Michael Moore will live the American dream and see his day in court:
A veteran who lost both arms in the war in Iraq is suing filmmaker Michael Moore for $85 million, alleging that Moore used snippets of a television interview without his permission to falsely portray him as anti-war in “Fahrenheit 9/11.”
Sgt. Peter Damon, a National Guardsman from Middleborough, is asking for damages because of “loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation,” according to the lawsuit filed in Suffolk Superior Court last week.
Damon, 33, claims that Moore never asked for his consent to use a clip from an interview Damon did with NBC’s “Nightly News.”
He lost his arms when a tire on a Black Hawk helicopter exploded while he and another reservist were servicing the aircraft on the ground. Another reservist was killed in the explosion.
In his interview with NBC, Damon was asked about a new painkiller the military was using on wounded veterans. He claims in his lawsuit that the way Moore used the film clip in “Fahrenheit 9/11” – Moore’s scathing 2004 documentary criticizing the Bush administration and the war in Iraq – makes him appear to “voice a complaint about the war effort” when he was actually complaining about “the excruciating type of pain” that comes with the injury he suffered.
In the movie, Damon is shown lying on a gurney, with his wounds bandaged. He says he feels likes he’s “being crushed in a vise.”
“But they (the painkillers) do a lot to help it,” he says. “And they take a lot of the edge off of it.”
Damon is shown shortly after U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., is speaking about the Bush administration and says, “You know, they say they’re not leaving any veterans behind, but they’re leaving all kinds of veterans behind.”
Damon contends that Moore’s positioning of the clip just after the congressman’s comments makes him appear as if he feels like he was “left behind” by the Bush administration and the military.
I have no idea if the case has any merit, but I do like the idea of Michael Moore being sued. I understand that many people on the political left are angry about the political events of the last decade. I can understand that. What I can not understand is the desire to use that anger to lie and manipulate facts, something Moore does gleefully and frequently. Fahrenheit 9/11 was, from an aesthetic standpoint, a great film. But there was so much bullshit packed into the polemic that any point he was trying to make was completely overshadowed by the distortions and the dishonesty, and those on the political left who continue to cheer Moore are just missing the point.
SomeCallMeTim
What I can not understand is the desire to use that anger to lie and manipulate facts, something Moore does gleefully and frequently.
I’m not a Moore fan, never saw the movie, and find myself uncomfortable with him as an ally. But I don’t think there’s any mystery about why he has what support he does on my side of the aisle: we’ve spent the last ten to fifteen years (you could argue all the way back to Tricky Dick) watching the success y’all have had with just those tactics. More and more Dems realize we can have our moral purity and Republican misrule, or we can learn the new rules of the game and do what is needed to win. Unsurprisingly (especially after the last 4 years), we choose to learn to win.
Maybe part of the problem is the Moore sucks at the Limbaugh/Coulter/Malkin stuff, and so it seems too obvious. Or not obvious enough. Whatever. We’ll get better at it.
Punchy
Seems frivolous to me. I’m no lawyer, but I’m confused as to why Moore has to ask Peter “Don’t call me Johnny” Damon for permission to use a NBC news clip…
Shorter: doesn’t the useage rights lie with NBC and not Damon? Again, I’m no lawyer, so clarification would be nice.
John Cole
Aim high.
kc
Damon is shown shortly after U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., is speaking about the Bush administration and says, “You know, they say they’re not leaving any veterans behind, but they’re leaving all kinds of veterans behind.”
Damon contends that Moore’s positioning of the clip just after the congressman’s comments makes him appear as if he feels like he was “left behind” by the Bush administration and the military.
Well, now I’m curious. Who was he talking about when he said “they’re leaving all kinds of veterans behind?”
chopper
wow, this guy’s really on the ball. i mean, didn’t f911 just come out like last week?
ppGaz
Fixed!
Al Maviva
Punchy, it’s not that the news clip was used, it is that what the soldier said in the newsclip, in his viewpoint, was misrepresented by Moore. The tort in such situations is usually “false light” or “misappropriation of likeness,” whichever claim is made depends on state law and the detailed facts alleged.
p.lukasiak
I have no idea if the case has any merit, but I do like the idea of Michael Moore being sued.
Christ Cole, next time you want to lecture someone with “wait for all the facts”, remember that you wrote this.
Only a partisan hack supports harrassing people with lawsuits regardless of whether they have merit.
John Cole
I said I like the idea of it. You pedants can figure out the difference between liking Michael Moore being sued, and like the idea of him being sued.
Some of you insufferable pricks dissect everything else I write, why not try doing it with this?
Steve
This doesn’t strike me as a valid legal claim, but I guess the court will sort that out.
I wonder if the lawsuit is being financed by a partisan group.
John Cole
That was actually the first thing I thought of- who is making up this guy’s legal team…
Rick DeMent
Yeah, If Moore were something more then a creator of feature length political cartoons I would say, “sure you have a point”. But he does exactly what the Limbaugh’s, Hannity’s, and Coulter’s of the world do and somehow he is singled out as being somehow more of a liar, more dishonest, and more vile then the three I mentioned.
The only people how have any standing to level any accusations at Moore are those people who, with the same energy and enthusiasm call out the Limbaugh’s, Hannity’s, and Coulter’s of the world.
I don’t take Moore or Limbaugh seriously because they are clowns. I find them both pretty funny and they work their respective mediums well but outside of that I just don’t pay all that much attention. I’m struck though by who much energy is spent on both sides of the isle attacking the other sides court jesters.
Anderson
Maviva should be attended to on this one. State laws are variable on whether there’s a cause of action in cases like this, but it’s not evidently frivolous.
DougJ
Thoughtful stuff, John. Try to stop embarrassing yourself.
Bob In Pacifica
John,
Nothing like enjoying those frivolous lawsuits on Court TV while thumbing through your frayed copy of THE FOUNTAINHEAD.
It’s nice that Cole’s bitterness transcends any philosophical tenets.
DougJ
Seriously, though, when I read your comments over here, they’re pretty thoughtful. Why throw something like that in? It sounds anti-free speech, which I know you’re not. I would never say I was happy O’Reilly, Limbaugh, or Coulter were being sued over something they said (unless I thought it was genuinely libelous).
DougJ
You pedants can figure out the difference between liking Michael Moore being sued, and like the idea of him being sued.
You’re straying dangerously close to “Jane Hamsers of the left” territory. I think you do it on purpose — I was going to stop commenting here, but I couldn’t resist getting involved once I saw you put your foot in your mouth. You do it on purpose, don’t you? I know, I know, I’m one to talk.
HH
Of course the “we’ve suffered through 4 years of this” claim might have some merit if MM hasn’t been manipulating facts since, oh, 1989 (Pauline Kael, anyone?).
Davebo
Obviously Moore needs to sign off on some inane blogger ethics pledge.
He doesn’t have to abide by it mind you, but at least sign off on it.
Vladi G
It was a clip of an interview with the plaintiff. I’d imagine that to use his likeness in the original piece, he probably had to assent to some sort of waiver or release. Again, I’d imagine that a pretty standard clause of such a release gives the network the right to use the clip, which includes granting access to others who want to use the clip. That’s a first reaction, though.
As for who’s paying for the lawsuit, wait and see if it goes to trial of if it gets settled. If it gets settled, this guy is probably paying for it himself. If it goes all the way, it’s being paid for by someone who hate Moore and has a lot of money.
ppGaz
Mmmmmmmmmwah! { throws big kiss }
That’s right, an Insufferable Prick would never watch this government every day and then waste bandwidth talking about the lies of Michael Moore! Because the Lies of Michael Moore(tm) are behind all the catastrophic problems facing the nation today. Moore got us into the war, put us on the track to insurmountable debt, divided the country up along religious and cultural lines and set American against American, tried to con the country into trashing its Social Security Trust Fund and queered reform for the next twenty years, sold the USA to the HMOs and Pharmas and oil companies, buttfucked the Saudis whenever they asked him to, invented the slogans “Mission Accomplished” and “Bring It On” and “Dead or Alive” and “With Us or With The Terrorists” and the brain-killing stupidity of the Yellow Terror Threat Thing and watched New Orleans drown from Air Force One and Praised Drownie so that the public would understand when he got fired a little later and fucked up the Wilson-Plame thing and turned it into a criminal case that will tie up his White House for the duration of his presidency and made a funny movie about looking for WMDs in the Oval Office and …
Oh wait, did you say Moore? Michael Moore? Oh, sorry, never mind.
Punchy
Thanks for the clarification, Al.
