movie audience can tell, Bush is speaking to some unknown group of rich people. The speech actually comes from the October 19, 2000, Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner. The 2000 event was the 55th annual dinner, which raises money for Catholic hospital charities in New York City. Candidates Bush and Gore were the co-guests of honor at the event, where speakers traditionally make fun of themselves.



Gore joked, "The Al Smith Dinner represents a hallowed and important tradition, which I actually did invent." Lampooning his promise to put Social Security in a "lock box," Gore promised that he would put "Medicare in a walk-in closet," put NASA funding in a "hermetically sealed Ziploc bag" and would "always keep lettuce in the crisper." Mary Ann Poust, "Presidential hopefuls Gore and Bush mix humor and politics at Al Smith Dinner," Catholic New York, Oct. 26, 2000. So although Fahrenheit presents the joke as epitomizing Bush's selfishness, the joke really was part of Bush helping to raise $1.6 million for medical care for the poor. Although many a truth is said in jest, Bush's joke was no more revealing than was Gore's claim to have founded the dinner in 1946, two years before he was born. (CBS News story on the same event.)



[Moore response: Cites articles predicting that Bush would have trouble with Congress on Arctic drilling, campaign finance, and faith-based charity. Cites a California poll in which Bush's disapproval rating equaled his approval rating. Cites a couple of additional polls, selecting Bush's worst results. No response on the distortion of the Alfred E. Smith Dinner. Although Moore claims that his website provides line-by-line citations for the movie, there is no citation for the quote from the Al Smith Dinner, even though it would be easy to cite newspapers which reported the dinner. Apparently Moore fails to provide citations because any citation would show that Bush was speaking at a charity fund-raiser.]



Bush Vacations

Deceits 6-7



Fahrenheit 9/11 states, "In his first eight months in office before September 11th, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time."

Shortly before 9/11, the Post calculated that Bush had spent 42 percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route, including all or part of 54 days at his ranch. That calculation, however, includes weekends, which Moore failed to mention.

Tom McNamee, "Just the facts on ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ Chicago Sun-Times, June 28, 2004. See also: Mike Allen, "White House On the Range. Bush Retreats to Ranch for ‘Working Vacation’," Washington Post, August 7, 2001 Many of those days are weekends, and the Camp David stays have included working visits with foreign leaders. Since the Eisenhower administration, Presidents have usually spent many weekends at Camp David, which is fully equipped for Presidential work. Once the Camp David time is excluded, Bush's "vacation" time drops to 13 percent.



Much of that 13 percent was spent on Bush's ranch in Texas. Reader Scott Marquardt looked into a random week of Bush's August 2001 "vacation." Using public documents from www.whitehouse.gov, here is what he found:

Monday, August 20
Spoke concerning the budget while visiting a high school in Independence, Missouri.
Spoke at the annual Veteran's of Foreign Wars convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Signed six bills into law.

Announced his nominees for Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Agriculture, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management, member of the Federal Housing Finance Board, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Disabled Employment Policy, U.S. Representative to the General Assembly of the U.N., and Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development for the Bureau of Humanitarian Response.

Spoke with workers at the Harley Davidson factory.
Dined with Kansas Governor Bill Graves, discussing politics.


Tuesday, August 21
Took press questions at a Target store in Kansas City, Missouri.
Spoke with Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien on the matter of free trade and tariffs on Canadian lumber.



Wednesday, August 22
Met with Karen Hughes, Condi Rice, and Josh Bolten, and other staff (more than one meeting).
Conferenced with Mexico's president for about 20 minutes on the phone. They discussed Argentina's economy and the International Monetary fund's role in bringing sustainability to the region. They also talked about immigration and Fox's planned trip to Washington.
Communicated with Margaret LaMontagne, who was heading up a series of immigration policy meetings.
Released the Mid-Session Review, a summary of the economic outlook for the next decade, as well as of the contemporary economy and budget.
Announced nomination and appointment intentions for Ambassador to Vietnam, two for the Commission on Fine Arts, six to serve on the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry, three for the Advisory Committee to the Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation, one to the Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and one to the National Endowments for the Arts.
Issued a Presidential Determination ordering a military drawdown for Tunisia.
Issued a statement regarding the retirement of Jesse Helms.

Thursday, August 23
Briefly spoke with the press.
Visited Crawford Elementary School, fielded questions from students.

