posted
***DISCLAIMER: I do not hate Moore for his views. I feel that everyone has a right to their own opinion. In writing this, I tried to stay away from actually attacking his views, and tried to stay focused on the way he delivered them. Also, I know that many Republicans use the same tactics; they make me physically ill. This is not to prove that Bush is a great guy (he isn't), but instead to provide a counter-balance to Fahrenheit 9/11.***
After heavy threat to both life and limb, I have set aside my procrastinatic (is that actually a word?) urges and am now prepared to present a full, scene-by-scene dissertation and criticism of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.
I have in front of me a copy of the film. For those who want to follow along with the movie while reading the dissertation, the compressed, zipped version is available from me upon request and a good internet connection.. It is 702 megabytes.
Mr. Moore's strongpoint is in his assertion that he had an independent fact checker review his film, and that there is not a single lie or untruth in the film. He is correct. After three viewings, I cannot find a single piece of information that is not incorrect. How then can I even begin to refute something that I have acknowledged as entirely factual?
Just because Mr. Moore does not actually tell a lie does not mean that he tells the truth, either. His gravest accusations are in the form of rhetorical questions, like this accusation implying that the President simply did not read the briefings that he claims warned explicitly of a terrorist attack:
"Or perhaps he just should have read the security briefing that was given to him on August 6, 2001 that said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes."
Now, the President had read the briefing. That is fact. But look closely; did Moore ever say that the President did not read the briefing? No. Thus, he can honestly claim that there was no lie in the above statement.
Moore is a man to be admired and studied, if simply to learn the art of deception. Because Michael Moore is very good at it, possibly one of the best at it alive today. This is a work of true genius, much like an excellent crime is a work of true genius.
Without further ado, on to the movie:
[0:00:00 - 0:00:50]
[F911] Moore opens Fahrenheit 9/11 with election night, 2000. We see Al Gore on a stage in Florida, apparently celebrating a his win in the state. Behind him is a glowing neon sign that says "FLORIDA VICTORY!" This is meant to create the impression that Al Gore had already won, and was busy partying with the A-list musicians in celebration.
[What Really Happened] That rally took place in the early evening of November 7, long before polls even started winding down. Gore was in his home state of Tennessee when the results came in. Did Moore lie? No. Was he being honest? Your call.
[0:00:50 - 0:01:50]
[F911] Moore then runs a series of videos showing ABC, CNN, and CBS calling Florida for Gore. Moore himself then says:
"Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy….All of a sudden the other networks said, ‘Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true."
Ooh...conservative conspiracy, anyone?
[What Really Happened] Between 7:50 and 8:02 on the evening of November 7th, 2000, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and FOX called Florida for Gore, before the polls closed. Later, at about 10:00, CBS and CNN (not FOX) retracted their premature claims. FOX was, in fact, one of the last to retract its claim, and around 2:00 AM.
At around 2:16 AM, CBS and CNN called Florida for Bush. FOX and the rest followed suit.
To recap: Moore wants you to believe that everyone called the election for Gore after all the votes were in, then FOX called it for Bush, and using some mysterious influence, caused all the other networks to change their calls. All physical evidence shows otherwise.
[0:01:45 - 0:03:20]
[F911] Moore goes on to postulate as to how Bush could have "pulled off" a fraud like the one he is accusing him off. He ticks off three reasons:
1. Bush's brother is governor of Florida.
[What Really Happened] That's all he says about that one. If he had any actual evidence of Jeb Bush tampering with the process, I am absolutely sure that he would have made a point of it. He is simply making a thinly veiled, slanderous accusation that is not at all pertinent to the issue. He will do much more of this throughout the film.
2. "Second, make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote count woman."
[What Really Happened] Notice how he never actually says that Bush's chairman of the Florida campaign was the vote count woman. Why? Because she isn't. For one, the woman Moore features is Katherine Harris, Bush's co-chairman, not chairman. Two, she was not the "vote count woman", nor did she have any part at all in counting the votes. Her job is only to put a stamp of approval on the count; she cannot change it in any way.
3. "...And that her state has hired a company that's gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you. You can usually tell 'em by the color of their skin."
[What Really Happened] What a doozy. Not only was Bush entirely responsible for knocking registered voters off the list, but he did it by racial profiling, too. Wow. Yeah, one more thing. Notice how Moore never states that Data Base Technologies (the company he is referring to) knocked off members based on race. At this point, I would hope that you know what that means.
The 1998 Mayoral election in Miami was declared void by the Florida courts because (in clear violation of Florida law) thousands of convicted felons had been allowed to vote. The courts ordered the executive branch to clear these ex-felons from the registered voter's list before the next election. In accordance with this ruling (not on Bush's personal whim), they hire DBT to aggressively purge the list of these people.
The people at DBT screwed up big time. In ruling out ex-cons, they also eliminated many people who simply shared the same name as the convicts. For this reason, many of Florida's counties simply ignored the purge list entirely. Also, DBT made it a specific point not to include race in their purge. The fact that more than 1,000 voters were matched with felons though they were of different races bears this out.
So, not only was the purge rarely implemented, it also had nothing at all to do with race. Moore's grave accusation holds no basis at all.
[F911] Moore also showcases numerous news headlines citing recounts in which Gore one, and also Jeffrey Toobin claiming than under any possible scenario, Gore would have won the election.
[What Really Happened] Creative editing. What Toobin really said was that under some particular instances with strict parameters (that one, Gore's lawyers did not request, and two, would have been in violation of Florida law), Gore would have won. As USA Today reported on May 11, 2001:
quote:Who would have won if Al Gore had gotten manual counts he requested in four counties? Answer: George W. Bush."
"Who would have won if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount of undervotes, which are ballots that registered no machine-readable vote for president? Answer: Bush, under three of four standards."
"Who would have won if all disputed ballots — including those rejected by machines because they had more than one vote for president — had been recounted by hand? Answer: Bush, under the two most widely used standards; Gore, under the two least used."
Again, notice that Moore never said that Gore would have one in every scenario. He showed a snippet of some other guy saying those words out of context. Again, no lie.
