Fahrenheit 9/11

The true rendition of the facts

Written by Jesse Waitz – Contribution and Editing by Joshua Waitz and Drew Dumas


Opening comments

Michael Moore recently gave us his latest contribution to "documentary" filmmaking with his film Fahrenheit 9/11. In it he openly and viscously attacks our President George W. Bush. He makes his attacks by cutting real film and audio clips together in such a way that their original meaning is lost and his slanted and slanderous opinions come through. The purpose of this document is to describe Moore's arguments, and ultimately shed light on the many errors and blatant misrepresentations that Moore attempts to make in his movie.


The 2000 Election - Here is what Moore says about the 2000 Election:

1.   Moore's LIE - While every news agency in America called the election for Gore, he wants us to assume that there is some kind of conspiracy that FOX News called it for Bush.
All the networks use the same poll prediction services, and ALL the news networks called it for Gore. Further when the mistake was found, it was CBS that retracted its mistake first, then FOX. Furthermore, calling an election accurately would merely demonstrate occupational competence, not criminal conspiracy.

2.   Moore's LIE - There was a conspiracy between G.W. Bush, his brother Jeb, and the administrators in charge of ballot counting.
Most of the counties in Florida are inhabited by democrats, and as such the polls would most likely be staffed by democrats too. As a result, we would have to assume that it was Democrats that caused most of the problems encountered on Election Day. For Moore's conspiracy to be real, the two conservative government officials Jeb Bush, and Katherine Harris would have to have overcome this massive infrastructure, and basically cast out the ballots in favor of a more desirable result. Ockam's Razor tells us that excessive or elaborate explanation is unnecessary, and unlikely to be true. As such it is more likely that we experienced normal Election Day hiccups that day and that these hiccups were ultimately, and hugely, polarized because the election results were so very close. Any other explanation is just meant to be inflammatory, and cannot be taken seriously. Further, two years later, in a DEMOCRAT primary for the DEMOCRAT gubernatorial candidate, these same polling places bungled the vote counts again, and Janet Reno sued the state of Florida demanding a recount. Not to be redundant, but this was a DEMOCRAT primary, where DEMOCRAT voters were voting at polling places run by DEMOCRAT officials for a DEMOCRAT candidate, and they still screwed it up. There are obviously major problems in the Florida Voting systems, but to say that the 2000 election was a huge Republican conspiracy, in light of these other facts, is a VERY hard leap to make, and it clearly just does not make sense.

3.   Moore's LIE - The election recount would have and did go to Gore!
This is a total lie! The Florida election recount would NOT have gone to Gore. For 6 months after the election, a consortium of major Florida newspapers recounted the votes under all of the terms that Gore sought in his lawsuits, and Bush won EVERY time. Clearly Moore is distorting the facts here!

4.   Moore's LIE - The only reason that they could not do the recount was because G. H. W. Bush had stacked the supreme court with his "His Buddies."
The only reason that the United States Supreme court was even involved in this election debacle, was because the extremely activist Florida Supreme Court acted, without any prompting from Gore's camp, to force an unlawful (Under Florida State Law) third recount of the ballots using a much looser standard for determining what constitutes a vote. Bush had to appeal to the US Supreme Court because the, also very activist, 11th district court of appeals would not hear their complaint. The US Supreme court placed an injunction on the THIRD recount, and heard the cases of both the Gore and Bush legal teams. What the US Supreme Court decided was not that one candidate won over the other, but that the Florida Supreme Court was unlawful in their attempt to "legislate from the bench" a new set of election counting laws. They decided that the laws of the State of Florida should stand and that the lawful second count of the votes should be used to decide the winner of the Florida election. How many times should the votes be recounted? But, even if the third count was allowed to continue, it is clear that Bush would still have won according to the consortium of major Florida newspapers (see argument #3 above).