Friday, August 24
Officials arrived from Washington at 10:00 AM. Shortly thereafter, at a press conference, Bush announced that General Richard B. Myers will be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and General Pete Pac will serve as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He also announced 14 other appointments, and his intentions for the budget. At 11:30 AM these officials, as well as National Security Council experts, the Secretary of Defense, and others, met with Bush to continue the strategic review process for military transformation (previous meetings have been held at the Pentagon and the White House). The meeting ended at 5:15.
Met with Andy Card and Karen Hughes, talking about communications issues.
Issued a proclamation honoring Women's Equality Day.

Saturday, August 25
Awoke at 5:45 AM, read daily briefs.
Had an hour-long CIA and national security briefing at 7:45
Gave his weekly radio address on the topic of The Budget.

Having shown a clip from August 25 with Bush explaining how he likes to work on the ranch, Moore announces "George Bush spent the rest of the August at the ranch." Not so, as Scott Marquardt found by looking at Bush's activity for the very next day.

Sunday, August 26
Speaks at the Little League World Series in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
Speaks at the U.S. Steel Group Steelworkers Picnic at Mon Valley Works, southeast of Pittsburgh. He also visits some employees still working, not at the picnic.

Marquandt looked up Bush's activities for the next three days:

Declared a major disaster area in Ohio and orders federal aid. This affects Brown, Butler, Clermont and Hamilton counties.
Sent a report on progress toward a "solution of the Cyprus question" to the Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Announced his intention to nominate Kathleen Burton Clarke to be Director of the Bureau of Land Management (Department of the Interior).
Spoke at the American Legion's 83rd annual convention in San Antonio, discussing defense priorities. Decommissioned the Air Force One jet that flew 444 missions, from the Nixon administration to Bush's retirement ceremony for the plane in Waco, Texas.
Attended the dedication ceremony of the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park in San Antonio.
Announced appointment of 13 members of the Presidential Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nations Veterans.

It is true in a sense that the Presidency is a "24/7" job. But this does not mean that the President should be working every minute. A literal "24/7" job would mean that the President should be criticized for "sleeping on the job 33 percent of the time" if he slept for eight hours a day.



Christopher Hitchens notes:

[T]he shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won’t recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.



The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that’s what you get if you catch the president on a golf course.

Christopher Hitchens, "Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore," Slate.com, June 21, 2004. (Some of Moore's defenders have denounced Hitchens as a member of the vast-right wing conspiracy. Hitchens, however, wrote an obituary of Ronald Reagan recalling his lone meeting with Reagan, when he asked a question which made Reagan angry: "The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard." Hitchens also wrote a book and produced a movie, The Trials of Henry Kissinger, urging that Kissinger be tried for war crimes.)



By the way, the clip of Bush making a comment about terrorism, and then hitting a golf ball, is also taken out of context, at least partially:

Tuesday night on FNC’s Special Report with Brit Hume, Brian Wilson noted how "the viewer is left with the misleading impression Mr. Bush is talking about al-Qaeda terrorists." But Wilson disclosed that "a check of the raw tape reveals the President is talking about an attack against Israel, carried out by a Palestinian suicide bomber."

"Cyberalert," Media Research Center, July 1, 2004, item. 3.



Interestingly, as detailed in Bill Clinton's autobiography My Life, in November 1995. when President Clinton learned that Israel's Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had been shot, Clinton went out to the White House lawn and hit golf balls while he waited to learn if Rabin would live. That Clinton played golf after learning of a terrible crime in Israel obviously does not mean that he did not care about the crime. If a television station had recorded some footage of Clinton hitting golf balls that awful night, it would have easy for a hyper-partisan film-maker to use the footage against Clinton unfairly.



Moore wraps up the vacation segment: "It was a summer to remember. And when it was over, he left Texas for his second favorite place." The movie then shows Bush in Florida. Actually, he went back to Washington, where he gave a speech on August 31.



[Moore response: Accurately quotes the Washington Post: "if you add up all his weekends at Camp David, layovers at Kennebunkport and assorted to-ing and fro-ing, W. will have spent 42 percent of his presidency 'at vacation spots or en route.'" Does not attempt to defend Fahrenheit's mischaracterization of the Post's meaning. Does not explain why the Israeli context was removed from the Bush quote. Does not defend the claim that Bush went from Texas to Florida.]



September 11

Moore's changing positions



Fahrenheit presents a powerful segment on the September 11 attacks. There is no narration, and the music is dramatic yet tasteful. The visuals are reaction shots from pedestrians, as they gasp with horrified astonishment.