As for this:
No, I cannot. I am baffled by this statement. You don’t like him being sued, but you like the idea of him being sued?? Or is it the other way around? You want him sued, but the idea of suing is what bothers you?
And THIS:
Take one look at your President. You obviously understand this quite well if you voted for Bush in 2004.
Tim F.
Is this similar to the gay couple who sued when an anti-AARP astroturf firm used their likeness for an attack ad? The two differences that I see are 1) Moore used a news clip, which might qualify as pubilc domain, and 2) the vet might have given his permission at first and then changed his mind (much) later. I would have a hard time condemning the suit if the two were legally similar to one another but I don’t know enough about the specifics to say one way or the other.
Vladi G
Another possible difference is that, IIRC, that image was licensed and for sale by the paper in Oregon, but they never sold a license to use the photo to the defendants. The astroturf firm just took the photo without permission and started using it. I’d think that Moore would be smarter than to simply take a network clip for use in his film without clearing the legality of it, but I guess we’ll find out.
Sstarr
Seems like a pretty frivolous lawsuit to me. IF the footage was filmed without the veterans consent, you can bet the lawsuit would be based on those grounds.
This could really cause a problem for our entertainment industry: if everyone can sue filmmakers for making them look stupid, even when they have given consent to be filmed, we may never get to see one of those entertaining “failed contestant” American Idol shows again!
Also, it seems that any self proclaimed conservative who enjoys seeing someone hit by a frivolous lawsiuit should just turn in their conservative badge at the front office….
mark
lying to start a war == ok
dissecting those lies and showing their impact == bad
DougJ
lying to start a war ok
dissecting those lies and showing their impact bad
That’s not what John is saying. I liked Fahrenheit 911 a lot, but I think it is fair say the laid it on a bit thick with the stuff at the Saudi embassy, for example. Did the polemicsim overshadow the real thrust of the movie? Not in my opinion, but it hardly makes John a Bush-bot that he thinks it did.
The Other Steve
Well, I’m not a fan of Michael Moore. Never really liked his movies, even back when I saw Roger and Me back in college. In fact, I did go to see him speak in Minneapolis and walked out of the auditorium half way through in disgust.
That being said, anybody who voted for Bush in 2000 or especially 2004 really has no right to complain about Michael Moore and his supposed gleeful and frequent lying.
So, you can pretty much fuck off. You’re the one clearly missing the point.
McNulty
Well, a simple search using the search engine on John’s site shows that he has criticized all three of those people on numerous occasions.
So, John, you now have the permission of gasbags like Rick Dement and others in the “oh yeah, how about _______” camp to criticize Moore.
Sojourner
I always find it amusing when someone wants to hold Michael Moore to a higher standard than the POTUS.
Odd. Really odd.
Fog
John, I’m surprised that you don’t follow Teacher’s Rule #1 here, since it applies as much to a blog as to a classroom. Rule #1 states that a teacher has no right to get angry in the classroom regardless of the provocation. A teacher who loses his sh#t in class loses the respect of those students forever, and undermines a lot of good work. The same is true here. It’s self indulgent and counter productive. And, yes, I am an insufferable prick.
John Cole
DougJ- I used to think you were a pretty bright guy, but I am having my doubts recently. I am not sure how I embarassed myself with the following statement:
I meant every word of it, and I will say it again. I don’t know if the case has merits, but I like the idea of him being sued. This seems to be another one of your not-so-bright remarks:
I am not sure how I put my foot in my mouth, since I meant what I said. I try to use words very carefully on this site, more so recently, because I have a core of people who no matter what I write, will try to manipulate it or distort it to mean what they want it to mean, rather than what I was stating. This is a perfect example.
I like the idea of Michael Moore being sued. I do. Call me a flawed individual, but I detest him. He is a lying, self-aggrandizing, manipulative, deceitful, faux-populist. Roger and Me was great, and I forget the name of the television show he had that was pretty damned funy, but in the past few years he has become a detestable punk. If he were not against the Bush administration, many of you would hate him the same way I do. He is just as dishonest as many of the buffons on my side of the aisle, who I have little or no patience for, either.
So, I like the idea of him being sued if he has libeled or slandered someone. I relish the idea of his ass in court facing those he smeared.
I have no idea how that can be interpreted as my support for frivolous lawsuits, particularly when I stated (and I will post it once more):
The only way to interpret that as support for frivolous lawsuits is if you take the MOST uncharitable interpretation possible, and run with it. And you did. Again.
If by “straying dangerously close to ‘Jane Hamshers of the left’ territory” you mean I have stated something that is totally clear to anyone willing to attempt to honestly understand what I am saying, but easily manipulated into something completely different by mendacious fools with too much time on their hands, then, yes, you are probably right. My “Jane Hamshers of the left” remark made perfect sense, and I refuse to budge on that. When I stated the “Jane Hamshers of the left,” I meant the grenade-chucking wing of the angry left, and you and others damned well know it. Were I to say the “Michael Moore’s of the left” are stating X, if Michael Moore were to show up and say “I never said that,” you and I and everyone else would laugh him out of the forum.
But because you all wanted so bad to bring Ben Domenech down for his perceived wrongs, you through common sense, decency, and any willingness to understand what I had actually said out the window. As to this:
I did not put my foot in my mouth- you are merely having fun pretending I put my foot in my mouth so you can do what you do- whip up the comments section into an unreadable mess in which what people actually state and actually mean are totally irrelevant, and what matters is your distortion of their statements.
John Cole
Fog-
I have no principle’s office here, and I am dealing with a group of people who willfully misinterpret everything I write, when I clarify their misinterpretations they accuse me of changing my story, and when it is finally (to heightened standards set by them- standards that exceed ration, common sense, and the conversational tone of this blog) plain and clear what I was saying, they continue the thread on for 200 more comments flaming me for the mythical interpretation they have created.
You deal with that for a year and get back to me on patience. If you have a website, give me a link so I could send you the traffic so you can experience it firsthand.
Me, too.
DougJ
My “Jane Hamshers of the left” remark made perfect sense
If you’re trying to get me to stop taking your side here, you’re doing a good job.
DougJ
when I clarify their misinterpretations they accuse me of changing my story
I hope you’re not accusing me of doing this — I always let it drop once you’ve explained yourself.
John Cole
I have shown that Jane Hamsher exchange to dozens of people who teach English and Communication Studies, and to a person they agree my remarks made complete sense, and that your interpretation required willfull misunderstanding. I am not budging.
John Cole
Example A of:
DougJ
But on this one, I still think your attitude — in both its original and clarified forms — is essentially anti-free speech. I don’t think that Moore smears anyone in a libelous way. I don’t Anne Coulter does, either. (The more I think about it, the more I think O’Reilly might, by the way.)
I don’t like the idea of using lawsuits to stifle free speech. It’s that simple. I’m surprised you don’t feel the same way.
DougJ
I guess I see your point — you’re saying that you like the idea of Michael Moore being sued if he really deserves it. All I can tell you is that still don’t feel the same way — about Moore or about Limbaugh or Coulter.
Punchy
He = Moore? Or Bush? Rumsfeld? Cheney (minus the populist)? Rice? Gonzales?
If this were Mad Libs, and “he” was replaced with a blank, there’d be about a thousand answers, all of whom work in the WH.
tBone
A small group of people, John. A lot of us here think you’re a decent guy, even when we disagree with you, and we don’t try to nitpick every single thing you say. Even DougJ defends you fairly frequently (granted, he spends the rest of his time needling you, but still).
Just ignore the assholes. The more you hyperventilate, the more they enjoy it.
les
Ya know, John, you whine about this a lot; but if it’s common that people misunderstand what you write, it’s worth looking at the writing. Do you seriously think the following statements are equivalent?
and
Sorry–I read the first one as you like him being sued, regardless of the merits; that’s frivolous or not, to me. The second excludes frivolous. If you thing they are the same, it’s no wonder you have problems with people interpreting your work.
John Cole
I actually detest O’Reilly more than Michael Moore, if for no other reason than the fact that people use him as an example of ‘the right.’ Actually, there are a lot of reasons I hate O’Reily more.
Coulter, while malicious, does occassionally make a quip that I find amusing. I don’t agree with her sentiments regarding Sandra Day O’Connor, but this made me laugh out loud:
Vile as she can be, signs of a sense of humor elevate her above O’Reilly and Moore, IMHO (although Moore has the potential to be outright hilarious- see Roger and Me).