5.   Moore's LIE - The black voters in Florida were disenfranchised because they were not allowed to vote.
First, democrats persistently behave as though they are the party for the minority, and Moore's premise that the minority vote would have been overwhelmingly for Gore, and changed the outcome is evidence of this. The Republican Party is the true party of Civil Rights. Starting with Abe Lincoln, the Republican Party: (a) Passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments that ended slavery, created citizenship, and giving equal protection under the law for black Americans. (b) Voted for the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act with a higher percentage of senators than did the Democrats. (c) Ended Segregation in our public school systems. (d) Nominated Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powel to be the first African Americans to serve as National Security Advisor, and Secretary of State under the Bush administration. The voters that were "Disenfranchised" by the Florida election Polls were thought to be Felons, and felons are never allowed to vote unless they have been granted clemency before the election. Further it was white people that were ultimately disenfranchised by the polling officialsŠthe error rate was 9.9% for whites, 8.7% for Hispanics, and only a 5.1% for African-Americans. The Panhandle of Florida, however, did produce an example of TRUE voter disenfranchisement. What happened here is one of the most untold stories of the 2000 election. The Panhandle of Florida is in a different time zone than the rest of the state, and is also one of the only places in Florida were the counties are predominantly conservative voting. When the state was mistakenly called for Gore by the major news outlets, most of the people that were waiting in line to vote in these (Panhandle) counties left and went home, or never went to the polls at all. Later when the prediction was corrected, it was too late for these people to cast their ballots. The estimates vary, but it is likely that thousands of conservative leaning voters did not vote because of the errant Gore prediction.


Post Election/Prior to 9/11

1.   Moore's LIE - Moore believes that after the election G. W. Bush did not have a clue of what he was doing, and no idea of what to do about it, so he decided to go on vacation, and bury his head in golfing and working around his ranch.
Bush's presidency was not in trouble prior to 9/11, he was not a "Lame Duck", and in fact no commentator ever used that term in reference to him or his presidency. He was leading with a mandate, and his first bill (tax cuts) passed and his second (education) was nearly passed before the attacks. In the first eight months before September 11th Bush spent 42% of his time on "vacation". This is not an accurate claim unless all time spent at Camp David, and time spent meeting with Tony Blair and other dignitaries, is considered "vacation time". It is hard to say that this was all vacation time, when in fact all presidents spend a great deal of time working in presidential retreat locations, in fact there are treaties and accords that were hashed out here, and ultimately named after the location. Clinton spent a great deal of time at Camp David, and overseas, and no one accused him of not working at that time. Any great businessman can attest that business relationships are more easily built on the golf course than in the boardroom. Ronald Reagan was accused of spending too much time on vacationŠand it can safely be said that some of the world's most historic events were directly related to his efforts and work during his term as president.


September 11th 2001 - Moore said that Bush failed us on 9/11 because:

1.   Moore's LIE - Bush took too long to react (7 minutes) and do something about the news he had just heard on September 11th.
First, and most importantly, there is nothing President Bush could have done in those 7 minutes that could have changed history. No action, no statement, no look on his face could have prevented the second plane hitting the tower, or the Pentagon attack. This representation of Bush is nothing more than an ad-homonym attack, typical of the mud-slinging defamation found in Moore's other work. If your perspective is that Bush is a dolt, or a puppet, then you are obviously going to view this as a moment of fear, of doubt, or of indecision, but there is also a very different explanation. In the movie, Moore says that a retired general equated the look to something like a PTSD victim, overcome by the horrors of war. When he is told about the second plane, he appears to get very sullen, very concerned, and very calculated. Moore wants us to believe that he was caught unawares, that the puppet strings were cut, and that he did not know what to do. Even if he didn't know what to do for those 7 minutes, what does that mean? Did you know what to do? Did Moore? Is the fact that this is an unprecedented moment in history lost on Moore? He wants us to believe that if Kerry or Gore were President that they would have immediately run out of the room, jumped into a flight-suit, and flown a fighter jet right into the heart of the enemy. Bush knew that he had chain of command in place for handling immediate response contingencies. He knew that the best thing he could do for America was to maintain his composure, and create an image of calm strength. He knew that in a couple of minutes he would have to address the families and friends of the victims of this terror, and it would be the MOST IMPORTANT speech he would ever have to make. And he knew that the country was going to need, more than anything else, a leader that could project calmness and strength, with integrity, in front of, amazingly enough, the most appropriate of audiences possibleŠa classroom full of children.

