OT .. Fahrenheit 911

Bill Walker · Jul 5, 2004

another viewer said:

You and Brain struggle to find things when finding them doesn't help
your arguments.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.. not much struggle necessary to expose a phony..

Then you get the rest wrong or choose to ignore it by

posting threats and insults in order to obfuscate.
Click to expand...

Surprise.. surprise.. some of us take offense when we are insulted by
disgusting trash..

You are definitely

borderline psychotic in your dealings with people with whom you disagree
and you lose self control easily.
Click to expand...

Your diagnostic credentials are not supported by the institution .. Matter
of fact.. they deny any affiliation with you in any capacity.. (perhaps your
credentials are "mail order" variety.. huh?)

Your antics at the state Dem

convention only prove that.
Click to expand...

Interesting.. and which "antics" are you specifically referring to ?

Others here have had no problem finding the referenced information
posted by me nor do they have the history of posting gross errors like
mistaking BeemerBikers web site for one of mine, hurling insults and
then not owning up to the blatant error when it is pointed out.
Click to expand...

Talking "obfuscation".. hmmm.. good example of that .. right here in this
response by you.. Sheesh.. when all else fails.. "change the subject" and
distract..

In fact, just to shove it in your face, I not only manage a research
foundation in conjunction with the Baylor College of Medicine, I also
have a pretty good history of making hit records and film soundtracks.
Chew on that for a while.
Click to expand...

First you do and then you don't.. then you do again.. Please make up your
mind.. OK.. Baylor University has no record of any affiliation with you.. in
any capacity.. Not even as "alumni".. Which "hit" records have you made ?
Hell.. I might even go out a buy a few of them..NOT.. Damn.. bubba.. you got
some kind of "imagination".. Biker.. Iron Butt Record Holder..
Psychiatrist... Psychologist... Clinical Researcher at Baylor University..
Producer of Hit Records..

Is there no limit to your talents ?

This has nothing to do with the Moore 9/11 film thread, so carry on if
you want to rant. You're boring and not worth any more of my time today.
Click to expand...

Of course... to be expected.. I'm sure there is conference calls with Baylor
and the staff of the "hit making" record companies.. LMAO.. Not to mention,
the Iron Butt record that you must dream up, today.. Then too.. the very
fact that you attending the four day Convention and lost all that valuable
time, tracking my "antics" there, I don't understand how in the world, you
ever manage ..

BTW.. your "killfile" doesn't seem to be working well.. Maybe you should get
back with Texdays and Albert Nurick .. Texdays can install a ten gallon gas
tank on it and Albert Nurick might have invented another version..Sorry..
John Moran.. you really need to take a little break for yourself.. Have a
good day..

Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.

Bill Walker · Jul 5, 2004

Albert Nurick said:

I wonder how many years it will take before one of 'em realizes that the
only people supporting their silly arguments are each other.
Click to expand...

Bill Walker · Jul 5, 2004

JNICHOLS said:

By Dave Kopel
[This is a preliminary version of an article that will be published on
National Review Online.

This report was first posted on the web on the morning of July 1. Since
then, I've revised
several sections in response to reader requests for clarifications, and have
added additional
deceits which have been pointed out by readers or journalists. Astute
readers will observe
that the number of identified deceits now exceeds 56. I have not retitled
the report or re-
numbered the original 56 deceits. The final version will update the deceit
count.]
There are many articles which have pointed out the distortions, falsehoods,
and lies in the film Fahrenheit 911. This report compiles the Fahrenheit 911
deceits which have been identified by a wide variety of reviewers. In
addition, I identify some inaccuracies which have not been addressed by
other writers.
The report follows the approximate order in which the movie covers
particular topics: the Bush family, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
This report focuses solely on factual issues, and not on aesthetic criticism
of the film.
To understand the deceptions, it helps to understand Moore's ideological
position. So let us start with Moore's belief that the September 11 attacks
on the United States were insignificant.
Click to expand...

Isn't it amazing how extensive the effort to discredit this film has become
? This report and critique of the film have a common thread.. As these
events unfolded before our eyes during times they actually took place, we
heard the excuses and explanations to dissuade any criticizm of George
W.Bush.. Hmmmm.. Seems like it has been necessary to make those excuses from
the time the man actually took office in 2001..

One man.. Michael Moore.. not some vast investigative task force with
resources without parallel, assembled the clips and research for this
movie.. Now .. we have journalists and pundits coming from all over the
place to dispute and refute what transpired before our eyes.. If those same
journalists and pundits have been doing their jobs and reporting news,
rather than creating "stories", we might not have all these questions..

Interesting also is, when the plot becomes sticky, they all resort to
attacking the character of Moore, himself.. Most of what is depicted in this
film is not some far fetched fairy tale.. but actual events as they were
filmed and which we all witnessed as they occurred.. Noticeably also is the
absense of any of the footage which Moore filmed of the mother who lost her
son.. The treatment of the woman when she visited the White House.. has not
been addressed..

Each one of us have opinions.. Even the journalists and pundits.. What is
recorded in this report is opinions of many of them.. It seems to be crucial
for them to convince as many as possible.. Not to see the Film.. Why is that
? I'd recommend that everyone see the film and make their own judgements..
Few of the Bush supporters would be swayed, if any.. For the few who were
not witnesses to the actual events as they occured, might understand that
there are legitimate questions being asked about responsibility and causes..
What is wrong with that ? Or .. could it be that our government and the
administration running it, cannot defend their actions, and can only resort
to excuses for them..?? Go see the freaking film and draw your own
conclusions.. Don't allow a group of corrupt politicians and the journalists
and pundits covering their own incompetent asses, devise the conclusions for
you..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

Edward Koch, the former Democratic Mayor of New York City, writes:
A year after 9/11, I was part of a panel discussion on BBC-TV's "Question
Time" show which aired live in the United Kingdom. A portion of my
commentary at that time follows:

"One of the panelists was Michael Moore.During the warm-up before the studio
audience, Moore said something along the lines of "I don't know why we are
making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you
will be struck by lightening than die from an act of terror.".I mention this
exchange because it was not televised, occurring as it did before the show
went live. It shows where he was coming from long before he produced
"Fahrenheit 9/11."

Edward Koch, "Moore's propaganda film cheapens debate, polarizes nation,"
World Tribune, June 28, 2004. By the way, I don't disagree with the point
that it is reasonable to consider the number of deaths from any particular
problem, including terrorism, in assessing how serious the problem is.
Moore's point, however, was willfully oblivious to the fact that al Qaeda
did not intend 9/11 to be the last word; the organization was working on
additional attacks, and if the organization obtained the right weapons,
millions of people might be killed. More fundamentally, even if Moore's
argument in London is conceded to be legitimate, it contradicts Fahrenheit
911's presentation of Moore as intensely concerned about the September 11
attacks.
As we go through the long list of lies and tricks in Fahrenheit 911, keep in
mind that Michael Moore has assembled a "war room" of political operatives
and lawyers in order to respond to criticism of Fahrenheit 911 and to file
defamation suits. (Jack Shafer, "Libel Suit 9/11. Michael Moore's
hysterical, empty threats," Slate.com, June 12, 2004.) One of Moore's "war
room" officials is Chris Lehane; Lehane, as an employee of Democratic
presidential candidate Wesley Clark (who was also supported by Moore),
apparently spread rumors to the press about John Kerry's alleged
extra-marital affair.
Of course if there are any genuine errors in this report, the errors will be
promptly corrected. Conversely, because Moore has a paid expert staff which
is monitoring criticism of the movie, it is reasonable to assume that-unless
I have specifically retracted some item in this report-Moore and his staff
have not offered a persuasive rebuttal.
In this report, I number Moore's deceits. Some of them are outright lies;
some are omissions which create a false impression. Others involve different
forms of deception. A few are false statements Moore has made when defending
the film.
2000 Election Night

Deceits 1-2
Fahrenheit 911 begins on election night 2000. We are first shown the Al Gore
rocking on stage with famous musicians and a high-spirited crowd. The
conspicuous sign on stage reads "Florida Victory." Moore creates the
impression that Gore was celebrating his victory in Florida.
Actually, the rally took place in the early hours of election day, before
polls had even opened. Gore did campaign in Florida on election day, but
went home to Tennessee to await the results. The "Florida Victory" sign
reflected Gore's hopes, not any actual election results. ("Gore Campaigns
Into Election Day," Associated Press, Nov. 7, 2000.)
The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. According to the
narrator, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in
favor of the other guy..All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if
Fox said it, it must be true.'"
We then see NBC anchor Tom Brokaw stating, "All of us networks made a
mistake and projected Florida in the Al Gore column. It was our mistake."
Moore thus creates the false impression that the networks withdrew their
claim about Gore winning Florida when they heard that Fox said that Bush won
Florida.
In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in the
evening-before polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle, which is part
of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 p.m.,
Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida
panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52
p.m., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never lets the audience know that
Fox was among the networks which made the error of calling Florida for Gore
prematurely. Then at 8:02 p.m., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had
waited until the Florida polls were closed.
The premature calls probably cost Bush thousands of votes from the
conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that their
state had already been decided, and many 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 widely blamed
for costing the Democrats several Congressional seats in the West. 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.) Even if the premature television calls affected all potential
voters equally, the effect was to reduce Republican votes significantly,
because the Florida panhandle is a Republican stronghold; depress overall
turnout in the panhandle, and you will necessarily depress more Republican
than Democratic votes.
At 10:00 p.m., which network took the lead in retracting the premature
Florida result? The first retracting network was CBS, not Fox.
Over four hours later, at 2:16 a.m., Fox projected Bush as the Florida
winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 a.m.
CBS had taken the lead in making the erroneous call for Gore, and had taken
the lead in retracting that call. At 3:59 a.m., CBS also took the lead in
retracting the Florida call for Bush. All the other networks, including Fox,
followed the CBS lead within eight minutes. That the networks arrived at
similar conclusions within a short period of time is not surprising, since
they were all using the same data from the Voter News Service. (Linda Mason,
Kathleen Francovic & Kathleen Hall Jamieson, "CBS News Coverage of Election
Night 2000: Investigation, Analysis, Recommendations" (CBS News, Jan. 2001),
pp. 12-25.)
Moore's editing technique of the election night segment is typical of his
style: all the video clips are real clips, and nothing he says is, formally
speaking, false. But notice how he says, "Then something called the Fox News
Channel called the election in favor of the other guy." The impression
created is that the Fox call of Florida for Bush came soon after the CBS/CNN
calls of Florida for Gore, and that Fox caused the other networks to change
("All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be
true.'")
This is the essence of the Moore technique: cleverly blending half-truths to
deceive the viewer.
2000 Election Recount
Deceit 3
A little while later:
.Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying that if
ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential vote,
"under every scenario Gore won the election."

