[Paradox]

This is a pretty good start. I would like to see an in depth refutation of Moores movie however. Something to print out and give to members of my family who are probably going to see the movie.

[libertylover]

The movie apparently has about the same intellectual honesty of a Josef Goebbels's film, so it's scary that so many Americans would even want see such a film. They hate Bush and the Conservatives more than they love America, all based on a pack of lies. Sigh.

[stevem]

This is an excellent outline, at least I think it's an outline. I will never know first hand because I will never waste a minute watching a Moore film. As for in depth refutation, my guess is it's pointless. Folks that look on this as a documentary are so twisted with hatred for Bush and the United States that there isn't any basis for discussion with them.

The only worth while way I have ever come up with for discourse with them is to look at them over the top of my glasses and say, "OK." Then I move on.

That's not the entire truth as I sometimes explain how dense they sound. Yet the "OK" response is somehow more satisfying.

[wildwood]

did you read "all hail moore" by david brooks on the nyt website? it's pretty good.

[Maria S]

Here's one example of the many "tricks" that Moore uses in his so-called documentaries:


Moore Film has MAJOR Clip from Wrong War!!
EconomicBriefing.com ^
Posted on 06/26/2004 7:37:38 AM CDT
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1160630/posts

http://www.economicbriefing.com/perma/moore3.html

Went to see the Michael Moore film last night. To call this film a documentary is very misleading. The film is actually a video collage on four themes: 1. Bush looking confused. 2. Severely wounded American soldiers. 3. Dead Iraqis and 4. Bush Senior meeting with Saudis.

The film may wake up the masses, in a very MTV video kind of way, and cause them to question the reasons for going to war, but let's hope this is not considered the definitive film work on the very curious events prior to 9-11, its aftermath, and how we ended up attacking Iraq. That work has yet to be made.

Moore's work is, indeed, quite sloppy. I am scratching my head about Moore's supposed major fact checking of the film. The fact of the matter is that Moore has a major clip smack dab in the middle of the film that doesn't even come from the current Iraq involvement, when it is clearly in a part of the film that implies that's what it is. Those who follow the news regularly and with good memories will recall the clip is actually from a Peter Arnett report during Gulf War I. It is the clip of a woman crying hysterically in front of a bombed out building. The Iraqis, at the time, claimed the building bombed was a milk plant. The U. S. said it was a chemical factory. This was big news back then, apparently Michael Moore and his fact checkers were to busy to follow the news during that war, or this major faux pas would have never made it into his current film..
Raymond Sabat June 26, 2004 8:18 A. M. permalink