Oh, yeah...the newspaper "article" Moore showed ("Latest Florida Recount shows that Gore would have won the election") was actually a letter to the editor. The newspaper in question is now pressing charges against Moore.
[0:06:16 - 0:07:27]
[F911] Moore shows the riots on Bush's inauguration day and claims that no president had ever seen anything like that before. He then implies that Bush could get nothing done in his first eight months as president, and was "Starting to look like a lame duck president"
[What Really Happened] Bush is hardly the only President to face such riots on Inauguration Day, and was, in fact, far surpassed by Nixon in 1969 and 1973. Moore is partially right on Bush's difficulties in accomplishing much; after Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican party, the Senate and House were both under Democratic control. They blocked the appointment of Supreme Court Justices and much legislation. Bush's polls did not sink; they fluctuated almost constantly within a 10% range. The one pole that Moore actually shows was from the Christian Science Monitor and was a far outlier, not an accurate sampling.
[0:07:27 - 0:09:50]
[F911] The main point of this segment is this one phrase:
"In his first eight months in office before September 11th, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time."
[What Really Happened] This is wrong on so many counts...I'm almost at a loss as to where to begin.
Moore's 42% figure is a bit off. One, it includes all weekends, regardless of what the President was actually doing on those weekends.
Two, it counts any time spent at Camp David or his Waco Ranch as "vacation". Let us take a look at this lazy vacation, shall we? Here is Bush's schedule for a random day in August. Note that this is only information that has been made public.
quote:Wednesday, August 22
Met with Karen Hughes, Condi Rice, and Josh Bolten, and other staff (more than one meeting).
Conferenced with Mexico's president for about 20 minutes on the phone. They discussed Argentina's economy and the International Monetary fund's role in bringing sustainability to the region. They also talked about immigration and Fox's planned trip to Washington.
Communicated with Margaret LaMontagne, who was heading up a series of immigration policy meetings.
Released the Mid-Session Review, a summary of the economic outlook for the next decade, as well as of the contemporary economy and budget. Announced nomination and appointment intentions for Ambassador to Vietnam, two for the Commission on Fine Arts, six to serve on the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry, three for the Advisory Committee to the Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation, one to the Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and one to the National Endowments for the Arts.
Issued a Presidential Determination ordering a military drawdown for Tunisia.
Issued a statement regarding the retirement of Jesse Helms.
If that's vacation time, I would rather not be the President.
And three, this number also factors in meetings with Heads-of-State. In fact, if you look closely and don't blink, sneeze, or otherwise divert your attention, you will see Bush walking through Camp David with Tony Blair. Any meeting with the head of a foreign nation is hardly a vacation.
The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that’s what you get if you catch the president on a golf course.
And I should clarify that in this clip, Bush is not in anyway referring to Al-Quaeda or Osama Bin Laden, but too a Palestinian suicide bomber in Israel.
Interestingly, as detailed in Bill Clinton's autobiography My Life, in November 1995. when President Clinton learned that Israel's Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had been shot, Clinton went out to the White House lawn and hit golf balls while he waited to learn if Rabin would live. That Clinton played golf after learning of a terrible crime in Israel obviously does not mean that he did not care about the crime. If a television station had recorded some footage of Clinton hitting golf balls that awful night, it would have easy for a hyper-partisan film-maker to use the footage against Clinton unfairly.
Moore wraps up the vacation segment: "It was a summer to remember. And when it was over, he left Texas for his second favorite place." The movie then shows Bush in Florida. Again, note that Moore never actually said Bush went to Florida, because Moore knows that Bush went back to DC, where he gave a speech on August 20th. He is just hoping that you, the audience, don't know.
[0:09:50 - 0:13:20]
These four minutes are composed solely of various members of the Bush administration being groomed for the cameras, as anybody who appears on television is.
[0:13:21 - 0:16:38]
No video, just audio of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Undoubtably the most moving part of the film. I need a moment to collect myself, and I will continue. The memories of that...event...are still distressing, much as I have tried to move past them.
[0:16:38 - 0:18:00]
[F911] Shows Bush sitting in the classroom after hearing about the WTC attacks.
I'm going to go with this piece from The Ethics Scoreboard on this one:
quote:The second moment of note is President Bush's pause of seven minutes after being told, on the morning of September 11, that the country was under attack by terrorists. He was reading to schoolchildren at the time, and after the stunning news, finished the story. To Moore, the sequence is proof positive of Bush's unfitness to lead. It is not only an absurd contention, it is an unfair one. We don't have films of how Franklin Roosevelt acted as he received the first news of Pearl Harbor's bombing. We don't have any idea how Lincoln responded when he was told that Fort Sumter had been attacked. We have never been shown films of the previously anonymous Harry Truman learning that he was suddenly leading the nation during World War II. And none of us, including Moore, know how we ourselves would initially respond to the challenge of leadership under momentous circumstances and crisis. We might be momentarily stunned, or panicked, or afraid, or thoughtful. We might get angry, or shout, or become depressed: it doesn't matter. All that matters is whether we pull ourselves together and do our job, which is what Bush did.
Using this footage to attack the President is the calling card of either a man unfamiliar with human nature or utterly contemptuous of it. Using his considerable skills as a comic director to make audiences laugh at such moment is analogous to successfully seeking humor in the hysterical reaction of a parent to news of their child's death. It is callous, and it is a willful attempt to encourage public ignorance of basic human realities, holding our leaders to impossible standards.
Gwendolyn Tose’-Rigell, the principal of Emma E. Booker Elementary School, praised Bush’s action: "I don’t think anyone could have handled it better." "What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?"…
She said the video doesn’t convey all that was going on in the classroom, but Bush’s presence had a calming effect and "helped us get through a very difficult day."
There is not much to truly argue on this segment. Bush waited seven minutes before visibly reacting. Take that as you will.
[0:18:00 - 0:19:37]
[F911] Moore makes a lot of rhetorical accusations, which are exempt from the truth because they do not actualy accuse; they insinuate. For instance:
quote:"Or perhaps he just should have read the security briefing that was given to him on August 6, 2001 that said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes...maybe he wasn't worried about the terrorist threat, because the title of the report was too vague..."