What Moore doesn't show is that a six-month study in 2001 by news
organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN
found just the opposite. Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a
statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily Democratic
counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida and the
election.
Thomas Frank, "Film offers limited view," Newsday, June 27, 2004.
Bush Presidency before September 11
Deceits 4-5
The movie lauds an anti-Bush riot that took place in Washington, D.C., on
the day of Bush's inauguration. Moore continues: "No President had ever
witnessed such a thing on his inauguration day. And for the next eight
months it didn't get any better for George W. Bush. He couldn't get his
judges appointed; he had trouble getting his legislation passed; and he lost
Republican control of the Senate. His approval ratings in the polls began to
sink."
Part of this is true. Once Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican
party, Democrats controlled the Senate, and stalled the confirmation (not
"appointment") of some of the judges whom Bush had nominated for the federal
courts.
Congress did enact the top item on Bush's agenda: a large tax cut. During
the summer, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives easily passed
many of Bush's other agenda items, including the bill whose numbering
reflected the President's top priority: H.R. 1, the Bush "No Child Left
Behind" education bill. The fate of the Bush bills in the
Democratic-controlled Senate, as of August 2001, was uncertain. The Senate
later did pass No Child Left Behind, but some other Bush proposals did not
pass.
Did Bush's approval ratings begin to sink? Not really. Moore shows a screen
displaying Bush with 53% job approval on May 3, and 45% on September 5.
Strangely, the screen shot includes no source for this alleged poll.
University of Minnesota History Professor Steven Ruggles has compiled a
chart showing Bush's approval ratings in 13 major polls throughout his
Presidency. According the chart, never during 2001 did Bush's approval
rating fall as low as 45% in any of the polls.
Nor did Bush's approval ratings really "sink" after inauguration day. Bush's
popularity ratings rose significantly in April (when his tax cut was the
main issue in Congress), and then returned to more normal levels in June.
From Bush's inaugural until September 10, almost all of his approval ratings
were in the 50-60% range, with only a few results from an occasional poll
either higher or lower.
Bush Vacations
Deceit 6
Fahrenheit 911 states, "In his first eight months in office before September
11th, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post,
forty-two percent of the time."
Shortly before 9/11, the Post calculated that Bush had spent 42 percent of
his presidency at vacation spots or en route, including all or part of 54
days at his ranch. That calculation, however, includes weekends, which Moore
failed to mention.
Tom McNamee, "Just the facts on 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Chicago Sun-Times, June
28, 2004. See also: Mike Allen, "White House On the Range. Bush Retreats to
Ranch for 'Working Vacation'," Washington Post, August 7, 2001 (Many of
those days are weekends, and the Camp David stays have included working
visits with foreign leaders.)

[T]he shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony
Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly
that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting
with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime
minister, is not a goof-off.
The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf
course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then
asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you
catch the president on a golf course.

Christopher Hitchens, "Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore,"
Slate.com, June 21, 2004.
by the way, the clip of Bush making a comment about terrorism, and then
hitting a golf ball, is also taken out of context, at least partially:

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."

"Cyberalert," Media Research Center, July 1, 2004, item. 3.
September 11
Deceit 7
Fahrenheit presents a powerful segment on the September 11 attacks. There is
no narration, and the music is dramatic yet tasteful. The visuals are
reaction shots from pedestrians, as they gasp with horrified astonishment.
Moore has been criticized for using the reaction shots as a clever way to
avoid showing the planes hitting the buildings, and some of the victims
falling to their deaths. Even if this is true, the segment still effectively
evokes the horror that every decent human being felt on September 11.
But remember, Moore does not necessarily feel the same way. As New York's
former Mayor Edward Koch reported, Moore later said, "I don't know why we
are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that
you will be struck by lightening than die from an act of terror."
Like several of the other deceits identified in this report, the September
11 deceit is not part of the film itself. Several of the deceits involve
claim that Moore has made when discussing the film. Like some deceits which
are identified near the end of this report, the September 11 deceit involves
the contradiction between Moore's purported feelings about a topic in the
movie and what appear to be his actual feelings about that topic. If a
Klansman made a film which feigned admiration for Rosa Parks, that too would
be a form of deceit, even if the film were accurate in its portrayal of
Parks as a great American hero.
Bush on September 11
Deceit 8
Fahrenheit mocks President Bush for continuing to read a story to a
classroom of elementary school children after he was told about the
September 11 attacks.
What Moore did not tell you:
Gwendolyn Tose'-Rigell, the principal of Emma E. Booker Elementary School,
praised Bush's action: "I don't think anyone could have handled it better."
"What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of
the room?".
She said the video doesn't convey all that was going on in the classroom,
but Bush's presence had a calming effect and "helped us get through a very
difficult day."

"Sarasota principal defends Bush from 'Fahrenheit 9/11' portrayal,"
Associated Press, June 24, 2004.
Pre-911 Briefing
Deceits 9-11
Castigating the allegedly lazy President, Moore says, "Or perhaps he just
should have read the security briefing that was given to him on August 6,
2001 that said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by
hijacking airplanes."
Moore supplies no evidence for his assertion that President Bush did not
read the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief. Moore's assertion appears
to be a complete fabrication.
Moore smirks that perhaps President Bush did not read the Briefing because
its title was so vague. Moore then cuts to Condoleezza Rice announcing the
title of the Briefing: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."
However, no-one (except Moore) has ever claimed that Bush did not read the
Briefing, or that he did not read it because the title was vague. Rather,
Condoleezza Rice had told the press conference that the information in the
Briefing was "very vague." National Security Advisor Holds Press Briefing,
The White House, May 16, 2002.
The content of the Briefing supports Rice's characterization, and refutes
Moore's assertion that the Briefing "said that Osama bin Laden was planning
to attack America by hijacking airplanes." The actual Briefing was highly
equivocal:
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat
reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that
Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind
Shaykh" 'Umar' Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of
suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for
hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of
federal buildings in New York.
Saudi Departures from United States
Deceits 12-15
Moore is guilty of a classic game of saying one thing and implying another
when he describes how members of the Saudi elite were flown out of the
United States shortly after 9/11.

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. He and
others in the film state that 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin
Laden family, were allowed to leave the country after Sept. 13.

The date-Sept. 13-is crucial because that is when a national ban on air
traffic, for security purposes, was eased

But nonetheless, many viewers will leave the movie theater with the
impression that the Saudis, thanks to special treatment from the White
House, were permitted to fly away when all other planes were still grounded.
This false impression is created by Moore's failure, when mentioning Sept.
13, to emphasize that the ban on flights had been eased by then. The false
impression is further pushed when Moore shows the singer Ricky Martin
walking around an airport and says, "Not even Ricky Martin would fly. But
really, who wanted to fly? No one. Except the bin Ladens."

But the movie fails to mention that the FBI interviewed about 30 of the
Saudis before they left. And the independent 9/11 commission has reported
that "each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and
dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure."

McNamee, Chicago Sun-Times. (Note: The Sun-Times article was correct in its
characterization of the Ricky Martin segment, but not precisely accurate in
the exact words used in the film. I have substituted the exact quote.)

Tapper: [Y]our film showcases former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke,
using him as a critic of the Bush administration. Yet in another part of the
film, one that appears in your previews, you criticize members of the Bush
administration for permitting members of the bin Laden family to fly out of
the country almost immediately after 9/11. What the film does not mention is
that Richard Clarke says that he OK'd those flights. Is it fair to not
mention that?

Moore: Actually I do, I put up The New York Times article and it's blown up
40 foot on the screen, you can see Richard Clarke's name right there saying
that he approved the flights based on the information the FBI gave him. It's
right there, right up on the screen. I don't agree with Clarke on this
point. Just because I think he's good on a lot of things doesn't mean I
agree with him on everything.

Jake Tapper interview with Michael Moore, ABC News, June 25, 2004.
Again, Moore is misleading. His film includes a brief shot of a Sept. 4,
2003, New York Times article headlined "White House Approved Departures of
Saudis after Sept. 11, Ex-Aide Says." The camera pans over the article far
too quickly for any ordinary viewer to spot and read the words in which
Clarke states that he approved the flights.
Some Saudis left the U.S. by charter flight on September 14, a day when
commercial flights had resumed, but when ordinary charter planes were still
grounded. When did the bin Ladens actually leave? Not until the next week,
as the the 9/11 Commission staff report explains:

Fearing reprisals against Saudi nationals, the Saudi government asked for
help in getting some of its citizens out of the country..we have found that
the request came to the attention of Richard Clarke and that each of the
flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a
professional manner prior to its departure.

