# Michael Moore = Liar. Why?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [June 14, 2004, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240 "2004-06-14T04:15:50Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 15

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\
**Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/281 "2004-07-02T21:06:33Z")

</div>

> [@Liberal](#):
>
> Fox did. No one knows why except maybe Moore.

Moore presents a plausible hypothesis as to why Fox might call it for Bush despite the service that they were supposed to rely on for that decision not doing so themselves: Bush’s brother-in-law was working for Fox.

> [@](#):
>
> At least she was there. Damnation, you people. You insist that we see the film to criticize it, but you’ll take Moore’s view about events he didn’t even witness. Sychophants.

This is a particularly ridiculous bit of logic to follow with a charge of being a sychophant. Or sycophant. Or psychophant. Moore saw the footage, which he comments on. It appears that this woman is making the same argument that Bush’s people have. He was projecting strength. Um, wouldn’t it be projecting strength if the people in the room actually knew there was a problem? Who was the strength being projected to?

Surely he could have excused himself to go and help make decisions as the fucking president. I mean, I’m very glad to know that a roomful of schoolchildren were spared from the sight of the president wetting himself, but I suspect that there is a range of options between sitting and doing nothing and showing strength through actual competent leadership. I can’t help but think about the people who were agonizing about deciding on the morality of shooting American citizens out of the sky while Bush sat there looking anything but strong.

And I have decided not to respond in kind to your namecalling, despite my typically base inclinations. Suffice it to say that it does not help your argument.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Spree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@Spree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spree)\
**Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/282 "2004-07-02T21:20:43Z")

</div>

Deceits 9-15:

> [@](#):
>
> 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.

(I can only spot 2 deceits here, and my math tells me there should be 3. Can somebody please point out the third one to me?)

This is just splitting hairs here - Moore didn’t explicitly SAY that Bush didn’t read the PDB (the first deceit) - he just made a smart comment, more along the lines that Bush should have paid more attention to it (that was the impression I got from the movie). I don’t think there is a person in America who doesn’t believe that Bush READ the thing…the debate is over whether he took it seriously enough, and that is what Moore is touching on in a humorous way. Same with Condi…regardless of the content of the report (the second deceit), some feel that the title itself is somewhat damning and should have raised more eyebrows than it possibly did (it sure seems to have raised eyebrows after the fact).

Quite honestly, I took this as a bit of smart-assery on Moore’s part and not some big claim that “Bush never read the PDB!!!”. The reviewer’s MMV. If the anti-Moore’s want to get their panties in a wad about that as an example of “deceit,” more power to them, I guess.

I fail to see the deceit though. And what the heck is the third deceit? It really would have been nice if this guy had itemized them.

(Same with deceits 12-15 - I can spot 3, where is the last?)

> [@](#):
>
> 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.”
> 
> ```

According to [Snopes](http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm), the Bin Laden’s were allowed to fly WITHIN the United States during the ban on flights. They did not actually leave the country until after the ban was lifted, but they did, in fact, fly when the other planes were grounded.

> [@](#):
>
> 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.

Okay, I’ll grant that the average viewer might not have seen Clarke’s name. But then again - what the heck does it matter? It doesn’t change the situation - that the bin Ladens got special treatment. And read Moore’s own words above - he agrees with Clarke on a lot of things, but not that.

Where is the deceit?

> [@](#):
>
> 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.
> 
> ```

This one I have to defer to others, as I simply don’t remember enough about this scene in the movie. Did Moore actually state that they weren’t questioned at all, or simply that they weren’t questioned enough, or that they were let go too early? Because it certainly does look like they were questioned, but the author didn’t make it clear exactly what he’s arguing against.

Gah…that’s enough out of me for now.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Spree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@Spree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spree)\
**Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/283 "2004-07-02T21:32:14Z")

</div>

> [@Liberal](#):
>
> At least she was there. Damnation, you people. You insist that we see the film to criticize it, but you’ll take Moore’s view about events he didn’t even witness. Sychophants.

Ah, but the question is not one of opinion (were those minutes well-spent), but rather of deceit (was Moore lying)? The opinion of the principal, who was there, is simply that - an opinion. It does not change the facts in any way - that Bush sat in the classroom for many minutes after being informed of the second plane hitting the tower, doing nothing. That is what Moore showed us (fact). It matters not what he, or anyone else, thinks about it (opinion).

