Moore Lies. By his OWN defintion
Posted on 08/02/2004 7:39:37 AM PDT by knighthawk
BOSTON - I finally tracked down Michael Moore. I saw him walking in the street outside the Democratic convention center and pounced on him like the paparazzi on J.Lo. Moore had been dodging me because his movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11," was becoming increasingly indefensible by something called "facts." But to his credit, Moore took up my street challenge and agreed to appear on "The O'Reilly Factor." We debated for 10 minutes, and here's what happened:
* He said President Bush "lied" about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction even though the 9/11 commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation and Lord Butler's British investigation all say Bush did not lie.
* Moore defines a "lie" as anything that turns out not to be true. By following this logic, weather forecasters must now be categorized as pathologically dishonest.
* Moore said he would not have attacked the Taliban government in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attack. Instead, he would have captured Osama Bin Laden by using "commandos." Apparently, Moore believes the Taliban would have allowed his commandos to root out Osama and his boys with impunity. He related the commando strategy to me with a straight face.
* Moore denied that Ronald Reagan's arms buildup had anything to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union and freedom for Eastern Europe.
* The filmmaker then went on to say that preemptive war is wrong and would have been immoral even in the case of Adolf Hitler. Moore said he would have prevented Hitler from assuming power in the first place. I didn't have time to ask him how he would have done that, but I assume commandos would have been involved.
So, hey, Michael Moore, thanks for showing up and debating. Now we know the underpinnings of your world outlook.
What is still astounding to me is how many people continue to embrace Moore's fantasies and deceptions. Some people actually applauded him at the Democratic convention, but the heavyweights stayed away. The Kerry campaign has made it quite clear that Moore and other left-wing bomb throwers are not to be seen around the candidate. In fact, John Kerry's people actually censored some of the speechmakers from using inflammatory anti-Bush rhetoric. That is almost unheard of at a political convention.
But old reliable Howard Dean came through. He continues to be Moore's best pal, appearing with him at a Bush bash in a Cambridge hotel. It is absolutely frightening how close Dean came to being the Democratic presidential nominee.
This may surprise you, but I do not dislike Michael Moore. He is a true believer. He wants a completely different kind of country, and he'll do anything to make that happen.
The problem with Moore is that the ends justify the means. He knows his statements and movies are not based on facts, but he continues to say they are. Even in Moore's world, where truth doesn't exist, there should be some kind of ethical standard, but there isn't.
And the fact that Howard Dean and other powerful Americans accept that situation is more troubling than anything Moore could ever say.
Ping
Any Mr. O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh even had comment on your lame-ass interview and correctly inform Mr. Moore that there are no children serving in Iraq and that we have a 100% volunteer military, no one forces anyone to serve!
Didn't see it. Is it on the web. If true, that's pretty sad. The points O'Reilly makes in the article are good ones, none the less.
We knew that Moore characterizes his pieces of fiction as "documentaries". Apparently he thinks Sylvester Stallone, Jean Claude Van Damme and Steven Seagal movies are documentaries as well.
Moore denied that Ronald Reagan's arms buildup had anything to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union and freedom for Eastern Europe.
True. It was all those "commandos".
You know you're in trouble when Bill O'Reilly is calling you out for being a pompous blowhard.
Nice try Tex but I saw two heads butting. No butt kicking.
This shows Moore's utter ignorance of history. Adolf Hitler himself never won an election. He ran against General von Hindenburg for President in 1932 and lost. He never held an elective office--he couldn't, until 1932 he wasn't even a German citizen! The Nazi Party won a plurality (never a majority) of seats in the Reichstag--something like 270 out of 600+, if I remember right--and managed to gum up the works of the Weimar government enough that eventually, the half-senile Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor.
After that, within a month, the Reichstag burned (courtesy of Hermann Goering and Nazi operatives), and Hitler was able to ram his "Enabling Act" through the Reichstag that basically let him rule by decree.
So yeah, in 1932, I suppose Moore could've sent his "commandos" to kill Hitler, but it's possible (not likely, but quite possible) that the Nazis could've put someone else in his place--probably Goering, who was President of the Reichstag by then.
Proof, once again, that Moore is a Mooron.
}:-)4
Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor.
After that, within a month, the Reichstag burned (courtesy of Hermann Goering and Nazi operatives), and Hitler was able to ram his "Enabling Act" through the Reichstag that basically let him rule by decree.
The correct respone to "Hitler was elected", and I always like to add: Hitler and his Nazis were socialist, not conservative.
Moore Lies. By his OWN defintion
I wonder why the leftist media outlets do not editorialize to death on why Moore is not "helpful." Isn't that what they all said about Jerry Falwell, just because he commented, as pastors do, that maybe God removed His hand of protection over us because of sin? If they can find him unhelpful, why ever can they not find Moore "unhelpful" and even offensive?
It could be said that John Kerry is running to be Neville Chamberlain, and that Michael Moore is Leni Reufenshal(sp?)
An old point, but it certainly bears repeating.
It seemed to me that O'Reilly let Moore control the interview. Moore ate up precious interview time when he had O'Reilly answering and debating "Children", Children being sent to war by President Bush, Children dying for Bush's Lie, "Would you sent Your Child?" ..and on and on it went till O'Reilly didn't have time to address any number of other lies in the Movie or Moore's deceitful tatics.
When I watched the interview, I definitely saw a different O'Reilly. He did seem like he was giving more latitude than he does his "normal" guests that are lying to him.
I do think O'Reilly was caught a bit off guard and didn't have a iron-clad reply to Moore's "Would you send your children to die in Fallujah?" He should have countered the arguement better (children can't enlist, only adults over 18 can; no one--children or adults--are forced to be sent anywhere as the military is an entirely volunteer force; etc.)
But, I understand why O'Reilly was caught off guard: how could any normal person anticipate such an insane questions (and I mean insane, as in need of clinical assistance)?
The mere asking of the question, while appearing to be effective, is not even a reasonable question. It is about as valid as the old demoCREEP approach that "Republicans want children to starve" or "Ronald Reagan steals baked beans from the homeless".
But, O'Reilly did miss the opportunity to point out to all Americans that the questions themselves point out how truly disturb Moore really is.
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.
