Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dude, Where's My Intellectual Honesty? (Michael Moore the liar)
Spinsanity ^ | 10/16/03 | Bryan Keefer

Posted on 10/16/2003 11:22:43 AM PDT by Phantom Lord

Dude, Where's My Intellectual Honesty?

In his latest book Dude, Where's My Country? -- a polemic against President Bush -- liberal gadfly Michael Moore again demonstrates why he has a reputation as a slipshod journalist who has trouble getting his facts right.

Moore established his reputation for playing fast and loose with the truth in his first film, the 1989 documentary "Roger and Me," centering on General Motors layoffs in his hometown of Flint, Michigan. As the New Yorker's Pauline Kael wrote at the time, he manipulated the chronology of his film, implying that certain events were a response to GM's large 1986 layoffs when in fact they had occurred years before.

Moore's best-selling book Stupid White Men was no less factually challenged. In it, he made a number of mistakes, ranging from the sloppy (suggesting that the multiyear cost of a new fighter plane was all being spent in 2001) to the outright ridiculous (reprinting an outdated list of attacks on Bush from the Internet virtually unedited). "Bowling for Columbine," for which Moore was awarded last year's Academy Award for best documentary feature, continued the pattern. Critics, including my co-editor Ben Fritz and Dan Lyons of Forbes, documented how Moore repeated a well-debunked myth about supposed US aid to the Taliban, falsely portrayed a scene in a Michigan bank to make it appear as though one could open an account and walk out with a gun, and altered a Bush-Quayle '88 campaign ad, among numerous other distortions.

Moore has generally brushed aside such criticism with suggestions such as "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?" as he put it to Lou Dobbs on CNN's "Moneyline." More recently, however, he has gone on the offensive, going so far as to suggest critics of "Bowling for Columbine" are "committing an act of libel" in an August 19 appearance on MSNBC. And in a long article posted on his web site, he denounces criticism of the film as "character assassination" and "make-believe stories."

Despite repeatedly dismissing his critics, Moore has recently acknowledged some of his errors. For instance, in the DVD release of "Bowling for Columbine," he changed the caption he inserted over a Bush/Quayle '88 campaign ad, making the text more accurate (although the viewer still is unlikely to realize that the text wasn't in the original ad in the first place). One his web site, Moore explicitly admitted making this correction in the film.

In two places in Dude, Where's My Country?, Moore implicitly acknowledges mistakes in his earlier works. On several occasions over the past two years, Moore has asserted that (as he put it on "Politically Incorrect") "the Bush Administration gave $43 million in aid to the Taliban in part to -- give money to the poppy growers for the money they would lose because they can't grow heroin anymore." "Bowling for Columbine" continued the canard, asserting that the US gave $245 million in aid to the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Both of these are false; the aid, intended to help relive famine, was given to non-governmental organizations, not the Taliban. In his latest book, Moore finally gets it right, noting that the aid "was to be distributed by international organizations." (page 34)

Moore also implicitly corrects himself about what was manufactured at a Lockheed plant in Littleton, Colorado. In "Bowling for Columbine," Moore implies that the plant made nuclear weapons at or immediately before the time he visited. Actually, while the plant was involved in nuclear missile production years before, it now makes rockets that are used as space-launch vehicles for military and civilian satellites. In his newest book, Moore sets the record straight, writing that "Lockheed Martin, the biggest arms maker in the world, built rockets that carried into space the special new satellites that guided the missiles fired into Baghdad" during the recent war in Iraq. (page 74)

At least Moore is finally telling the truth about the US aid and Lockheed. Most other subjects come in for much more dubious treatment in the book. For example, Moore misstates the details of how members of the Bin Laden family left the US after Sept. 11, claiming that "while thousands were stranded and could not fly, if you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in U.S. history, you got a free trip to gay Paree!" (page 20) Yet a few pages earlier, Moore himself quotes a November, 2001 New Yorker article by Jane Mayer which notes that "Once the FAA permitted overseas flights [after Sept. 11], the jet [with the Bin Ladens] flew to Europe." (page 4) As this and other reports have made clear, the Bin Ladens did not leave the US until after the resumption of commercial flights. And a Boston Globe article of September 20, 2001 quotes a Saudi government official stating that the Bin Ladens chartered their own plane - hardly a "free" trip as Moore suggests.