He then cuts to a snippet of Condoleezza Rice saying, "I believe the title was 'Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States'." Inflammatory, no?
[What Really Happened] Bush did read the report as part of his daily briefing. But Moore never actually said he didn't...beautiful, Mr. Moore. This is a guy you could learn chess from. The title of the report was not 'Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States'; that was the subtitle of a sub-heading of a section. Not only that, but the brief wasn't as direct as Moore wants you to believe; it was highly equivocal, saying that, "We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" ‘Umar’ Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists."
[0:19:37 - 0:26:09]
This segment and the next few constitute some of the most offensive portions of the film for those who know the full truth. These next forty minutes truly highlight Moore's skill in deception.
[F911] Moore implies that many Saudis and members of the Bin Laden family left the United States secretly before airspace was open, without having been interviewed by the FBI, by special permission given by Bush, which the intelligence agencies were in disagreement with.
[What Really Happened] If you listen only to what Moore says during this segment of the movie—and take careful notes in the dark—you’ll find he’s got his facts right. He and others in the film state that 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country after Sept. 13.
The date—Sept. 13—is crucial because that is when a national ban on air traffic, for security purposes, was eased.
The movie also fails to mention that the FBI interviewed the Saudis before they left. And the independent 9/11 commission has reported that "each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure." Recall that this is the independent commission that was so highly critical of the Bush Administration's actions.
The Bin Ladens did not leave until much later, September 20th. They were all held and interrogated by the FBI.
Read the Independent 9/11 Commission's report on the matter:
quote:Fearing reprisals against Saudi nationals, the Saudi government asked for help in getting some of its citizens out of the country….we have found that the request came to the attention of Richard Clarke and that each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.
No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001. After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace.
The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether the TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the Terrorist Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on the flight manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current TIPOFF watchlist. There are no matches. The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion.
Finally, Moore highlights a retired FBI agent. To introduce him, he says: "This is retire FBI agent Jack Kruner. Before 9/11, he was a senior agent on the joint FBI-CIA Al-Quaeda task force."
Yes, he did hold the position that Moore indicated. Until mid-1996, not directly before or even during 9/11, as Moore would have you believe. He had no idea of what the FBI had done with the Saudis, as the report was not yet public. He no longer had any ties with the CIA or FBI. His "opinions" on the matter are correct, though, and they are exactly what the FBI had done prior to September 20th.
[0:26:10 - 0:29:00]
[F911] In this segment, Moore makes a huge deal out of a transcript of Bush's National Guard service. To be precise, he points out that a name on the transcript was blacked out, that of James Bath. He questions why they would black out Bath's name, and then hypothesizes that it was so Bush could protect his "friend" who had Saudi connections. He also claims that the Bin Ladens hired Bath to invest money on Bush's businesses, namely, Arbusto.
[What Really Happened] Take a close look at the list in this segment. ALL THE NAMES ARE BLACKED OUT. Why? In accordance with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, a federal law to protect the privacy of the National Guardsmen, in this case, the ones that shared the same file as George W. Bush. No conspiracy here, guys. Sorry.
Also, the bin Ladens did hire Bath to invest money in Texas. There are records of the companies in which he invested for them, and none of those companies are in any way tied to the Bush family. Yes, Bath did invest in Arbusto. But with his own money, and not a considerable sum at all.
[0:29:00 - 0:30:39]
[F911] Moore: Yes, it helps to be the President’s son. Especially when you’re being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
TV reporter: In 1990 when George W. Bush was a director of Harken Energy he received this memo from company lawyers warning directors not to sell stock if they had unfavorable information about the company. One week later he sold $848,000 worth of Harken stock. Two months later, Harken announced losses of more than $23 million dollars.
Moore:…Bush beat the rap from the SEC…
[What Really Happened] What Moore left out: Bush sold the stock long after he checked with those same "company lawyers" who had provided the cautionary memo, and they told him that the sale was all right. Almost all of the information that caused Harken’s large quarterly loss developed only after Bush had sold the stock. Despite Moore’s pejorative that Bush "beat the rap," no-one has ever found any evidence suggesting that he engaged in illegal insider trading.
[0:30:50 - 0:36:00]
[F911] Moore suggests that the bin Ladens and the Bushed profited from 9/11 through their places in the Carlyle a group, a conglomeration of various companies. His primary accusation is that Carlyle invested heavily in a company called United Defense, who stood to gain heavily from defense build-ups after 9/11. Moore claims that the Bushes have received $1.4 billion from the Saudis, questioning Bush's allegiances. He also takes a snippet of video where an author states that H. W. Bush reads daily CIA briefings, and implies heavily that he gives that info to the Saudis.
[What Really Happened] The largest contract that United Defense had with the US Government was canceled, by Bush, prior to 9/11. The bin Ladens left the Carlyle group long before the $237 million profit Moore discusses, as did the Bushes. Neither group profited from 9/11. The $1.4 billion figure is a bit of a stretch. He pulls this figure from money the Saudi government paid BDM (a part of the Carlyle Group) in the mid-1990s for various defense contracts. The catch? Carlyle sold BDM five months before the Bushes joined Carlyle. They never say any of that money.
[0:36:00 - 0:37:00]
[F911]Moore shows a sequence of video clips, in this order:
Moore: But when Congress did complete its own investigation, the Bush White House censored twenty-eight pages of the report.
Reporter: The President is being pressed by all sides to declassify the report. US officials tell NBC news most of the secret sources involve Saudi Arabia.
President Bush: We have given extraordinary cooperation with Chairmen Kean and Hamilton.
Commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean: We haven't gotten the materials we needed, and we certainly haven't gotten them in a timely fashion. The deadlines we set have passed.
[What Really Happened] The second part of the quoted dialogue is deceptive. The sequencing makes it appear that Kean was rebutting Bush's claim of extraordinary cooperation. In fact, Kean complained on July 9, 2003, that several "government agencies" (Justice and Defense) were not being cooperative. Bush's quote was from February 4, 2004. Prior to this, Kean stated that the Commission had been given "unprecedented" access to records. So the sequence should be like this:
Moore: But when Congress did complete its own investigation, the Bush White House censored twenty-eight pages of the report.
