FNC Reveals How Moore Distorted Scene with Bush at Golf Course

MRC ^ | 7/1/04 | Brent Baker

[pookie18]

The TV ads for Michael Moore's "documentary" Fahrenheit 9/11 feature a mocking clip of President Bush on a golf course. Bush declares, "I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorists killers," and then Moore jumps to Bush adding, as he prepares to swing at a golf ball, "now watch this drive." 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."

Indeed, Wilson played another part of what Bush said in the remarks to reporters made on August 4, 2002: "For the sake of the Israelis who are under attack, we must stop the terror."

MRC analyst Megan McCormack noticed Wilson's correction of Moore in a piece in which Wilson outlined how Moore's movie better matches the definition of "propaganda" than "documentary."

"The American Heritage Dictionary," Wilson relayed, "defines a documentary film as one that presents facts quote, 'objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter.'"

After documenting Moore's distortion of Bush's golf course comments, Wilson moved on to how "in his film, Moore claims that special flights carrying Saudi nationals were allowed to fly within the U.S. at a time when commercial aircraft were grounded due to the 9/11 attacks. Not true. The Saudi flights did not occur until after commercial flight restrictions were lifted on September 14th. Newsweek's top investigative reporter Michael Isikoff took Moore to task on that and other incorrect claims in a recent column, and says of the movie:

Michael Isikoff: "It's one window into some of the facts, but it's certainly not a complete window into all the facts."

Wilson: "Even some news organizations providing clips to Moore for the film argue Fahrenheit 9/11 is not balanced. Bill Wheatley, a Vice President of NBC News, told the LA Times quote, '...the work of filmmakers is much more likely to be pointed in a particular direction...filmmakers tend to avoid balance and pursue a point of view.' So if the word documentary really doesn't fit Michael Moore's film, how about this description? 'Ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause.' That's how the dictionary defines the word propaganda. In Washington, Brian Wilson, Fox News."

Last Friday night, June 25, the NBC Nightly News ran a fact check on Moore's movie, the MRC's Brad Wilmouth observed, and found it wanting. NBC's Lisa Myers didn't note how the golf course comments were suggested to be about al-Qaeda when they were really about Palestinian terrorists, but she did call it a "cheap shot."

She began her story with a clip of an ad for the movie: "A true story that will make your temperature rise."

Myers asked: "But how true is it? The film's sometimes embarrassing video of Bush administration officials is authentic [clip of Ashcroft singing], though some argue certain shots amount to cheap shots." George W. Bush from movie, on golf course: "I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now, watch this drive."

Myers: "The powerful story of Lyla Lipscomb, whose son was killed in Iraq, is also undeniable. But on other key points, critics say this so-called documentary is either wrong or deliberately misleading. The war in Iraq: To drive home the point that the children of the powerful aren't dying in Iraq, Moore ambushes politicians on Capitol Hill."

Moore in movie: "Congressman, I'm Michael Moore. How are you doing?"

Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-MN): "Good evening."

Moore: "Good, good. I'm trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq."

Myers: "But Moore left out what Congressman Mark Kennedy went on to say."

Kennedy, in interview with NBC: "My nephew had just gotten called up into service and was told he's heading to Afghanistan. He didn't like that answer, so he didn't include it."

Myers: "Bush and the Saudis: The film traces ties between the Bush family and the bin Laden and Saudi royal families, then suggests the Bushes, quote, 'might be thinking about what's best for the Saudis instead of what's best for you.'"

Roger Cressey, terrorism expert: "The Bush family's relationship with the bin Ladens and the Saudis had nothing to do with our decisions on the war on terrorism. To say so is simply unfair."

Myers: "Finally, Saudi flights after 9/11: The film suggests that plane loads of Saudis, including the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the U.S. after 9/11 without proper vetting. However, the 9/11 Commission says, 'Nobody was allowed to depart who the FBI wanted to interview.' One character in this film suggests that President Bush is even worse than Osama bin Laden, one of the excesses and distortions that may undermine the credibility of Michael Moore's message. Lisa Myers, NBC News, Washington."

But liberals and much of the media still love it.

[Area51]

Evidently you have been in a deep coma.