Moore's penchant for conspiracy theories often leads him to stretch the facts or make laughable claims. Bashing the proposed Terrorist Information Awareness project, he writes that "There is usually very little in the way of an electronic or paper trail when it comes to terrorists. They lay low and pay cash. You and me, we leave trails everywhere - credit cards, cell phones, medical records, online; everything we do. Who is really being watched here?"(page 110, his italics) In Moore's fervor to indict the TIA system, he forgets about the credit cards used by the 9-11 hijackers, which were used to help retrace their steps.

Moore also repeats a well-debunked myth about Democratic presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark. According to Moore, "Clark has said that he received phone calls on Sept. 11 and in the weeks after from people at 'think tanks' and from people within the White House telling him to use his position as a pundit for CNN to 'connect' Sept. 11 to Saddam Hussein." (page 53) Moore cites a June 15, 2003 interview with Clark on NBC's "Meet the Press." Despite somewhat ambiguous phrasing in that interview, however, Clark, has subsequently been consistent in his claim that it was a member of a think tank who contacted him, not the White House, a fact buttressed by a recent report that identified the man who made the call. And Moore pluralizes the single call Clark refers to in the "Meet the Press" interview to "calls" - a claim Clark has never made.

In addition, Moore attacks the Patriot Act with an array of examples that have nothing to do with it. He introduces the list by writing that "To date, there are at least thirty-four documented cases of FBI abuse under the Patriot Act - and at least another 966 individuals have filed formal complaints. Many of these people were just minding their own business, or seeking to partake in our free society. Consider these examples." (page 111) Moore lists an anti-globalization activist who was questioned by "immigration officials" and a "State department agent"; a New York judge who asked a defendant if she was a terrorist; French journalists detained at the Los Angeles Airport; a local police officer in Vermont entering a teacher's classroom to photograph an anti-Bush art display; a college student questioned by Secret Service agents about "anti-American" material; and a Green Party activist questioned on his way to Prague. None of the incidents he lists, however, happened as a result of the Patriot Act, nor did any of them involve the FBI (the French journalists were detained for improper travel documents, and the Green Party activist was questioned by the Secret Service, as Moore's own sources note).

Bush's policies towards Iraq come in for particular criticism - and, in several cases, gross distortions. Moore writes that "There were claims that the French were only opposing war to get economic benefits out of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. In fact, it was the Americans who were making a killing. In 2001, the U.S. was Iraq's leading trading partner, consuming more than 40 percent of Iraq's oil exports. That's $6 billion in trade with the Iraqi dictator." (page 69) In reality, that "trade" was done under the auspices of the United Nations oil-for-food program, which allowed Iraq to sell a limited amount of oil to purchase humanitarian supplies. (For details on the program, see this report to Congress.) One can only imagine what Moore would have said if the U.S. refused to purchase Iraqi oil and allowed its citizens to starve.

At another point, Moore attacks Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement to the United Nations that "What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." According to Moore, "Just days earlier, Powell apparently was not so sure. During a gathering of CIA officials reviewing the evidence against Saddam Hussein, Powell tossed the papers in the air and declared: 'I'm not reading this. This is bullshit.'" (page 82) Moore makes it appear as though the speech Powell gave at the UN included the evidence he had called "bullshit." In fact, the US News & World Report article that Moore cites does note Powell's exclamation, but it details the process by which Powell winnowed out pieces of evidence he was uncomfortable presenting. The article concludes "And plenty was cut [from Powell's speech]. Sometimes it was because information wasn't credible, sometimes because Powell didn't want his speech to get too long, sometimes because [CIA Director George] Tenet insisted on protecting sources and methods."

Nor is Moore above twisting facts to attack the Bush administration's tax cuts. Moore criticizes the 2003 Bush tax cut for reducing revenue to the states. As one example, he writes, "Take the kids in Oregon, whose schools were shut down early this year because they ran out of tax money." (page 160) While Moore makes it appear as though the 2003 Bush tax cut shut down Oregon's schools, Oregon actually passed a law in May 2003 decoupling its state income tax system from the federal government's, insuring that the 2003 tax cut would have no impact on the state's budget. Moreover, as an article from the June 8 New York Times Magazine - one of Moore's own sources - notes, Oregon voters had rejected a referendum earlier in the year that would have raised taxes to pay for schools and other spending.

In a recent interview with Bookreporter.com, Moore was asked if he made a special effort to fact-check his new book. "All my work goes through a thorough fact-checking process," he said. "I hire three teams of people to go through the book and then two separate lawyers vet it. There is a reason that I have never been sued over anything in my three books -- that's because everything in them is true." Apparently, Moore needs to hire himself some new fact-checkers. Regardless of the supposed rigors of its vetting process, Dude, Where's My Country? cements Moore's reputation as one of our nation's sloppiest commentators.