Reporter: The President is being pressed by all sides to declassify the report. US officials tell NBC news most of the secret sources involve Saudi Arabia.
Commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean: We haven't gotten the materials we needed [from the Justice and Defense Departments], and we certainly haven't gotten them in a timely fashion. The deadlines we set have passed.
Kean: We have been given unprecedented access to records.
President Bush: We have given extraordinary cooperation with Chairmen Kean and Hamilton.
Now, that isn't nearly as incriminating, is it?
[0:39:00 - 0:40:28]
[F911] The Saudis have $860 billion invested in the USA, or, as Moore says, "They own 7-8% of the United States!"
[What Really Happened] Bullshit. According to the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy, in February 2003 total worldwide Saudi investment was about $700 billion. Sixty percent of the Saudi investments were in the United States, so the Saudis had around 420 billion dollars invested in the U.S.
According the Census Bureau, foreign investors owned $1,690 billion in corporate stocks and bonds in 2002. That means that the Saudis have about 4% of total foreign investments. Now, according to the Bureau of Economic Statistics, total foreign investment in the United States in 2003 was $10,515 billion dollars. Given that figure, total Saudi investment in the USA is about .04%, rounded up. 7%, my ass.
[0:40:00 - 0:41:30]
[F911] Moore stresses that there is Secret Service around the Saudi Embassy, trying to piece it into his conspiracy theory of the Bush-Saudi connection.
[What Really Happened] Any tourist to Washington, DC, will see plenty of Secret Service Police guarding all of the other foreign embassies which request such protection. Other than guarding the White House and some federal buildings, it’s the largest use of personnel by the Secret Service’s Uniformed Division. There is nothing strange about the Secret Service protecting the Saudi embassy in Washington — especially since Al Qaeda attacks have taken place against Saudi Arabia. According to Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, an international agreement which has been ratified by the United States, every host country (including the United States) is obliged to protect every embassy within its borders.
[0:41:42 - 0:43:00]
[F911] Moore points out the distressingly close relationship between Saudi Arabia’s ambassador, Prince Bandar. Again, a lot of slanderous, rhetorical questions implying that Bush and Bandar met on September 13th for the sole reason of discussing mutual plans to protect each other from investigation.
[What Really Happened] Moore fails to mention that Bandar has been a Washington powerhouse and trusted aid since the beginning of the Clinton administration. It has nothing to do directly with the Bushes.
[0:44:00 - 0:45:00]
A nice segment with Bush, Cheney, and Blair's faces pasted onto the bodies of cowboys in an Old Western. Ha. Ha.
[0:45:27 - 0:46:20, 0:47:20 - 0:47:27]
[F911] In 1997, Taliban met with Unocal while Bush was governor of Texas to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. Moore implies that Cheney stood to gain strongly from the deal. He then shows images of pipeline construction. He then says that as soon as we took Afghanistan, the construction of the Caspian Sea pipeline began.
[What Really Happened] The Taliban never saw Bush. The deal was, however, strongly supported by the Clintons, but it went bust in 1998, long before Bush took office. The deal never happened; no one at all gained from it.
And the images of pipeline construction? Those are from a pipeline in eastern Russia. The Caspian Sea pipeline construction never even started at all.
[0:46:20 - 0:47:05]
[F911] Five months before 9/11, the Bush administration welcomed Taliban official, Sayed Hashemi, to tour the US and improve the Taliban's image.
[What Really Happened] Hashemi’s reception at the State Department was hardly welcoming. The administration rejected his claim that the Taliban had complied with U.S. requests to isolate Osama bin Laden and affirmed its nonrecognition of the Taliban.
"We don’t recognize any government in Afghanistan," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said on the day of the visit.
Basically, the Taliban came, and the Bush Administration told them to hurry up with what they had to do and then get the hell out of the country, and don't let the door hit you when you leave.
[0:48:00 - 0:55:00]
[F911] Moore claims that Bush created an atmosphere of fear with the terrorist warning levels, showcasing Washington Representative Jim McDermott.
McDermott claims, "Well you make them afraid by creating an aura of endless threat. They played us like an organ. They raised the level, the orange up to red than they dropped it back to orange."
[What Really Happened] First, let's take a look at McDermott.
quote:McDermott was one of three Congressmen who went on Saddam’s propaganda tour of Iraq in Fall 2002. The trip was funded by Life for Relief and Development (LRD), a "charity" which laundered money to terrorist group Hamas’ Jordanian operation. LRD is funded in part by Shakir Al-Khafaji, a man who did about $70 million in business with Saddam through his Falcon Trading Group company (based in South Africa). LRD’s Iraqi offices were raided by US troops last week, and the Detroit-area "charity" is suspected of funding uprisings, such as the one in Fallujah. Its officials bragged of doing so at a recent private US fundraiser.
McDermott is notoriously pro-Saddam. To rely on McDermott to explain the Bush administration's alleged secret intentions is akin to relying on a bitter atheist to describe an alleged secret conspiracy in the Vatican.
And, just a matter of semantics, the Terrorist Warning Level has never been Red. Ever. It takes a highly paranoid mind to conclude that because changes were made in the announced threat levels, the changes must have been for the purpose of psychological warfare on the American people.
[0:55:17 - 0:56:45]
[F911] Moore generally slanders Ashcroft. He states that he lost the Senate race to a dead man. He also claims that Ashcroft was blatantly irresponsible when it came to terrorism
[What Really Happened] The first point is a cheap shot. When voters in Missouri cast their ballots for the dead man, Mel Carnahan, they knew they were really voting for Carnahan’s very much alive widow, Jean. The Democratic governor of Missouri had vowed to appoint Jean to the job if Mel won.
Moore: [Ashcroft's] own FBI knew that summer that there were Al Qaeda members in the US and that Bin Laden was sending his agents to flight schools around the country. But Ashcroft's Justice Department turned a blind eye and a deaf ear.
This implies far more prior knowledge about flight school activity than actually existed. As the 9/11 Commission found in a staff statement, the so-called "Phoenix memo" from an FBI agent in Arizona suggesting a possible effort by Bin Laden to send agents to flight schools was not widely circulated within the FBI and did not reach Ashcroft's desk.