2.   Moore's LIE - Bush lifted the airplane groundings so that 20 members of the Bin Laden family could be flown out of the country, instead of keeping them in custody for questioning.
This is another huge misrepresentation. First, The Saudi's left the U.S. only after air travel was opened for all people in the U.S. Second, according to Richard Clarke's own words AND the 9/11 commission reportŠClarke alone approved the Saudi departures, and the decision went no higher in the chain of command than him. Further the 9/11 commission discovered that the Saudi's and the Bin Laden's were questioned in detail before being allowed to leave the U.S. Finally, Osama Bin Laden has over 50 siblings, and has been estranged from his entire family both socially and financially for more than a decade. It would be erroneous to assume that these family members would be able provide ANY helpful information to our authorities.

Investigating of the 9/11 attacks - Moore said that during the initial questioning about the attacks that we did not find out about the following:

1.   Moore's LIE - That Bush failed with his first three businesses in Texas, but his last business was bought by Harken Energy and Bush was given a seat on its Board of Directors seemingly because Bush had the ear of his father, who was the president of the US at the time.

Sure, Bush was involved in 3 failed businesses, but oil speculation is a risky business. There is a reason they call it "black gold", if anybody could drill a hole in the ground and become a millionaire, then there would be a lot more people moving to Texas. The real travesty here is how Moore tries to make the Bush family out to be pawns of the Saudi Royal Family. Here is some truth about Bush's years in Texas. James Bath did not invest any of the Bin Laden Family's money in Bush's company...it was money of his own. In addition, the reason that James Bath's name was blacked out of the medical records was because, according to the government's new HIPA regulations, designed to keep medical records confidential, they could not release a medical record that revealed the name of someone other than the person releasing the medical record. Which in this case was G. W. Bush and G. W. Bush only. The Harken Energy stock sale was not investigated by the SEC because his request to sell the stock and the advice to do so by his lawyers was all very public, and a reasonable investor could find this information if they were interested enough. It was not a secret, and as such the SEC did not investigate.

2.   Moore's LIE - The bush family has been closely tied with the Bin Laden's for a very long time, even today, G. H. W. Bush works closely with the Saudi's and the Bin Laden's.
The accusation that the Bush Family, namely G. H. W. Bush, is involved with the suspicious, sinister and decidedly evil Carlyle Group that is funded by the Bin Laden's, is yet another misstatement of the truth. First, the Carlyle Group is not a playground for the Bush Family. There are many other investors in this company, including the insanely rich benefactor of the MoveOn.org 527 organization, George Soros. Second, G. W. Bush dealt a huge blow to the Carlyle Group when it cancelled the Crusader Missile contractŠnot exactly the move of someone that is in your pocket. Third, the Saudi investment in the Carlyle Group was made long before G. H. W. Bush joined the firm, and Bin Laden's later pulled out of the Carlyle Group. And finally, the 7% figure that Moore claim the Saudi's own of America, is not 7% of America it is 7% of all foreign investment in America. So if all of America was wholly owned by foreign companies, then his figure would be accurate, but as it is presented, it is another huge exaggeration and major misrepresentation.

3.   Moore's LIE - The Saudi Royal family has given Bush millions upon millions of dollars.
The Saudi family has far too much influence in this country's government, however the Saudi's have been donating to the campaigns of every presidential election for at least the last 50 years, and is hardly a conspiracy between the Bush's and the Saudi Royal Family. Clinton spent just as much time cow towing to the Saudi's, not to mention the Chinese. It is ironic that when America goes through the UN to work with corrupt, murderous countries all over the world it is considered prudent and thoughtful, but when we try to work with Arab countries it is considered conspiratorial. Peaceful relations are construed as underhanded kickbacks when it is a Republican building them; just as breaking with countries that are abusing the "oil for food" program to fund Saddam's personal agenda is called unilateralism.

