More Moore Lies

Even Pete Townsend (of the Who) outs Moore for lying about some of "the
facts" around his movie and the use of one of Pete's songs.

Moore's story:
Neil Young's "Rockin' in the Free World" (M.Moore interview)
At the end of the film Bush says "Fool me once, shame on… me. I won't
get fooled again." Clearly that moment demands that we hear Roger
Daltrey scream, "Won't get fooled again!" That's how I had it cut. Pete
Townsend blocked it, would not allow the song to be used. Word came to
us that he is not a fan of Michael Moore's and in fact supports the war
and supports Tony Blair and doesn't want the song used in any way that
would make Blair look bad. Harvey personally made an appeal to him to
reconsider. And he wouldn't. At that point, we're about a week away from
going to Cannes. So, I remembered while I was driving in Michigan
"Rockin' in the Free World" came on the radio and I thought this would
be a cool song to have in the movie. So we said, "Let's see how this
works," and it worked perfectly. Called up Neil Young and he said,
"Whatever you need. Absolutely. It's yours." Once we started playing it
in the movie, we quickly forgot about The Who. In fact, after Cannes, we
got a call from their manager who said they might be willing to
reconsider. And I said, "No, uh uh. That's bad karma. This is Neil
Young's moment." People leave the theaters, that's what I want them
hearing. In fact I don't want them hearing a song that has the line,
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Because the new boss I
sincerely hope won't be the same as the old boss. I don't want that
song. It gave me a chance to have a line at the end too, cause you can't
go right into "Rockin' in the Free World." So I get to say "For once I
agree with Bush…we won't get fooled again."

Pete tells what really happened:
http://www.petetownshend.co.uk/diary/display.cfm?id=89&zone=diary

 

Who really cares about this? Have you seen the movie? Of course you
haven't. You don't know anything about what's in it and wouldn't know
if something was accurate or not.

If "Pete" supports the war and supports Tony Blair, then *he* can get
his lazy half witted self over there and start fighting. Until then,
it's our troops and our people who are sustaining the war and
sustaining the casualties in the volumes we are.

Whatever happened to if you say something as fact, it better be true.
Now we have Bush and Blair saying "well, I said it but didn't know if
it was true or not...and oh well, what's the big deal anyway?".

And for what it's worth, The Who plays crappy music anyway!

 

I read the entire piece. It didn't change what I heard in the news and
what I already knew. He still has dated songs that are my opinion
crappy songs. I try and imagine the movie with The Who to end it and
it would be crap. The Neil Young song was a much better choice. This
war isn't an "on again, off again" kind of opinion one can have. You
can't say "I supported it at first until I realized what it was about
and now we just need to leave". It doesn't work that way. If you
support something like a war, you better support it through it's
entirety. There's too many people who have been (mostly Americans)
injured and killed based on that support. There's been too many who've
had their lives affected. If he supported the war in the beginning
based on lies, then he can support the war based on the truth...even
though he doesn't like the truth.

The reason I use the "have you seen it yet" card is because it's easy
to do with Mark. He's one of the few I've seen that's self imposed
ignorant. He chooses to know what others will tell him he's allowed to
know...and nothing more. He bashed Bowling for Columbine even though
many of the views expressed would possibly match his, but because he
chooses to not see it he doesn't know that. He believes it's a
"anti-gun" movie...which it's not. Instead, he recommended movies to
me trying to be able to play the "have you seen it yet" card back at
me. I chose to watch each movie he recommended and even have copies of
some added to my collection. He now tries to bash this new movie with
nothing more than what you see here. If the movie is so inaccurate,
let's hear it. I haven't heard a single person argue the movie's
factual base...but rather it's "he cut what I said out, even though I
said something that had nothing to do with the interview/question".

 

Good point about them not having the fortitude to click on a link. So
here's the quote from the link:

Pete's Diaries
7 July 2004
Fahrenheit Moore or Less

Back to Diary Dates


Michael Moore has been making some claims – mentioning me by name -
which I believe distort the truth.

He says – among other things – that I refused to allow him to use my
song WON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN in his latest film, because I support the
war, and that at the last minute I recanted, but he turned me down. I
have never hidden the fact that at the beginning of the war in Iraq I
was a supporter. But now, like millions of others, I am less sure we did
the right thing.