The LIE about Bush allowing the Bin Laden Family to leave the country has been also proven. They were allowed to leave by a Clinton Hold over who has been quite critical of the Bush Administration. HE publicly acknowledged that it was HIS approval given to allow them to leave.

Clark I think is his name.

Micheal MOORE Is a fraud, he proved it in the Bowling for Columbine crapola, he only re-inforces it in this PROPAGANDA piece for the DNC.

[been_lurking]

I haven't seen it, but if it is full of lies why haven't more examples been given?

That would be like "looking for lies" in a Hanna-Barbarra cartoon.

Begone TROLL!

[Phantom Lord]

And Richard Clarke is saying that what Moore did in the film with the information on the "flights after 9/11" was a "mistake". Diplomatic speak for a LIE.

[fr_freak]

Not to defend Moore, but this seems a bit weak. The position of the President has always seemed pretty clear to me - he doesn't seen to draw fine distinctions between types of terrorists. I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know whether or not Moore claims the President is talking about AQ - or whether that is just inferred by some viewers due to the broad subject matter of the movie. But I don't think the President would create fine gradations among AQ, Hamas, Hezbollah, AAI, etc. So how is this misleading?

I think the point of the clip was to give the impression that Bush was cavalier about the worst attack on US soil. If the statement he made was about Al-Qaeda as a result of 9/11, after which Bush is seen playing golf, it would make it seem like he wasn't taking our war on terror seriously. However, if taken in its true context, where Bush is referring to terrorist attacks that have been going on against Israel for essentially decades now, then you realize he is not making light of our war on terror. As far as impressions of his character go, it's a big difference. I don't knwo the time frame of the golf clip, but it's an even bigger difference if the clip was from a time before 9/11.

[AmishDude]

Canadian Bacon had a domestic total gross of $163,971. That is not a misprint. The budget was $11 million (not including marketing costs, which were not available).

By contrast, the "flop" Ishtar made $14,375,181 against a budget of $40 million.

I checked out the biggest movie flops of all time according to a TV station. Here the number is (production+marketing, domestic+overseas) in million.

• Town and Country ($90+$15 budget, $6.7+$3.7 gross)
• Heaven's Gate ($40, $3.5)
• The Postman ($80, $17.6)
• Shanghai Surprise ($17, $2)
• The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (?, $8.1)
• Showgirls ($45, $20.4)
• Cutthroat Island ($98, $10)
• Hudson Hawk ($65, $17.2)
• Battlefield Earth ($73+$30, $21.5+$8.3)
• Gigli ($54+$20, $6.1+$1.2)

Canadian Bacon made back 1.5% of its budget. I guess the budget wasn't high enough to make this list, but Canadian Bacon is a monumental flop.

[The Old Hoosier]

If the movies basic premises are kook-conspiracy-theories that even contradict one another, then the rest of the film doesn't really merit an explanation anyway. Hitchens already has Michael Moore's number, I can't imagine how the film could be further undermined except for the fact that I bet he selectively cut film several times that haven't been caught yet.

[lugsoul]

No - I remember the clip when he said it. It was definitely after 9-11. I guess my point is the same - what is the difference? Is it somehow okay to say "now watch this drive" after talking to reporters about a Hamas attack, but not after talking about an AQ attack?

My memory is far from perfect on this, but I'm thinking those comments came after the passover bombing.

[dirtboy]

I haven't seen it, but if it is full of lies why haven't more examples been given?

Plenty have - the most damning being the comments by Richard Clark that he authorized the departure of the bin Laden family members from the U.S. after 9-11, and the revelations by the 9-11 Commission that 26 of the 30 were interviewed by the FBI and the other 4 were not of any potential interest - matters not mentioned by Moore.

But nice try anyway at trying to deflect the criticism of Moore's lie-a-thon. Now go back and kiss Moore's pimply butt and leave us alone.

[fr_freak]

I think we better start finding better examples of the lies in the movie if we're going to make our case. One scene in a long movie doesn't really prove the point.

Hi Lefty.

I just thought you should know that I bought the book "Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man" yesterday for two reasons: 1) to have a source that documents Moore's many errors and lies, because so many people these days insist on taking him seriously, 2) to show support for this effort, and others, to expose Moore for the fraud he his. I'd like to see this book at #1 on the best seller list.