John Cole
Why would I put the part about the case having merits if all I wanted was for him to be sued? I intentionally added the qualifier about the merits of the case to point out I do not want him sued frivolously, and was rewarded with people claiming I was stating the exact opposite.
DougJ
I just don’t see Moore or Coulter go after people personally (except for elected officials) in a way that seems wrong to me. So I would not like to see either of them silenced by the threat of lawsuit.
Punchy
Uh oh. No…no you didn’t, Mr. Cole. Pimping Ann Coulter…THIS promises to be fun.
NOW you can RIP this thread.
The Other Steve
That’s really the point.
If it’s so very wrong to call the President a Liar for all the shit he’s dumped on us, what’s the point of going after Michael Moore?
I’m so sick of politics being a contest amongst Drama Queens.
I don’t like Michael Moore, and if I’d seen this news I would have just moved on to something else. Is that so hard?
John Cole
If you mean by stating “Diarrhea is not as bad as smallpox or botulism,” I am pimping diarrhea, then yes, I am ‘pimping’ Ann Coulter.
Darrell
I love how tBone tries to minimize the number of whackjobs on his side. Reading this thread, it appears that “small group” = 60%
tBone
And people posting on this thread represent what percentage of the total BJ commentariat, Darrell?
Don’t you have better things to do, like making dishonest, vicious smears on Murtha?
ppGaz
And as we all know, the demographics of the BJ comments is the most reliable predictor of … well, almost anything. In fact, insurance companies are now using it for their actuarial bases. The big automakers come here looking for marketing trends. Etc.
ppGaz
By far, the funniest damn thing you have ever written here.
Oh Jesus, my sides hurt.
Seriously. My sides really hurt.
ppGaz
Hey guys, my sides hurt really bad.
Rick DeMent
Well seriously, if you don’t think Michael Moore’s movies are funny and at the same time you think that Ann Coulter signs of a sense of humor then you are seriously off the deep end. They both use the same tactics and they both use the same standard of truth. To elevate one over the other is to admit that the big difference between thw two is not in their relative dishonesty or vileness, it is simply to say that you can’t laugh when your side is the butt of a joke.
Having said that Rush Limbaugh is a comedic genious compaired to Ann Coulter who is only “funny” if you think petty name calling is funny.
ppGaz
I am against petty name calling.
I am against anything petty, really.
Bob In Pacifica
From the description of the section of the film (I’ve never seen it myself) I don’t think that the case has much chance.
Right now here in California we are a week away from the primaries and every commercial break is littered with political ads. The Angelides for Governor ads show Steve Westly hobnobbing with Chicago gangsters in pinstripe suits while using photos that make the shadow under Westly’s nose look like a little Hitler mustache. Westly’s ads declare that Angelides, who got endorsements from all the ecology groups, wants to pave over all the wetlands. My girlfriend and I make up parodies about which one eats live human babies and which one just drowns kittens for fun.
In short, I doubt that putting a clip of a congressman commenting on lack of support for veterans right after a clip of a veteran doesn’t violate any laws.
I would like to see who’s putting up the money for the lawsuit, though.
tBone
I give up. John and Darrell are right.
Perry Como
Is it time to talk about prison shower scenes?
Ancient Purple
Yeah. Her quip about poisoning Justice Stevens was comic gold. A real hoot. Why, I still am wiping away the tears from my eyes over that gifted, insightful piece of pure side-spliting humor.
ppGaz
Yeah, and her suggestion that the 911 hijackers should have aimed for the NYT Building was also a knee-slapper.
— Insufferable Prick #423
John Cole
Exhibit B of:
Because, when I link something that is clearly pretty funny by Ann Coulter, that is, of course, an endorsement of anything offensive she may have said. Why, if Ann Coulter kicks her dog, my stating her Sandra Day O’Connor quote was funny means I clearly support dog kicking.
In the bizarro world that is my comments section, at least.
ppGaz
Well hell, aren’t there some funny Hitler quips out there?
Richard Bottoms
No it’s not.
What it is, is news and Michael Moore’s opinion of that news. The suit is frivolous, though it’s fine to jettison tort reform rhetoric when it serves a purpose the right likes.
I don’t know why folks like John go to so much effort to make the left disavow Michael Moore, or Cindy Sheehan for that matter.
That Moore has been telling the Bush administration to stick it up their ass for six years delights me no end.
Maybe if F911 had been heeded and the smirking chimp voted out of office we wouldn’t have Haditha and dead pregnant women to worry about.
Would we.
Pooh
Given that John specificially disclaimed the ‘poisoning’ quip, methinks you are being unfair.
Faux News
Sorry to get into this thread so late. I haven’t had time to read all the responses, so forgive me but I must ask:
Has John mentioned Cindy Sheehan yet?
:-)
Pooh
And this guys going to have a hell of a time proving his case, as Anderson says, it’s not obviously frivolous, but it’s very difficult for me to imagine a set of facts on which he can prove all the necessary elements. (Damages? Of course, he’s got a pretty big sympathy card to play considering his injuries, but they are at best tangentially related to this cause of action. Let’s put it this way, if he gets $85 mil, I shudder to think what John would owe the actual Jane Hamsher for the “Jane Hamshers” comment…)
RSA
I find myself in John’s camp, at least from a rhetorical perspective. For example, I really like the idea of Bush and Cheney being thrown into federal pound me in the ass prison at 5:00PM tonight, even though the reality of prison rape is deplorable and due process is, in general, a pretty good thing. (I can hear Bush now, whimpering with pursed lips: “Please, don’t cornhole me.”)
Perry Como
Why do you hate the troops?
ppGaz
Fixed.
Dave Ruddell
John, the show that Moore had that you were trying to remember the name of was TV Nation. It started life on NBC, then moved to Fox(!). Two things I remember about it were Crackers, the Corporate Crime-Fighting Chicken, and the Corporate Challange, where they dared CEOs to use their company’s products. I think they got the CEO of wither Ford or Chrysler to change his oil. More here.
HH
Let’s take one movie for example – Bowling for Columbine… Are you saying Heston and Dick Clark weren’t attacked personally?
radish
Yeah, this’ll probably get pitched immediately, but if it doesn’t it’ll be mighty interesting. In the meantime I eagerly await the howls of outrage about frivolous lawsuits and tort reform from the usual suspects. And it’ll be extra interesting if anyone actually does the research into who’s paying for it. Some group of scaifelings probably.
I predict it’ll die fast though. Unless MA has some mighty weird laws, false light is likely to be a non-starter. Documentaries are under no obligation whatsoever to be accurate, so whether the work was “substantially fictionalized and falsified” isn’t relevant. Damon has standing only to the extent that he was humiliated by the nature of the exposure, and I’d be very surprised if the law didn’t require Damon to show that the humiliation (not just the misrepresentation) was knowing (i.e. that Moore used Damon’s clip knowing that he was a supporter of the war, rather than solely because it suited Moore’s rhetorical or artistic purposes).
Now if Harry Reid sued the Associated Press, that would be a false light case with some merit :D
ppGaz
Comedy gold. That thing with Heston at the end is one of the greatest scenes in movie history. That crazy bastard was pwned, baby.
HH
Another TV Nation-related link
ppGaz
Unless I missed something, it wasn’t the man’s words or his political opinion that Moore represented as “being” anything. It was the placement of the quip that “gave the impression” that …. blah blah blah.
Wow. Giving impressions …. oooooh ….. scary. Is that anything like giving the impression that Saddam caused 911, or that he had Nukes, or might get them? Or that “Mission Accomplished” didn’t mean “Whew! I almost fucked up that landing!”
tBone
It’s always time to talk about prison shower scenes.
Mr Furious
Coulter is detestable, but the “bushmen in Africa weep” line is pretty good. I’m with you, John, she apples a pretty sharp wit at times to her disgraceful spewings.
As for the blanket statement that Moore lies his ass off and F911 is full of untruths, I’d like someone to actually account for this rather than just throw it out there as if it’s a matter of record.
I watched that movie (unlike some here who are feeling free to rip it), carefully, and I saw a clear agenda in the presentation, and some creative presentation (children on playgrounds=life in Iraq) but I really didn’t see anything I consider false.
You have some examples, John?
Mr Furious
[blurt] PotD!
jg
You sound like a democrat candidate for office that’s being swift boated. Sucks huh? I mean how are you going to get your point across when you spend the whole time defending yourself against statements you didn’t even make? Thats someone misinterpretation but you gotta kill it before people think its your actual platform.
You would love arguing with Darrell.
Ancient Purple
Except, of course, that Coulter swore up and down that the Stevens quip was “a joke” thus displaying her keen sense of humor.