When first approached I knew nothing about the content of his film
FAHRENHEIT 911. My publisher informed me they had already refused the
use of my song in principle because MIRAMAX the producers offered well
below what the song normally commands for use in a movie. They asked me
if I wanted to ask for more money, I told them no.

Nevertheless, as a result of my refusal to consider the use, Harvey
Weinstein – a good friend of mine, and my manager Bill Curbishley –
interceded personally, explained in more detail to Bill what the movie
was about, and offered to raise the bid very substantially indeed. This
brought the issue directly to me for the first time. Bill emailed me and
told me how keen Harvey and Michael Moore were to use my song.

At this point I emailed Bill (and he may have passed the essence of what
I said to Harvey Weinstein) that I had not really been convinced by
BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, and had been worried about its accuracy; it felt
to me like a bullying film. Out of courtesy to Harvey I suggested that
if he and Moore were determined to have me reconsider, I should at least
get a chance to see a copy of the new film. I knew that with Cannes on
the horizon, time was running short for them, and this might not be
possible. I never received a copy of the film to view. At no time did I
ask Moore or Miramax to reconsider anything. Once I had an idea what the
film was about I was 90% certain my song was not right for them.

I believe that in the same email to my publisher and manager that
contained this request to see the film I pointed out that WGFA is not an
unconditionally anti-war song, or a song for or against revolution. It
actually questions the heart of democracy: we vote heartily for leaders
who we subsequently always seem to find wanting. (WGFA is a song sung by
a fictional character from my 1971 script called LIFEHOUSE. The
character is someone who is frightened by the slick way in which truth
can be twisted by clever politicians and revolutionaries alike). I
suggested in the email that they might use something by Neil Young, who
I knew had written several songs of a more precise political nature, and
is as accessible as I am. Moore himself takes credit for this idea, and
I have no idea whether my suggestion reached him, but it was the right
thing to do.

I have nothing against Michael Moore personally, and I know Roger
Daltrey is a friend and fan of his, but I greatly resent being bullied
and slurred by him in interviews just because he didn’t get what he
wanted from me. It seems to me that this aspect of his nature is not
unlike that of the powerful and wilful man at the centre of his new
documentary. I wish him all the best with the movie, which I know is
popular, and which I still haven’t seen. But he’ll have to work very,
very hard to convince me that a man with a camera is going to change the
world more effectively than a man with a guitar.

Pete

 

And we ALL know the "evening news" is factual!

What a joke!

 

Isn't this the same Pete that's up on charges in the country where he
is a citizen?

Isn't it funny that you need to rely on people from OTHER countries to
back up your reasoning to keep an administration that's broken more
laws than any other in the history of this country?

At least the voting public is apparently not listening to your kind of
tripe anymore. Cary continues to widen his lead in the polls and Bush
is now so busy trying to keep the 'Republican Faithful' from jumping
ship that he's not paying attention to swing voters.


--
gburnore@databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com
===========================================================================

 

Pete tells what really happened:
[quote snipped by those who hated to see it]

I'm not depending on him for anything. I simply pointed to it as one
more time where Moore was caught in a lie.

Geeze. you people who fall for the misinformation that there are only 2
parties.

http://www.badnarik.org/

 

"Cary" ???

another fully informed voter... <sigh>

 

Yep. But it's this whole "he's a good politician" mindset that's gotten
us into the mess we've been in since Ike!

 

Speaking of "fortitude", little girl...have you seen the movie yet?

 

He (whoever it might've been that you were responding to since you cut
out who it was and Google doesn't show it) might've done it just to
annoy you...or maybe to save space on the server. I know how some
people get about saving their "bandwidth" on long postings.

Really? From what I've read, on both sides of the issue, Moore and
Townshend never really communicated but instead relied on their
spokepeople to negotiate. Who's to say that Townshend is telling the
truth in this? He already said he doesn't "like" Moore and considers
him a "bully"...then turned around crying about being "slurred".

At best, there ARE only 2 parties. Do you have a credible candidate
who can get more votes than the other two candidates...and after being
elected do more than what we saw in Minnesota with Ventura?

Mark, you're self inflicted with ignorance. You bash those who might
share your ideas (at least the one's you express here) and butter up
to the one's who do you the most harm. You follow anyone who you might
perceive to be the "acceptable" crowd. I hope you are either riding or
sitting in your clandestine lodge on election day. Please let the
educated of this country choose for you!