In a previous segment, Moore claims that Bush "cut terrorism funding from the FBI". In 2001, the Department of Justice was operating under the Clinton budget, in which terrorism funding was cut. Bush was in office at the time, but was powerless in relation to those cuts.
[0:56:45 - 1:04:00]
[F911] The Patriot Act. Moore highlights two groups wrongly targeted by the FBI under the Patriot Act. Moore then shows Representative Porter Gross defending the Patriot Act. Goss says that he has an "800 number" for people to call to report problems with the Act. Fahrenheit shoots back with a caption "He's lying." The ordinary telephone number (area code 202) for Goss’s office is then flashed on the screen. Then comes a rather incriminating quote where Bush says, "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, you know?"
Moore goes on to showcase the various problems with the Patriot Act, and drives around Washington in an Ice Cream truck reading the Patriot Act.
[What Really Happened] OK, this is perhaps the one area that I agree with Moore. I despise the Patriot Act. A lot. Because, as a dual citizen, I am particularly vulnerable to it. I still don't agree with his methods, though.
You’d never know by watching Fahrenheit, but Rep. Goss does have a toll-free number to which USA PATRIOT Act complaints can be reported. The number belongs to the Committee which Goss chairs, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The number is (877) 858-9040.
Although the Committee’s number is toll-free, the prefix is not "800," and Moore exploits this trivial fact to create the false impression that Goss lied about having a toll-free number.
Bush is quoted as saying, "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." What Moore fails to note, though, is that the quote, from July 26, 2001, is a facetious joke, like Moore's claim in Dude, Where's my Country? that he did not have sex until age 32.
And who doesn't think a dictatorship would be easier for the leader? We may all think it is easier, but not many really want one. And I highly doubt that the President is one of the few who do.
[1:04:38 - 1:07:11]
[F911] Moore highlights the underfunded and thinly spread Oregon Troopers that guard the Oregon-Pacific Coastline.
[What Really Happened] This has nothing to do with Fahrenheit's claim that the Bush administration is not sincerely interested in homeland security. The Oregon State Police are paid by the Oregon state government (which has been suffering from a budget crisis). Whatever the problems with Trooper funding, the problems are the responsibility of the Oregon state government, not the federal government. Moore's point makes no more sense than blaming the Oregon state government for shortages of FBI personnel in Eugene.
[1:07:11 - 1:09:13]
The most nauseating segment of this film lasts only two minutes. Moore shows images of Iraq before the invasion. He shows pretty pictures of men sitting in cafes, kids flying kites, women shopping. Cut to bombs exploding at night. What Moore presumably doesn’t know, or simply doesn’t care about, is that the building you see being blown up is the Iraqi Ministry of Defense in Baghdad. Not many children flew kites there. It was in a part of the city that ordinary Iraqis weren’t allowed to visit—on pain of death.
To Moore, Iraq was a happy place before the invasion. No pain and suffering there. No rape, murder, gassing, imprisoning, silencing of the citizens in these scenes.
Iraq was ruled by a regime that had forced a sixth of its population into fearful exile, that hanged dissidents (real dissidents, not people like Susan Sontag and Tim Robbins) from meathooks and tortured them with blowtorches, and filled thousands of mass graves with the bodies of its massacred citizens.
Yes, children played, women shopped and men sat in cafes while that stuff went on—just as people did all those normal things in Somoza’s Nicaragua, Duvalier’s Haiti and for that matter Nazi Germany, and as they do just about everywhere, including in Iraq today.
Fahrenheit points out, correctly, that the Saudi monarchy is "a regime that Amnesty International condemns as a widespread human rights violator." Fahrenheit does not mention that the Saddam regime was likewise condemned by Amnesty International. As AI's 2002 annual report noted, in April 2002 "the UN Commission on Human Rights adopted a resolution strongly condemning 'the systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq, resulting in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror.'
[1:09:13 - 1:09:24]
[F911] In these 11 seconds, Moore makes three claims: Iraq never attacked the US, never threatened to do so, and that Iraq had never murdered a US citizen.
[What Really Happened] I'll start with the last point. There is more than a bit of Moore trickery here; examine this ABC interview:
quote:Jake Tapper (ABC News): You declare in the film that Hussein’s regime had never killed an American …
Moore: That isn’t what I said. Quote the movie directly.
Tapper: What is the quote exactly?
Moore: "Murdered." The government of Iraq did not commit a premeditated murder on an American citizen. I’d like you to point out one.
Tapper: If the government of Iraq permitted a terrorist named Abu Nidal who is certainly responsible for killing Americans to have Iraq as a safe haven; if Saddam Hussein funded suicide bombers in Israel who did kill Americans; if the Iraqi police—now this is not a murder but it’s a plan to murder—to assassinate President Bush which at the time merited airstrikes from President Clinton once that plot was discovered; does that not belie your claim that the Iraqi government never murdered an American or never had a hand in murdering an American?
Moore: No, because nothing you just said is proof that the Iraqi government ever murdered an American citizen.
Saddam also never said, "I will order my military to attack America!"
Instead, he told his people repeatedly that they should "use all means-and they are numerous-against the aggressors...and considering everything American as a military target, including embassies, installations, and American companies, and to create suicide/martyr [fidaiyoon] squads to attack American military and naval bases inside and outside the region, and mine the waterways to prevent the movement of war ships..."
Or: ""American and British interests, embassies, and naval ships in the Arab region should be the targets of military operations and commando attacks by Arab political forces."
Or: "The Arab people have not so far fulfilled their duties. They are called upon to target U.S. and Zionist interests everywhere and target those who protect these interests."
Technically, Moore is right. Saddam never actually threatened the US.
And he never had an actual hand in attacking the US. He didn't actually push any red buttons or anything of the like. For those of you familiar with the story of Al Capone, this should sound familiar. He had everyone else do the dirty work, and stayed so clean himself that we had to get him on tax evasion.
[1:10:00 - 1:14:20]
[F911] Moore basically paints the US troops as murderous savages who don't care who they kill or about anyone in Iraq. Oh, yeah. He proves Britney Spears is a moron.