Best. Joke. Ever.
Perry Como
If by “greatest scenes in movie history” you mean “biggest pieces of shit ever put on film”, I would agree. I’d rather watch Yor.
radish
If you missed it then I missed it too. All Moore has to say is that as far as he was concerned the Damon clip was just some guy with no arms in a lot of pain. Human interest I think the newsies call it.
The other thing that occurs to me is to wonder how much of the stuff that happened to Damon happened after the movie came out. If a significant portion of Damon’s benefits accrued after the movie came out he’s just gonna embarass himself further.
Punchy
I’m glad somebody finally said it. Document the lies, please.
Mr Furious
Going for a late lunch. Somehow I don’t think there’ll be anything further on this when I return…
Dave Ruddell
A Yahoo search with the terms “Fahrenheit 911 lies” got a Slate article by Hitchens as well as this site. I have not read either of these (nor have I seen F911 for that matter), I present them only to show that someone has tried to document lies in the film. Whether these articles are well backed-up or pure BS, I don’t know.
ppGaz
Well, first of all, Moore uses mostly canned footage. Most of his footage is rented, off the shelf.
Second, his material is mostly a string of characterizations, more than assertions. The “lies” that people refer to are actually mostly characterizations that they don’t agree with. The factual variances are relatively few, and in terms of the whole film and what it really is, not that big a deal. The apologistocracy likes to make big deals out of a few things that really could be taken out of the film altogether and the thrust of the film would not be changed much. Such as the “FAA and the Saudi Planes on 911” thing. Are the Bushes being cornholed by the Saudis? Well, you decide, but my point is, the FAA-plane thing doesn’t prove the question one way or the other. The Bush-Saudi reliationship is 30 years of history, and the FAA thing was one day in history.
The movie makes its point, which is that you have a president who has sucked at the Saudi teat along with his family for a long time. If you think that’s okay, then it’s okay. If you think it’s terrible, as I do, then it’s terrible. Moore has nothing to do with my opinion one way or the other. I knew all about the Saudi connections before I saw the film.
Davebo
PPGaz,
It’s not just the Bush family that can’t seem to wean itself from the Saudi teat.
James Baker’s family owes them even more thanks.
jaime
Humiliated? F 9/11 actually illicited sympathy for him and his plight. It is also a matter of contention whether he is actually being left behind.
ALSO, Did Damon not know who Michael Moore was? What did he think he was being put in the documentary for?
mrmobi
Can we just concede that Moore is a jackass?
Why anyone would want to waste even a minute reading Hitchens or watching a video which debunks the lies of F911 (where one of the “experts” is Ann Coulter) is beyond me. Hitchens himself is a faithful cheerleader from the “give up your freedoms or we are all going to die” school. What a maroon!
Despite myself, John, I sympathize with your feelings about Moore. But we are wasting time here talking about Moore’s lies, when we should be examining the fact that everything this government has told us leading up to the Iraq war was fiction. I will concede that they had some formerly very respectable folks reciting that fiction, including Colin Powell. I believed him, shame on him.
I was just over at the “West Point Graduates Against the War” site, where they have a series of quotes from the last great Republican President. The last one’s a beaut!
“When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war.”
“I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity. War settles nothing.”
“Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels – men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.”
“If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They’ll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government.’
Dwight D. Eisenhower
34th President of the United States
(1953-1961)
Perry Como
mrmobi, don’t forget my favorite quote (one that the nannystatists will never understand):
“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
The War on Drugs took away many of our civil liberties. The War on Terror will take away the rest.
ppGaz
Point well taken, Davebo.
CL
“Hitchens himself is a faithful cheerleader from the “give up your freedoms or we are all going to die” school. What a maroon!”
Right, which is why he is named as a plaintiff in the ACLU’s suit challenging the warrantless spying program. What a maroon, indeed.
http://www.aclu.org/images/nsaspying/asset_upload_file137_23491.pdf
Mac Buckets
Wow, everything? You are so much smarter than the last two presidents, mobi!
kc
I said I like the idea of it. You pedants can figure out the difference between liking Michael Moore being sued, and like the idea of him being sued.
But you said it in the context of his actually being sued. One could almost infer that you were gloating over his being sued.
So I don’t really understand your objection to p. lukasiak’s comment.
jaime
Or at least the last one, because the one he preceded wasn’t dumbfuck enough to invade.
ppGaz
Pretty much everybody is smarter than the stupid dickhead who is president now, wouldn’t you say, Mac?
Perry Como
Are you seriously questioning one of the Defenders about the Decider? George W. Bush is the most smartest, bestest President ever. Look at the 8,356,776,604,649 things this Republican government has given us.
kc
Oops, I just realized I misread the quoted portion of the article – I thought the plaintiff uttered the “left behind” quote, but it was Rep. McDermott. So maybe the lawsuit has a little more merit than I thought it did at first glance.
Mac Buckets
Well, if you take the view that invading Iraq was dumb, then Clinton was marginally smarter than Bush, since, even though Clinton also believed that Saddam still had WMD and would use them sooner or later, he only ordered bombings and funded revolution from within Iraq. Of course, Clinton also failed to achieve any of his policy objectives with these steps, so it’s hard to give him too much credit for half-measures. I mean, it’s one thing to be wrong, but another to be wrong and impotent.
kc
“So maybe the lawsuit has a little more merit than I thought it did at first glance.” – me
but not that much more, upon further reading. Not necessarily $85 million worth.
But then, I’m totally pro-trial lawyer, so I’ll be rooting for the dude. I like the idea of an $85 million verdict.
kc
I mean, it’s one thing to be wrong, but another to be wrong and impotent.
Yeah, it’s much better to be big-swinging-dick kind of wrong, even if it costs a few bazillion dollars and gets tens of thousands of people killed.
Mac Buckets
Of course not. Not even John Kerry is smarter than Bush, remember? The fact that you forgot that makes me think you must be somewhat below Bush on the intelligence curve, as well. So I guess we can conclude that at very worst, Bush is third from bottom!
Mac Buckets
Why do you hate the Iraqi majority so much?
demimondian
POTD
Perry Como
The majority that wants us to get the fuck out? The kettle called and left you a message.
Otto Man
I’m assuming Thing = Dollar in the National Debt ?
Otto Man
And what happened to the WMDs after the bombing? Gone. Mission accomplished.
Clinton recognized the proper size of the threat and took appropriate action. Bush imagined he saw a fly on the lampshade and burnt down the living room to get it.
jaime
Clinton kept Saddam with no WMD or conventional military threat and a toothless Saddam. If that’s what you call impotent…
Mac Buckets
But even bigger majority are glad the Coalition invaded and ousted Saddam and Sons. Which was the point, after all…
ppGaz
Uh, that would be pretty much the majority view in America now, up from about 20% a few years ago …. the trend due largely to the COLLOSSAL
FUCKUPsuccess that he’s made of the thing.But, it’s sort of endearing to watch you continue to cling to the deck rail on the Titanic.
We can still make out your meaning even when all you can say is “BLUB BLUB BLUB!”
Mac Buckets
Funny, funny stuff. Not even Clinton himself believes that fantasy (nor does it jibe with Deulfer in the slightest, nor is there any evidence), but the average faith-based Democrat does love his pixie-dust imagination, I suppose.
Only if you believe that the proper response to ending a nuke program is to bomb an empty factory. But of course, you’re willing to believe that when it suits your revisionist history. Good luck with all that.
Mac Buckets
Funny, that’s not what Clinton said.
Steve Beren
As the Republican candidate opposing Jim McDermott in this year’s election, I can say that this matter is just one more example of how extreme and unethical McDermott is. I want to help Sgt. Damon in any way I can. As I said in my May 27 speech to the state GOP convention:
“I support our troops in Iraq. They are today’s ‘band of brothers.’ I support them and I support their mission. Their mission is our mission. But Jim McDermott has called our troops in Iraq ‘a continued irritant.’ Actually it is McDermott who is an irritant to the state of Washington. If ever a congressman should pursue an ‘exit strategy,’ it’s Jim McDermott.”
Steve Beren
http://www.berenforcongress.com
Mac Buckets
Yep, Bush fucked up and helped create a new democracy. What a colossal failure (if you’re an Iraqi Ba’athist or Al Qaeda, that is).
jaime
Funny it’s EXACTLY what Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell said in 2001.
“We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
– Condolezza Rice April 2001
“He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.”