Moore has been criticized for using the reaction shots as a clever way to avoid showing the planes hitting the buildings, and some of the victims falling to their deaths. Even if this is true, the segment still effectively evokes the horror and outrage that every decent human being still feels about September 11.



But as New York’s former Mayor Edward Koch reported, Moore says, "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 lightning than die from an act of terror." If there is some additional context which would explain Moore's remarks, he has not supplied such context on his website. It seems unlikely that Moore's "war room" is unaware of the highly critical review written by former NYC Mayor Koch.



Moore's first public comment about the September 11 attacks was to complain that too many Democrats rather than Republicans had been killed: "If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who did not vote for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California--these were places that voted against Bush!" (The quote was originally posted as a "Mike's Message" on Moore's website on September 12, but was removed not long after. Among the many places where Moore's quote has been repeated is The New Statesman, a leftist British political magazine.)



A person might feel great personal sympathy for the victim of a lightning strike, but the same person might feel that, overall, the "lightning problem" is not worth making a big fuss over. Fahrenheit presents September 11 as a terrible tragedy (in which Moore lost one a professional colleague, and many other people lost loved ones), and as something worth making a big fuss. On this latter point, Fahrenheit's purported view does not appear to be the same as Moore's actual view.



[Moore response: none.]

Saggysack
10-17-2004, 11:59 PM
Oh isn't this just grand, if the right would just hold the same accountability and scrutiny to the President as they hold against Mr.Moore and his movies we might...

Pitt Gorilla
10-18-2004, 02:09 AM
Ok, I read some of Joe's posting, and it still didn't say Moore was lying (it may have later as I didn't read all of it). It says the film "gives the impression" or something like that. In other words, the writer of the piece is claiming that Moore is causing people to believe something that he did not actually say. From a constructivist perspective, that just seems silly.

Baby Lee
10-18-2004, 08:20 AM
Ok, I read some of Joe's posting, and it still didn't say Moore was lying (it may have later as I didn't read all of it). It says the film "gives the impression" or something like that. In other words, the writer of the piece is claiming that Moore is causing people to believe something that he did not actually say. From a constructivist perspective, that just seems silly.
That's the rub. Moore harps on how every 'fact' is 'true.' But every 'important' point is a matter of supposition.

Fact: Bush drives a Chevy pickup.
Moore's exposition: Could it be that his pickup was bought for him by Osama bin Laden???

Bearcat2005
10-18-2004, 10:45 AM
Actually, the movie is 100% factually accurate. Moore even hired 3 independent legals teams to scour the movie for false claims.

I'm not sure why you claim Moore is lying.

I do acknowledge, just as Moore does, that this movie is not unbiased (i.e. it is biased).

You must be one of those sheepeople that Savage talks about! LOL
Broad is the way of destruction and many go that way, narrow is the way of life and few will find it.

Lzen
10-18-2004, 01:50 PM
I don't see how anyone can read what Joe Seahawk posted and not say that Moore is a liar. :shake:

Saulbadguy
10-18-2004, 01:53 PM
I don't see how anyone can read what Joe Seahawk posted and not say that Moore is a liar. :shake:
Easily..we can just call Joe Seahawk a liar. Its all about perspective, and beliefs.

Lzen
10-18-2004, 01:58 PM
Easily..we can just call Joe Seahawk a liar. Its all about perspective, and beliefs.

ROFL

C'mon, you have more(moore?) sense than that. It's one thing to pick on the President for things that he has done or hasn't done. But it's another thing to actually distort the facts so badly in order to change reality.

Pitt Gorilla
10-18-2004, 02:01 PM
I don't see how anyone can read what Joe Seahawk posted and not say that Moore is a liar. :shake:Moore may be a liar, but according to what I read of Joe's post, the "lie," as it were, is developed by the audience.

KCWolfman
10-18-2004, 02:09 PM
Moore may be a liar, but according to what I read of Joe's post, the "lie," as it were, is developed by the audience.
Oh, come on. I bet I can find footage of kids playing in 1937 Germany and families sitting down to meals, and women shopping at groceries. Then I could stick in footage of the bombing of Berlin and Dresden complete with charred bodies and limbless children.

It was not a perception "developed by the audience", it was a deliberate and misleading picture painted by the director.

Saulbadguy
10-18-2004, 02:14 PM
ROFL

C'mon, you have more(moore?) sense than that. It's one thing to pick on the President for things that he has done or hasn't done. But it's another thing to actually distort the facts so badly in order to change reality.
Its one thing to distort facts, its another to accept those distorted facts as reality.