[Note to readers: Be sure and check out the companion piece to this article, listing all the errors we found in Dude, Where's My Country?.]

Research assistance by Davis Bell and David Mishook.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bias; dude; fatslob; fraud; liar; media; michaelmoore; moore; nofacts; susbarbatus
The original article has many imbedded links and additional links to sources. I strongly suggest opening the original source in a seperate window and posting back here.
1 posted on 10/16/2003 11:22:45 AM PDT by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
Spinsanity: Countering rhetoric with 











reason
Home | Columns | Posts | Topics | Email list | About | Search

Dude, Where's My Intellectual Honesty?

By Bryan Keefer
October 16, 2003

In his latest book Dude, Where's My Country? -- a polemic against President Bush -- liberal gadfly Michael Moore again demonstrates why he has a reputation as a slipshod journalist who has trouble getting his facts right.

Moore established his reputation for playing fast and loose with the truth in his first film, the 1989 documentary "Roger and Me," centering on General Motors layoffs in his hometown of Flint, Michigan. As the New Yorker's Pauline Kael wrote at the time, he manipulated the chronology of his film, implying that certain events were a response to GM's large 1986 layoffs when in fact they had occurred years before.

Moore's best-selling book Stupid White Men was no less factually challenged. In it, he made a number of mistakes, ranging from the sloppy (suggesting that the multiyear cost of a new fighter plane was all being spent in 2001) to the outright ridiculous (reprinting an outdated list of attacks on Bush from the Internet virtually unedited). "Bowling for Columbine," for which Moore was awarded last year's Academy Award for best documentary feature, continued the pattern. Critics, including my co-editor Ben Fritz and Dan Lyons of Forbes, documented how Moore repeated a well-debunked myth about supposed US aid to the Taliban, falsely portrayed a scene in a Michigan bank to make it appear as though one could open an account and walk out with a gun, and altered a Bush-Quayle '88 campaign ad, among numerous other distortions.

Moore has generally brushed aside such criticism with suggestions such as "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?" as he put it to Lou Dobbs on CNN's "Moneyline." More recently, however, he has gone on the offensive, going so far as to suggest critics of "Bowling for Columbine" are "committing an act of libel" in an August 19 appearance on MSNBC. And in a long article posted on his web site, he denounces criticism of the film as "character assassination" and "make-believe stories."

Despite repeatedly dismissing his critics, Moore has recently acknowledged some of his errors. For instance, in the DVD release of "Bowling for Columbine," he changed the caption he inserted over a Bush/Quayle '88 campaign ad, making the text more accurate (although the viewer still is unlikely to realize that the text wasn't in the original ad in the first place). One his web site, Moore explicitly admitted making this correction in the film.

In two places in Dude, Where's My Country?, Moore implicitly acknowledges mistakes in his earlier works. On several occasions over the past two years, Moore has asserted that (as he put it on "Politically Incorrect") "the Bush Administration gave $43 million in aid to the Taliban in part to -- give money to the poppy growers for the money they would lose because they can't grow heroin anymore." "Bowling for Columbine" continued the canard, asserting that the US gave $245 million in aid to the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Both of these are false; the aid, intended to help relive famine, was given to non-governmental organizations, not the Taliban. In his latest book, Moore finally gets it right, noting that the aid "was to be distributed by international organizations." (page 34)

Moore also implicitly corrects himself about what was manufactured at a Lockheed plant in Littleton, Colorado. In "Bowling for Columbine," Moore implies that the plant made nuclear weapons at or immediately before the time he visited. Actually, while the plant was involved in nuclear missile production years before, it now makes rockets that are used as space-launch vehicles for military and civilian satellites. In his newest book, Moore sets the record straight, writing that "Lockheed Martin, the biggest arms maker in the world, built rockets that carried into space the special new satellites that guided the missiles fired into Baghdad" during the recent war in Iraq. (page 74)

At least Moore is finally telling the truth about the US aid and Lockheed. Most other subjects come in for much more dubious treatment in the book. For example, Moore misstates the details of how members of the Bin Laden family left the US after Sept. 11, claiming that "while thousands were stranded and could not fly, if you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in U.S. history, you got a free trip to gay Paree!" (page 20) Yet a few pages earlier, Moore himself quotes a November, 2001 New Yorker article by Jane Mayer which notes that "Once the FAA permitted overseas flights [after Sept. 11], the jet [with the Bin Ladens] flew to Europe." (page 4) As this and other reports have made clear, the Bin Ladens did not leave the US until after the resumption of commercial flights. And a Boston Globe article of September 20, 2001 quotes a Saudi government official stating that the Bin Ladens chartered their own plane - hardly a "free" trip as Moore suggests.