-Colin Powell Feb 2001
Maybe if you stab out your eyes or give yourself a self lobotomy, you could pretend you never saw those quotes. You fascinate me, Mac, in much the same way as Eva Braun did in Hitler’s bunker.
jaime
Moqtada Al Sadr and the Iranian backed Shiite majority thank Bush and his loyal subjects for strengthening Iran’s hand at the bargaining table.
RSA
If I asked who among the commenters here will admit to being not as smart as President Bush, will Mac be the first to raise his hand? Anyone? Would anyone even admit that Bush is smarter than, say, half of his or her circle of friends? (But maybe we all went to school near Lake Wobegon.)
Otto Man
I’ve got a paperweight here that might be dumber than Bush. Does that count?
Perry Como
Otto Man Says:
Give that man a dollar! (which is steadily declining due to global discontent on Republican fiscal irresponsibility)
Mac Buckets Says:
And I’m glad when an exterminator comes to get rid of the cockroaches. That doesn’t mean I want him to stick around and fuck my wife.
Mac Buckets Drools:
Does anyone remember that episode of South Park where Butter’s friend keeps saying “Simpson’s did it!”?
Yeah, kinda like that.
ppGaz
Oh really? What can this new democracy govern?
See, when they told you that people trudging to polls is a “democracy” they lied to you. Saddam Hussein had people trudging to polls. Egypt has them too. Both governments are basically sham democracies. In Iraq, you have some people wearing nice clothes and meeting somewhere, but they can’t govern a gas station, much less a country.
Iraq is in the middle of civil war. The American presence there now is just for show, we have no control over the country at this point.
But keep it up, Mac! You sound so …. earnest.
demimondian
I’m willing to admit to being less smart than President Bush. I doubt that it’s true, but it does me no harm to admit it, so I might as well.
Otto Man
Perry, that last post was a trifecta. Well played.
John S.
And the history re-write continues in earnest.
The POINT of the invasion wasn’t to oust Saddam and Sons.
The POINT of the invasion – as was sold to the American public – was to protect us from a mushroom cloud and punish the guy responsible for 9/11.
So either you are A) A disingenous asshole or B) A complete and total idiot.
Which is it, Mac?
Perry Como
I don’t see why that’s an either/or question.
The Other Steve
Why are you we still arguing the runup to Iraq?
I mean this is stupid. The only people left thinking that Bush had a good sound reasoning are whacknuts and crazies.
What we need to be concerned with now is how the fuck do we get out.
Mac Buckets
But you’re glad the exterminator came. As opposed to kc, to whom I responded. Which was my point.
Mac Buckets
John, it’s amazing that you never get any smarter. Your post is just bongwater-alternate-reality stuff that shows a remarkable ignorance of even the basics of recent history. Very suitable on a F911 thread.
What’s even more predictable was the attaboy from Perry, who must be equally as ignorant.
Right back at ya.
Barneyg2000
I believe that the soldier signed his rights away to NBC. NBC could have given Moore approval to use the footage.
Using a news clip for a documentary would fall under the Fair Use clause of the copy right laws.
My favorite TV-Nation moment, Moor had a long haul trucker drive a semi through GA and AL with a hug “Sickle and Hammer” painted on the sides. The reactions by the red-necks were priceless.
Mac Buckets
I know it behooves you guys politically to be Mr. Magoo-level short-sighted when it comes to Iraq, but don’t hold that against those of us who think in decades and not in election cycles.
Adam
Mr. Furious said:
I’m glad someone finally said this. Much of the right’s “ammo” against Moore’s movie is collected in David Kopel’s “59 Deceits” document (easy to find online), which was copiously debunked by, among others, Anthony Wade of OpEdNews.
Mac Buckets
Sorry, how is that relevant to the fact that Clinton disagreed with the assessment of Iraq’s WMD that you ascribed to him?
ppGaz
Oh, that is definitely PoTD. You really think this country is going to go on with this clusterfuck for DECADES to prove some frigging point being made by these idiots?
Next time you find yourself wondering why Bush’s approval numbers are in the 30’s — or less — read your last post. Un-FUCKING-believable, man. Decades.
That’s right, we’ll spend DECADES building a democracy in that place.
Jesus …. you can’t invent this stuff. Honest to god, you can’t invent it.
Punchy
The newbie asks…whats “PoTD”?
ppGaz
Unless you’re a spoof. Mac?
ppGaz
Post of The Day.
Anderson
THIS is the best y’all can do for a 100+ thread today?
Jesus, people. It’s a big internet. Failing that, your computer probably has Solitaire or somesuch on it.
Mac Buckets
I never said we’d be involved for decades, you addled old fool.
Save your snark for when you learn to read.
Jason Clarke
Barneyg2000:
The soldier did not ‘sign his rights away’ to NBC. While he may have granted written permission to appear (and that’s unlikely), that certainly doesn’t include the right of a third party to defame him.
NBC News likely sold some rights to Moore to use the footage, but among those rights is not the intentional obfuscation of the speakers opinion.
Regarding fair use- sorry, but the usage of the NBC News vid clip in F911 does not constitute fair use, by any stretch.
And to Adam:
To suggest that “much” of the “ammo” against Moore appears in Kopel’s outstanding essay is misleading. While Kopel’s piece is excellent and probably all most would ever need to read in order to form a reasonable opinion, there are many, many other sources available should one look. You could check Moorewatch.com or the revised paperback edition of my book, Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man, for starters.
As for your claim that Wade’s article debunks Kopel’s- that’s laughably, demonstrably false on innumerable points. If you’re going to challenge Kopel, you’ll need to do much better than that.
Next?
demimondian
Punchy — PoTD means “post of the day”.
Perry Como
I know our standards have dropped dramatically in the past 6 years, but PoTD? Really?
Oh wait. Clinton did it!
ppGaz
Uh huh. What will the process look like, again?
Keep in mind where you are starting from: The country today is in complete chaos. Are ya readin’ the paper, Mac?
How is this going to happen? Seriously, how long do you think a major American presence there will continue? What will be there after that presence is gone?
According to your monkeyfuck-with-bananas president, the “next president” will figure that out. What’s your estimate?
Just kidding, you wouldn’t fucking know anyway. You just come here to bust chops.
Adam
Jason Clarke:
There was no “intentional obfuscation of the speaker’s opinion” by Moore. Damon gave no opinion on the war, only on his injuries and medication. Damon was used as an example of a grievously injured Iraq war soldier, no more and no less. If your concept is that simply including Damon’s likeness in Moore’s movie implies that Damon is anti-war, good luck with that.
Oh and you wrote an anti-Moore book! Good for you. Kudos. That must have been difficult. Did you hear that Michael Moore is fat? I heard that somewhere. Maybe you can use it somehow.
ppGaz
“Defame” has been redefined here to mean “using the likeness of a person in close proximity to anything he doesn’t agree with.”
Which I think is, you know, perfectly fair. Suppose my mug showed up in a press photo of a traffic accident, and the article it was with said that auto accidents were bad. And I own a body shop and my business depends on auto accidents. Can’t I sue the newspaper for publishing my picture next to a story that said something I don’t like? Even if I signed a model release?
I mean, c’mon. It’s not right to use my likeness next to something I don’t approve of. It sends the wrong message. And as you all know, sending the right message is what I think is most impportant at all times.
Mac Buckets
Is that your apology for your willful misreading of my last post? If so, your apologies need as much work as your snark.
Just kidding, you wouldn’t fucking know anyway.
Are you actually implying that I can’t predict the future? Foolish mortal…
I come here in a futile attempt to read something intelligent that I don’t already know, and instead I’m faced the odd interesting post, sullied by dozens of comments by senile/ignorant/dishonest hucksters whose main concerns are that “The Other Guy is a Poopyhead” and “I hope my side wins the next election because they’re so awesome!”
Which explains the decrease in the frequency of my visits, I suppose.
Perry Como
I wonder what this little girl thinks about Michael Moore?
Richard Bottoms
Remember what’s really important about Iraq:
a) Michael Moore oppostion to the war is professed in an irritating manner, thus invalid
b) He’s fat
Punchy
WOW are you in the wrong place.
But maybe this helps:
Thank the Lord for the Lord Thankers. A bunch of men saying Amen when they see men with women, not man. James Dobson and his douchebags dropping dibs on the dominion of the Discovery channel.
The Other Steve
Which is obviously why Liberals can’t win elections. When you’re against Richard Petty, you stand against America!
But the ACLU is a Communist Organization!
This means Christopher Hitchens is a Red Loving Commie!
Don’t read the stuff from Mac Buckets and Darrell then, if you don’t like it.