No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly
into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001. After
the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi
Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and
24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States
on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin
Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of
Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of
national airspace.

The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the
FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to
national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the
9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142
people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26
people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin
flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated
that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about
terrorist activity.

The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin
flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether the
TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the Terrorist
Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on the flight
manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current TIPOFF watchlist.
There are no matches.

The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights
who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks, or who
the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To date, we
have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion.

Bush and James Bath

Deceit 16

Moore mentions that Bush's old National Guard buddy and personal friend
James Bath had become the money manager for the bin Laden family, saying,
"James Bath himself in turn invested in George W. Bush." The implication is
that Bath invested the bin Laden family's money in Bush's failed energy
company, Arbusto. He doesn't mention that Bath has said that he had invested
his own money, not the bin Ladens', in Bush's company.

Matt Labash, "Un-Moored from Reality," Weekly Standard, July 5, 2004. See
also: Frank, Newsday; Michael Isikoff & Mark Hosenball, "More Distortions
From Michael Moore. Some of the main points in 'Fahrenheit 9/11' really aren
't very fair at all," MSNBC.com, June 30, 2004.
Moore makes a big point about the name of James Bath being blacked out from
Bush National Guard records which were released by the White House. The
blackout might appear less sinister if Moore revealed that many other names
were blacked out, apparently to protect the privacy of former National Guard
members. It's possible that the blacking out of many names was done solely
to make the blackout of Bath's name not seem suspicious. But Moore creates
the false impression that only Bath was blacked out.
Bush and Prince Bandar
Deceit 17
Moore accurately points out the distressingly close relationship between
Saudi Arabia's ambassador, Prince Bandar, and the Bush family. But Moore
does not explain that Bandar has been a bipartisan Washington power broker
for decades, and that Bill Clinton repeatedly relied on Bandar to advance
Clinton's own Middle East agenda. (Elsa Walsh, "The Prince. How the Saudi
Ambassador became Washington's indispensable operator," The New Yorker, Mar.
24, 2003.)
President Clinton's former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Wyche Fowler, has
been earning a lucrative living as a Saudi apologist and serving as Chairman
of the Middle East Institute-a research organization heavily funded by Saudi
Arabia. (Joel Mowbray, "Feeding at the Saudi Trough," Townhall.com, Oct. 1,
2003.)
I am not suggesting that Mr. Fowler is in any way corrupt; I'm sure that he
is sincere (although, in my view, mistaken) in his strongly pro-Saudi
viewpoint. What is misleading is for Moore to look at the web of Saudi
influence in Washington only in regard to the Republican Bushes, and to
ignore the fact that Saudi influence and money are widespread in both
parties.
Harken Energy
Deceits 18-19
Bush once served on the Board of Directors of the Harken Energy Company.
According to Fahrenheit:

Moore: Yes, it helps to be the President's son. Especially when you're being
investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
TV reporter: In 1990 when M. Bush was a director of Harken Energy he
received this memo from company lawyers warning directors not to sell stock
if they had unfavorable information about the company. One week later he
sold $848,000 worth of Harken stock. Two months later, Harken announced
losses of more than $23 million dollars.

Moore:.Bush beat the rap from the SEC.

What Moore left out: Bush sold the stock long after he checked with those
same "company lawyers" who had provided the cautionary memo, and they told
him that the sale was all right. Almost all of the information that caused
Harken's large quarterly loss developed only after Bush had sold the stock.
Despite Moore's pejorative that Bush "beat the rap," no-one has ever found
any evidence suggesting that he engaged in illegal insider trading. (Byron
York, "The Facts About Bush and Harken. The president's story holds up under
scrutiny," National Review Online, July 10, 2002.)
Carlyle Group
Deceits 20-22
Moore's film suggests that Bush has close family ties to the bin Laden
family-principally through Bush's father's relationship with the Carlyle
Group, a private investment firm. The president's father, George H.W. Bush,
was a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group's Asian affiliate until recently;
members of the bin Laden family-who own one of Saudi Arabia's biggest
construction firms-had invested $2 million in a Carlyle Group fund. Bush Sr.
and the bin Ladens have since severed ties with the Carlyle Group, which in
any case has a bipartisan roster of partners, including Bill Clinton's
former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt. The movie quotes author Dan Briody
claiming that the Carlyle Group "gained" from September 11 because it owned
United Defense, a military contractor. Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman
notes that United Defense holds a special distinction among U.S. defense
contractors that is not mentioned in Moore's movie: the firm's $11 billion
Crusader artillery rocket system developed for the U.S. Army is one of the
only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration.

Michael Isikoff, "Under the Hot Lights. Moore's movie will make waves. But
it's a fine line between fact and fanaticism. Deconstructing 'Fahrenheit
9/11." Newsweek, June 28, 2004.
Moore claims that refusing to mention of the Crusader cancellation was
alright because the cancellation came after the United Defense IPO. But the
cancellation had a serious negative financial impact on Carlyle, since
Carlyle still owns 47% of United Defense.

Moore tells us that when Carlyle took United Defense public, they made a
one-day profit of $237 million, but under all the public scrutiny, the bin
Laden family eventually had to withdraw (Moore doesn't tell us that they
withdrew before the public offering, not after it).

Labash, Weekly Standard.
There is another famous investor in Carlyle whom Moore does not reveal:
George Soros. (Oliver Burkeman & Julian Borger, "The Ex-Presidents' Club,"
The Guardian (London), Oct. 31, 2000.) But the fact that the anti-Bush
billionaire has invested in Carlyle would detract from Moore's simplistic
conspiracy theory.
Moore alleges that the Saudis have given 1.4 billion dollars to the Bushes
and their associates.

Moore derives the $1.4 billion figure from journalist Craig Unger's book,
"House of Bush, House of Saud." Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18
billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990's
that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM,
for training the country's military and National Guard. What's the
significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group,
the powerhouse private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board has
included the president's father, George H.W. Bush.

...The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle spokesman Chris
Ullman, is that former president Bush didn't join the Carlyle advisory board
until April, 1998-five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another
defense firm.

Isikoff & Hosenball, MSNBC.com. (The full text of the article contains the
counter-argument by Moore's "war room" and the replies by Isikoff and
Hosenball).
Saudi Investments in the United States
Deceit 23
Moore asks Craig Unger: "How much money do the Saudis have invested in
America, roughly?"

Unger replies "Uh, I've heard figures as high as $860 billion dollars."
Instead of relying on unsourced figures that someone says he "heard," let's
look at the available data. According to the Institute for Research Middle
Eastern Policy (a pro-Saudi think tank which tries to emphasize the
importance of Saudi money to the United States), in February 2003 total
worldwide Saudi investment was at least $700 billion. Sixty percent of the
Saudi investments were in the United States, so the Saudis had about 420
billion invested in the U.S.-a large amount, but less than half of the
amount that Moore's source claims he "heard." (Tanya C. Hsu , "The United
States Must Not Neglect Saudi Arabian Investment" Sept. 23, 2003.)
Special Protection for Saudi Embassy
Deceit 24

Moore shows himself filming the movie near the Saudi embassy in Washington,
D.C.:

Moore as narrator: Even though we were nowhere near the White House, for
some reason the Secret Service had shown up to ask us what we were doing
standing across the street from the Saudi embassy..

Officer: That's fine. Just wanted to get some information on what was going
on.
Moore on camera: Yeah yeah yeah, I didn't realize the Secret Service guards
foreign embassies.
Officer: Uh, not usually, no sir.

But in fact:

Any tourist to Washington, DC, will see plenty of Secret Service Police
guarding all of the other foreign embassies which request such protection.
Other than guarding the White House and some federal buildings, it's the
largest use of personnel by the Secret Service's Uniformed Division.

Debbie Schlussel, "FAKEN-heit 9-11: Michael Moore's Latest Fiction," June
25, 2004.

According to the Secret Service website:

Uniformed Division officers provide protection for the White House Complex,
the Vice-President's residence, the Main Treasury Building and Annex, and
foreign diplomatic missions and embassies in the Washington, DC area.

So there is nothing strange about the Secret Service protecting the Saudi
embassy in Washington-especially since al Qaeda attacks have taken place
against Saudi Arabia.

Alleged Bush-Saudi Conspiracy

Deceit 25

Moore asks, "Is it rude to suggest that when the Bush family wakes up in the
morning they might be thinking about what's best for the Saudis instead of
what's best for you?" But his Bush/Saudi conspiracy theory is contradicted
by very obvious facts:

.why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why
instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military
headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in
each other's pockets.then how come the most reactionary regime in the region
has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its
buffer regime in Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea
that Iraq's recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly.
They fear the liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make
these elementary points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the
film's "theory."

Hitchens, Slate.

Proposed Unocal Pipeline in Afghanistan

Deceits 26-28

Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while Bush was governor, over
a possible pipeline deal with Unocal. But Moore doesn't say that they never
actually met with Bush or that the deal went bust in 1998 and had been
supported by the Clinton administration.

Labash, Weekly Standard.

Moore asserts that the Afghan war was fought only to enable the Unocal
company to build a pipeline. In fact, Unocal dropped that idea back in
August 1998.

