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.
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.
(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?)
According to Snopes, 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.
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?
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.
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.
He also doesn’t mention how Bush initially denied knowing Bath when this issue came up.
I’ve just reviewed the records I could find online from the White House release. Here and here. Warning: Here there be big PDF’s. 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.
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.
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…”
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:
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.
How is Little Green Footballs opinion of what Moore might be implying in an article an actual untruth by Moore?
After the Movie went into post production. If the informations wasn’t available prior to that, how i Moore lying?
where does Moore claim this? I’m not saying he doesn’t, but this has no quote, context or cite.
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.
this doesn’t even make sense.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
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.
