Posted on 07/01/2004 9:27:32 AM PDT by 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.
And a lack of basic FR courtesy, as well. Sad.
I would like to see the media investigate the Lila Lipscomb story. It sounds too good to be true, that Moore just happened to get this woman on tape before her son was killed in Iraq. And especially that the son's last letter just happened to be against the war. It's very fishy sounding, IMHO.
Of those monumental flops, the only one that I sat through and enjoyed (and still do) is The Adventures of Baron Munchausen.
(Canadian Bacon was brutally bad.)
Michael Moore doesn't make movies or documentaries...he makes cartoons. The left is embracing a cartoon. I'll stand behind the validity of anyone who re-airs 48 hours (uncut)of any news channel from 9/11/01 to 9/13/01. Any news channel. This would be devastating to Moore AND the DNC and they know it!
BTTT
Agreed, it was wonderful (in both senses of the word) -- as are all of Terry Gilliam's films.
Yeah, sometimes a movie's a flop for other reasons. I've heard "Baron" was pretty good. Some people appear to have been amused by "Bacon", even some who are not Moore-worshippers. But when something is a total flop, there's something really wrong with it. There are lots of stories of movies that didn't do well when first released but aged well. Classics like Gone with the Wind, the Wizard of Oz and Citizen Kane and cult films do well after some time.
Nope, try again. But why don't you share with us *your* impression of what message you think Moore was trying to impart when he started the ads for his movie with the Bush golfing clip? Why include it so prominently? Be specific.
You may not be able to see that without being misled, but most of us understand that not everything relating to the war on terror is directly tied to 9-11.
You make me dizzy when you spin like that.
Strange how similar your argument is to the liberal argument claiming that the Adminstration misled the public into thinking Iraq was behind 9-11.
Strange how you draw conclusions about my argument without actually understanding my argument. And in order for it to actually be "similar", I'd have to be trying to conflate an honest *mistake* by Moore into an intentional lie, which is what the liberals are doing. So is it your contention that Moore made a *mistake* when he used that clip? Or are you just flinging random crap at the wall to see what might stick?
What was Moore trying to do by putting the clip in his ads? The obvious answer is to put a funny clip in his ad. The clip was funny when it was first shown years ago, long before this movie. The President has his stern face on and is making serious comment about terrorism - the global war on terror - then segues into "Now watch this drive."
The whole "misleading" argument is premised on the idea that Moore tries to make people think that the President is talking about some specific "terrorist killers" that are different from the ones he is really talking about. And I just don't see anything in either Moore's ads or the President's comment that shows any intent to make it that restrictive.
There are so many valid criticisms of Moore that it is a wonder people will grab so tight to crap like this.
It's very misleading! The president may say he doesn't "draw distinctions" between terrorists, but, of course, he does draw distinctions and in fact he's paid to draw distinctions between terror acts against us and similar acts directed against non-Americans. I'd be mighty angry with him if he didn't understand the distinctions.
Are you suggesting that Israelis should rate the same attention from the President as Americans get? Don't they have their own gov't for that function?
Moore deliberately left the impression that Bush was making a statement about activity in Iraq or Afghanistan against American soldiers, or terror activity somewhere else in the world against American citizens. The viewer would never have concluded that Bush was talking about a Palestinian attack in Israel.
Ah, a Moore apologist, perhaps? You won't be able to refute this refutation. It is a testament to the President that he answers questions from reporters even when he is out playing golf, which is something most people don't have to do, or won't do. This president deserves some time away from the job, and if he likes to spend it golfing, he should be able to. If I were him, I would have told the reporter to screw off.
Now I have seen pictures of Mr. Clinton playing golf, when he was president, but they always showed him walking by. I guess the events of the day in his time weren't important enough to interrupt the president's golf game.
So a reporter walks up to the president on his day off, interrupts his leisure activities, and answers a question about a specific event. This is the point at which the distinction is being made between one group of terrorists and the others. This is where it is misleading. And media people are good at this. It is the modern day equivalent of a doctored photograph. Take a snippet and another snippet and play them back to back, and then imply an association between them, so as to foster an opinion.
I hope you've seen the movie and can enlighten us on what he did to leave that impression - because I can't imagine how one could draw that impression from a couple of seconds in the trailer.
My point is the same - in that clip, the President wasn't drawing the distinctions we all know he makes in private. He was talking about the global war on terror. He wasn't talking about Sharon "showing restraint" or the Palis gaining control over the killers. He was talking about ALL NATIONS doing whatever they can to stop terrorists. That is plainly what he was talking about.
I'm still waiting for all those who will claim that THEY see through this artifice but that Moore will be fooling others to follow-up with their rant about Hollywood elitism.
He was asked a specific question, he gave a general answer. Too bad you were misled. It looked obvious to me, long before Moore ever used that clip.
He was playing golf. It was his day off. He was interrupted. He was being polite. He is a nice guy. Not like Moore.
I know this may be difficult, but the fact that he was playing golf is what makes the clip usable. That is not the issue.
The issue is that many here claim that Moore "lied" because he used a clip of comments that were not specifically directed to the 9-11 attacks - and that he somehow implied that they were. I agree with the first part of that, but the only thing anyone has offered for the second is that "9-11" is in the title of the movie. You got anything more than that?
I'm sure you have had a time in your life when you were playing golf and some jerk rushed up to you and stuck a camera in your face and asked you a question right before you were about to swing. What did you do?
Again, what is your point? The issue is not whether the President said what he said, or whether he should have said it. The issue is whether Moore was misleading by using it. Were you misled? How?
Moore's intent was to convince the viewer that fratboy Bush doesn't take terror seriously ("now watch me hit this drive"), but of course if a non-American is the victim of terror, and Bush is simply making the kind of boilerplate denunciation of terror that he is called upon to make almost daily, it is entirely understandable for him to transition quickly from the denunciation back to his golf game. Not all matters are equally grave.
This is such an obvious case of misleading I'm amazed at anyone who can't see it.
Your post contradicts itself. You claim the President made a boilerplate denunciation of terror but that it was intended to reference a single isolated act of terror. If it was intended to reference an isolated act - rather than the broader war on terror - perhaps you will answer the question everyone else on this thread has avoided - what exactly was the President asking "all nations" to do?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.