4.   Moore's LIE - Bush tried to stop the initial congressional investigation of the 9/11 attacks and Moore said that the Pearl Harbor Attack investigation began immediately after the attack.
Moore uses a clip of a news reporter to argue that Bush's opposition to the 9/11 commission was unprecedented, and suspicious. The reporter says that the pearl harbor investigations occurred directly after the attack, when in truth the investigation into what went wrong before Pearl Harbor was attacked, did not get started until after WWII was over. Bush's opposition to the congressional commission starting up in Ś03/'04 was that it was obviously overtly political, and was not what the nation needed at this time. Furthermore when the 9/11 commission report was finally released they reported that the level of cooperation from the Bush Administration was "Extraordinary". They even go on to praise the Bush White house for providing "unprecedented access". A far cry from being oppositional, and trying to block the commission from doing its job. The truth is that the press made a big deal about Bush's reluctance to have Condoleezza Rice interviewed for a second time, solely for the sake of the cameras. She had already spoken with them once, and it seemed frivolous to do it all over again (she ultimately did it anyway).

5.   Moore's LIE - That Bush and Cheney were suspiciously close to both Enron and Halliburton, and that these companies stood to gain a lot of money if a war could be started in the Iraq/Afghanistan region of the world (i.e. the natural gas pipeline).
Halliburton does one thing very, very well. They rebuild countries after the devastation of war, and they have been doing it for a very long time. Halliburton was in Somalia and Bosnia under the Clinton administration. Halliburton was in Iraq after the first gulf war, under George H. W. Bush, and Halliburton has helped in the rebuilding of countries under Ronald Regan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, etc. They are always doing this kind of work for the US government, because they do it better than anybody else and the scope of this type of work lies far beyond most companies. The criticism of the contract being awarded to Haliburton fails to notice that there are only a handful of companies in the entire world capable of doing this type of work. Halliburton's profiting from war is no different than Boeing or Jeep or anyone else profiting from war. We want to work with whoever is the best! Don't you think that our troops deserve that! Now with regard to G. W. Bush and Dick Cheney's relationship with Enron and Halliburton. Dick Cheney sold ALL of his stock in Halliburton and resigned from the board of directors prior to his accepting the V.P. nomination. Why is this not enough for Moore and the Media? Will all future elected officials be subject to mass scrutiny and fictitious ties to former employment? The fact that he was a successful leader who rose to the top of his field should speak volumes about his resourcefulness. Rather, we are to believe that a Billionaire such as Kerry would be more in touch with, and a better leader of the common man. Regarding Enron, when Ken Ley called up his "good buddies" in the white house, G. W. Bush said NO, and proceeded to sign a bill that ended up dooming Ley and Enron. Now finally, the Afghanistan Pipeline that Moore harps on. This is another egregious misstatement of the truth. This pipeline was proposed and supported by the Clinton Administration, NOT Bush. This pipeline never happened, and the Afghani government later proposed its own without the support of Unocal, and without the support of the U.S. Government. It is thousands of miles away from the original site and construction has not even begun yet. How can it be argued that Bush and Cheney were out there doing special favors for their friends in the middle-east, it just does not make sense.


Life under the threat of terrorism - Moore argues that since the attacks we have lost our freedom because:

1.   Moore's LIE - Bush has been using the raising and lowering of the threat level to keep America in a constant state of fear, and using it as a political strategy.
If you went on walk in the desert, or a hike in the woods, and were told to keep a vigilant eye out for rattlesnakes, or not to let your dog off his leash because he could be killed by a mountain lion. What would you doŠyou would probably heed the advice. But what if nothing happened, was it wrong to tell you, to worry you? Was there still a chance that the snake or mountain lion was out there just waiting to strike but didn't. Moore wants us to believe that the raising and lowering of the threat levels is designed to keep us in a constant state of fear, as if that is some kind of political calculation. If the threat level goes up and down without incident, it should be chocked up to good police work and a vigilant public that is unwilling to be attacked again. In fact, it should make you feel more secure that it is being paid attention to, and we are not living under the previous administration's false sense of security. Ignorance may be bliss, but it is still ignorance – and ignorance is very dangerous!