Memo to anyone who watchs F9/11: draw your own conclusions.

Saulbadguy
10-18-2004, 02:16 PM
Oh, come on. I bet I can find footage of kids playing in 1937 Germany and families sitting down to meals, and women shopping at groceries. Then I could stick in footage of the bombing of Berlin and Dresden complete with charred bodies and limbless children.

It was not a perception "developed by the audience", it was a deliberate and misleading picture painted by the director.
So? This reminds me of those commercials for diet pills. They claim to have all of these ground breaking new revolutions in weight loss, prescribed by doctors, and they are so powerful they should only be used by people with over 20 lbs to lose. Of course, these pills are worthless without proper diet and excercise. Is the commercial lying? Nope...Is it misleading? Of course. Its up to the audience to develop their own opinions.

Pitt Gorilla
10-18-2004, 02:17 PM
Oh, come on. I bet I can find footage of kids playing in 1937 Germany and families sitting down to meals, and women shopping at groceries. Then I could stick in footage of the bombing of Berlin and Dresden complete with charred bodies and limbless children.

It was not a perception "developed by the audience", it was a deliberate and misleading picture painted by the director.I was merely going on what Joe had posted. Actually, after considering your analogy, it still doesn't hold. I decide all of the details I'm not given. In your analogy, kids are playing then people are dead. My prior knowledge and experiences dictate how the rest is filled in (if I'm not given other information).
Is this where I insert seemingly obligatory "oh, come on?" :)

KCWolfman
10-18-2004, 02:17 PM
Its one thing to distort facts, its another to accept those distorted facts as reality.

Memo to anyone who watchs F9/11: draw your own conclusions.
If you are to "draw your own conclusions" why are you going to watch a propaganda film to begin with?

That is like saying "Go watch The Eternal Jew. Fritz Hippler was a great director. I am not saying the Jews are corrupt or filthy or immoral or criminal, but you should draw your own conclusions". The fact that you went to the film is not to draw anything, but to merely substantiate your already formulated negative opinions.

Saulbadguy
10-18-2004, 02:19 PM
If you are to "draw your own conclusions" why are you going to watch a propaganda film to begin with?

That is like saying "Go watch The Eternal Jew. Fritz Hippler was a great director. I am not saying the Jews are corrupt or filthy or immoral or criminal, but you should draw your own conclusions". The fact that you went to the film is not to draw anything, but to merely substantiate your already formulated negative opinions.
Entertainment.

KCWolfman
10-18-2004, 02:19 PM
Pitt and Saul - You are both giving perfect examples of why propaganda works, and excusing its actions at the same time.

KCWolfman
10-18-2004, 02:19 PM
Entertainment.
No, "propaganda".

Saulbadguy
10-18-2004, 02:22 PM
Wrong. I went to the movie for the same reason I go to any movie. For entertainment. Why you can not grasp this, I do not know.

Baby Lee
10-18-2004, 02:22 PM
No, "propaganda".
You're not gonna believe this, Wolfie, but some people are actually entertained by materials that portrays every aspect of life's misery as the fault of George Bush.

KCWolfman
10-18-2004, 02:23 PM
Wrong. I went to the movie for the same reason I go to any movie. For entertainment. Why you can not grasp this, I do not know.
I am sure that Moore developed the film strictly for "entertainment" as that is what he has said all along, right?

Saulbadguy
10-18-2004, 02:23 PM
Ok. How about this? I went to view a piece of propaganda, for entertainment purposes.

KCWolfman
10-18-2004, 02:24 PM
You're not gonna believe this, Wolfie, but some people are actually entertained by materials that portrays every aspect of life's misery as the fault of George Bush.
This is the time that we need Bob Dole with a "disingenious" finger.

It is obvious why the film was made, it is obvious it is nothing but a propaganda piece - hell even the director admitted this. Those who state it is not are merely attempting to delude themselves.

Saulbadguy
10-18-2004, 02:24 PM
Let me ask you this: Why is propaganda only a negative thing when it doesn't fit your personal agenda?

KCWolfman
10-18-2004, 02:25 PM
Ok. How about this? I went to view a piece of propaganda, for entertainment purposes.
That I can believe. Now, do you believe that you were the market Moore was looking for when he created the film? Or, more importantly, do you believe the majority of the people who see the film went to be "entertained"?

KCWolfman
10-18-2004, 02:26 PM
Let me ask you this: Why is propaganda only a negative thing when it doesn't fit your personal agenda?
I stated thus?