Can you please explain how that makes Moore deceitful? Because that is the purpose of the article and the reason for this deconstruction.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Spree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@Spree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spree)\
**Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/284 "2004-07-02T21:37:26Z")

</div>

Okay, I know I said I was done. But that was before I saw “Deceit” number 54: Celebrities:

> [@](#):
>
> 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.

::head exploding::

Do I _really_ need to comment on this oh-so dramatic example of “deceit”? 😃

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\
**Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/285 "2004-07-02T23:19:13Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> “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.

He also doesn’t mention how Bush initially denied knowing Bath when this issue came up.

> [@](#):
>
> 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.

I’ve just reviewed the records I could find online from the White House release. [Here](http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/11-4_2004_Personnel_File.pdf) and [here. Warning: Here there be big PDF’s](http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/10-3_2000_Personnel_File.pdf). This statement by the author is an absolute lie. The only time any name is blacked out, as far as I could see, was Bath’s. In fact, I’m surprised that the author would make such a blatant lie. One interesting thing that I did see is that Bath’s name does appear, unredacted, elsewhere in the document, in a long list of other names. This might undercut Moore’s assertion, since the idea is that someone might connect Bush and Bath this way. On the other hand, the other mention of Bath is unconnected to Bush, and is certainly not linked in the same way that the two of them being suspended within a month of one another is. In any event, unless there are other documents than these, and they have “many names blacked out”, this “deceit” is actually a huge lie by the author.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\
**Post date:** [July 3, 2004, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/286 "2004-07-03T10:31:33Z")

</div>

> [@Spree](#):
>
> Ah, but the question is not one of opinion (were those minutes well-spent), but rather of deceit (was Moore lying)? The opinion of the principal, who was there, is simply that - an opinion. It does not change the facts in any way - that Bush sat in the classroom for many minutes after being informed of the second plane hitting the tower, doing nothing. That is what Moore showed us (fact). It matters not what he, or anyone else, thinks about it (opinion).
> 
> Can you please explain how that makes Moore deceitful? Because that is the purpose of the article and the reason for this deconstruction.

A fact is like a statistic — it can be used honestly or dishonestly. For example, it is a fact that your post has fewer than 200 words. Were I to use this information, and steal some cinematic techniques from great directors, I could make a documentary on your shockingly skimpy vocabulary. Though it has already been pointed out and ignored, it bears repeating that there is not just one definition of “lie”. It can be “A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood”. But it can also be “ **Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression**.” (American Heritage)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Spree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@Spree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spree)\
**Post date:** [July 3, 2004, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/287 "2004-07-03T14:29:03Z")

</div>

> [@Liberal](#):
>
> A fact is like a statistic — it can be used honestly or dishonestly. For example, it is a fact that your post has fewer than 200 words. Were I to use this information, and steal some cinematic techniques from great directors, I could make a documentary on your shockingly skimpy vocabulary. Though it has already been pointed out and ignored, it bears repeating that there is not just one definition of “lie”. It can be “A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood”. But it can also be “ **Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression**.” (American Heritage)

Agreed. And since we’re specifically talking about an article entitled “The 56 Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11”, I’ll go one step further and define “deceive” - **to cause to believe what is not true; mislead** (American Heritage). Presenting an opinion about a set of facts does not necessarily indicate deception - it is only when opinions, bias, spin, etc. make the viewer _believe something that is not true_ that it becomes a deception.

The only way a viewer could get the “wrong impression” (as per your definition above), making the scene a lie, is if Moore made them believe that Bush spent fewer, or more, minutes in the classroom, because that is the only factual item being argued. The rest is just opinion.

IOW, exactly what are you arguing? That Bush _didn’t_ spend those minutes in the classroom (the fact)? Or that the minutes were not wasted (the opinion)? The fact that this board (and the outside world, too) is pretty sharply divided on the second part indicates that the scene can be interpreted in many ways - from a complete failure of presidential responsibility all the way up to the most admirable presidential action ever. It simply depends on who is interpreting those facts.

I know this is getting long, but, again, you have not explained to me how Moore practiced “deception” by showing Bush in the classroom. He did not make anybody believe a falsehood, he did not present anything untrue as a fact. He simply interpreted those facts in a way that you, and many others, do not like.

And, considering that the “proof” of the deception in Kopel’s article was **another person giving her opinion of the facts** , doesn’t it seem kind of silly to accuse Moore of being deceitful for presenting _his_ opinion of the facts? He simply showed the opinion that Kopel didn’t like.