2.   Moore's LIE - The patriot act is too overarchingŠand has been used to infiltrate organizations like the "Peace Fresno" who only marched and demonstrated peacefully.
In one of the largest illogical and comical leaps ever seen in movie making, Moore argues that the "infiltration" of a Fresno based "peace" organization by a sheriff's deputy is an abuse using the Patriot Act. If a police department suspects a protest organization of being dangerous, it is not an infringement of rights or an abuse using the patriot act for a member of the sheriff's department to attend a public meeting advertised and open to the public. This type of action does not even require a warrant much less the Patriot ActŠit is a public meeting! However, IF the sheriff's department was able to obtain a secret warrant (under the Patriot Act) and enter the house of one of these members, without their knowledge, and take evidence, or tap a phone or computer, then you might have a complaint against the Patriot Act. The truth is that the hysteria over the Patriot Act has been greatly exaggerated. There have been NO documented abuses using the Patriot act, nobody has been deprived of their civil rights, and America is actually safer because of it. Moore knows this, and because there are no real-world instances of abuses he is left take a story of just your average everyday good police-work and colossally slant it to look nefarious. There may be problems with the Patriot Act, but Moore's complaints don't fall anywhere close.

3.   Moore's LIE - Homeland security is not very secure because budget cuts have limited the amount of State troopers in Oregon who watch the coastline to one officer who only works part-time.
It is hard to believe that Moore thinks that anybody would fall for this one. Oregon is not on the Canadian Border, there is a rather large state called Washington State between Oregon and the border of the United States. Even if there is a logical argument for watching the Oregon Coastline, that is the job of the Coast Guard. Ashcroft (and Bush) did not cut overall counter-terrorism funding. He only proposed a ONE-YEAR cut in a particular program that already had two years of unspent money. The real counter-terrorism efforts are being directed at the borders of this country not the coastlines, by different and new agencies. The real argument Moore is making here is that Bush cannot be serious about defending America if State Troopers in Oregon are losing some funding. The truth is that currently, only 3% of all cargo unloaded off of ships on the East coast are checked. That means if we spent 10 times more time and money checking cargo, two-thirds would still be coming through unchecked. Moore misses the entire point of catching criminals who plan to do harm to others. In Moore's view of the world he would have police sitting at their station, or in their cars under a tree, waiting for 911 calls to come in. That is not how crime is fought, and that is not how we will defeat the terrorist threats!

The invasion of Iraq - Moore describes the invasion of Iraq as flawed because:

1.   Moore's LIE – It was an imperialistic "occupation" designed, solely, to gain control of the Iraqi oil reserves.
Question: Who controls the Iraqi oil reserves? Answer: The Iraqi's! If this war was about oil, why on earth would the Bush administration come to congress and ask for 87 billion dollars to stabilize and rebuild Iraq. If it was all about oil, why wouldn't we send Halliburton in there and confiscate a percentage of the oil to pay for rebuilding the country. It would only be fair wouldn't it? Why didn't we keep oil when we freed Kuwait in the first Gulf War? The truth is that this war is not about oil. It is about removing a major supplier to the radical Muslim extremists, and about removing a major threat to America in the war on terror. It is impossible to argue that Saddam was not intricately involved with Al Queda, in their jihad against the west. Even the 9/11 commission clearly demonstrates this link in its most recent report. Not Iraq and 9/11, but Iraq and Al Queda - the newspapers still haven't got this one straight. Moving forward, of course America and the world are going to buy their oil from Iraq; but isn't it much better to trade with a free democracy that is our ally, than a brutal dictator that is our sworn enemy? It has been proven that France, Germany, and Russia were all dealing with Saddam under the table, and all that did was make Saddam's torture of his own people and his threat to the world more severe! Furthermore, America has a stellar record in this field. Be it Japan, France, Germany, Kuwait, etc., every time we have "occupied" a country, and are allowed to follow through with our mission, we have left it much better than it was before. The truth is that since America has been involved in world affairs, it has freed and liberated 1 billion people. That's right, 1 billion people, and we have never asked for anything but enough land to bury our dead. We don't even hold grudges when the war is over; we help them rebuild. The war with Japan was so serious that we had to nuke them twice, and today they are our ally and are a huge economic power in the world. America is an amazingly forgiving country, and is an overwhelming force for good in this world!. America is not an imperialistic nation. 200 years of American History demonstrates this, and Iraq will be no different.