 

All this "noise" and no one can single out what "lies" Michael Moore
has told with this latest 'revelation'. I can't see where Townshend's
version is any more "honest". Neither of them had anything to do with
the other's events affecting the other one. Sorta sounds to me like
what happens when you buy a car in a dealer and the salesman runs back
and forth between you and the "manager".

And I still don't see anyone giving precise details of where there are
any "lies" in the movie.

What does Kerry have to do with Moore? What does "charges" have to do
with whether or not Moore told a "lie"?

It seems to me, no one can stay on track to come close to proving a
point.

Am I wrong with this or am I hitting close to par?

 

Hang on there, Trash... Everyone noticed how quiet you and the rest of your
old trashy counterparts in that area got, while the Walkers were in Houston,
a while back... LMAO... Sent any more of those e-mails to anyone ??

 

Sorry guy, I know I try to stay out of politics on here.....try, try,
try....but I couldn't resist.

Here is just one link out of a BUNCH of web sites that show the
hypocrisy and deceit of the Moore film. I have seen several sites and
this one is fairly comprehensive. What i like about it more than the
others, though, is that this was done by a guy who is a Democrat
(though I am not sure if he's a leftist or not) and it's fairly
objective. He even includes links back to Moore's responses - which
in most cases is either no response or a response that is based purely
on semantics. As we all know, we can technically be accurate based on
semantics but the true point is still there.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

I've seen the movie(s), and I've seen the sites. The overwhelming
consensus by even the most left-wing people is that the film is a
complete falsehood. That's not to say it doesn't have artistic merit,
but the problem is that Moore is a liar because he presents it as
truth. I guess it's not his fault that people are buying it hook,
line, and sinker......but it is his fault, and his hypocrisy that he
knowingly and willfully misrepresents people, speeches, situations and
facts to push his viewpoint across to the people in an effort to
influence them. Isn't that exactly what he accuses politicians of
doing?

I think the only real connection here is that Kerry and Moore are both
against Bush.

Sorry man, you are wrong. As said above, even the leftist agree the
movie is a crock of shit. I certainly think that you, along with a
lot of other people, are intelligent enough to form political opinions
based on factual or at least fairly factual events (can we ever
believe anything we see?). This is one time I hope that your
political beliefs don't blind you to what is clearly a falsehood and
misrepresentation of facts. Again, don't ask me....ask the democrat,
leftists who say the same thing.


--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

That's about what I thought.

Attacking me won't change the fact that what I said was correct. You
can't dispute the facts, so you resort to personal attacks.

 

I've read the site...at least up to this part:
"the information presented is so extremely one-sided (the only Iraqi
casualties are innocents, nobody in Iraq is grateful for liberation,
all the American soldiers are disillusioned, except for the sadists)
that the overall picture of the Iraq War is false."

I'm not reading with any political thought process going. That very
sentence is very incorrect. The film never said the "only Iraqi
casualties are innocents". Many however are. They didn't bomb and kill
soldiers of Iraq's army, but rather civilians...calling them
"collateral damage".

The film never said "nobody in Iraq is grateful for liberation". I'm
sure, as I'm sure even Moore is, someone in Iraq is grateful...but
nobody and many are two different things.

The film never said "all American soldiers are disillusioned". As a
matter of fact, the film was very supportive of the soldiers but was
pointing out how they'd been deceived going in. Even the Senate
agrees.

Did you want me to point out any of the other lies in the website? You
saw the film, did you get this from it?

I believe you might be looking at the film via political eye glasses.

I believe Moore should seriously consider showing "Uncovered: The
whole truth of the Iraq War" at the tail end of his movie. Much of
what's in Moore's movie is in the other. There's a 4 minute segment
where many interviews and speeches were given detailing weapons of
mass destruction. Then the film points out where the many problems
were with the logic. Like even I said many times, had Iraq still
possessed chemical weapons, they wouldn't be considered such. Those
weapons which were said to have been in that country and ready to be
used have a shelf life and that life had far expired. As Scott Ridder
said "when Powell held up the vile at the UN, he might as well have
been holding a bottle of cola...because that's what it would've been
like".

<<<Continued>>>

I just read a little more of the website's bullcrap. This one just
pisses me off:
Fahrenheit asserts that Saddam's Iraq was a nation that "had never
attacked the United States. A nation that had never threatened to
attack the United States. A nation that had never murdered a single
American citizen."