Baby Lee
10-18-2004, 02:26 PM
Let me ask you this: Why is propaganda only a negative thing when it doesn't fit your personal agenda?
Geez, I must've received a blow to the head RIGHT AFTER that time I extolled the virtues of propaganda.

Saulbadguy
10-18-2004, 02:27 PM
That I can believe. Now, do you believe that you were the market Moore was looking for when he created the film? Or, more importantly, do you believe the majority of the people who see the film went to be "entertained"?
Here is what i'm not sure about. I'm not sure of what Moore created the film for. Was it:
A) To push his own personal agenda and beliefs (Propaganda)
B) Make a shitload of money

I'm leaning towards B, but thats just me.

Baby Lee
10-18-2004, 02:28 PM
Ok. How about this? I went to view a piece of propaganda, for entertainment purposes.
Tell the truth, was there any of the conclusions Moore drew that you found MORE plausible than Bruce Willis flying a space shuttle to an asteriod and blowing it up with a nuke?

Saulbadguy
10-18-2004, 02:29 PM
I stated thus?
It wasn't directed towards you, but feel free to field that one. It was a general question, more so me thinking out loud. The best example I have as of yet is people at my work bashing Michael Moore, and then praising Rush Limbaugh.

Saulbadguy
10-18-2004, 02:32 PM
Tell the truth, was there any of the conclusions Moore drew that you found MORE plausible than Bruce Willis flying a space shuttle to an asteriod and blowing it up with a nuke?
To tell you the truth, I can't even remember a majority of the things stated in the film. The only thing I really remember well was the mother reading the letters from her son who was slain in Iraq.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:39 PM
Oh isn't this just grand, if the right would just hold the same accountability and scrutiny to the President as they hold against Mr.Moore and his movies we might...
Very good point!

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:41 PM
Ok, I read some of Joe's posting, and it still didn't say Moore was lying (it may have later as I didn't read all of it). It says the film "gives the impression" or something like that. In other words, the writer of the piece is claiming that Moore is causing people to believe something that he did not actually say. From a constructivist perspective, that just seems silly.
Agreed. Fahrenheit 9/11 is subjective as the director has frequently stated. However, it is 100% factually accurate.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:43 PM
You must be one of those sheepeople that Savage talks about! LOL
Broad is the way of destruction and many go that way, narrow is the way of life and few will find it.
When you resort to childish name-calling and off-topic personal attacks, it tells readers that you're unable to focus on the issues either because of simple immaturity or lack of basis for your beliefs.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:44 PM
I don't see how anyone can read what Joe Seahawk posted and not say that Moore is a liar. :shake:
Regardless of what you opine of Moore's integrity, the movie is 100% factually accurate. Have you seen it?

Donger
10-18-2004, 02:44 PM
Agreed. Fahrenheit 9/11 is subjective as the director has frequently stated. However, it is 100% factually accurate.

Wow.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:45 PM
ROFL

C'mon, you have more(moore?) sense than that. It's one thing to pick on the President for things that he has done or hasn't done. But it's another thing to actually distort the facts so badly in order to change reality.
where did Moore "change reality"?

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:47 PM
Its one thing to distort facts, its another to accept those distorted facts as reality.

Memo to anyone who watchs F9/11: draw your own conclusions.
Exactly.

And please apply that same creative thinking to the Bush administrations lies about Iraq.

Bush was wrong about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction--237 times (11) (12). He was and continues to be wrong about Iraq's ties to al Qaeda (13) (14). The fictitious war in Iraq has cost us 1,069 soldiers' lives (7,730 wounded) (15). We've already spent $120 billion there (16). Some 13,000 Iraqi civilians have died because of it (17). Yet no one has been held accountable for the misleading statements about Iraq.

(11) BUSH WAS WRONG ABOUT IRAQ HAVING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
a. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/29/iraq/main596595.shtml
b. http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/
c. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-28-kay-testifies_x.htm
d. http://www.truthuncovered.com/thefilm.html

(12) 237 MISLEADING STATEMENTS FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ABOUT IRAQ
a. http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

(13) BUSH WAS WRONG ABOUT SADDAM HUSSEIN HAVING AN ALLIANCE WITH AL QAEDA.
a. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/
b. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html
c. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=92288

(14) BUSH AND CHENEY CONTINUE TO INSIST THAT THERE WAS AN ALLIANCE BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL-QAEDA.
a. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/index.html
b. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html
c. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/18/MNGP278BI61.DTL

(15) US CASUALTIES IN IRAQ
a. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/10/041012-casualty.pdf
b. http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
c. http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html
d. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/national/09deaths.html?ex=1097812800&en=64efea2052a0ae9e&ei=5070&oref=login

(16) COST OF WAR IN IRAQ
a. http://www.costofwar.com/
b. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=253
c. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/9902611.htm
d. http://christianity.about.com/cs/warandpeace/a/100billion.htm
e. http://civilliberty.about.com/b/a/111120.htm

(17) CIVILIAN DEATHS IN IRAQ
a. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
b. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,976392,00.html

Lzen
10-18-2004, 02:49 PM
where did Moore "change reality"?