That doesn’t make it deceitful.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\
**Post date:** [July 3, 2004, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/288 "2004-07-03T15:39:48Z")

</div>

> [@Spree](#):
>
> Presenting an opinion about a set of facts does not necessarily indicate deception - it is only when opinions, bias, spin, etc. make the viewer believe something that is not true that it becomes a deception.

It is possible to make an opinion piece that does not deceive. The easiest way to do that is to, at the very least, make the viewer aware that there might be some other interpretation. For example, you might say, “Here are three of the many possible interpretations: (1) Bush wasted seven minutes because he was too shocked to move, (2) Bush decided that it might be best to seem calm and collected, (3) Seven minutes is a remarkably short time for Secret Service to arrange Bush’s exit. I think it was number one, and here’s why…”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Spree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@Spree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spree)\
**Post date:** [July 3, 2004, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/289 "2004-07-03T16:35:32Z")

</div>

> [@Liberal](#):
>
> It is possible to make an opinion piece that does not deceive. The easiest way to do that is to, at the very least, make the viewer aware that there might be some other interpretation.

Failure to include other interpretations does not equal deception. Bias, sure. Slant, absolutely. But not deception. Moore has not deceived, and you haven’t proven (or even offered) one shred of untruth in the classroom sequence.

If you truly believe that failure to be objective in an opinion piece = deceit, then we’ll have to agree to disagree, because we’re just arguing right past each other. I say you can’t have deceit without distorting facts, and you (now) say, apparently, that deceit is possible simply depending on the number of different opinions/interpretations presented.

I did want to address one thing you said earlier, though, that may clarify my position:

> [@](#):
>
> At least she was there. Damnation, you people. You insist that we see the film to criticize it, but you’ll take Moore’s view about events he didn’t even witness. Sychophants.

This is where you misunderstand. It’s not Moore’s view. **It’s my own damn view** , based on the facts and opinions presented to me by Moore, the high school principal, multiple threads on the SDMB, and what feels like half the world.

Fair enough?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\
**Post date:** [July 5, 2004, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/290 "2004-07-05T12:11:00Z")

</div>

[Here is an extremly interesting read](http://s88251339.onlinehome.us/smartercop/archives/002017.html) regarding F911. A nice summary of the bullshit containing in said movie.

Michael Moore = Liar. Why? Well, because the sonuvabitch doesn’t tell the truth, that’s why.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\
**Post date:** [July 5, 2004, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/291 "2004-07-05T13:07:44Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> 1. Sneaking Suspicions:

How is that a lie by Moore?

> [@](#):
>
> 1. David T. Hardy:
> 
> Two months ago, Moore posted a statement on his website calling the Iraqi insurgents and terrorists ‘minutemen’ and expressing implied hope for their victory. In his new movie, Moore tries to make the viewers believe that he expresses sympathy for our troops, and says more troops should be sent there to reinforce them. Which of Moore’s two views does he really follow?

How is Little Green Footballs opinion of what Moore might be implying in an article an actual untruth by Moore?

> [@](#):
>
> 1. Debbie Schlussel:
> 
> Additionally, Richard Clarke has, under oath, claimed immediate and direct responsibility for transporting the bin Laden family out of the United States, claiming that the order never rose above his level of command. Not only that, but the bin Laden family has practically disowned black sheep brother Osama for his terrorist activities, sometimes to the point of changing the names of many of their subsidiaries to avoid association with the arch terrorist’s infamy. See #17 for more on this.

After the Movie went into post production. If the informations wasn’t available prior to that, how i Moore lying?

> [@](#):
>
> 1. Moore claims the Saudi embassy was the only one in DC protected by the US Secret Service. Au contraire. The Secret Service Uniformed Division is tasked to protect any embassy in the DC embassy district which asks for or needs its protection.

where does Moore claim this? I’m not saying he doesn’t, but this has no quote, context or cite.

> [@](#):
>
> Moore’s so-called congressional ‘experts’ are none other than Jim McDermott (who, among other things, claimed the Hussein capture was ‘staged’; flagrantly omitted the words ‘Under God’ from the Pledge; and most grievous of all, took money from Saddam Hussein from an intermediary in Detroit) and John Conyers (part of the leftist campaign to ‘Free Mumia’; supported pro-Cuban insurgents in El Salvador; introduced a motion to impeach President Bush).

they are really scraping here. so what if he omitted “Under God”? It hasn’t been proven that he took money, just like none of the other people supposedly on the “scattered files” have been proven to have recieved money from Saddam. The John Convers bashing is just typical rightie buzzword crap, and nothing that actually shows what they said was wrong.