Jake Tapper (ABC News): You declare in the film that Hussein's regime
had never killed an American …

Moore: That isn't what I said. Quote the movie directly.

Tapper: What is the quote exactly?

Moore: "Murdered." The government of Iraq did not commit a
premeditated murder on an American citizen. I'd like you to point out
one.

Tapper: If the government of Iraq permitted a terrorist named Abu
Nidal who is certainly responsible for killing Americans to have Iraq
as a safe haven; if Saddam Hussein funded suicide bombers in Israel
who did kill Americans; if the Iraqi police—now this is not a murder
but it's a plan to murder—to assassinate President Bush which at the
time merited airstrikes from President Clinton once that plot was
discovered; does that not belie your claim that the Iraqi government
never murdered an American or never had a hand in murdering an
American?

Moore: No, because nothing you just said is proof that the Iraqi
government ever murdered an American citizen. And I am still waiting
for you to present that proof.

You're talking about, they provide safe haven for Abu Nidal after the
committed these murders, uh, Iraq helps or supports suicide bombers in
Israel. I mean the support, you remember the telethon that the Saudis
were having? It's our allies, the Saudis, that have been providing
help and aid to the suicide bombers in Israel. That's the story you
should be covering. Why don't you cover that story? Why don't you
cover it?
<end>

What pisses me off about that is that our government supported and
financed those hijackers of September 11th. By this numb-nuts'
viewpoint, our government murdered 4,000 of our own citizens in New
York and DC. Using the plot to kill Bush as an example? What about the
many plots our government has sought to kill other leaders in other
countries?

I'm done with that page. Perhaps that author should go back and
rethink his steps a bit. He's played on semantics, theories, accusing
Clinton, Nixon and even a part in there about saying how it's Moore's
fault that we have a world like we do. I'll bet he's a delight talking
about who killed Kennedy, or even Roswell.

 

Please provide proof of this. Considering that the overwhelming
opinion of the people who have actually seen the film is that it is
accurate.

The link you posted has no credibility. Far from being a unbiased
analysis of the movie and the facts contained therein, the link
contains mostly a rambling set of rants having nothing to do with the
movie.

For example "The false announcements that the polls were closed, as
well as the premature calls (the Presidential race ten minutes early;
the Senate race an hour early), may have cost Bush thousands of votes
from the conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters
heard that their state had already been decided; some last-minute
voters on their way to the polling place turned around and went home.
Other voters who were waiting in line left the polling place. In
Florida, as elsewhere, voters who have arrived at the polling place
before closing time often end up voting after closing time, because of
long lines. The conventional wisdom of politics is that supporters of
the losing candidate are most likely to give up on voting when they
hear that their side has already lost. Thus, on election night 1980,
when incumbent President Jimmy Carter gave a concession speech while
polls were still open on the west coast, the early concession was
blamed for costing the Democrats several Congressional seats in the
West, such as that of 20-year incumbent James Corman. The fact that
all the networks had declared Reagan a landslide winner while west
coast voting was still in progress was also blamed for Democratic
losses in the West; Congress even held hearings about prohibiting the
disclosure of exit polls before voting had ended in the any of the 48
contiguous states. "

And more rants "Democrats controlled the Senate, and stalled the
confirmation of some of the judges whom Bush had nominated for the
federal courts"

May be true, may be false, but has nothing to do with the movie. By
displaying a serious bias, the link does what it accuses Michael Moore
of. If the point was to discredit the movie, the link fails.

But what of the "facts" claimed in the movie. As far as the "facts"
claimed in the link. The "facts" were no better than its political
views.

Deceipt 3 tries to disprove the movie by putting inaccurate or at
least incomplete information up. I have read the reports of those who
did the only count of the ballot, and Gore would have won Florida had
the Supreme Court allowed the ballots to be counted. This information
has been posted numerous times in the newsgroups.

Deceipt 4 tries to disprove Michael Moore claims of deliberate voter
fraud by claiming other inaccuracies in the vote. May be true, may be
false, but has nothing to do with Moore's claims.

Deceipt 5 tries to disprove Michael Moore's claims by quoting
someone's opinion.

Deceipt 6,7 tries to disprove Michael Moore's reporting of the Post
report that Bush spent 42% of his first 54 days vacation by stating
that Michael Moore didn't state that Bush's vacations included
weekends. In other words, Michael Moore is lying because he is telling
the truth.