You can't read two lines of Moore text without tripping over 10 lies, but if you really want his lies documented (which I doubt you do) then I suggest you start with this book.

[fr_freak]

I guess my point is the same - what is the difference? Is it somehow okay to say "now watch this drive" after talking to reporters about a Hamas attack, but not after talking about an AQ attack?

I don't know about it being OK, but it is a big difference in attitude, especially to Americans. The intifada crap has been going on for years now. I wouldn't expect any US president to drop everything or cancel vacation because of another suicide bombing. A comment denouncing the suicide bombings in a casual setting would not be inappropriate. The 9/11 attacks, however, demand a greater level of gravity, and the impression Moore is trying to give is that Bush took it all lightly. The TV commercials, especially, try to give the impression that Bush was playing golf on 9/12.

[Flashman_at_the_charge]

Go to www.bowlingfortruth.com and then you'll see the way that Moore manipulates viewers with selective editing. I don't need to see the film to know that this will be the case in F911.

[King Prout]

Moore's lies and distortions are no worse than the run-of-the-mill ones favored by the common barking moonbat.

the only real difference is that Moore has managed to turn himself into a media prince and add the weight of celebrity to his vacant ditherings.

[Renaldo]

Yes, try http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/

And three other with a more general approach:

http://www.moorewatch.com
http://www.mooreexposed.com
http://www.moorelies.com

[dirtboy]

Is it somehow okay to say "now watch this drive" after talking to reporters about a Hamas attack, but not after talking about an AQ attack?

Two points - although I support the Israealis in their efforts to fight Palestinian terrorism, I will always be far more concerned about terror attacks on Americans than terror attacks on Israelis. And second, it's just plain dishonest to take Bush's comments here and weave them into a 9/11 film when he wasn't talking about 9/11.

[lugsoul]

"it's just plain dishonest to take Bush's comments here and weave them into a 9/11 film when he wasn't talking about 9/11"

Thanks for making my point for me. The President talks about "terror" and the "war on terror" and "terrorists." I don't hear him drawing any distinctions between the "terrorists" of AQ and 9-11, on one hand, and the "terrorists" of Hamas and Hezbollah and Ansar al-Islam, etc., on the other. Nor should he. You may view them differently. But the enemy is radical Islamic fundamentalism - whether we are talking about the adherents that attacked this country or some other group of adherents.

I haven't seen the movie, so I can't say that it is not "about" 9-11 - but since we do know that alot of it is about Iraq, it would be at least a fair statement to say that it is about the broader war on terror than it is about 9-11.

For the record - I'm sure there are questionable things in the movie - it is what Moore does. But this particular allegation of a "lie" just seems stupid - unless Moore actually claims the President was talking about 9-11 in that clip.

[dirtboy]

Thanks for making my point for me. The President talks about "terror" and the "war on terror" and "terrorists." I don't hear him drawing any distinctions between the "terrorists" of AQ and 9-11, on one hand, and the "terrorists" of Hamas and Hezbollah and Ansar al-Islam, etc., on the other. Nor should he.

Sorry, but I do make a distinction as to whether Americans are the targets, as to how serious the matter is to me.

I haven't seen the movie, so I can't say that it is not "about" 9-11

Uh, lugsoul, the title is "Farenheit 911".

[Salvation]

What 'they' are you talking about here?

[lugsoul]

Wow - your are awfully bright to pick up on that title thing. I sure hope you are keeping a close watch on Moore to make sure he doesn't stray beyond the topic reflected in 1/2 of his title.

Hmmm... If it is about 9-11, why do you figure he was interviewing Nick Berg for the movie? And what's with all that footage from the Iraq war? I guess it just couldn't be about the war on terror, because the title says "9/11." How come he's talking about other things? Can he do that?

[Ebenezer]

Uh-huh! This type of exposé of "Fahrenheit 9/11" has to continue coming out in the weeks ahead so Michael Moore is taken to task for what he really is: a phony "documentary" maker.

[1Old Pro]

Like everything else about the Dems, they don't know when they're losing.

This film is backfiring and the Dems don't even know it. The Dems are pathetic.