2.   Moore's LIE - It was an invasion of a sovereign nation who never attacked the US, never killed a single American, and never intended us any harm!
He starts this segment of his film (in voice-over) saying that Iraq "never attacked the US, never killed a single American, and never intended us any harm." This is a flat-out LIE: (a) A couple years after the first gulf-war Saddam ordered missile attacks against any American Aircraft flying in patrol over the Iraqi No-Fly zones, and continued to shoot at American planes for a decade! This is airspace that Iraqi's were not allowed to fly in, based on a UN order. Saddam ordered the military/commando attacks against any and all US and British embassies and naval ships in the area. Saddam also ordered suicide attacks against American soldiers and citizens on the first anniversary of 9/11. (b) Saddam paid for terrorist bombers in Israel who murdered Americans, along with others. He sheltered the American-killing terrorist Abu Nidal, and the bomb-maker for the first World Trade Center bombing. (c) Saddam ordered assassination attempts against G. H. W. Bush, and U.S. Diplomats. And (d) The recent 9/11 commission reported that there was a clear connection between Iraq and Al Queda. Clearly, Iraq was far from an innocent sovereign nation, and this is just the stuff we know about.

3.   Moore's LIE - The war was started under a false premise, because the WMD intelligence was flawed and misleading.
The WMD argument is another story that Moore never told completely. So lets start at the beginning. After, the first gulf-war, we had a list of all of the WMD's Saddam claimed he had in his possession. The U.N. passed its first resolution, and Saddam signed a cease-fire agreement where he pledged to dismantle and destroy all of his WMD's. He also agreed to allow inspectors access to the observation of this process. Meaning Saddam was suppose to meet the inspectors in a parking lot somewhere and show them that he was dismantling his weapons. The inspectors were not suppose to be raiding compounds and hunting down leads all over the country like detectives. Saddam never gave a good-faith effort to fulfill these obligations, and then actually kicked the weapon inspectors out of the country after about a year. The U.N. meanwhile, kept passing feckless resolutions, 17 in fact. The U.N., and the world condemned Iraq for its lack of compliance with these resolutions. Many very liberal critics of George Bush, including John Kerry, and Bill Clinton, were publicly on record, at the time, asserting that Saddam has WMD's and that he needed to comply with the U.N. and dismantle those weapons. So ultimately the world agreed that Saddam had WMD's and that he was interested in pursuing nuclear weapons as well. If this were not common knowledge, and agreed upon by the global community, there would not have been 17 resolutions passed by the U.N. calling for disarmament, and the US senate would not have almost unanimously voted to authorized force. To claim that Bush's administration was acting on bad intelligence, or that there was no reason to believe there were WMD's is simply ignorance of the last 10 years of history. George W. Bush realized that the U.N. was not going to do anything more than pass additional resolutions, which were irrelevant, because UN Resolution #1441 already gave America the authority it needed to free Iraq. He knew that Saddam was a growing threat to America (see above argument), so he demanded that Saddam provide proof of either the existence or the destruction of these WMD's, and Saddam failed to do so. Finally, Bush is left with a decision. We can't let Saddam have WMD's, the global community has decided Sadaam can't have WMD's (he is too dangerous), everybody knows he has them, and he won't provide proof of their existence or destruction. At some point, someone needed to take a stand, and enforce these resolutions. America and the UK led that stand. The world keeps asking the Bush Administration "why did you lie about the WMD's," but the real question that the world should be asking is "Where did Saddam send them off to?" Did he send them to Syria, did he let his Al Queda friends ferret them off to one of their holes? If EVERYONE knew they were there, why are they not there now? This is the most important question facing America today, and everybody seems to be missing it.

4.   Moore's LIE - The "Mission Accomplished" landing on the aircraft carrier was a political photo op, and an abuse of his power.
The "Mission Accomplished" speech, after the dramatic landing on the aircraft carrier, was a photo-op among photo-ops. But new light has just been cast on this, very recently, with the release of Tommy Franks' new book "American Soldier". In it he states that he (Franks) asked Donald Rumsfeld, and the Bush administration to have a ceremony marking the end of military actions, because he (Franks) felt that it might help spurn countries like France and Germany that were refraining from participating in the military actions, to come help with the policing and rebuilding of the country. There is no doubt that this is a political photo-op, but there were some real and honorable purposes for doing it. Not to mention that any time a Commander-in-Chief boosts the morale of the troops, that should be considered an acceptable event.