Moore's penchant for conspiracy theories often leads him to stretch the facts or make laughable claims. Bashing the proposed Terrorist Information Awareness project, he writes that "There is usually very little in the way of an electronic or paper trail when it comes to terrorists. They lay low and pay cash. You and me, we leave trails everywhere - credit cards, cell phones, medical records, online; everything we do. Who is really being watched here?"(page 110, his italics) In Moore's fervor to indict the TIA system, he forgets about the credit cards used by the 9-11 hijackers, which were used to help retrace their steps.

Moore also repeats a well-debunked myth about Democratic presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark. According to Moore, "Clark has said that he received phone calls on Sept. 11 and in the weeks after from people at 'think tanks' and from people within the White House telling him to use his position as a pundit for CNN to 'connect' Sept. 11 to Saddam Hussein." (page 53) Moore cites a June 15, 2003 interview with Clark on NBC's "Meet the Press." Despite somewhat ambiguous phrasing in that interview, however, Clark, has subsequently been consistent in his claim that it was a member of a think tank who contacted him, not the White House, a fact buttressed by a recent report that identified the man who made the call. And Moore pluralizes the single call Clark refers to in the "Meet the Press" interview to "calls" - a claim Clark has never made.

In addition, Moore attacks the Patriot Act with an array of examples that have nothing to do with it. He introduces the list by writing that "To date, there are at least thirty-four documented cases of FBI abuse under the Patriot Act - and at least another 966 individuals have filed formal complaints. Many of these people were just minding their own business, or seeking to partake in our free society. Consider these examples." (page 111) Moore lists an anti-globalization activist who was questioned by "immigration officials" and a "State department agent"; a New York judge who asked a defendant if she was a terrorist; French journalists detained at the Los Angeles Airport; a local police officer in Vermont entering a teacher's classroom to photograph an anti-Bush art display; a college student questioned by Secret Service agents about "anti-American" material; and a Green Party activist questioned on his way to Prague. None of the incidents he lists, however, happened as a result of the Patriot Act, nor did any of them involve the FBI (the French journalists were detained for improper travel documents, and the Green Party activist was questioned by the Secret Service, as Moore's own sources note).

Bush's policies towards Iraq come in for particular criticism - and, in several cases, gross distortions. Moore writes that "There were claims that the French were only opposing war to get economic benefits out of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. In fact, it was the Americans who were making a killing. In 2001, the U.S. was Iraq's leading trading partner, consuming more than 40 percent of Iraq's oil exports. That's $6 billion in trade with the Iraqi dictator." (page 69) In reality, that "trade" was done under the auspices of the United Nations oil-for-food program, which allowed Iraq to sell a limited amount of oil to purchase humanitarian supplies. (For details on the program, see this report to Congress.) One can only imagine what Moore would have said if the U.S. refused to purchase Iraqi oil and allowed its citizens to starve.

At another point, Moore attacks Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement to the United Nations that "What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." According to Moore, "Just days earlier, Powell apparently was not so sure. During a gathering of CIA officials reviewing the evidence against Saddam Hussein, Powell tossed the papers in the air and declared: 'I'm not reading this. This is bullshit.'" (page 82) Moore makes it appear as though the speech Powell gave at the UN included the evidence he had called "bullshit." In fact, the US News & World Report article that Moore cites does note Powell's exclamation, but it details the process by which Powell winnowed out pieces of evidence he was uncomfortable presenting. The article concludes "And plenty was cut [from Powell's speech]. Sometimes it was because information wasn't credible, sometimes because Powell didn't want his speech to get too long, sometimes because [CIA Director George] Tenet insisted on protecting sources and methods."

Nor is Moore above twisting facts to attack the Bush administration's tax cuts. Moore criticizes the 2003 Bush tax cut for reducing revenue to the states. As one example, he writes, "Take the kids in Oregon, whose schools were shut down early this year because they ran out of tax money." (page 160) While Moore makes it appear as though the 2003 Bush tax cut shut down Oregon's schools, Oregon actually passed a law in May 2003 decoupling its state income tax system from the federal government's, insuring that the 2003 tax cut would have no impact on the state's budget. Moreover, as an article from the June 8 New York Times Magazine - one of Moore's own sources - notes, Oregon voters had rejected a referendum earlier in the year that would have raised taxes to pay for schools and other spending.