Deceits 8-10 claims that Michael Moore is lying because he didn't
provide evidence for the claim that Bush did not read the terrorist
briefing. The fact that testimony of White House staff have claimed
that Bush did not read the briefing not withstanding, the link does
not provide evidence its claim. This comes out to "Moore is lying
because he didn't prove that it was the truth, even though we now know
it is". And this from the people who tell us that Bush didn't lie
about 9/11 and Iraq.

Deceits 11-15 is another one of Michael Moore told the truth, but lets
call him a liar anyways. To quote " If you listen only to what Moore
says during this segment of the movie—and take careful notes in the
dark—you'll find he's got his facts right."

The link then goes on to claim that the Saudi's didn't get special
treatment by being allowed out of the country on the 13th when other
planes were allowed to fly. Of course, the link does not mention that
the other planes were all empty, the only private flight allowed to
fly were the Saudi's flight, the Saudi's were allowed to fly because
of special permission given by the White House, and we now know that
the Saudi flights started on the 12th, 24 hours BEFORE any other
flight was allowed. If you read the House of Bush, house of Saud, you
will find out that three of the people on the flight on the 13th were
later implicated with foreknowledge of 9/11. The link also says that
since 30 of the 142 on the flight were questioned by the FBI (they had
their passports checked), there was no reason to hold them.

We let siblings of the person who masterminded 9/11 and people who
were known financial supporters of Bin Laden out of the country on
9/13 after the flight received special permission from the White House
and the GOPs want us to believe that this is OK.



The whole link is full of that kind of thing. If there are
inaccuracies in the 9/11 movie, whether deliberate or accidental, the
biased, partisan attack does not prove it. Perhaps, if the posted had
focused on a couple of items which were real lies and for which
evidence existed, it would be different. But a clearly biased attack,
piling inaccuracies upon lies, does not prove anything. It isn't even
a good try. About the only people who will be convinced by this is a
bunch of hardline GOP fanatics who ingore news sources and get all
their information from Limbaugh or Fox and have already made up their
minds. Perhaps this is the GOP's way of motivating their base.

 

I also checked out the links that the link uses to "prove" its case.
For example,

"Fahrenheit shows Condoleezza Rice saying, "Oh, indeed there is a tie
between Iraq and what happened on 9/11." The audience laughs
derisively. Here is what Rice really said on the CBS Early Show, Nov.
28, 2003"" has a link, but not to CBS Early Show, but to a right-wing
opinion piece with this subtitle "Tracking Liberal Media Bias Since
1996". And other links "proving" its case is an opinion piece in the
right wing National Review. And another to an opinion piece by
Christopher Hitchens. And another to some random person's blog. I
think that you get the idea.

 

Michael Moore presents his information and lets the viewer decide.
Granted he is leading you in a direction, but he is posting accurate
information that he shows you with documents and videos. He also
posted supporting evidence on his web page. For further evidence, one
can read the House of Bush/House of Saud which goes into more detail
about some of Michael Moore's claims and which provides even more
evidence. Or you can read the 9/11 commission's report, the House of
Representatives report of Bush Administration lies regarding 9/11 or
search through the web site of any of hundreds of newspapers and other
news services.

Posting an opinion which uses as evidence the opinions of others
doesn't prove anything. It only serves to discredit the post. This is
especially true when the post goes off on tangents, ranting about this
thing or that. The opinion in the link was not a factual rebutal of
the movie, but part of a right-wing smear campaign against anyone who
disagrees with their point of view. The same attack launched against
the weapon inspectors, Richard Clarke, Whoopie Goldberg, etc.

Now for my opinion: When one political party decides that its main
purpose is the corruption of democracy and launches an attack on the
constitution then that political party is a threat to the very
existance of America. Bin laden wants to kill Americans. The GOP wants
to actually destroy the idea of America. Of the two, I find the GOP a
lot scarier.

 

Those aren't lies - the implication is exactly what is printed in the
above paragraph. Certainly you don't deny that, do you? The film
never makes any effort what so ever to show Iraqi "freedom fighters"
attacking innocent people, it never shows anyone that is grateful for
liberation (which we know exists) and it presents the soldier's as
only being deceived (your words, your belief, not mine).

It does not show the "other side" of the story. So the above
paragraph you quoted is not a lie.

--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!