Jonathan Foreman, "Moore's The Pity," New York Post, June 23, 2004.

In December 1997, a delegation from Afghanistan's ruling and ruthless
Taliban visited the United States to meet with an oil and gas company that
had extensive dealings in Texas. The company, Unocal, was interested in
building a natural gas line through Afghanistan. Moore implies that Bush,
who was then governor of Texas, met with the delegation.

But, as Gannett News Service points out, Bush did not meet with the Taliban
representatives. What's more, Clinton administration officials did sit down
with Taliban officials, and the delegation's visit was made with the Clinton
administration's permission.

McNamee, Chicago Sun-Times.

Whatever the motive, the Unocal pipeline project was entirely a Clinton-era
proposal: By 1998, as the Taliban hardened its positions, the U.S. oil
company pulled out of the deal. By the time George W. Bush took office, it
was a dead issue-and no longer the subject of any lobbying in Washington.

Isikoff & Hosenball, MSNBC.com.

After Afghanistan was liberated from the Taliban, the new Afghanistan
government did sign a plan to build an oil pipeline. Indeed, any Afghani
government (Taliban or otherwise) would rationally seek the revenue that
could be gained from a pipeline. But the new pipeline (which has not yet
been built) has nothing to do with Unocal.

Bush Administration Relationship with the Taliban

Deceit 29

Moore also tries to paint Bush as sympathetic to the Taliban, which ruled
Afghanistan until its overthrow by U.S.-led forces shortly after Sept. 11.
Moore shows a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban envoy,
saying the Bush administration "welcomed" the official, Sayed Hashemi, "to
tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban."

Yet Hashemi's reception at the State Department was hardly welcoming. The
administration rejected his claim that the Taliban had complied with U.S.
requests to isolate Osama bin Laden and affirmed its nonrecognition of the
Taliban.

"We don't recognize any government in Afghanistan," State Department
spokesman Richard Boucher said on the day of the visit.

Frank, Newsday.

Moore Claimed that Osama bin Laden Might be Innocent and Opposed the
Afghanistan War

Deceit 30

Fahrenheit 911 attempts in every way possible to link Osama bin Laden to
George Bush. Moore even claims that Bush deliberately gave bin Laden "a two
month head start" by not putting sufficient forces into Afghanistan soon
enough. However:

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society,
I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival.
In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden
should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the
American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at
least to that extent unjustified. Something-I cannot guess what, since we
knew as much then as we do now-has since apparently persuaded Moore that
Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty
and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a
dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I
understand the convenience of this late conversion.

Hitchens, Slate.

Three days after September 11, Moore demanded that no military action be
taken against Afghanistan:

"Declare war?" War against whom? One guy in the desert whom we can never
seem to find? Are our leaders telling us that the most powerful country on
earth cannot dispose of one sick evil f---wad of a guy? Because if that is
what you are telling us, then we are truly screwed. If you are unable to
take out this lone ZZ Top wannabe, what on earth would you do for us if we
were attacked by a nation of millions? For chrissakes, call the Israelis and
have them do that thing they do when they want to get their man! We pay them
enough billions each year, I am SURE they would be happy to accommodate your
request....

But do not declare war and massacre more innocents. After bin Laden's
previous act of terror, our last elected president went and bombed what he
said was "bin Laden's camp" in Afghanistan -- but instead just killed
civilians.

Michael Moore, "War on Whom?" AlterNet, Sept. 14, 2004.

The next day he wrote:

Trust me, they are talking politics night and day, and those discussions
involve sending our kids off to fight some invisible enemy and to
indiscriminately bomb Afghans or whoever they think will make us Americans
feel good.

...I fear we will soon be in a war that will do NOTHING to protect us from
the next terrorist attack.

"Mike's Message," Sept. 15, 2001. Although Moore vehemently opposed the
Afghanistan War, Fahrenheit criticizes Bush for not putting more troops into
Afghanistan sooner.

Are we any safer because the U.S. military eliminated the al Qaeda training
camps in Afghanistan, removed a government which did whatever al Qaeda
wanted, and killed or captured two-thirds of the al Qaeda leadership?
Fahrenheit's thesis that the Afghanistan War was solely for the pipeline and
to distract attention from Saudi Arabia is inconsistent with the well-known
results of the war.

Afghanistan after Liberation

Deceit 31

we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there
is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO
responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military
alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against
hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a
half of its former refugees have opted to return..[A] highway from Kabul to
Kandahar-an insurance against warlordism and a condition of
nation-building-is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also
discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left-like the parties of the
Iraqi secular left-are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is
not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

Hitchens, Slate.

John Ashcroft

Deceit 32

Moore mocks Attorney General John Ashcroft by pointing out that Ashcroft
once lost a Senate race in Missouri to a man who had died three weeks
earlier. "Voters preferred the dead guy," Moore says, delivering one of the
film's biggest laugh lines.

It's a cheap shot. When voters in Missouri cast their ballots for the dead
man, Mel Carnahan, they knew they were really voting for Carnahan's very
much alive widow, Jean. The Democratic governor of Missouri had vowed to
appoint Jean to the job if Mel won.

McNamee, Chicago Sun-Times.

Rep. Porter Goss

Deceit 33

Defending the Patriot Act, Representative Porter Goss says that he has an
"800 number" for people to call to report problems with the Act. Fahrenheit
shoots back than Goss does not have such a number; the ordinary telephone
number for Goss's office is flashed on the screen.

You'd never know by watching Fahrenheit, but Rep. Goss does have a toll-free
number to which Patriot Act complaints can be reported. The number belongs
to the Committee which Goss chairs, the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence. The number is (877) 858-9040.

Although the Committee's number is toll-free, the prefix is not "800," and
Moore exploits this trivial fact to create the false impression that Goss
lied about having a toll-free number.

As far as I can tell, the slam on Rep. Goss is the only factual error in the
segment on the misnamed Patriot Act. While there are a few good things in
the Act, Moore's general critique of the Act is valid. The Act does contain
many items which had long been on the FBI wish-list, which do not have real
relation to the War on Terror, and which were pushed through under the
pretext of 9/11. Similar critiques are also valid for the Clinton
"terrorism" bill which was pushed through Congress in 1996. As for Moore's
claim that the motive of the Patriot Act was to terrify the American people,
I disagree, but it's a matter of opinion, and therefore beyond the scope of
this report.

Saddam Hussein Never Murdered Americans

Deceits 34-35

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."

Part 2 of 2 posts

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?
Note Moore's extremely careful phrasing of the lines which appear to
exonerate Saddam, and Moore's hyper-legal response to Tapper. In fact,
Saddam provided refuge to notorious terrorists who had murdered Americans.
Saddam provided a safe haven for Abu Abbas (leader of the hijacking of the
ship Achille Lauro and the murder of the elderly American passenger Leon
Klinghoffer), for Abu Nidal, and for the 1993 World Trade Center bombmaker,
Abdul Rahman Yasin. By law, Saddam therefore was an accessory to the
murders. Saddam order his police to murder former American President George
Bush when he visited Kuwait City in 1993; they attempted to do so, but
failed. In 1991, he ordered his agents to murder the American Ambassador to
the Philippines and, separately, to murder the employees of the U.S.
Information Service in Manila; they tried, but failed. Yet none of these
aggressions against the United States "count" for Moore, because he has
carefully framed his verbs and verb tenses to exclude them.
According to Laurie Mylroie, a former Harvard professor who served as Bill
Clinton's Iraq advisor during the 1992 campaign (during which
Vice-Presidential candidate Gore repeatedly castigated incumbent President
George H.W. Bush for inaction against Saddam), the ringleader of the World
Trade Center bombings, Ramzi Yousef, was working for the Iraqi intelligence
service. Laurie Mylroie, The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the
World Trade Center Attacks: A Study of Revenge (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2d rev.
ed. 2001.)
But even with Moore's clever phrasing designed to elide Saddam's culpability
in the murders and attempted murders of Americans, Tapper still catches him
with an irrefutable point: Saddam did perpetrate the premeditated murder of
Americans. Every victim of every Palestinian terrorist bomber who was funded
by Saddam Hussein was the victim of premeditated murder-including the
American victims.
So what does Moore do? He tries to change the subject. Moore makes the good
point that the U.S. media should focus more attention on Saudi financial aid
to Palestinian terrorists who murder Americans in Israel. On NRO, I've
pointed to Saudi terror funding, as have other NRO writers. But pointing out
Saudi Arabia's guilt does not excuse Moore's blatant lie about Saddam
Hussein's innocence.
Saddam's Threats
Deceit 36
Moore's pro-Saddam allegation that Saddam "never threatened to attack the
United States" is true in the narrow sense that Saddam never gave a speech
in which he threatened to, for example, send the Iraqi navy and army to
conduct an amphibious invasion of Florida. But although Saddam never
threatened the territorial integrity of America, he repeatedly threatened
Americans. For example, On November 15, 1997, the main propaganda organ for
the Saddam regime, the newspaper Babel (which was run Saddam Hussein's son
Uday) ordered: "American and British interests, embassies, and naval ships
in the Arab region should be the targets of military operations and commando
attacks by Arab political forces." (Stephen Hayes, The Connection: How al
Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America (N.Y.:
HarperCollins, 2004), p. 94.)
Moreover, Saddam did not need to make verbal threats in order to "threaten"
the United States. He threatened the United States by giving refuges to
terrorists who had murdered Americans, and by funding terrorists who were
killing Americans in Israel. Saddam gave refuge to terrorists who had
attacked the United States by bombing the World Trade Center. In addition:

In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After
that same invasion was repelled-Saddam having killed quite a few Americans
and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to
kill many more.

..Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that
patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and
south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals
for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he
remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam..On Dec. 1,
2003, the New York Times reported-and the David Kay report had
established-that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader"
Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring
of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production
system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the
fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the
negotiations.)

Hitchens, Slate. The cited article is David E. Sanger & Thom Shanker, "A
Region Inflamed: Weapons. For the Iraqis, a Missile Deal That Went Sour;
Files Tell of Talks With North Korea, New York Times, Dec. 1, 2003.

As French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin stated on November 12,
2002, "The security of the United States is under threat from people like
Saddam Hussein who are capable of using chemical and biological weapons."
(Hayes, p. 21.) De Villepin's point is indisputable: Saddam the kind of
person who was capable of using chemical weapons, since he had actually used
them against Iraqi who resisted his tyrannical regime. As de Villepin spoke,
Saddam was sheltering terrorists who had murdered Americans, and was
subsidizing the murder of Americans (and many other nationalities) in
Israel.
Iraq and al Qaeda

Deceit 37

Moore declares that George Bush completely fabricated an Iraq/al Qaeda
connection in order to deflect attention from his Saudi masters. But
consider the facts presented in Stephen F. Hayes's book, The Connection :
How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America
(N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2004). The first paragraph of the last chapter (pp.
177-78) sums up some of the evidence:

Iraqi intelligence documents from 1992 list Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi
intelligence asset. Numerous sources have reported a 1993 nonaggression pact
between Iraq and al Qaeda. The former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence
now in U.S. custody says that bin Laden asked the Iraqi regime for arms and
training in a face-to-face meeting in 1994. Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer
al Iraqi met with Iraqi intelligence officials in 1995. The National
Security Agency intercepted telephone conversations between al
Qaeda-supported Sudanese military officials and the head of Iraq's chemical
weapons program in 1996. Al Qaeda sent Abu Abdallah al Iraqi to Iraq for
help with weapons of mass destruction in 1997. An indictment from the
Clinton-era Justice Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda "weapons
development" in 1998. A senior Clinton administration counterterrorism
official told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq
had supported al Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999. An Iraqi working
closely with the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur was photographed with
September 11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar en route to a planning meeting for
the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11 attacks in 2000. Satellite
photographs showed al Qaeda members in 2001 traveling en masse to a compound
in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Iraqi regime. Abu Musab al
Zarqawi, senior al Qaeda associate, operated openly in Baghdad and received
medical attention at a regime-supported hospital in 2002. Documents
discovered in postwar Iraq in 2003 reveal that Saddam's regime harbored and
supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the 1993
World Trade Center attack...

Hayes is a writer for The Weekly Standard and much of his writing on the
Saddam/Osama connection is available there for free; simply use the search
engine and look for articles by Hayes.

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:

Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It's not
that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11,
but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of
hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.

I agree with Hayes that there is significant evidence suggesting possible
Iraqi involvement in 9/11, but Moore deceptively cut the Rice quote to fool
the audience into thinking she was making a particular claim, even though
she was pointedly not making such a claim.

Iraq before Liberation

Deceit 38

Moore shows scenes of Baghdad before the invasion (read: liberation) and in
his weltanschauung, it's a place filled with nothing but happy, smiling,
giggly, overjoyed Baghdadis. No pain and suffering there. No rape, murder,
gassing, imprisoning, silencing of the citizens in these scenes. When he
exploits and lingers on the tears of a mother who lost her soldier-son in
Iraq, and she wails, "Why did you have to take him?" Moore does not cut to
images of the murderers/terrorists (pardon me, "insurgents") in Iraq.or even
to God; he cuts to George Bush. When the soldier's father says the young man
died and "for what?", Moore doesn't show liberated Iraqis to reply, he cuts
instead to an image of Halliburton.

Jeff Jarvis, "Watching Michael Moore," Buzz Machine weblog, June 24, 2004.

The most offensive sequence in "Fahrenheit 9/11"'s long two hours lasts only
a few minutes. It's Moore's file-footage depiction of happy Iraq before the
Americans began their supposedly pointless invasion. You see men sitting in
cafes, kids flying kites, women shopping. Cut to bombs exploding at night.

What Moore presumably doesn't know, or simply doesn't care about, is that
the building you see being blown up is the Iraqi Ministry of Defense in
Baghdad. Not many children flew kites there. It was in a part of the city
that ordinary Iraqis weren't allowed to visit-on pain of death.

.Iraq was ruled by a regime that had forced a sixth of its population into
fearful exile, that hanged dissidents (real dissidents, not people like
Susan Sontag and Tim Robbins) from meathooks and tortured them with
blowtorches, and filled thousands of mass graves with the bodies of its
massacred citizens.

Yes, children played, women shopped and men sat in cafes while that stuff
went on-just as people did all those normal things in Somoza's Nicaragua,
Duvalier's Haiti and for that matter Nazi Germany, and as they do just about
everywhere, including in Iraq today.

Foreman, New York Post.

Invasion of Iraq

Deceits 39-41

According to the footage that ensues, our pilots seem to have hit nothing
but women and children.

Labash, Weekly Standard.

Then-wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American
imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can
recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the
treatment.I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a
pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now,
either. I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as
justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and
repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite
right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad
period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned
Ayatollah Khomeini.)

Hitchens, Slate.

Major Coalition Partners Ignored

Deceit 42

Q: You mock the "coalition of the willing" by only showing the tiny
countries that have voiced support. But you leave out England, Spain, Italy
and Poland. Why?

Moore: "This film exists as a counterbalance to what you see on cable news
about the coalition. I'm trying to counter the Orwellian nature of the Big
Lie, as if when you hear that term, the 'coalition,' that the whole world is
behind us."

Patrick Goldstein, "Truth teller or story stretcher?" Los Angeles Times,
June 22, 2004.

If it is a "Big Lie" to mention only the powerful and important members of
the Coalition (such as England and Australia), then it is an equally "Big
Lie" to mention only the small and insignificant members of the Coalition.

Media Attitudes

Deceit 43

In very selectively edited clips, Moore poses the absurd notion that the
main news anchors-Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, and Ted Koppel-wholeheartedly
support Bush and the War in Iraq..Has Moore forgotten the hour-long Saddam
softball interview Rather did just prior to the war, [or] Jennings'
condescending coverage.?

Schlussel.

Jennings is shown delivering a broadcast in which he says, "Iraqi opposition
has faded in the face of American power." But Jennings was simply stating an
undeniable fact, as he stood next to a map showing that Saddam's army had
collapsed everywhere, and all Iraqi cities were in Coalition hands. Despite
what Moore implies, Jennings strongly opposed the liberation of Iraq. (Tim
Graham, "Peter's Peace Platoon. ABC's Crusade Against 'Arrogant' American
Power," Media Research Center, March 18, 2003.)

Support for Soldiers and Veterans

Deceits 44-47

Bush "supported closing veterans hospitals" says Moore. The Bush Department
of Veteran's Affairs did propose closing seven hospitals in areas with
declining populations where the hospitals were underutilized, and whose
veterans could be served by other hospitals. Moore does not say that the
Department also proposed building new hospitals in areas where needs were
growing, and also building blind rehabilitation centers and spinal cord
injury centers. (For more, see the Final Report of the independent
commission on veterans hospitals, which agrees with some of the Bush
proposals, and with some of the objections raised by critics.)

According to Moore, Bush "tried to double the prescription drug costs for
veterans." What Bush proposed was raising the prescription co-pay from $7 to
$15, for veterans with incomes of over $24,000 a year. Prescription costs
would have remained very heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

Bush, announces Moore, "proposed cutting combat soldiers' pay by 33%." Not
exactly. In addition to regular military salaries, soldiers in certain areas
(not just combat zones) receive an "imminent danger" bonus of $150 a month.
In April 2003, Congress retroactively enacted a special increase of $75, for
the fiscal year of Oct. 1, 2002 through Sept. 30, 2003. At first, the Bush
administration did not support renewing the special bonus, but then changed
its position

Likewise, Congress had passed a special one-year increase in the family
separation allowance (for service personnel stationed in places where their
families cannot join them) from $100 to $250. Bush's initial opposition to
extending the special increase was presented by Moore as "cutting assistance
to their families by 60%." (Edward Epstein, "Pentagon reverses course, won't
cut troops' pay," San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 15, 2003.)

Even if one characterizes not renewing a special bonus as a "cut,"
Fahrenheit misleads the viewer into thinking that the cuts applied to total
compensation, rather than only to pay supplements which constitute only a
small percentage of a soldier's income. An enlisted man with four months of
experience receives an annual salary more than $27,000. (Rod Powers, "What
the Recruiter Never Told You: Military Pay.")

In 2003, Congress enacted a Bush administration proposal to raise all
military salaries by 3.7%, with extra "targeted" pay increases for
non-commissioned officer. NCOs are lower-ranking officers who typically join
the military with lower levels of education than commissioned officers.
(Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample, "Defense Department Targets Military Pay
Increases for 2004," American Forces Press Service.)

Congressional Children in War

Deceits 48-51

Early in this segment, Moore states that "only one" member of Congress has a
child in Iraq. The action of the segment consists of Moore accosting
Congressmen to try to convince them to have their children enlist in the
military. At the end, Moore declares, "Not a single member of Congress
wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq."