In a recent interview with Bookreporter.com, Moore was asked if he made a special effort to fact-check his new book. "All my work goes through a thorough fact-checking process," he said. "I hire three teams of people to go through the book and then two separate lawyers vet it. There is a reason that I have never been sued over anything in my three books -- that's because everything in them is true." Apparently, Moore needs to hire himself some new fact-checkers. Regardless of the supposed rigors of its vetting process, Dude, Where's My Country? cements Moore's reputation as one of our nation's sloppiest commentators.

[Note to readers: Be sure and check out the companion piece to this article, listing all the errors we found in Dude, Where's My Country?.]

Research assistance by Davis Bell and David Mishook.

[Email this to a friend]     [Subscribe to our email list]

Related links:
-Moore's myriad mistakes (Bryan Keefer, 10/16/03)
-Moore admits to altering "Bowling for Columbine" DVD (Brendan Nyhan, 9/23/03)
-Moore alters "Bowling" DVD in response to criticism (Brendan Nyhan, 9/2/03)
-A devotion to distortion [published in the Orange County Register] (Ben Fritz, 1/12/03)
-Forbes finds more falsehoods in Moore's "Bowling" (Ben Fritz, 11/25/02)
-Viewer beware (Ben Fritz column, 11/19/02)
-Dowd, Krugman and Moore make inflammatory accusations (Bryan Keefer, 6/26/02)
-Moore problems (Ben Fritz, 4/10/02)
-One Moore stupid white man (Ben Fritz column, 4/3/02)
-Stupid white lies (Ben Fritz, 3/25/02)
-The Taliban aid trope re-emerges (Brendan Nyhan, 9/17/01)

Home | Columns | Posts | Topics | Email list | About | Search

This website is copyright (c) 2001-2003 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan. Please send letters to the editor for publication to letters@spinsanity.org and private questions or comments to feedback@spinsanity.org.
The nation's leading watchdog of manipulative political rhetoric.

  

 


2 posted on 10/16/2003 11:32:49 AM PDT by Damocles (sword of...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
Michael More food bump.


3 posted on 10/16/2003 11:33:16 AM PDT by GulliverSwift (It's time to recall W spokesman Scott McClellan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
Anti-Micheal Moore film in the works.


4 posted on 10/16/2003 11:34:32 AM PDT by Joe Brower ("If you need a lawyer to tell you what your rights are, you don't have any rights.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
Michael Moore? Intellectual? Honesty?

A headline with all three of these together ought to self-destruct like shaken nitro-glycerine.

5 posted on 10/16/2003 11:35:55 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (France delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
The analogy here is Arafat's swords-into-plowshares lies while speaking English versus his expression of his true Israeli-directed hatreds when speaking Arabic to Palestinians.

Likewise, Moore is willing to appear compliant to criticism, fixing a few token errors, cutting himself sufficient slack to be able to up his onslaught against the Right in the eyes and ears of his own, union-oriented, socialist Left constituency, who would never read critiques of Moore anyway.

HF

6 posted on 10/16/2003 11:40:00 AM PDT by holden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
I have never been sued over anything in my three books -- that's because everything in them is true."

The audacity of this man in unbelievable.....

7 posted on 10/16/2003 11:40:45 AM PDT by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Y'know, the liberals do the same thing to Ann Coulter's books.

I haven't read Moore's books so I can't comment on them, but I have seen a couple of his films. My son and I had some good conversations about them and about documentaries in general. The kid convinced me that it's just not possible to make any documentary that's totally fair and balanced. Some come closer than others, but all of them involve director's decisions about what's more important to include and what's going to end on the cutting room floor. Actually, if the directors included everything, you'd die of boredom watching!

I dare anyone to name one documentary that doesn't have its point of view and come with a journalistic bias of one kind or another. I think pretty much the same goes for books. The author presents the facts that support his case and glosses over or just leaves out facts that don't.

I guess that's why it's a good idea to read widely.

8 posted on 10/16/2003 11:50:03 AM PDT by SmokyGeo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
I saw this festering boil on The Daily Show last night... I think it was a rerun. Disgusting!
9 posted on 10/16/2003 11:51:59 AM PDT by Constitution Day (Vitiositas Aliquantulus Classis™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmokyGeo
You have a point, but I hope you don't go too far with it. I know people who aren't too willing to say that the Allies landed at Normandy on D-Day. You weren't there, so how do you know? The only thing you can go by is news accounts, and we all know they make mistakes, so maybe we didn't do anything on D-Day after all.