[What Really Happened] He shows the worst of the soldiers. What can I say? What do you think?
In a latter segment [1:18:25 - 1:23:42], he then goes on to portray the military as innocent kids who have been caught up in a battle they don't want, and who love the Iraqi people.
[1:16:14 - 1:18:20]
[F911] A nice sound intro, where Moore introduces to us the Coalition. He lists: Palau, Costa Rica, and Iceland. He then says that none of these countries have a military, so it looked like we would be doing all the work ourselves. He then goes on to list Romania, Morocco, the Netherlands, and Afghanistan.
[What Really Happened] Nice of him to mention the United Kingdom, Australia, and many others.
[1:23:15 - 1:25:00]
[F911] Moore basically starts a plight for a town called Flint, Michigan. This is where we first meet Mrs. Lipscomb, who says that unemployment in Flint is 17%, but that they stop counting you when you're unemployment runs out, so it should be more like 50%. Moore goes on to imply socioeconomics of the military, namely, that they focus on blacks and the poor.
[What Really Happened] For one, Mrs. Lipscomb, though her intentions may be well-placed, is wrong. The total number of unemployed in Flint, Michigan is 17%. That includes everybody.
Two, Moore's portrayal of the socioeconomics of the military is more than slightly off. High-school drop-outs are under represented in the military, not over-represented as he implies.
Also, while blacks are about twice as likely to serve in the military (and recall that our military is 100% voluntary), they do not receive a disproportionate number of casualties. Blacks make up about 13% of the fatal casualties in Iraq, and compromise 12.3% of the US population.
[1:25:00 - 1:29:30]
[F911] Moore highlights two recruiters in Flint. While they do focus on the poorer areas of the town, I fail to see how this reflects negatively on the Bush administration. It does reflect poorly on the military's recruiting tactics, this is not under Bush's control.
[1:38:07 - 1:38:20]
[F911] Moore shows a very incriminating clip of Bush at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner. Bush says, "I call you the haves and the have-mores. Some call you the elite; I call you my base."
[What Really Happened] Moore does not even mention that this took place at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner. Why is this important? That Dinner raises money for Catholic hospital charities in New York City. Candidates Bush and Gore were the co-guests of honor at the event in 2000 (which is clip shown), where speakers traditionally make fun of themselves.
By comparison, Gore joked, "The Al Smith Dinner represents a hallowed and important tradition, which I actually did invent." Playing on his promise to put Social Security in a "lock box", Gore promised that he would put "Medicare in a walk-in closet," put NASA funding in a "hermetically sealed Ziploc bag" and would "always keep lettuce in the crisper."
It's a joke. Put out the torches.
[1:38:20 - 1:40:51]
[F911] Moore says Bush proposed cutting combat soldier's pay by 33%, and assistance to their families by 60%. He opposed giving veterans a billion dollars more in benefits, and he supported closing veteran hospitals. He tried to double the prescription drug costs for veterans, and opposed full benefits for part-time reservists.
[What Really Happened] Bush supported closing seven hospitals in areas where they were under-used, and opening new hospitals in areas where needs were growing, and also supported opening centers for blind rehabilitation and spinal injuries.
Bush did support doubling the prescription drug co-pay for veterans, from $7 to a whopping $15, and only for veterans with an income of over $24,000 per year.
As to the 33% cut: In addition to regular military salaries, soldiers in certain areas (not just combat zones) receive an "imminent danger" bonus of $150 a month. In April 2003, Congress retroactively enacted a special increase of $75, for the fiscal year of Oct. 1, 2002 through Sept. 30, 2003. At first, the Bush administration did not support renewing the special bonus, but then changed its position
Likewise, Congress had passed a special one-year increase in the family separation allowance (for service personnel stationed in places where their families cannot join them) from $100 to $250. Bush’s initial opposition to extending the special increase was presented by Moore as "cutting assistance to their families by 60%." Even at the lowest pay grades in the military, this so-called "cut" would only be a 3% pay reduction, overall.
It doesn't fit Moore's plan, however, to mention that Bush proposed (and got Congress to enact) a 3.7% military pay raise, with an extra raise for non-coms.
[1:40:55 - 1:46:00]
[F911] Mrs. Lipscomb reads a letter from her son in Iraq; he is very angry at Bush and resentful of being in Iraq.
[What Really Happened] Moore doesn't mention that the son in Iraq sent home another letter immediately thereafter, in which he apologized for his words in the previous letter, especially those against Bush.
Fahrenheit wallows in pity for Mrs. Lipscomb. "I was tired of seeing people like Mrs. Lipscomb suffer," Moore claims. Yet Moore’s website is not quite so sympathetic:
quote: I’m sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.
[1:54:00 - 1:56:01]
[F911] The most famous segment in F911. Moore goes through the streets of Washington, DC, accosting various Congressman and asking them to send their children to Iraq. He first says that out of the 535 members of Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq.
The first man he approaches is Representative John Tanner (D, Tennessee). Tanner is very welcoming, and accepts brochures that he will give his children.
He then approaches Representative Mark Kennedy. He asks him if he will get his kids to enlist in the Army. Mark Kennedy looks at him in what appears to be a very confused and indignant manner. The camera cuts away.
He approaches Congressman Castle, who is on a cellphone. Castle signals him to wait a minute. Camera cuts away.
Approaches Congressman Dolittle, who quickly walks away.
[What Really Happened] This is one of the most cunning example of Moore's skill in the entire movie. Let me tell you what the cameras do not show:
In the portion with Mr. Kennedy, Moore took some licenses in editing that border on fraudulent.
quote:According to the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune, Kennedy, when asked if he would be willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore that his son was thinking about a career in the navy and that two of his nephews had already served in the armed forces. Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive.
What was Michael’s excuse for trimming the key segment? Kennedy’s remarks didn’t help his thesis: "He mentioned that he had a nephew that was going over to Afghanistan," Moore recounted. "So then I said ‘No, no, that’s not our job here today. We want you to send your child to Iraq. Not a nephew."
Even more, while Moore just makes Kennedy look incredulous and resistant, Kennedy accepted the brochures and agreed to help Moore. But you don't get to see that; it wouldn't support Moore's thesis.
The short interview with Congressman Castle leads us to believe that he refuses to send his children to Iraq. The catch that Moore doesn't want you to know? Castle has no children.
Representative Duncan Hunter has a son in Iraq. Why didn't Moore count him? Because his son was a Second Lieutenant, not an enlisted man.
Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, served in Iraq. Why was he not counted? Because he served in 2003, not at the exact time that Moore made the movie.
Delaware Senator Joseph Biden's son Beau is on active duty; although Beau Biden has no control over where he is deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and therefore does not "count" for Moore's purposes.
Seven members of Congress have sons or daughters on active duty in the military. Attorney General John Ashcroft's son is serving on the U.S.S. McFaul in the Persian Gulf.
Are Congressional children less likely to serve in Iraq than children from other families? Let’s use Moore’s methodology, and ignore members of extended families (such as nephews) and also ignore service anywhere except Iraq (even though U.S. forces are currently fighting terrorists in many countries). And like Moore, let us also ignore the fact that some families (like Rep. Castle’s) have no children, or no children of military age.
We then see that of 535 Congressional families, there are two with a child who served in Iraq. How does this compare with American families in general? In the summer of 2003, U.S. troop levels in Iraq were raised to 145,000. If we factor in troop rotation, we could estimate that about 300,000 people have served in Iraq at some point. According to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000 households in the United States in 2000. So the ratio of ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service personnel is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1.
In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service personnel is 535:2. This reduces to a ratio of 268:1.
Stated another way, a Congressional household is about 23 percent more likely than an ordinary household to be closely related to an Iraqi serviceman or servicewoman.
That is the film, in full. Minute by minute. You have seen Moore's deception; virtually nothing in his film is the actual truth. Any questions?
PS. In the very last seconds, Moore put in the now-famous Bushism, "Fool me once shame, on you...". I did not see how it was pertinent to the film, so I did not include it in the review. My apologies. Now, you know everything.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The saying "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" is NOT a Bushism, but rather a classic American proverb. The Bushism is, in fact, Bush's famous MANGLING of the phrase: "fool me once, shame ... shame on you; fool me -- can't get fooled again."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know. Some people were upset that I hadn't included the phrase in my review, as it "proved Bush's idiocy". While I refrain to comment on their analysis of the snippet, I felt that I should include that portion.
Why? Because after accusing Moore so often of making a point by leaving things out, it would be more than slightly hypocritical for me to exclude segments that would go against my thesis.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Some people were upset that I hadn't included the phrase in my review..."
Who?
Moreover, your thesis -- that Moore stretches the truth -- has nothing to do with whether Bush is an idiot. Clearly, both theses are true.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would rather not pursue publishing. It is not all my work; it is a compilation of close to 24 hours of research put into a minute-by-minute format.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would, however, like to know if anybody has any critiques or rebuttals of the essay.
If not of the content, then of the attitude, because persuasion is an art, and attitude is a large portion of it.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
frankly speaking, the bottom line is that: facts don't put butts in seats.
heroism does. flabby as his ass might be, MM sat his great sentimental squishing arse-spread over the critical-point in the sedimentation of the american class system with impressive alacrity and intuition.
kudos maximus, Mike.
fallow
PS. That really should have been 'alarming alacrity and impressive intuition' now that I think about it. Oh well. We'll go with the first take.
posted
There is an article called, "59 Deceits of Farenheit 9/11." It is strangely similar in content and wording to what you have posted. I accessed it off of the NRA website.
posted
I used that site as my primary source, as you can see listed at the bottom of the article. I do not take credit for a large part that work myself, except for formatting. I also relied heavily on the CBS self-investigation for the election night events and the 9/11 commission's website.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, HRE:) It was very well-done, and I hope you spread it a good deal. Moore is a deceptive jackass who has entirely too much credibility.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you very much, HRE. I'd wondered if there would be a rebuttal of some sort, from somewhere - Moore's movie is self-admittedly propoganda, but not a lot of people care. They saw it in a theatre and it effected their emotions and lives. At least for the time period that they were in the theatre, it was true.
Balance is good.
Posts: 753 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Moore's tactics appeal to emotion. While you are in the theater, you are indignant and outraged at Bush.
When you come out, you can read things like this and know the movie was wrong and disregard it entirely. However, the emotions remain imbedded. You may not be able to justify why you feel indignant and outraged at Bush, but you do.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've not seen the movie, because I try to avoid propganda (why on earth would people want to seek it out?) - but I did enjoy reading this essay.
Of course, my reasons for disliking the Bush administration have very little to do with terrorism and a whole lot more to do with the environment and also, to an extent, with the economy (which I admittedly don't understand very well).
Posts: 3214 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The environment Education the economy The limiting of restrictions on the meat industry the lose-handed policies in Iraq The lies and half-truths Are just a few reasons why I dislike the Bush administration. Moore's movie is about as useful as trying out a different variable in an equation. At least it gets a person thinking about certain issues. I take everything I learn with a grain of salt, but from what I've read about the Bush administration (and I'm doing a ton of research on it) I feel that a second term of Bush would be a disaster for this country.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Moore is a man to be admired and studied, if simply to learn the art of deception. Because Michael Moore is very good at it, possibly one of the best at it alive today. This is a work of true genius, much like an excellent crime is a work of true genius.
And by 'jackass' I don't mean 'stupid', either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: While you are in the theater, you are indignant and outraged at Bush.
So you are accusing Moore of brainwashing? He is getting credit for being a criminal mastermind, a brainwasher, a master manipulator and a "jackass" (which has as much place in a rational discussion as ...well, as nothing. It has no place here.). I saw this movie with a very staunch right winger. He wasn't "indignant" or "outraged" at Bush upon leaving the theater. He hated the movie, hated Moore and practically kissed the name "Bush" on his bumper sticker. But brainwashed to to the point where he feels badly towards Bush later but doesn't know why? So far, not happening.