Still no lie by Moore.

> [@](#):
>
> 1. Moore goes right for the ‘jugular’ suggesting that since airheads like Britney Spears support the President… oh yeah, Michael? Natalie Maines - end of story.

this doesn’t even make sense.

> [@](#):
>
> 1. Moore leads the viewer to think the Saudi family paid the Bushes over a billion dollars - yet this does not reflect on their current net worth. Moore knows this, and downplays the fact that the Bush family wasn’t the only one being paid with vocal emphasis on the Bush name.

the link doesn’t say what they claim it says. It has the income for GWB, nothing about any of the rest of the clan or their businesses. No proof of Moore lying yet.

> [@](#):
>
> ```
> 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.
> 
> ```

That still isn’t a lie by Moore. Are we to thik everyone went about their business as normal in Bagdad while the city was being bombed?

> [@](#):
>
> Representative Mike Kennedy of Minnesota had his comments censored when asked if he could get his kids to enlist in the war on Iraq. This also happened to Rep. John Tanner of Tennessee.According to Kennedy, he told Moore that he had a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.
> 
> [from the link on supporting that point]
> 
> In fact, Kennedy says, he has had two nephews in the military, with his own son considering a career in the Navy.
> 
> Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive.
> 
> In a Capitol Hill appearance Thursday, Moore denied censoring Kennedy’s remarks because they didn’t fit into the premise of his film, as Kennedy charges.
> 
> “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.’ "

Still not a lie by Moore. He cut out his response because it pertained to nephews in Afghanistan, not sending his children to Iraq. Yes, it was cut to make Kennedy look stupid, but Moore was in his rights to cut out what he felt was unnecessary information to his point. I don’t agree with that form of jkournalism, but it’s still not a lie.

> [@](#):
>
> ```
> Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11" criticizes President Bush for listening to Sarasota second-graders read a story for nearly seven minutes after learning the nation was under attack on Sept. 11, 2001.
> 
> But Gwendolyn Tose'-Rigell, the principal at Emma E. Booker Elementary School, says Bush handled himself properly.
> 
> ```

so one person says Bush did the right thing. If I find someone saying that he did the wrong thing, does that make the Principal a liar?

Still no lie by Moore.

I could go on. but the page continues with nothing but guesstimates of what Moore’s opinions or intentions are, no actual proof that he is lying.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\
**Post date:** [July 5, 2004, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/292 "2004-07-05T13:12:15Z")

</div>

[http://s88251339.onlinehome.us/smartercop/](http://s88251339.onlinehome.us/smartercop/)

What a bastion of fair and balanced reporting that site is.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\
**Post date:** [July 5, 2004, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/293 "2004-07-05T16:09:56Z")

</div>

> [@Brutus](#):
>
> [Here is an extremly interesting read](http://s88251339.onlinehome.us/smartercop/archives/002017.html) regarding F911. A nice summary of the bullshit containing in said movie.
> 
> Michael Moore = Liar. Why? Well, because the sonuvabitch doesn’t tell the truth, that’s why.

Hey, dipshit. You’re linked article doesn’t actually _cite_ anything in the movie that’s a lie. Did you even read it? Why don’t you have the intellectual courage and honesty to see the movie for yourself and form your own opinion rather than letting some ludicrous right-wing prpopaganda website dictate your opinion _to_ you?

I’m still waiting for someone to point out a lie in the movie. Come on, you fucking assholes. Some of you have been rather bold and unequivocal in your assertions. Why can’t you back them up?  
Bitches.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\
**Post date:** [July 5, 2004, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/294 "2004-07-05T17:00:03Z")

</div>

> [@TwistofFate](#):
>
> …Still not a lie by Moore. He cut out his response because it pertained to nephews in Afghanistan, not sending his children to Iraq. Yes, it was cut to make Kennedy look stupid, but Moore was in his rights to cut out what he felt was unnecessary information to his point. I don’t agree with that form of jkournalism, but it’s still not a lie…

Holy crap, you Moore-ons will go through any contortion possible to excuse your propagandist. I realize that your world-view doesn’t get much validation, and Moore represents pretty much the pinnacle of Leftist thought, but how about a little decency from you guys?