The Other Steve
How come we never talk about the 295,995,000 people who didn’t complain?
Punchy
I’m pretty sure he has no beef with Rich…it’s that Tom fellow he’s not happy with…
John S.
Then by all means, Mac, why don’t you regale us all with your profundity on the subject of what the point of this war was?
Ancient Purple
Really? You don’t know for sure?
How… empty.
W.B. Reeves
To suggest that “much” of the “ammo” against Moore appears in Kopel’s outstanding essay is misleading. While Kopel’s piece is excellent and probably all most would ever need to read in order to form a reasonable opinion, there are many, many other sources available should one look. You could check Moorewatch.com or the revised paperback edition of my book, Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man, for starters.
As for your claim that Wade’s article debunks Kopel’s- that’s laughably, demonstrably false on innumerable points. If you’re going to challenge Kopel, you’ll need to do much better than that.
And if your going to claim that Kopel’s rambling, disjointed and disingenuous prattle is an example of excellence, you’re going to have to do better than mere assertion enveloped in a shameless, self promoting book plug.
I waded into Kopel’s bit of graphomania when the Rightwing hysteria over F9/11 was at it’s height. I left off after it became amply evident, as Wade illustrates with deft economy, that there simply was no there, there.
There was not a single allegation of Kopel’s that didn’t rely on strained interpretation, partisan sourcing or outright invention. There’s an old saying among salesmen: “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” That pretty much describes Kopel’s “method.” Label Moore a liar. Expectorate a shower of dubious, half baked assertions at excessive, mindnumbing length. Then kick back and watch the rubes line up to take the bait, secure in the knowlege that most of those citing your authority won’t bother to read the piece.
Judging by the popularity of the “Moore a big fat liar” meme in certain circles, it appears that Kopel had the measure of the suckers he was pitching to.
ppGaz
Oh, well, we thought it was an enlarged prostate that was causing the problem.
Good news to hear that it was something else.
DougJ
Me likey. Am I writing Mac’s posts or not? I can’t remember anymore.
ppGaz
Good lord.
dedgeorge
Mac Buckets Says:
The POINT of the invasion wasn’t to oust Saddam and Sons. The POINT of the invasion – as was sold to the American public – was to protect us from a mushroom cloud and punish the guy responsible for 9/11.
John, it’s amazing that you never get any smarter. Your post is just bongwater-alternate-reality stuff that shows a remarkable ignorance of even the basics of recent history. Very suitable on a F911 thread.
========================
Mac —
What IS your favorite Kool-Aid flavor???
dedgeorge
” Mac Buckets Says:
…don’t hold that against those of us who think in decades…”
Maybe you should stop thinking so much about the Republican heyday decade of the 1890’s and move onward to the 21st century……..
HH
Sure Dave Kopel was just making up the idea that Moore took a letter to the editor and transformed it magically into a full-on news headline. We see how much consideration you gave to his presentaton alright. Back to the peanut gallery with you.
DougJ
Here’s something to bring us all together — O’Reilly recently blamed the Malmedy massacre (perpetrated by Nazis) on the Americans who were massacred. I think we can all agree that this is much worse than anything Moore (or Coulter or Limbaugh) has ever done and that he should resign. I’m still not sure he should be sued. Here’s the link
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/01.html#a8537
HH
By the by, Wade’s post is like a game of “Spot the Logical Fallacy,” and an especially lazy work when read next to Kopel’s. Wade fails to mention several major points and quite frankly the only worse retort I’ve read to Kopel was Moore’s own which is demolished in quick fashion by Kopel.
HH
Er, Moore compared the insurgents to the Minutemen. Your move.
DougJ
And you’re comparing that to blaming a Nazi massacre on the very American batallion who were massacred?
ppGaz
Hell, that’s nothing. We got a righty lunatic in here who compared Iraq to the American Colonies.
Your move.
The Other Steve
I really really really really don’t want to defend O’Reilly, but I believe he has two events confused, and even then he’s wrong.
Malmedy was definately a Waffen SS division massacring about 90 or so US Army Engineers who had stayed behind to defend a road, and got flanked and captured.
What Bill O’Reilly was really thinking about was not the massacre at Malmedy, but rather a battle which occured at nearby Cheneux, Belgium a week later, when the 504th PIR of the 82nd Airborne encountered the 1st Panzer Regiment of the 1st SS Division.
It was from the same group of SS that had committed the massacre at Malmedy, and the 504th apparently recognized them. And let’s just say… The after action reports estimated they encountered a battalion sized force, or somewhere around 500 men…. They only took 31 of them as prisoners.
It was a very bloody battle, and the 504th was outmatched in weaponry and took heavy losses. They might well have retreated, except they were highly motivated.
So even confused, Bill O’Reilly was way wrong and go fuck himself.
p.lukasiak
Moore may have “compared the insurgents to the Minutemen”, but he was right about what he was saying….
He wrote this over two years ago — Moore was telling America what was really happening with Iraq years before people like JC finally figured it out — and that’s the real reason JC hates Moore.
Andrei
You’d think the way the rightie blogosphere treated Dan Rather during the memo thing that they’d have at least 50% of the same outrage aimed at Bill O’Reilly over this kind of thing.
Has no one in the public sector — Politicians, Media or Blogosphere — have any decency any more? The mind boggles.
Mac Buckets
Wow, was that war ever a complete and utter failure! Whoever was putting the battle plan together for that thing was a total moron without the slightest clue about European history!
What was our exit strategy anyway? After losing a couple thousand of our best and brightest, we should’ve pulled our troops out immediately, because those people couldn’t be trusted to run a lemonade stand, much less a war! How many families in the US were broken up to send the menfolk off to die in that war? And our troops savagely killing innocent civilians surely made it impossible for us to ever normalize relations with Japan and Germany, I’ll bet!
And you know who really won that war? It sure wasn’t the US — all we got were our endless-occupation military bases in Japan and West Germany. The real winners were the Communists who took over after the Nazis were destroyed! And then we had to spend billions upon billions to fend them off! What a miserable failure…
ppGaz
Too rich. Now we’ve got SpoofMac, who isn’t like real Mac at all, making a sarcastic comparison between Iraq, and WWII.
How long do you think, Mac, before Tom Brokaw writes a book about Iraq, calling it the Second Good War?
Mac Buckets
Who said anything about Iraq?
ppGaz
Whoever is writing your character this week should take the spoofiness down just a notch. Leeeeeeeetle over the top, Macaroni.
Mac Buckets
Yes, ppg, I realize these boring “you are a spoof” responses you’ve become so fond of lately are just another (highly ironic, if you ask me) way of saying you’ve got nothing. I’m just wondering why you feel compelled to post under those circumstances. You might as well just post I GOT NOTHING. We all get it.
HH
So Moore’s “correct” intentional statement (thanks for the honesty from the left there that you agree that the insurgents are not worthy of condemnation and will win) is not as bad as O’Reilly’s massive goof-up. Okay.
The Other Steve
O say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hail’d at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro’ the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watch’d, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro’ the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
The Other Steve
Actually the question goes back to you.
If Moore is a traitor, what does that make O’Reilly?
ppGaz
I GOT NOTHING.
But you still will never win any argument with me here, Mac. You know that. So climb down off the lettuce crate and drop the embarassing attitude.
dedgeorge
The Other Steve Says:
“…What Bill O’Reilly was really thinking about was not the massacre at Malmedy, but rather a battle which occured at nearby Cheneux, Belgium a week later, when the 504th PIR of the 82nd Airborne encountered the 1st Panzer Regiment of the 1st SS Division….”
This seems to infer that the movie “Being John Malkovich” has some toehold in the real world —–
How else can you state without equivocation that:
“…What Bill O’Reilly was really thinking about…”
Please don’t forget to regale us all with detailed descriptions/explanations of the sights, sounds and true insights stemming from your future sorties into the quivering puss which fills O’Reilly’s skull…..
John S.
All your posts read like that, Mac.
Mac Buckets
Again, your odd fascination with “winning” arguments, Ppg. I guess since you’re the one judging, it’s pretty easy to remain the undefeated champion of all time. I’m so proud of you. Here’s a smiley sticker for you to wear on your Elmo T-Shirt :)
John S.
What’s on your T-shirt, Mac? I’m guessing:
↑
I’m with stupid.
W.B. Reeves
Sure Dave Kopel was just making up the idea that Moore took a letter to the editor and transformed it magically into a full-on news headline. We see how much consideration you gave to his presentaton alright. Back to the peanut gallery with you.