Most people who saw the movie already have a problem with Bush. Most people that saw it that I know felt it was "preaching to the choir." But brainwashing? If you see a movie that genuinely makes you feel outrage at Bush and later try to quell that outrage unsuccessfully with facts, then maybe there is some lingering reason for why you might not like GWB but I doubt it is a criminal mastermind at work.
quote: Prove me wrong. Edit and add the citations, all of them, for every "point in the right direction" you got from another source. Step up to the plate!
He is not required to, as he is not in your english class. Even if your accusation is true and it is not neccessarily, taking facts and ideas from other places does not a plagarist make, because all facts and ideas come from somewhere else. Judgement must be very much innocent until proven guilty, or it is not plagarism and this is not a published work, nor is it by any means subject to the same restrictions as a students paper, this is a free discussion internet forum, not a text book. It is the poster's own buisness whether he sites sources in this case and some of us are more interested in the correctness of the facts than the quantity of footnotes. The statements expressed do not come from a singular source, and the author has an independent take. If he had wanted to just post the link, he would have, not spent 24 hours writing and researching. To sum up, Plagarism is a serious crime, and so are libel and slander.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Did you read the article I linked to? While he is not required to cite all of his sources on a forum such as this, it is not right to present someone elses ideas and work as if they are your own. As I said before the two are nearly identical in wording and content.
And Claudia, thank you for further addressing what I did not. I thought more people would have accessed my link and been surprised at the similarities.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
All ideas come from somewhere bub. yah might have a point though. But it is not plagarism, and the documents are dissimilar, and it is perhaps superior in ways, and I have to wonder who died and made CT god.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:According to the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy, in February 2003 total worldwide Saudi investment was about $700 billion. Sixty percent of the Saudi investments were in the United States, so the Saudis had around 420 billion dollars invested in the U.S.
According the Census Bureau, foreign investors owned $1,690 billion in corporate stocks and bonds in 2002. That means that the Saudis have about 4% of total foreign investments. Now, according to the Bureau of Economic Statistics, total foreign investment in the United States in 2003 was $10,515 billion dollars. Given that figure, total Saudi investment in the USA is about .04%, rounded up. 7%, my ass.
Isn't $420 billion 25% of $1690 billion, rather than 4%? And wouldn't 420 billion be 4% of $10,515 billion, rather than .04%? So the difference between your numbers and MMs stems from your different original claims of $700 and $420 billion, correct?
Is it better to skew the facts carelessly?
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
MOF, the first paragraph in the quoted portion talks about foreign investment, the second about foreign investment in corporate stocks and bonds.
VERY different numbers. You can't directly compare the two.
Assuming accurate reporting of the descriptions of the numbers, of course.
posted
For one, Promethius is right. I apologize to the forum at large; it is a mistake that I will not make again.
Two, yes, it should be 4% instead of .04%. Come on, easy mistake on a calculator during summer break. Thanks for catching that.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no libel or slander on HRE by calling this plagiarism. It is quite plainly plagiarism. It happens often enough on this forum. However, were HRE to try to hand this in as an assignment to an English teacher, I would have serious doubts about the teacher's ability to comprehend his/her job if they did not hand it back with an "incomplete" on it, requesting either direct citations or at least attributing the source for the actual work.
HRE self-admittedly did not spend 24 whole hours on this, HRE spent one 24-hour space in time doing this, or a single day. The problem with that is that none of the actual investigative work was done by HRE, only the copying of arguments from other sources who did do the investigative work. That there are no citations for this make it a pretty obvious case of plagiarism. That some blocks of text are almost word-for-word are another factor. Both together are enough to earn it a big, fat "F" were it handed in as an assignment, no matter how accurate the breakdown of F-9/11 is.
So no, suntranafs is not correct. There is plenty wrong with plagiarism, there is plenty of indication that this "work" is indeed plagiarism, and it is not libel or slander to point that out, given the link Promethius provided and the explanation HRE gave following it. Protestations against CT's original points about making citations are just going to sound like a "you're not my boss, bisketti sauce" response.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assembling other people's comments on this film into a coherent, minute-by-minute analysis would be a valid form of scholarship. If you state this is your intent up front and cite your sources, it's not plagiarism. Not only that, citing your sources helps readers evaluate your analysis and the analysis of the author.
HRE didn't do that. In my first reading, I thought this was his work, and was very impressed with it. I did wish for cites on the facts he cited, however.
I'm willing to accept that there was no malicious intent behind the failure to cite and give credit. But I do think CT is right in saying the protestations of innocence would be more believable and meaningful if he went back and cited it.
And CT isn't God, but she is damn cool. Don't make us come down there.
posted
People who are criticizing this need to remember that HRE wasn't given as assignment in class so there's nothing wrong with him getting the information from other sources and then posting that information for others to see. Since he never intended to publish it and never claimed it was soley his work to criticize him would be equivalent to criticizing me for plagurizing if I said that politician made some statement and I got it from a newspaper. If HRE were to publish it than I would agree that citations would be needed in a lot of places, but just reading it on this forum I saw little need for them. If anyone on this forum has a gripe with any particular point than I think HRE should back it up with sources.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having chosen to do it, even on his own initiative, he owes it to those he cites to give them credit. The work is impressive even as a compilation.
I wouldn't have said anything if someone hadn't dissed CT.
At the end of the day it's all about forming good habits.
Oh, and talkin' smack to someone who posts something that reeks of thoughtfulness, intelligence, and care doesn't make you cool. Thankfully.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, in case no one noticed, I did apologize and admit error. It was done in a hasty fashion, which led me to make stupid mistakes (plagiarism was a big one, something I usually abhor).
I know proper bibliography form (something I should have at least done), but I don't know how to make proper citations within the text. Would someone mind showing me?
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
He is getting credit for being a criminal mastermind, a brainwasher, a master manipulator and a "jackass" (which has as much place in a rational discussion as ...well, as nothing. It has no place here.). I saw this movie with a very staunch right winger. He wasn't "indignant" or "outraged" at Bush upon leaving the theater. He hated the movie, hated Moore and practically kissed the name "Bush" on his bumper sticker. But brainwashed to to the point where he feels badly towards Bush later but doesn't know why? So far, not happening.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