Moore's conclusion is technically true, but duplicitous. Of course no-one
would want to "sacrifice" his child in any way. But the fact is, Moore's
opening ("only one") and his conclusion ("not a single member") are both
incorrect. Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic
Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in
Iraq in 2003. The son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter
quit his job after September 11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery
unit was deployed in the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004.
Delaware Senator Joseph Biden's son Beau is on active duty; although Beau
Biden has no control over he is deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and
therefore does not "count" for Moore's purposes.

How about Cabinet members? Fahrenheit never raises the issue, because the
answer would not fit Moore's thesis. Attorney General John Ashcroft's son is
on active duty. (Fahrenheit Fact.)

The editing of the Congressional scenes borders on the fraudulent:

..Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in Fahrenheit
9/11, was censored by Michael Moore.

According to the Star Tribune, Kennedy, when asked if he would be willing to
send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a nephew who was
en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore that his son was
thinking about a career in the navy and that two of his nephews had already
served in the armed forces. Kennedy's side of the conversation, however, was
cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive.

What was Michael's excuse for trimming the key segment? Kennedy's remarks
didn't help his thesis: "He mentioned that he had a nephew that was going
over to Afghanistan," Moore recounted. "So then I said 'No, no, that's not
our job here today. We want you to send your child to Iraq. Not a nephew.'"

Kennedy lambasted Moore as a "master of the misleading" after viewing the
interview in question.

Fahrenheit Fact.

George Stephanopoulos, of ABC News, asked Moore about the selective cuts in
the Kennedy footage:

Stephanopoulos: You have a scene when you're up on Capitol Hill encountering
members of Congress, asking them if they would ask their sons and daughters
to enlist . in the military. And one of those members of Congress who
appears in the trailer, Mark Kennedy, said you left out what he told you,
which is that he has two nephews serving in the military, one in
Afghanistan. And he went on to say that, "Michael Moore doesn't always give
the whole truth. He's a master of the misleading."

Moore: Well, at the time, when we interviewed him, he didn't have any family
members in Afghanistan. And when he saw the trailer for this movie, he
issued a report to the press saying that he said that he had a kid in-

Stephanopoulos: He said he told you he had two nephews.

Moore:. No, he didn't. And we released the transcript and we put it on our
Web site. This is what I mean by our war room. Any time a guy like this
comes along and says, "I told him I had two nephews and one was going to
Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan," he's lying. And I've got the raw
footage and the transcript to prove it. So any time these Republicans come
at me like this, this is exactly what they're going to get. And people can
go to my Web site and read the transcript and read the truth. What he just
said there, what you just quoted, is not true.

This Week followed up with the office of Rep. Kennedy. He did have two
nephews in the military, but neither served in Iraq. Kennedy's staff agrees
that Moore's Website is accurate but insists the movie version is
misleading. In the film, Moore says, "Congressman, I'm trying to get members
of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq."
But, from the transcript, here's the rest:

Moore: Is there any way you could help me with that?

Kennedy: How would I help you?

Moore: Pass it out to other members of Congress.

Kennedy: I'd be happy to - especially those who voted for the war. I have a
nephew on his way to Afghanistan.

This Week, ABC News, June 20, 2004.

So while Fahrenheit pretended that Kennedy rebuffed Moore, Kennedy agreed to
help Moore.

Fahrenheit shows Moore calling out to Delaware Republican Michael Castle,
who is talking on a cell phone and waves Moore off. Castle is presented one
of the Congressmen who would not sacrifice his children. What the film omits
is that Rep. Castle does not have any children.
Are Congressional children less likely to serve in Iraq than children from
other families? Let's use Moore's methodology, and ignore members of
extended families (such as nephews) and also ignore service anywhere expect
Iraq (even though U.S. forces are currently fighting terrorists in many
countries). And like Moore, let us also ignore the fact that some families
(like Rep. Castle's) have no children, or no children of military age.
We then see that of 535 Congressional families, there was one (Brooks
Johnson) with a child who served in Iraq. How does this compare with
American families in general? In the summer of 2003, U.S. troop levels in
Iraq were raised to 145,000. If we factor in troop rotation, we could
estimate that about 300,000 people have served in Iraq at some point.
According to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000 households in the
United States in 2000. (See Table 1 of the Census Report.) So the ratio of
ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service personnel is 104,705,000 to
300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1.
In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service personnel
is 535:2. This reduces to a ration of 268:1.
Stated another way, a Congressional household is about 23 percent more
likely than an ordinary household to be closely related to an Iraqi
serviceman or servicewoman.
Of course my statistical methodology is very simple. A more sophisticated
analysis would look only at Congressional and U.S. households from which at
least one child is legally eligible to enlist in the military. Moore,
obviously, never attempted such a comparison; instead, he deceived viewers
into believing that Congressional families were extremely different from
other families in enlistment rates.
Moore ignores the fact that there are 102 veterans currently serving in
Congress. Regardless of whether they have children who could join the
military, all of the veterans in Congress have personally put themselves at
risk to protect their country.
Lila Lipscomb

Deceit 52
Moore exploits the grief of Lila Lipscomb, the mother of a soldier who died
in Iraq. She denounces Bush and the War. But there are many mothers and
relatives of US soldiers, alive and dead, who served there who don't agree
with her. Don't look for them in this agit-prop "film."

Schlussel.
Fahrenheit wallows in pity for Mrs. Lipscomb. "I was tired of seeing people
like Mrs. Lipscomb suffer," he claims. Yet Moore's website takes a different
view:
I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began
and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough
blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will
forgive us in the end.
Michael Moore, "Heads Up... from Michael Moore," MichaelMoore.com, April 14,
2004.
Moore's Pro-Saddam Source

Deceit 53
Washington Representative Jim McDermott appears in several segments.

McDermott was one of three Congressmen who went on Saddam's propaganda tour
of Iraq in Fall 2002. The trip was funded by Life for Relief and Development
(LRD), a "charity" which laundered money to terrorist group Hamas' Jordanian
operation. LRD is funded in part by Shakir Al-Khafaji, a man who did about
$70 million in business with Saddam through his Falcon Trading Group company
(based in South Africa). LRD's Iraqi offices were raided by US troops last
week, and the Detroit-area "charity" is suspected of funding uprisings, such
as the one in Fallujah. Its officials bragged of doing so at a recent
private US fundraiser.

Mr. Alkhafaji, one of two Americans named in Iraqi newspapers as a
participant in Saddam's "Oil for Food" scam, gave Congressman McDermott
$5,000 in October 2002 for McDermott's legal defense fund in a lawsuit
against him..

Schlussel.
Celebrities
Deceit 54
He shows Britney Spears saying she supports the President on Iraq. As if
there weren't a host of brain-dead bimbo celebs, (Madonna, Sean Penn,
Russell Simmons, Lenny Kravitz, Susan Sarandon, The Dixie Chicks, etc.),
spouting off on the other side.
Schlussel.
Moore Supports Terrorists

Deceit 55
In Fahrenheit 911, Moore claims to support our troops. But in fact, he
supports the enemy in Iraq-the coalition of Saddam loyalists, al Qaeda
operatives, and terrorists controlled by Iran or Syria-who are united in
their desire to murder Iraqis, and to destroy any possibility of democracy
in Iraq. Here is what Moore says about the forces who are killing Americans
and trying to impose totalitarian rule on Iraq:
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or
"terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and
their numbers will grow -- and they will win.
Michael Moore, "Heads Up... from Michael Moore," MichaelMoore.com, April 14,
2004. Of course if you believe that the people who are perpetrating suicide
bombings against Iraqi civilians and American soldiers in order to force a
totalitarian boot onto Iraq are the moral equivalent of the American
Founders, then Moore's claim about the Iraqi insurgents could be valid. But
even if that claim were valid (and I do not believe that any reasonable
person can equate people fighting for totalitarianism with people fighting
for constitutional democracy), then Moore is still being dishonest in
Fahrenheit when he pronounces his concern for American troops. To the
contrary, he is cheering for the forces which are killing our troops, as he
equates the killers with freedom-fighters. And if you think that the people
who are slaughtering American soldiers, American civilians, Iraqi soldiers,
and Iraqi civilians are terrorists rather than "minutemen," then it is true
that Moore supports terrorists.
Moore is Working with Terrorists to Distribute His Film
Deceit 56
As reported in the trade journal Screen Daily, affiliates of the Iranian and
Syrian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah are promoting Fahrenheit 911 and
Moore's Middle East distributor, Front Row, is accepting the terrorist
assistance:
In terms of marketing the film, Front Row is getting a boost from
organizations related to Hezbollah which have rung up from Lebanon to ask if
there is anything they can do to support the film. And although [Front Row's
Managing Director Giancarlo] Chacra says he and his company feel strongly
that Fahrenheit is not anti-American, but anti-Bush, "we can't go against
these organizations as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and
Syria."