Glad you brought this up. It’s practically the only criticism Kopel made that has a shred of substance. It’s also an excellent example of the shoddyness of his “method”.
For those not aware of it, the quote in question appeared in F9/11 as part of a montage of bold faced quotations from various press and media around the country, each appearing with the source publication cited. The quote in question was sourced to the paper where it appeared in identical format to the other quotes presented. While neither Moore’s narration nor the presentation itself overtly asserted that the quote in question was an editorial opinion as opposed to a letter to the editor, it’s easily understood that people might be led to that assumption.
So, what’s been established? That the quotation was presented in a context that was likely to lead to confusion and misunderstanding by the viewer. That much is plain. What’s not plain is how and why this occurred. There are number of possibilities: sloppy research, sloppy construction, etc. Among these is the one favored by Kopel: conscious misrepresentation or, in Kopel’s view, deceit.
What’s notable in Kopel’s method is that he doesn’t bother to examine any possibility other than malicious intent on Moore’s part. Since his clear goal was to discredit Moore I suppose he saw no need. Of course, if your going to convict someone of perjury, it’s expected that you prove the perjury was knowing and intentional.
This would be difficult for Kopel since neither he nor The Pantagraph(the original source of both the letter and the heading) can point to any instance, either in F9/11 or no, where Moore claimed that the quote was from a news article or an editorial. Indeed, he made no such claim about any of the quotes in the montage. He simply presented them as having appeared in the media which is perfectly true. Evidently this point was not lost on the editors of The Pantagraph who, after a public, publicity garnering criticism of Moore, let the matter drop.
A wiser and more trenchant polemicist would have been satisfied with calling Moore’s reliability into question. Not enough for Kopel though. He’s out to assassinate Moore’s character, so accusing him of mere sloppyness or incompetence won’t do.
If Kopel had been interested in the merit of his own argument he would have answered few obvious questions before arriving at his conclusion. For example: How many of the other quotes presented were from news articles? How many from unsigned Editorials? How many were Commentary pieces, etc.? Can it be shown that Moore’s treatment of the quote from The Pantagraph differed in any significant degree from his treatment of the others? If Moore made no such distinctions between any of the quotes he presented, how does his failure to do so in a single instance prove anything whatever about his intent? Why exactly, would Moore want to give the impression that the quote represented the view of an obscure publication that 99.9% of his audience had never heard of prior to F9/11? What had he to gain? Particularly since he was well aware that his critics would be combing the film for precisely that sort of thing?
These are the sorts of questions asked when one is trying to arrive at a conclusion. They are superfluous if one begins with a conclusion and then shapes the arguments to serve a pre-ordained outcome.
I don’t really expect any of this to have much of an impact on you HH, since this seems to be your own preferred method:
Let’s take one movie for example – Bowling for Columbine… Are you saying Heston and Dick Clark weren’t attacked personally?,
Since when is confronting an individual and questioning/criticising their positions on public issues a personal attack? Journalists and yes, documentary film makers do this all the time. You may not like it but it doesn’t make it a “personal attack”.
Sure Dave Kopel was just making up the idea that Moore took a letter to the editor and transformed it magically into a full-on news headline. We see how much consideration you gave to his presentaton alright.
As we have seen, this is a partisan characterization rather than fact. The only “magic” practiced was the same “magic” applied to every other quote in the montage. Hardly transformative, unless one is predisposed to think so. As we can also see, you were entirely mistaken as to the degree of consideration I gave to Kopel’s bloated piece of mental constipation.
I wonder what the HH stands for?
Mac Buckets
Here you have it: the very definition of “irony,” coming from the “Bush lied” crowd. See also, “hypocrisy.”
I’m sure Moore had underlings telling him it was a headline, and others telling him it was a letter to the editor. He weighed the opinions, and the consensus was that it was indeed a headline, and since it was impossible to, y’know, go to the original source and actually read the newspaper from which it was culled, Moore ran with it being a headline.
Come on, I think everyone agrees that it’s much more fun to call the other guy a liar, right? Especially since “lied” rhymes with “died,” while “relied on faulty information-gathering” doesn’t rhyme with much at all.
Adam
If typography on one second of “Fahrenheit 9/11” is the best slam you’ve got, try again. Or better yet, don’t.
W.B. Reeves
Perhaps you should get your eyes checked Mac. There’s no crowd here, just me. Care to have a go at finding some post of mine where I call anyone a liar without recognizing and assessing alternate explainations? No? I thought not.
I’m pleased that you recognized I was making the same argument that you and others have deployed on the issue of Bush’s use of false intelligence in the run up to the Iraq invasion. I seem to recall that you are one of those who has embraced the “Moore is a big fat liar.” meme. If memory serves it would seem that the hypocrisy here is on your part.
Your belaboring the “headline” business is a splendid example of how your prejudices make hash of your argument. The fact is the quote in question was a headline. Not a 10 point headline to be sure. Not a front page headline. Not even a column headline. But it was the headline that the Editors of The Pantagraph themselves placed above the letter to the editor.
The entire substance, such as it is, of this attack is the assertion that Moore transgressed by using the same font for this quote as he did for all the other quotes in the montage. As pointed out above, this charge is credible only if you can show that this was done for reasons other than visual continuity. To even begin to do that, you would have to answer the questions I posed. Evidently neither Kopel, HH or yourself are equal to the challenge.
Mac Buckets
The headline thing isn’t even close to the best anyone’s got, trust me. But debunking Michael Moore is so 2004. That horse is well-dead — finished off with a bullet to where a brain would ordinarily be by the election results in Nov 2004.
W.B. Reeves
The headline thing isn’t even close to the best anyone’s got, trust me. But debunking Michael Moore is so 2004. That horse is well-dead—finished off with a bullet to where a brain would ordinarily be by the election results in Nov 2004.
Whereas intellectual cowardice and the absence of personal integrity are au courant on planet Mac. Or perhaps these characteristics are merely defined differently by it’s inhabitant.
“Trust me” indeed!
Adam
I agree that Michael Moore and “F9/11” are *so* 2004. It’s funny then that Damon waited this long to sue (the agony must have been unbearable), and that John Cole and so many others on the right are still so obsessed with Moore and his fat ass.
Mac Buckets
I would only hope that you stand alone in foisting this laughable bit of fluff to excuse the cowardly and dishonest tactics of MM in the name of “documentary” filmmaking. Unfortunately, I’ve heard and read this type of dodge from almost all the F911-defenders in Blogland.
What’s most ironic, though, is that you use the “Don’t Call It A Lie” defense in support of a schlockmeister who can’t say four sentences about Bush without using the “L” word. I guess it takes “a wiser and more trenchant polemicist” than Michael Moore to live up to your standard, eh?
The same argument, true, but far less convincing when you make it, and the “why” should be obvious to you, if you were being honest with yourself.
The differences between Moore’s and Bush’s avenues for “information-gathering” are staggering, aren’t they? Let’s not pretend Moore was reliant on the same types of information as a President spying on a foreign country might be. If Moore really wanted to find out the truth that the “Gore really won” headline was just some random Joe’s letter to the editor and not, say, a university study…all he had to do was pick up the paper that he himself cited. There was no chance that the Bloomington paper for that day had been buried, moved to Syria, or was part of a funding skim by cunning Iraqi scientists. All Moore had to do was look it up (he even cited the date in his film, so he even knew where to look) and be honest. But of course, he was not willing to do that (or more likely to me, he was willing, but chose to deceive), and despite the Pantagraph’s demanding an apology for misrepresentation of their paper’s content, Moore refused to admit he made any mistake.
On the other hand, the Bush and Clinton Administrations couldn’t use such direct methods to get to the truth. They had to rely on the consensus of covert intelligence reports from the past several years — and, incidentally, Bush came to the same conclusion as Clinton, that Iraq had unaccounted-for WMD and had not dismantled their WMD programs.
Fine, it was a doctored “headline” to some random guy’s letter to the editor. The paper that published it said Moore was dishonest in using it as he did, and even the guy who wrote the letter saying that Gore really won said Moore was misrepresenting his letter and was at odds with history! Moore, in full Bert Lahr regalia, refused to answer their queries or any others.
Nice attempt to minimize, but utter nonsense. The bulk of the substance is the elementary understanding that no serious filmmaker above the level of “rank hack” would use the “headline” from a letter to the editor at all! I don’t care if it were in crayon or in 32-point.