5.   Moore's LIE - The "Coalition of the Willing" consisted of many very small countries with no armed forces with which to help support the US.
Moore makes fun of the members of the "Coalition of the Willing" saying that they consisted of very small countries, and did not have armed forces with which to support the U.S. troops. He does however neglect to mention the bigger members of the "Coalition" like the United Kingdom, Australia, Italy, and Japan. Moore supports and touts those against us, while he belittles those who are with us. If we as Americans take this stance, why would any country want to support us? Do not forget also, that in WWII we only had 9 allies, which is very different from 31 that Bush has today.

6.   Moore's LIE - The war in Iraq is becoming another Vietnam.
By using unnamed and untitled speakers in the movie, He calls this war in Iraq, another Vietnam. Let's get one thing straightŠthis war on terror, is nothing like Vietnam. The loss of even one soldier is a tragedy, but to compare this war to what happened in Vietnam, is disrespectful to the brave men we lost there. The total "in theater" deaths of soldiers in Vietnam was just over 58 thousand. We have lost about 900 soldiers in Iraq, and the comparison is not even close, it is just shameful. The real point Moore is trying to make here is that we are stuck in a quagmire or a stalemate. That may be useful for him to make money with, but it is just not true. This campaign is going down as one of the most successful operations ever. Every step of the way there have been pessimists. They say; "World War III will start, we won't win, the looting is out of control, they don't want us there, everyone is going to starve to death, we haven't caught Saddam, they cannot handle democracy," and so onŠ and so on. Every step of the way the critics have been proven wrong. The stalemate theory will be proven wrong too, and this campaign will go down as one of the greatest humanitarian efforts of all time!

Our armed forces and how they are recruited. - Moore believes that our soldiers start out disadvantaged in the current system because:

1.   Moore's LIE - The armed forces recruiters only focus on the poor neighborhoods because desperate and poor people are easier to recruit.
Why is it a bad thing to give the poor an opportunity to make money, learn a trade, get amazing lifetime benefits, and serve their country? America has the greatest army in the world, not because it is filled with disillusioned soldiers that were duped into enlisting, but because it is an ALL-volunteer force. The men and women fighting for us worldwide, do so because they believe in what they are doing, and love this country and what it represents enough that they are willing to die to defend it. And god bless them for it! But the statistics here are just not representative. Moore argues that soldiers are poor, what 18 or 19 year old isn't poor? Eighty percent (80%) of America's wealth is controlled by people 65 and older, and we certainly cannot send them to Iraq. But in truth, our troops are not dying, they are winning!

2.   Moore's LIE - The U.S. government has cut pay, support, and services for our Armed services.
Moore's accusations of pay cuts for the Armed Forces are also a great misrepresentation. At one time Bush did oppose renewing an "imminent danger zones" special bonus, but in 2003 he successfully won a 3.7% pay raise in 2003 for the Armed Forces. By the way, John Kerry opposed that pay raise.

3.   Moore's LIE - Of all the rich white congressmen that voted to send our soldiers off to war, only 1 in 500 actually had one of their own children fighting in Iraq.
Moore makes the point that since the people that are sending our soldiers off to fight in Iraq (our U.S. Congressmen) don't have any of their own children in Iraq, that they do not have the right to send our children off to fight in Iraq. There are a couple problems with this argument. First, there are two congressmen in the House that have a son in Iraq, a ratio of about 2 out of 500, and John Ashcroft has a son on a ship in the Persian Gulf. Second, the amount of people in the population in general that have a son or a daughter in Iraq is a ratio of about 1 in 2000. As you can see the congressional percentage is statistically larger than the population at whole. This is supported by census research that reports that congressmen are generally more likely to have children in the armed forces. Moore also bases his stats on enlisted soldiers. Congressmen's children are much more likely to be officers and/or are too old to still be enlisted. This is just another cheap trick with statistics. But statistics aside, the question "would you send your child to Iraq?" is inherently flawed because our armed forces are made up of adults, brave men and womenŠnot children. And why is it that Moore cloaks his argument in these terms "children", "son", "daughter"? Could it be that his argument falls flat when you realize that our soldiers are made up of brave, patriotic, and thoughtful MEN and WOMEN, and not sniveling little crumb-crunchers. We have an ALL-volunteer army, and all that we can do as parents is to try to support, guide, and understand the decisions our children make. When our sons and daughters decide to join the armed forces, we are scared, we are sad, and we are worried. But we know that it is very important to them, and we must understand, and support their decisions. Ultimately, however, we are very proud. It takes a great deal of courage, and a phenomenal sense of duty to willingly make a decision to leave your family and friends to fight for this great country, and this decision is one that only they can make. We cannot and do not send them, they alone must decide that they want to go, and it is this courage that amazes us every time we think of our fighting men and women.