Nancy Tartaglione, "Fahrenheit to be first doc released theatrically in
Middle East," Screen Daily.com, June 9, 2004 (website requires
registration). The story is discussed in Samantha Ellis, "Fahrenheit 9/11
gets help offer from Hezbollah," The Guardian, June 17, 2004; and "Moore
film distributor OK with terror support: Exec says firm doesn't want to risk
boycott of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' in Mideast," WorldNetDaily.com, June 22, 2004.
According to Screen Daily, Moore's film will open in mid-July on ten screens
in Lebanon and two screens in Syria. Syria is a terrorist state which
invaded Lebanon in the 1970s and controls the nation through a puppet
government.
Moore accuses the United States of sacrificing morality because of greed:
"The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with
Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other
countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will
make Americans rich." David Brooks, "All Hail Moore," New York Times, June
28, 2004.
Yet it turns out that the self-righteous Moore is the one who is accepting
aid from a terrorist organization which has murdered and kidnapped hundreds
of Americans. Just to avoid a boycott on a dozen screens in a totalitarian
terrorist state and its colony?
Theoretically, it might be possible that Moore has no personal awareness
that his Middle East distributor is working with terrorists. But such
ignorance is unlikely for two reasons: First, Moore's "war room" staff
monitors controversial articles about the film, and there could hardly be
anything more controversial than making common cause with terrorists. Not
only has the Hezbollah relationship been publicized in a leading film trade
on-line newspaper, the Moore-Hezbollah connection has been reported one of
the very most significant British newspapers, and in an important American
on-line newspaper.
Second, Moore was personally questioned about the terrorist connection at a
Washington, D.C., press conference. He at first denied the terrorist
connection, but was then confronted with the direct quote from his
distributor. He stonewalled and refused to answer. So the man who spends so
much time getting in other people's faces with tough questions is unwilling
to explain why he is accepting aid from Hezbollah.
Recall the Moore quote from the beginning of this article: the September 11
attacks on the United States were insignificant. Recall that long after the
release of an Osama bin Laden videotape demonstrating his responsibility for
the September 11 attacks, Moore was asserting that the invasion of
Afghanistan was wrong because Osama should be considered innocent until
proven guilty. (As if a freely-given and videotaped confession were not
proof of guilt.)
The conclusion of Fahrenheit quotes from George Orwell's 1984, the novel of
a totalitarian state perpetually at war. According to Orwell, the true
purpose of the war was to perpetuate "a hierarchical society" based on
"poverty and ignorance." The real purpose of war as "to keep the very
structure of society intact." Fahrenheit applies Orwell's words to the
United States of today.
Moore's purported positions on some issues in Fahrenheit are different from
his previous positions: whether people should have made a big deal about
September 11, whether Osama bin Laden is guilty of the September 11 attacks,
whether American families, including the Lipscombs, deserve to suffer the
deaths of their children because they supported the war. But throughout
Michael Moore's career, he has remained true to the central theme of
Fahrenheit: capitalist America is the real terrorist state. Because America
is a capitalist society, American use of force is necessarily evil.
Four days after September 11, Moore announced: "We, the United States of
America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed
that we better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have
been active participants." (The statement has been deleted from Moore's
website, but is available through the web archive service called the Wayback
Machine.) This is the view of Fahrenheit 911: Iraq under Saddam was fine
until America began terrorizing it.
Saddam Hussein agrees; after September 11, his government issued an official
statement declaring, "The American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their
crimes against humanity." Saddam's media showed him telling his generals,
"Those who do not want to harvest evil, should not plant evil...Despite the
contradictory humanitarian feelings on what happened in America, America is
harvesting the thorns that its rulers have planted in the world...Nobody has
crossed the Atlantic carrying weapons against America, but it has crossed
the Atlantic carrying death and destruction to the whole world."
Throughout American history, there have always been patriotic Americans who
criticized particular war-time policies, or who believed that a war was a
mistake and should be promptly ended. Today, there are many patriotic
Americans who oppose some or all aspects of the War on Terror. I am among
them, in that I have strongly opposed the Patriot Act from its first days,
have denounced the Bush administration for siding with corporate interests
rather than with public safety by sabotaging the Armed Pilots law, and have
repeatedly stated that the current Saudi tyranny should be recognized as a
major part of the problem in the War on Terror--despite the tyranny's close
relationship with America's foreign policy élite.
In contrast to the large number of patriots who have argued against
particular wars or wartime policies, a much smaller number of Americans have
hated America. They have cheered for the fighters who were killing
Americans. They have belittled America's right to protect itself, and they
have produced propaganda designed to destroy American morale and to
facilitate enemy victory. To advance their anti-American cause, they have
sometimes feigned love for the nation they despised.
Do the many falsehoods and misrepresentations of Fahrenheit 911 suggest a
film producer who just makes careless mistakes? Or does a man who calls
Americans: "possibly the dumbest people on the planet" believe that his
audience will be too dumb to tell when he is tricking them? Viewers will
have to decide for themselves whether the extremist and extremely deceptive
Fahrenheit 911 is a conscientious work of patriotic dissent, or the cynical
propaganda of a man who gives wartime aid to America's murderous enemies,
and who accepts their aid in return.
Click to expand...

Bill Walker · Jul 5, 2004

Albert Nurick said:

OK, I'm really curious... what did Bill do at the convention?
Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO.. you don't seriously expect John Moran to answer that question, do
you ? I am anxiously waiting for his response.. LOL.. (I'm not holding my
breath, though)

another viewer · Jul 5, 2004

Bill Walker said:

First you do and then you don't.. then you do again.. Please make up your
mind.. OK.. Baylor University has no record of any affiliation with you.. in
any capacity.. Not even as "alumni"..
Click to expand...

Baylor College of Medicine/Pathology. All you have to do is look, but
you don't find it because it won't serve your purpose. The relationship
is large enough that ours is one of the names etched into the glass wall
in the entryway along with the other groups that work with BCM. It's
quite a work of art and it's an honor to be included there.

Which "hit" records have you made ?
Hell.. I might even go out a buy a few of them..NOT..
Click to expand...

It's quite likely you own some of them already and have certainly heard
many of the artists I've worked with. All you have to do is look.
Other readers here found that info a long time ago with no prior
prompting nor indication from me.

Do you think I could make these statements if they couldn't be shown as
true? You just don't like to admit it so you try to rationalize your
way around things you don't like. That doesn't change reality for
anyone but you. When that fails you curse and insult. It's a
repetitive pattern for you and almost anyone with whom you disagree, but
if someone responds to you in kind, you get oh so upset and take it oh
so personally. Too bad.

Your next step is physical violence. I'm certain when your lobbying
cohorts had to physically restrain you from a state rep at the state Dem
convention that made a great impression that furthered the cause of
TMRA2. Get help Bill, you really do have some pathological problems
with anger and dealing with people. Without treatment it will only get
worse over time.

Is there no limit to your talents ?
Click to expand...

Time constraints are my biggest limit. You demonstrate envy/hate issues
with people who, unlike you, make the most of their time and talents.
Seek help Bill. No one may be there to restrain you the next time you
lose control because you can't deal with reality.

another viewer · Jul 5, 2004

Albert Nurick said:

OK, I'm really curious... what did Bill do at the convention?
Click to expand...

apparently he got overheated in a discussion with an elected state
representative and had to be physically restrained by some other TMRA 2
guys. Helluva a good way to lobby your position and make friends for
your cause, ya think ? <vbg>

another viewer · Jul 5, 2004

Albert Nurick said:

Does the Manson Family ring a bell? ;-)
Click to expand...

that's pretty funny. Charlie was considerably smarter than either
Tweedle-Dee or Tweedle-Dum. They have a hard time getting anything
right, like thinking BeemerBikers website was mine and posting about it.
Que pendechos!

Brian Walker · Jul 5, 2004

another viewer said:

You and Brain struggle to find things when finding them doesn't help
your arguments. Then you get the rest wrong or choose to ignore it by
posting threats and insults in order to obfuscate. You are definitely
borderline psychotic in your dealings with people with whom you disagree
and you lose self control easily. Your antics at the state Dem
convention only prove that.

Others here have had no problem finding the referenced information
posted by me nor do they have the history of posting gross errors like
mistaking BeemerBikers web site for one of mine, hurling insults and
then not owning up to the blatant error when it is pointed out.

In fact, just to shove it in your face, I not only manage a research
foundation in conjunction with the Baylor College of Medicine, I also
have a pretty good history of making hit records and film soundtracks.
Chew on that for a while.
Click to expand...

Okay, that's funny!!!

Which "hit records and film soundtracks" have you ever made which
would make up your "history" of?

I already asked you (as did others) about your experience with Baylor
and it turned out that you posted a LONG post that didn't even mention
Baylor...not even as a patient. Now you're 'claiming' to have produced
or recorded (or both) some "hit records and film soundtracks"?

Johnny, you're a liar and a fraud. Chew on that for a while.

Oh, and I wish you would cry to Lisa again...I miss her being involved
in your little tirades.

another viewer · Jul 5, 2004

Albert Nurick said:

What a bozo.
Click to expand...

that's what i mean, he's got some real problems. you know in the
pre-convention planning meetings there had to be talk about how to
approach people and to be non-confrontational in talking points so as to
win allies and not to alienate people who may disagree but to leave the
door open to win them over later. Tweedle-Dee goes off and just loses
it with someone in a disagreement and has to be held back. You know
word of that got around to the other reps and delegates. Bad image
projection like that that doesn't help TMRA2 nor m/c riders in general.

another viewer · Jul 5, 2004

I already asked you (as did others) about your experience with Baylor
and it turned out that you posted a LONG post that didn't even mention
Baylor...not even as a patient. Now you're 'claiming' to have produced
or recorded (or both) some "hit records and film soundtracks"?
Click to expand...

Oh, I very definitely specified BCM. You just don't read very well.

Now if you're such the computer whiz, why can't you find any of this?
It's all there for reading, entire websites in fact. Others here have
found it, why can't you? Maybe you just aren't that good.

The funny part is you will again look like the ass you are when you
finally do find it and realize it's all quite true. You'll slink off
again just like before when you thought BeemerBikers website was mine.