Don't talk to me until you've read post #5.

Chief Henry
10-18-2004, 02:49 PM
Joe Seahawk,

You deserve the highest rep possible from me.
Thats all I can say.

Lzen
10-18-2004, 02:50 PM
Bush was wrong about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction

Oh ok. Then I guess those 12 years and 17 UN resolutions were for fun, eh?

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:50 PM
If you are to "draw your own conclusions" why are you going to watch a propaganda film to begin with?
Cuz most people don't know how badly GW mislead the the country. Many people assume Iraq was guilty simply because we invaded it. they have no info to questions Bushy's motives or actions.

The movie makes a big case that wouldn't fit in 1-3 columns of a front-page news story. the context and premises of Bush's actions take time to develop, hence the documentary F 9/11.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:52 PM
It is obvious why the film was made, it is obvious it is nothing but a propaganda piece - hell even the director admitted this. Those who state it is not are merely attempting to delude themselves.
Do ya have any sources or evidence, or are these more baseless claims?

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:55 PM
Don't talk to me until you've read post #5.
so you can't articulate your beliefs, you can merely regurgitate them?

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:56 PM
Oh ok. Then I guess those 12 years and 17 UN resolutions were for fun, eh?
what are you talking about? Do ya have any sources or evidence, or are these more baseless claims?

Joe Seahawk
10-18-2004, 02:57 PM
what are you talking about? Do ya have any sources or evidence, or are these more baseless claims?

Here ya go.. sources for every claim. Don't hurry back..

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

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 03:16 PM
Oh ok. Then I guess those 12 years and 17 UN resolutions were for fun, eh?
what are you talking about? Do ya have any sources or evidence, or are these more baseless claims?
Here ya go.. sources for every claim. Don't hurry back..

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
way to confuse the issue Joe S. your links have nothing to do with Lzen's claims.

Joe Seahawk
10-18-2004, 03:33 PM
Do ya have any sources or evidence, or are these more baseless claims?


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

2bikemike
10-18-2004, 03:46 PM
what are you talking about? Do ya have any sources or evidence, or are these more baseless claims?

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990



Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."


Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."


UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991



Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.


Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.


Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.


UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991



Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."


Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.


Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."


Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.


Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.


Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.


Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.


Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.


Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.


UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991



"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."


Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.


Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.


UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991



"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.


"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.


Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.


Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.


Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.


Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.


UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991



Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.


UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994



"Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.


Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.


Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.


UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996



Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996



"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997



"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.


UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997



"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.


UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997



"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.


Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998



Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."


UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998



"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998



"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.


Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.


UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999



Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).


Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.


Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.


Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.

KCWolfman
10-18-2004, 05:18 PM
It wasn't directed towards you, but feel free to field that one. It was a general question, more so me thinking out loud. The best example I have as of yet is people at my work bashing Michael Moore, and then praising Rush Limbaugh.
You'll never see me praising either.

KCWolfman
10-18-2004, 05:20 PM
Do ya have any sources or evidence, or are these more baseless claims?
You mean like the director himself admitting it is a propaganda piece?

Jeez, another zealot.

BCD
10-19-2004, 02:04 AM
Regardless of what you opine of Moore's integrity, the movie is 100% factually accurate. Have you seen it?
ROFL You're a funny guy...delusional, but funny...

Ari Chi3fs
10-19-2004, 03:46 AM
zZZzzz zzZZZzzz zzZZZzzzz

Lzen
10-19-2004, 08:59 AM
what are you talking about? Do ya have any sources or evidence, or are these more baseless claims?

OMG, are you that ignorant to what has happened over the past decade and a half?
:shake:

Calcountry
10-19-2004, 11:09 AM
Actually, the movie is 100% factually accurate. Moore even hired 3 independent legals teams to scour the movie for false claims.

I'm not sure why you claim Moore is lying.

I do acknowledge, just as Moore does, that this movie is not unbiased (i.e. it is biased).
Chicken shit.