If this was the only deceit in the film, I might be right there with you giving him the benefit of the doubt (maybe MM can’t read, so actually perusing the paper from that day was above his paygrade). However, the very basic premises of Moore’s film don’t hold up to a fruitfly’s weight of historical scrutiny. His film is a blatant pander to “his people,” a people not interested in fact, but interested in affirming their imagined moral and intellectual superiority over the Others who have been handing them their hats in recent elections.
Mac Buckets
I’m not impressed by big insults thrown around with no support. Got any bullets in that gun, or is it just caps?
W.B. Reeves
You supply plenty of Ammo in your non-response.
I would only hope that you stand alone in foisting this laughable bit of fluff to excuse the cowardly and dishonest tactics of MM in the name of “documentary” filmmaking. Unfortunately, I’ve heard and read this type of dodge from almost all the F911-defenders in Blogland.
First off, I didn’t excuse Moore, as any honest reading of my comments would make clear. I said plainly that his presentation in this instance was, at the very least, sloppy. Hardly a ringing endorsement. Calling arguments that you cannot or will not answer a “dodge” is itself a rather transparent dodge, since you utilize it as means of avoiding debate.
What’s most ironic, though, is that you use the “Don’t Call It A Lie” defense in support of a schlockmeister who can’t say four sentences about Bush without using the “L” word. I guess it takes “a wiser and more trenchant polemicist” than Michael Moore to live up to your standard, eh?
Yes it does. Moore is satirist not a polemicist and he does not do well when judged by the latter’s rules. Kopel, on the other hand, has no satirical pretenses. His is a prosecutor’s brief and he doesn’t do well by that standard either.
The differences between Moore’s and Bush’s avenues for “information-gathering” are staggering, aren’t they? Let’s not pretend Moore was reliant on the same types of information as a President spying on a foreign country might be.
Are you seriously trying to claim that Bush, with the C.I.A, N.S.A., et al at his beck and call had less capacity for ferreting out the facts than Michael Moore?
If Moore really wanted to find out the truth that the “Gore really won” headline was just some random Joe’s letter to the editor and not, say, a university study…all he had to do was pick up the paper that he himself cited.
Here you simply ignore an incovenient fact. Moore never made any claim about the quote in question other than saying that it appeared in the media. This happens to be true. Likely this is the reason that The Pantagraph did not pursue their complaint in the courts. Should he have specified that it was a letter to the editor or, alternately, dropped it from the montage? I tend to think so. However, he didn’t distinguish between news articles, Op-eds and Commentaries either. Arguing that he was intending to attach the media powerhouse known as The Pantagraph to his cause by treating it exactly as he treated all the other quotations isn’t just a reach, it’s a leap of faith.
All Moore had to do was look it up (he even cited the date in his film, so he even knew where to look) and be honest. But of course, he was not willing to do that (or more likely to me, he was willing, but chose to deceive), and despite the Pantagraph’s demanding an apology for misrepresentation of their paper’s content, Moore refused to admit he made any mistake.
Of course the obvious reason for Moore’s refusal is that he doesn’t believe he made a mistake. Strictly speaking, he didn’t. He made no affirmative claim about the quote other than the fact that it had appeared in the media. I think he made a mistake but I don’t for a moment believe that he was so desperate for the imprimatur of The Pantagraph that he included the quote for that purpose. Neither Kopel, yourself nor anyone else have done the necessary spadework to make such a charge credible.
On the other hand, the Bush and Clinton Administrations couldn’t use such direct methods to get to the truth. They had to rely on the consensus of covert intelligence reports from the past several years—and, incidentally, Bush came to the same conclusion as Clinton, that Iraq had unaccounted-for WMD and had not dismantled their WMD programs.
So you really are arguing that Michael Moore is better equipped for fact finding than the President of the United States. All I can say is that I’m truly embarassed for you.
Fine, it was a doctored “headline” to some random guy’s letter to the editor. The paper that published it said Moore was dishonest in using it as he did, and even the guy who wrote the letter saying that Gore really won said Moore was misrepresenting his letter and was at odds with history! Moore, in full Bert Lahr regalia, refused to answer their queries or any others.
It was “doctored” only in the sense that every other quote in the montage was “doctored.” They were all reformated for presentation in a film. You may as well argue that every broadcast news clip is “doctored” since these are reformated for presentation as well. Can you supply a link to the fellow who says his letter was misrepresented?
Nice attempt to minimize, but utter nonsense. The bulk of the substance is the elementary understanding that no serious filmmaker above the level of “rank hack” would use the “headline” from a letter to the editor at all! I don’t care if it were in crayon or in 32-point.
Actually it’s your assertion that is utter nonsense. If documentary film makers use “man in the street” interviews and they do, why the devil wouldn’t they use letters to the editor? Particularly if they were illustrating dissident opinions raised in public forums?
If this was the only deceit in the film, I might be right there with you giving him the benefit of the doubt (maybe MM can’t read, so actually perusing the paper from that day was above his paygrade). However, the very basic premises of Moore’s film don’t hold up to a fruitfly’s weight of historical scrutiny. His film is a blatant pander to “his people,” a people not interested in fact, but interested in affirming their imagined moral and intellectual superiority over the Others who have been handing them their hats in recent elections.
As I’ve pointed more than once, Moore never claimed that the quote was anything other than a letter to the editor, anymore than he made any such claims about the other quotes used. The whole business about perusing the newspaper and fact finding is a phony argument and a diversion. As for “pandering to his people”, I somehow doubt that this argument would have ever occured, or bred such intense Moorephobia if that were true.
Lastly, I appreciate the integrity you’ve shown in not slinking away from the debate. However, while you have certainly made your own opinion plain, you’ve pretty much ignored the substantive points raised. That’s what I describe as intellectual cowardice.
Mac Buckets
I realize this thread is a weekend stale, but in case Reeves is still around:
Satire and polemics aren’t mutually exclusive. F911 is a straight-up polemic with small elements of satire, but even Moore is far too earnest to claim satire as his primary oeuvre.
Now I know you’re not being serious. Talk about intellectual cowardice. Nice attempt to simplify the question to the absurd, but you’ve only simplified it to the retarded. Are you seriously trying to claim that verifying a newspaper headline cited in one’s own movie and verifying the existence of illicit weapons programs are equally as difficult?
Let me break some news to you…I have more capacity for ferreting out the score to yesterday’s Yankees game than the CIA has capacity to figure out the state of Iran’s nuclear program.
Are you shocked? Does this mean the CIA (or Bush, or whoever you want to whine about) is hopeless to the point of being risible, or does it just mean that my task was a million, trillion times easier? Yours is a ridiculous dodge, and I’m offended that you thought for a second that it would work. Again, all Moore had to do was to look it up.
Of course not (what did you expect, an onscreen disclaimer of authenticity?). He merely abuses the conventions of real journalism — we know a real journo would never stoop to the depths of a Bloomington letter to the editor for support of a point! — to try to sway the gullible and ignorant.
If there weren’t 20 or so other partisan “mistakes” in that “documentary,” I might agree with you. I think Moore made multiple efforts to deceive.
Which brings up an interesting question — why would Moore use anything from the Bloomington Pantagraph at all? Was his film short by one second and he desperately needed to fill time? Why would he take the time to have it doctored? It smacks of desperation.
Let’s see.
It was taken out of the Letter-to-the-Editor format (so people wouldn’t immediately dismiss it as a crackpot letter), the headline was greatly enlarged (you know, so it looked more like a big news story), it was moved from below-fold right to the top left of an fabricated “page” (you know, because when they proved Gore won, it was such a huge story!)
I know you didn’t type that with a straight face.
Mac Buckets
Here’s where I first saw it. (Halfway down page) “Historians would find it shocking,” the letter’s author himself, Richard Soderlund, told the Chicago Tribune. “It’s misrepresenting a document.”
When they use “man on the street,” they show the man on the street — they don’t dress the man on the street in a suit and stand him in front of the NBC Nightly News backdrop in order to deceive the viewer.
If Moore wanted “Gore really won” to appear as a “man on the street” opinion, well… he had a camera, he had a street. I’m sure it would’ve taken all of five minutes to find someone to say Gore really won. But Moore wanted to give it more weight than some random partisan’s opinion. Hence, that top-right, big-font, no-byline “news story.”
If Moore wasn’t trying to deceive, and if it didn’t matter if it was just a letter to the editor, then why the phony “page?” Why not just leave the letter in original format?
Name one point I’ve ignored. Then I’ll name the ones youve ignored. I mean, if you want to term it “cowardice,” let’s go.
HH
“I wonder what the HH stands for?”
They’re called initals, @$$. Interesting that Mac Buckets just rhetorically body-slammed you by the by.