I was elected to the Board of Governors for the Texas Chapter of NARAS
(the Grammies) for 2 terms/4 years and my shop was the Billboard #1
nationally ranked R&B recording studio in 2000. Billy Gibbons is an old
pal and mentioned us recently in Guitar Player. Lots more than that
too.

It's going to be fun to demonstrate again that you are nothing more than
an envious hater, unable to admit when he is wrong.

Bill Walker · Jul 5, 2004

another viewer said:

Baylor College of Medicine/Pathology. All you have to do is look, but
you don't find it because it won't serve your purpose. The relationship
is large enough that ours is one of the names etched into the glass wall
in the entryway along with the other groups that work with BCM. It's
quite a work of art and it's an honor to be included there.
Click to expand...

Post it.. you counterfeit asshole...LOL

It's quite likely you own some of them already and have certainly heard
many of the artists I've worked with.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. name a few of them...

All you have to do is look.

Other readers here found that info a long time ago with no prior
prompting nor indication from me.
Click to expand...

Who.. for example..??

Do you think I could make these statements if they couldn't be shown as
true?
Click to expand...

Of course.. you have a habit of doing that..

You just don't like to admit it so you try to rationalize your

way around things you don't like. That doesn't change reality for
anyone but you. When that fails you curse and insult.
Click to expand...

You are so funny.. NOT

It's a

repetitive pattern for you and almost anyone with whom you disagree, but
if someone responds to you in kind, you get oh so upset and take it oh
so personally. Too bad.
Click to expand...

Nah... you just can't take the heat, when you get your fat little zero ass
exposed..

Your next step is physical violence.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. I'd whip your sorry fat ass in a heartbeat.. Remember the way you
insulted my wife, whom you have never laid eyes on nor who has never posted
on a newsgroup in her life... You bet'cha..

I'm certain when your lobbying

cohorts had to physically restrain you from a state rep at the state Dem
convention that made a great impression that furthered the cause of
TMRA2.
Click to expand...

Damn.. bubba.. guess your killfile is working worse than any of us thought..
Another LIE.. huh ?

Get help Bill, you really do have some pathological problems

with anger and dealing with people. Without treatment it will only get
worse over time.
Click to expand...

You are one crazy bastard... You don't have "problems" you are certifiably
NUTS... LMAO

Time constraints are my biggest limit. You demonstrate envy/hate issues
with people who, unlike you, make the most of their time and talents.
Seek help Bill. No one may be there to restrain you the next time you
lose control because you can't deal with reality.
Click to expand...

For a goofy son of a bitch like you to even suggest that anyone should "seek
help": is too damn funny..

Bill Walker · Jul 5, 2004

Albert Nurick said:

What a bozo.
Click to expand...

You and this idiot John Moran make one helluva pair.. Neither one of you
know "come here.. from sic'em".. You two are priceless... ROTFLMAO

Bill Walker · Jul 5, 2004

another viewer said:

that's what i mean, he's got some real problems. you know in the
pre-convention planning meetings there had to be talk about how to
approach people and to be non-confrontational in talking points so as to
win allies and not to alienate people who may disagree but to leave the
door open to win them over later. Tweedle-Dee goes off and just loses
it with someone in a disagreement and has to be held back. You know
word of that got around to the other reps and delegates. Bad image
projection like that that doesn't help TMRA2 nor m/c riders in general.
Click to expand...

You are a GODDAM LIAR.. John Moran...

Bill Walker · Jul 5, 2004

another viewer said:

that's pretty funny. Charlie was considerably smarter than either
Tweedle-Dee or Tweedle-Dum. They have a hard time getting anything
right, like thinking BeemerBikers website was mine and posting about it.
Que pendechos!
Click to expand...

Now that is education for you.. You don't even know how to spell it, you
ignorant shithead.. Have you moved, yet ?? LMAO

Bill Walker · Jul 5, 2004

another viewer said:

Oh, I very definitely specified BCM. You just don't read very well.

Now if you're such the computer whiz, why can't you find any of this?
It's all there for reading, entire websites in fact. Others here have
found it, why can't you? Maybe you just aren't that good.

The funny part is you will again look like the ass you are when you
finally do find it and realize it's all quite true. You'll slink off
again just like before when you thought BeemerBikers website was mine.

I was elected to the Board of Governors for the Texas Chapter of NARAS
(the Grammies) for 2 terms/4 years and my shop was the Billboard #1
nationally ranked R&B recording studio in 2000. Billy Gibbons is an old
pal and mentioned us recently in Guitar Player. Lots more than that
too.

It's going to be fun to demonstrate again that you are nothing more than
an envious hater, unable to admit when he is wrong.
Click to expand...

What was the name of that "shop" again ??

another viewer · Jul 5, 2004

that's what i mean, he's got some real problems. you know in the
pre-convention planning meetings there had to be talk about how to
approach people and to be non-confrontational in talking points so as to
win allies and not to alienate people who may disagree but to leave the
door open to win them over later. Tweedle-Dee goes off and just loses
it with someone in a disagreement and has to be held back. You know
word of that got around to the other reps and delegates. Bad image
projection like that that doesn't help TMRA2 nor m/c riders in general.
Click to expand...

You are a GODDAM LIAR.. John Moran...[/QUOTE]

insults don't change reality Bill. you should know that by now.
here it is in your own posted words, truth hurts doesn't it:

The "helmet law" being on of them.. I did come away with many
assurances, but there is still that undercurrent that I am sensing.. Mike
Alvey and some of our other good brothers were forced to "remove" me from
the presence of one of our legislators who I feel, may be involved in this
Click to expand...

Forced to remove you from the presence of one of our legislators at the
state democratic convention? They had to step in to stop you and it took
more than one person to drag you away from an elected lawmaker who needs
to understand the TMRA2 position ?
I'm sure you made a great impression that will be remembered and spoken
of by this legislator to his fellow lawmakers for a while to come
whenever this issue comes up.

Seek help Bill.

Bill Walker · Jul 5, 2004

another viewer said:

general.

You are a GODDAM LIAR.. John Moran...
Click to expand...

insults don't change reality Bill. you should know that by now.
here it is in your own posted words, truth hurts doesn't it:

The "helmet law" being on of them.. I did come away with many
assurances, but there is still that undercurrent that I am sensing.. Mike
Alvey and some of our other good brothers were forced to "remove" me from
the presence of one of our legislators who I feel, may be involved in
Click to expand...

this

Forced to remove you from the presence of one of our legislators at the
state democratic convention? They had to step in to stop you and it took
more than one person to drag you away from an elected lawmaker who needs
to understand the TMRA2 position ?
I'm sure you made a great impression that will be remembered and spoken
of by this legislator to his fellow lawmakers for a while to come
whenever this issue comes up.

Seek help Bill.[/QUOTE]

ROTFLMAO.. Damn.. you are one sick puppy.. "Restrain" ME.. No way.. That
legislator happens to be one of my friends, you stupid mother fucker.. There
were between two and three hundred BIKERS at that convention.. No posers,
designer bikers or WANNABE's like you.. We went there with four resolutions
and got all four incorporated into the platform..LOL.. How's that .. you
counterfeit ****, wannabe..?? hmmm... come to think of it, where were you ?
You damn sure weren't at home nor returning calls..

another viewer · Jul 5, 2004

Sunny said:

I found your website. Very Cool!! You probably know a bunch of the folks
that my son-in-law has worked with.
Click to expand...

It's entirely possible. What part of the biz is he in?

Bill Walker · Jul 6, 2004

another viewer said:

It's entirely possible. What part of the biz is he in?
Click to expand...

I doubt if he is in the disgusting porno shit that you are into.. But then
again.. who knows ? LMAO.. "biz" .. my ass..

Bill Walker · Jul 6, 2004

Albert Nurick said:

He couldn't find my patents, either. He's not too good with computers.

Here's a free hint: www.allmusic.com

I found it in about 10 seconds. Impressive.
Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO... Your patents were found, at least the ones you claim some degree
of credit for.. Not a marketable patent in the bunch.. Helluva "inventor",
aren't you Albert.. lil' buddy.. <chuckle> not surprising that you'd be
impressed with Ol' John Moran.. since you and him seem to gravitate toward
the same kind of ridiculous phony posturing... Hmmm... damn Albert.. don't
tell us that you have an interest in the kind of porn ol' John likes..

OT .. Fahrenheit 911

Bill Walker Guest

Advertisements

Bill Walker Guest

Advertisements

Bill Walker Guest

Bill Walker Guest

another viewer Guest

another viewer Guest

another viewer Guest

Brian Walker Guest

another viewer Guest

another viewer Guest

Bill Walker Guest

Bill Walker Guest

Bill Walker Guest

Bill Walker Guest

Bill Walker Guest

another viewer Guest

Bill Walker Guest

another viewer Guest

Bill Walker Guest

Bill Walker Guest

Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

Anyone here still believe the Official 911 Story?

911 call

911 videos download (optimised!)

OT .. Fahrenheit 911

Bill Walker Guest

Advertisements

Bill Walker Guest

Advertisements

Bill Walker Guest

Bill Walker Guest

another viewer Guest

another viewer Guest

another viewer Guest

Brian Walker Guest

another viewer Guest

another viewer Guest

Bill Walker Guest

Bill Walker Guest

Bill Walker Guest

Bill Walker Guest

Bill Walker Guest

another viewer Guest

Bill Walker Guest

another viewer Guest

Bill Walker Guest

Bill Walker Guest

Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

Anyone here still believe the Official 911 Story?

911 call

911 videos download (optimised!)

Useful Searches