‘Selective quoting’ would get you at least a warning from the mods here. A serial offender, like Moore, would be booted. Yet you line up to slurp up his propaganda. If you don’t consider intentionally twisting around words and selectively editting comments to be a dishonest act, then you are fucked. You just aren’t worth the effort it would take to explain to you why such things are just plain wrong.

And **Diogenese** , you are being a windbag. Address the actual point listed. No, I haven’t seen F911. No plans to. Why bother when there is so much good information that others are providing regarding that farce? And you demonstrate amazing cheek by decrying a Right-wing site as being ‘propaganda’, whilst defending F911. You are the very epitome of ‘Moore-on’.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\
**Post date:** [July 5, 2004, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/295 "2004-07-05T17:04:47Z")

</div>

> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#):
>
> Why don’t you have the intellectual courage and honesty to see the movie for yourself and form your own opinion rather than letting some ludicrous right-wing prpopaganda website dictate your opinion _to_ you?

Because his head would explode before the last reel rolled onto the screen. 😉

Sorta like what happened to these guys:

> [@](#):
>
> _Raleigh:_ “Friday Night’s opener was spectacular. My favorite part of the experience was sitting in front of a group of Republicans that had come to the theatre to debunk the movie. They had the entire row reserved. When the movie ended and the crowd stood up to applaud, I looked behind me to see a row of puzzled patrons with their mouth’s open and the look of shame and embarrassment on their faces.”  
> –[B.R. of North Carolina,](http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/breakingnews/index.php?id=53) to Michael Moore

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\
**Post date:** [July 5, 2004, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/296 "2004-07-05T17:56:29Z")

</div>

Gah, how fucking stupid. A look of shame and embarrassment? First of all, the guy is probably lying. Birds of a feather and whatnot. Second, his interpretation of facial expressions, if true, is a subjective thing at best, a biased thing at worst. And finally, if it did indeed happen and they were indeed embarrassed and ashamed, it is probably because they realized they had actually given Moore their money.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\
**Post date:** [July 5, 2004, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/297 "2004-07-05T18:24:06Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> When the movie ended and the crowd stood up to applaud…

is the really stupid part. Who are they applauding? The projectionist? The usher? MM? He wasn’t there, so the point is what, exactly? That the audience is a bunch of Moore-on lemmings? Well, duh. BTW, with all this talk about sold-out theatres for every showtime, do the theatres have enough time to properly de-louse the seats between showings? And what do they do about the smell? Just wondering.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\
**Post date:** [July 5, 2004, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/298 "2004-07-05T18:30:45Z")

</div>

[url=]According to CNN, Moore is backtracking:

> [@](#):
>
> While Moore has previously boasted that “Fahrenheit 9/11” would help Bush lose his job in November, he backed down during the teleconference, merely hoping that the film would inspire the large non-voting bloc to be “an active participant in our democracy.” Similarly, Moore reversed himself on previously stated plans to release the DVD version of the film in October. “No deal has been done to do that,” he said.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\
**Post date:** [July 5, 2004, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/299 "2004-07-05T18:36:53Z")

</div>

Goodness gracious, **Milroyj**! Lice? Smell? What is it that has upset you so much? Don’t you have any long-hair, bath, and job jokes in your Bob Hope repetoire? I dread to think how testy you’re likely to get as the situation develops. Perhaps some herbal remedies, some St. Johns Wort, some chamomile tea. Take a course in meditation. Maybe pretty soon, that would be good. Before November.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\
**Post date:** [July 5, 2004, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/300 "2004-07-05T18:55:39Z")

</div>

Are you really that hateful? Apparently so.

Applause is an entirely-standard way of releasing emotion at the conclusion of a performance. It also is a way of communicating - not necessarily to the performer/creator, but \*to each other in the audience \* - that they have experienced something worth applauding. It’s a short, simple way to start the more personal-level conversations that inevitably follow.

**Lib** , it would be so foolish to claim that one knows what the election result would be that the original comment you’re bashing Moore for can only be taken as pep-rally talk. But then, you’re looking for \*anything \* he’s said that’s factually wrong, aren’t you? That’s what you’ve come to. Pitiful wanker.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240.md?page=14)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240.md?page=16)