Closing Comments

Michael Moore has made a career for himself by very cleverly mixing humor with slanted political opinions. Moore broke into the documentary world by going around to the CEO's and board members of some of our most successful corporations, asking them if they could do some of the mundane tasks that their companies are built on. He asked the head of IBM if she knew how to format a floppy disk. He asked the Head of GM if he knew how to change the oil in his car. This is the kind of thing that Moore does very well, but while this is funny and somewhat instructive, it misses the most important point. Moore wants us to think that if the CEO of a company doesn't know how to do these mundane tasks that they cannot be good at running a company. Anyone who studies leadership and management knows that running a business, and doing the work of a business are very, very different things. The analogy can also be transferred to the country as well. Moore thinks that if he can get us to believe even a shred of what he propounds in all of his conspiracy theories, that we will eventually throw the baby out with the bathwater. This will easily work on the already polarized left, but in truth he is practicing in intellectual dishonesty, and it really does the American public a major disservice.


Here are some problems with the way Moore makes movies other than his factual misrepresentations. He displays people in his movie, without name or title, and has them spout out theories, making the audience assume that these people and their opinions have more credit, and are more trustable then we can be sure of. Based on his record, if Moore made a movie about marriage, it would include serious interviews with Jerry Springer type guests, and everyone would walk away from the film saying that marriage is horrible. He uses a very understated and calm voice that forces people to think he is being reasonable and rational, however, the truth is very far from that. He uses pictures of dead and dismembered soldiers and suffering Iraqi's to cause the audience to emotionally connect with the idea that this war is wrong. But what is conspicuously missing are the stories of the rebuilding, the stories of what Saddam used to do to his people, and the stories of how the lives of the Iraqi people are now much better without Saddam. All you have to do to understand this is watch a real documentary on the Discovery Channel or the History Channel about Saddam, the madman. A couple stories of his torture are enough to make you realize the miraculous changes that are occurring over there.


In the end, we find that Moore's movie is an anti-war, and anti-Bush propaganda film. This document has clearly discredited all of the anti-bush messages; and in a post September 11th world, it is truely amazing that Bush has achieved a lower unemployment rate than Clinton ever had. America is growing safer every day, and it is clear that the criticisms of Bush are mainly politically motivated. That leaves us with nothing but the anti-war message. The truth is, no one is pro-war, but sometimes war is necessary to fight for truth and justice in the world. Sure we have lost many brave Americans, but there are now 50 million people that have a chance at freedom. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are coming around to the civilized world aligning themselves more with the democratic world, Libya gave up their nuclear program, and thousands of terrorists and their supporters have been killed, captured, or are on the run. How many 9/11's has that prevented? How many Americans have been saved by the sacrifices of our brave military? While the losses are tragic, the overall humanitarian effort is worth it.


The money spent on these efforts is worth it as well. Imagine the economic losses we would suffer if a nuke went off in Manhattan. All of Wall Street, the companies that trade on Wall Street, the UN, 300,000 people per square block, and everything else would be gone in an instant. Nuclear fall out would lead to chaos. The trillions of dollars lost in such an event make the billions spent on improving the world meaningless. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!" And if you do not think that this type of threat is realistic, it simply confirms the argument of why steady leadership in tough times is so important.


Finally, you may find it interesting to read the definition of the word documentary. "Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film." When the liberal people in Hollywood overlook real documentaries to award Moore with an Oscar, you will now know how ridiculous the whole thing really is!


References are not included here, but if you would like a list of references, or one or two references in particular, let us know and we will compile them for you. Thanks, and we hope you enjoyed what you read!