It's a popular thing they teach in college nowadays (not the D-Day thing -- the "how can you really know anything" thing).

Ann Coulter's books are heavily researched and footnoted. When she says something, its verifiable. When michael Moore says something, he is expressing a viewpoint which is (as he says) as much designed for "comedy" as it is for truth.

So, yes, we cannot escape the author's point of view, but some people try hard to have a view that reflects the truth, and others just want to convince people of their viewpoint.

10 posted on 10/16/2003 12:14:57 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (France delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SmokyGeo
The problem being...Moore doesn't make documentaries.
11 posted on 10/16/2003 12:24:10 PM PDT by Deb (My Tag Skies to Gotham & Con-Fabs With Net Prexies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
He makes a million bitching about GM closing some plants then bitches because the US companies make millions dealing with Iraq. If US companies DO make money selling to Iraq and keep jobs here in the country he should be happy. I've also wondered why he's never bitched about Clinton's NAFTA.
12 posted on 10/16/2003 12:30:25 PM PDT by Terry Mross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
O.K... The authors first mistake was putting the Word intellectual in the same sentence as Michael Moore.


Cheeseburger, I coud see...Intellectual...no...
13 posted on 10/16/2003 12:38:34 PM PDT by hobbes1 ( Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
O go into the video rental store and I see "bowling for Comlumbine" they of course guaranteed that it would be in stock.

No problem, I see probably close to 40 copies in whenever I go in there. I will never rent it, I will not voluntarily help that man in any way shape or form. And it looks like no one else is interested in watching the piece of garbage either.

He is scum of the earth, and this article convinces me that even more then I already had been.
14 posted on 10/16/2003 12:43:05 PM PDT by Ogmios (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tioga
"I have never been sued over anything in my three books -- that's because everything in them is true."

Non sequitur. (Not that logic is Mr. Moore's strong suit.) Permit me to suggest, instead, that the dearth of lawsuits against Mr. Moore for his ... publishing efforts? ... is due to the fact that his book overwhelmingly consists of opinion, not fact, and that those tarred by his misrepresentations are exclusively about important public issues and very public figures. Under the law, public figures who sue for defamation on a matter of public interest must prove not only falsity but also Actual Malice, a subjective mental state in which the defendant, at the time of publishing, either (a) knew the matter to be false or (b) entertained serious doubts as to whether the matter was true. Proving actual malice is extremely difficult absent some sort of "smoking gun" statement from the author ("Sure I knew it was flimsy, but to heck with it, I"m publishing it anyway").

15 posted on 10/16/2003 12:47:34 PM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
I've also wondered why he's never bitched about Clinton's NAFTA.

I wouldn't go down that road too far. NAFTA pre-dates Clinton. Unfortunately, both Bush's support it. I think it's a travesty.

16 posted on 10/16/2003 12:58:56 PM PDT by Egon (Safety Tip: You can get AIDS by sitting at a public toilet before the previous person vacates!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Egon
NAFTA pre-dates Clinton.

I should correct myself before a myriad of other people do: The actual signing of the agreement was during Clinton's reign, but the impetus for it predates his presidency. It was pushed heavily by Perot, if I remember correctly, during the election that saddled us with Clinton.

17 posted on 10/16/2003 1:04:42 PM PDT by Egon (Safety Tip: You can get AIDS by sitting at a public toilet before the previous person vacates!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Rose in RoseBear
ping...
18 posted on 10/16/2003 2:11:23 PM PDT by Bear_in_RoseBear (Archivist to the Hobbit Hole)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bear_in_RoseBear
Here's a link to the anti-Michael Moore documentary that is in the works...due to be released next summer

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/video/mmhaTRL_wm_sm.wmv
19 posted on 10/16/2003 2:15:59 PM PDT by IGOTMINE (He needed killin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Ann Coulter's books are heavily researched and footnoted. When she says something, its verifiable. When michael Moore says something, he is expressing a viewpoint ....

Actually, there are plenty of sources that Ann doesn't quote because they don't support her point of view. The ones she quotes are verifiable, but you don't have any way of knowing from her bibliography or her notes what is out there that disproves her points.

20 posted on 10/16/2003 5:33:37 PM PDT by SmokyGeo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SmokyGeo; Phantom Lord; ClearCase_guy; Deb

21 posted on 10/21/2003 2:06:27 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Check out the Texas Chicken D 'RATS!: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/keyword/Redistricting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson