In Woody Allen’s fabulous film, “Annie Hall” (Best Picture, 1977), there is a flashback scene in which Allen’s protagonist character reminisces about some of his childhood acquaintances by panning past them as they sit in their school desks while he narrates. He sees himself, also as a child, sitting in one of the desks, as his adult voice says “And Ivan Ackerman—always the wrong answer. Always,” after which we see the very dorky Ivan stand and deliver. “Seven and three is nine.” Observing it happen again, the child Woody smacks himself in the forehead and rolls his eyes.
That’s no doubt how John Fonda Kerry’s campaign advisers felt over the weekend when, for reasons only he can fathom, he said “I don’t like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception.” (Not that they should talk. Aren’t they the ones that consent to these absurd photo ops, each one more unintentionally hilarious than the previous one? Kerry holding a long gun, masquerading as a fan of the 2nd amendment, but blowing it by having his finger on the trigger while he’s looking away from the barrel. Kerry surrounded by Little Leaguers wading into a cornfield, looking especially Gomer Pyle like, reenacting a scene from "Field of Dreams." Do they really want to remind people of the walking dead in movies when Kerry, who looks like death warmed over, is around? But I digress …)
Say what? This guy voted six times against banning partial birth abortion, and against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act a.k.a “Laci and Connors’ Law,” which makes death or injury to a “child in utero” a federal crime when committed in the commission of another violent federal crime. He wants to impose a Roe v. Wade litmus test on all nominees to the federal bench, although in typical Kerry fashion he refuses to admit it. He didn’t earn that lifetime 92 rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action for nothing, after all. His voting record makes it impossible for him to hide from the fact that he is a classic Massachusetts liberal who has out Ted Kennedyed Ted Kennedy, so of course it’s no surprise that he is steadfast in his support of the pro-abortion agenda of NARAL and the other liberal interest groups he answers to. What is shocking is that he would go out of his way to augment his answer to a question about abortion with a gratuitous statement that is absolutely, undeniably and completely at odds with the party line that he has spent his whole political career trying to uphold.
So, let me get this straight, Senator. Life begins at conception. That’s what you said. Yet you can’t bring yourself to impose additional penalties on some low life who kills a precious and wanted child soon to be born, lest you infringe on the right of some woman somewhere to ‘choose’ to murder her child. Don’t get all huffy with me. You’re the one who said life begins at conception, which would make abortion murder. Please explain why, if you do believe that, you aren’t morally obligated to try to prevent every abortion. It’s the logical question, isn’t it? Yes, and one that I’m sure won’t be asked by any member of the partisan media.
The appalling thing isn’t that Senator Kerry, along with Mario Cuomo, Ted Kennedy and our own Eddie Haskell a.k.a Sen. Dick Durbin, holds these ridiculously inconsistent views on this issue. We’ve all become accustomed to laughing at these so-called ‘pro-choice’ Catholics. The appalling thing is that he stepped in it again. There was no reason for him to say that life begins at conception, other than the fact that he was in heavily Catholic Dubuque, Iowa at the time. Why did he say that?! Could Sen. Kerry have been pandering? No doubt, and his desire to bend over backwards to tell the reporter what he knew the locals wanted to hear caused him to go the extra mile, to put a little umph behind that mealy-mouthed “safe, legal and rare” pap that we’re used to hearing from this bunch.
It’s not the first time that Senator Kerry got something caught in the wringer with one of the left-wing interest group he’s a toady for. Back in May, he made the mistake of suggesting in a speech that we should reward teachers based on performance, including even—GASP!!—pay for performance. He had barely left the stage when he got the irate call from Reg Weaver, President of the NEA, instructing him not to use that unacceptable phrase ever again. He no doubt apologized profusely, and vowed to make future statements sufficiently vague so that the average voter will be fooled while the NEA cogniscenti will understand that should he be elected, no pay for performance policy will have a chance.
This ‘life-begins-at-conception’ thing isn’t going away. It will be interesting to watch Senator Kerry try to tap dance his way out of it.
As the opening of Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” approached, I felt a growing sense of dread. As a radio talk show host, I knew that I would have to subject myself to this half-baked, internally inconsistent, factually bankrupt perversion of the documentary format. It wasn’t those problems that made me view attending the movie as a chore.
Rather, it was something that rhymes with that, bore, and bore it did, excruciatingly so. I haven’t looked at my watch that many times since the last time the husband forced me to watch televised golf.
How could I avoid being bored with this rehashing of Bush-hating myths, the big parade of lies that are a catechism for the left, that I’ve heard hundreds of times? These canards have been beaten beyond the proverbial dead horse to the point that they have been pounded into a gelatinous, scarlet, amorphous pulpy mass, but that doesn’t stop some people from believing and repeating them. The following is a list of the fabrications in this insufferable mess of a movie, and the truth about the events described.
1. The Left’s Master Lie, “Bush Stole the Election”
Of course, the movie opens with the waving of this bloody shirt. The Religious Left faithful trace all the horrors that for them are the presidency of George W. Bush to this lie, and nothing—I mean nothing—will persuade them of its falsity. It is the foundation on which all their cherished revulsion toward the president, his policies, his advisers, and probably his socks, rests. One of the most unintentionally hilarious sentences written about this film appears in Roger Ebert’s review, in which he says that a scene showing the ratification of the 2000 election by the U.S. Congress “reawakens old feelings for those who believe Bush is an illegitimate president.” Reawakens?!! Next we’ll have to reawaken Yasser Arafat’s feelings about Israel.
I realized a long time ago that I’ve got a better chance of getting my dog to understand the theory of relativity than getting most of these dunderheads to understand basic constitutional law. As we’ve seen over and over, from elections to judicial nominations, even those in this group who are smart enough to understand it abandoned any minimal respect they had for the U.S. Constitution long ago in favor of a higher principle, imposing their superior vision by any means necessary. Just think of the democrats as the lawless leading the ignorant and you’ll understand. Futile though it is, I will say for at least the thousandth time, as a six-month study by the National Research Center at the University of Chicago for eight media companies concluded, even had the statewide recount in Florida proceeded, George Bush would have won. He also would have won if Al Gore’s desired selective recount of 4 hardcore democrat counties had been done.
2. Bin Ladens Allowed to Leave the Country
Moore suggests that because of the close personal friendship between President Bush and the Saudis, cemented by the considerable financial largess of the latter bestowed on the former, 142 Saudi nationals including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were practically escorted out of the country at a time when ‘even Ricky Martin couldn’t fly.’ He makes much of this, suggesting a sinister and corrupt motive, the buddy-buddy Bush-Saudi relationship, which explains everything. What Moore neglects to mention is that it was none other than counter-terrorism czar and Bush critic Richard Clarke who approved the flights, conditioned on FBI approval. This omission is particularly glaring since Clarke is depicted in the movie as something of a hero, and his testimony to the 9/11 commission confirming his approval for the Saudi flights occurred in plenty of time for Moore to include in the movie. You can find this information in the 9/11 Commission Staff Statement No. 10. It’s on page 12. He chooses instead to insert an interview with a retired FBI agent—yes, not even a current member of the bureau—stating the proper procedures weren’t followed. Somehow I doubt that there was a page in the manual to address a situation like 9/11 when this guy was still in the loop.
There’s a bigger problem with Moore’s assertion about these Saudi flights, though. When asked about the September 11 attacks at the Telluride Film Festival in 2002, Moore said that Osama bin Laden himself was ‘innocent until proven guilty,’ despite the fact that the terrorist kingpin had taken responsibility for the attacks. So the perp himself was to be accorded every due process protection, but for the crime of sharing the same last name or even just being of the same nationality others were to be detained like criminals? This from a guy who rails against the Patriot Act as the death of civil liberties?
3. James Bath, Saudi Money Man, “Invested in George W. Bush”
Moore cleverly defeats the Bush Secrecy Machine by obtaining a copy of George W’s military records that they weren’t able to sanitize by removing the name of his buddy, James Bath, who like W was suspended for failing to take a physical. Some might suggest that Mr. Bath’s name was blacked out to protect his privacy, but Moore knows better. Of course it was a pathetic attempt to keep people from finding out that George W and James Bath go way back because when they did, they would see yet another sinister Saudi connection. Wrong again, Mikey. While it’s true that James Bath did manage some Saudi funds and did invest $50,000 in Arbusto, W’s oil firm, the two facts are unrelated. The money was from Mr. Bath’s personal funds, not money he was managing for his Saudi clients. Should Mr. Bath, a private citizen, consider suing Michael Moore for libel? Just a thought.
4. The Saudi’s “Have Given” $1.4 Billion to Bush and His Friends
Leftist conspiracy aficionados point to the mysterious Carlyle Group, a private investment firm, that if they are to be believed controls more than the Trilateral Commission and Skull and Bones combined as the driving force behind nearly every foreign policy decision made by the Bush administration. President George H.W. Bush was on the advisory board, and W wants Daddy’s company to make the big bucks. It’s obvious, isn’t it? The claim in the movie is based almost exclusively ($1.18 billion, or ~90%) on defense contracts the Saudi government gave to a firm called BDM, owned by Carlyle. The problem is that 41 didn’t join Carlyle’s board until 5 months after the firm sold BDM. So, neither Bush had any connection to this contract. In addition, there is no evidence that the 2nd Bush administration acted in Carlyle’s interest. In fact, it cancelled the Crusader rocket artillery system manufactured by United Defense, a Carlyle subsidiary.
5. The Taliban’s Unocal Pipeline
Moore suggests that the Bush administration was sucking up to the Taliban, even though they knew it they harbored terrorists, because they wanted to help another one of their oil company pals, Unocal. This one is really a whopper. It’s true that Unocal tried to get the president to make nice with Taliban so that they could build a pipeline, but the president was Bill Clinton. This project was abandoned in 1998. Prior to that there were many talks between Unocal execs and Clinton administration officials about how to make it happen. The March 2001 meeting referred to in the film involved trying to figure out what to do about Osama bin Laden.
For a more thorough discussion of Moore’s lies about these financial matters, please consult Michael Isikoff’s excellent Newsweek article here.
6. George W. Bush’s Insider Trading
In “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Moore says that, using inside information, and after company attorneys had warned him that he shouldn’t sell, President Bush made over $848,000 on the sale of Harken Energy stock in 1990 right before the stock went in the tank. The democrats have been trying to make political hay out of this one since 1990, and it has been thoroughly vetted by the SEC, as well as a number of investigative journalists. All have concluded that when George W. Bush sold his shares in June 1990, he was unaware of the losses that would be posted in August. In fact, according to the SEC, most of the loss resulted from events that occurred after the sale of the stock, so he could not possibly have known. In addition, the afore-mentioned company attorneys had approved Bush’s sale before it happened. Byron York’s excellent article on this issue is worth checking out. You can find it here.
Maybe Michael Moore is confusing this event with an episode of “Dallas” he saw back in the Eighties.
So the shadowy and sinister financial motives Pres. Bush don’t pan out. No corruption there, but what about the charge that Bush is an incompetent, clueless moron? That’s got to be true, right?
7. Bush on Vacation 42% of the Time
This one gets repeated daily. I just heard Paul “The Forehead” Begala repeat it on CNN’s “Crossfire” on 7/2/04. As it turns out, the 42% includes weekends. When they are eliminated, it’s more like 13%, much of which included time at Camp David and the president’s ranch meeting with world leaders and otherwise working. All of these calculations overlook an obvious question: is the president ever really on vacation? Most of us have a tough time getting away from our cell phones and e-mail when we want to take some time off. I have a hard time believing that the president can, but this movie’s not about what’s believable, now is it? This blogger computed the actual percentage of President Bush’s vacation time, and he shows his work, along with some photos of the president goofing off with Tony Blair, Colin Powell and similar no-accounts.
It is during this part of the movie that Moore dramatically reveals that stunning revelation about the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief, the title. You may recall during the 9/11 hearings in March of this year that sneering Watergate wallower Richard Ben-Veniste rudely interrogated Dr. Condoleeza Rice and also revealed that stunner. Forgive me if I wasn’t floored, either time, since I had read this shocker in the Washington Post in May 2002. Also not mentioned in the movie is the fact that this PDB, whose title provides such an ‘A-HA!’ moment for the president’s critics, was in fact produced as a result of a request from President Bush, and was far from specific about any particular threat. I guess ignorance makes it easier to enjoy the sort of drivel produced by Michael Moore. Only someone who was completely unaware of the 9/11 hearings could have missed the exchange between Ben-Veniste and Dr. Rice. It was the media’s favorite sound bite of the day.
8. “Goatgate”
According to several leftwing critics, like the Chicago Sun-Times’ Roger Ebert, “the most devastating passage in the film speaks for itself.” Here according to Ebert, President Bush displays an “inexplicable paralysis” when he is notified of the second attack on the World Trade Center. Sixties’ throwback Rex Reed said the president looked like ‘a moron looking for the bathroom’ in this scene, where he is pictured in a classroom reading My Pet Goat to a classroom of Florida school children. That’s one interpretation. Another is that of Gwendolyn Tose-Rigell, the principle of the Emma E. Booker Elementary School. She says that “I don’t think anyone could have handled it better,” and that the president’s presence had a calming effect that “helped us get through a very difficult day.” Ms. Tose-Rigell said she didn’t vote for Bush, “but that day I would have voted for him.” (“Principal Disputes Film’s View of Bush,” David Hackett, June 23, 2004) Who do you believe?
Having disposed of Moore’s lies about financial corruption and George W. Bush’s laziness and incompetence, that leaves Iraq. It is in this area where I think we can see Moore at his most contemptible, displaying his most hideous trait, his willingness to blithely exploit other people like props in his ridiculous agit-prop projects. He is particularly in his shameless exploitation of poor Lila Lipscomb, the mother of a solider killed in action. Before exploring that in detail, let’s consider two other blatant falsehoods in the movie.
9. Morning in Iraq
In “Fahrenheit 9/11”’s pre-war Baghdad, happy, smiling children fly kites and frolic in the sunshine. Carefree citizens stroll the streets. Apparently, every day just another lovely day until the evil Bushitler decided to murder innocent civilians. Obviously on the day Moore was filming, Uday and Qusay Hussein and their dad must have been taking a day off from feeding people into shredders, grabbing women off the streets for an afternoon’s amusement in a rape room, throwing political opponents off buildings and lopping off hands and ears. I’m sure that had we gone to Berlin in 1937 we could have found similar lovely scenes. We would just have had to stay away from places like Dachau and Buchenwald.
According to this film, prior to our unnecessary unilateral military intervention, Iraq was a peaceful paradise. Could their be any better evidence of what we’ve always known, that Michael Moore and those who share his point of view believe that the most evil force in world affairs is not Islamic fascism, communism, or international terrorism, but the United States of America?
10. Saddam never threatened or harmed any American
This is most heinous and dangerous lie that Michael Moore tries to sell. It is yet another example of a psychosis that afflicts so many on the Left and which causes them to see any action taken by the United States as aggression. Saddam Hussein harbored both one of the bomb makers involved in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center and Abu Abbas, the Achille Lauro hijacker. I wonder if the family of Leon Klinghoffer, the elderly American passenger on that ship who ended up murdered would agree with Moore that Saddam Hussein never threatened or harmed any American.
He also ordered the assassination of a former American president, which caused Bill Clinton to launch air strikes. I checked and George H. W. Bush wasn’t Bill’s ‘daddy.’
Let’s not forget that Dr. Laurie Mylroie, former Clinton anti-terrorist adviser, suggests in her excellent book, The War Against America and the World Trade Center Attacks: A Study in Revenge, that Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind and ringleader of the 1993 WTC attacks was an Iraqi agent.
None of these acts by Saddam Hussein are enough for Michael Moore. As he told an ABC reporter, none of these things constitute ‘proof that the Iraqi government ever murdered an American citizen.’ He wants Saddam Hussein to get the same due process (innocent until proven guilty) that he wants for Osama bin Laden.
The Blithe and Blatant Exploitation of Grieving Mother Lila Lipscomb
When we first meet Lila Lipscomb in the movie she is presented as a patriotic woman from a family that has always supported the military and the president. Her eldest daughter served in the Gulf War. Her two brothers served in Viet Nam. As for her, she is so patriotic that she is troubled about the American flag that she proudly hangs outside her home might touch the ground. Later, when she reads the letter telling her that her son Michael Pederson has been killed in action in Iraq in April 2003, she breaks down. Eventually, her grief leads her to go to the White House to try to find some answers for her son’s senseless death. Critics have described the scenes featuring Ms. Lipscomb as “moving,” “haunting” and “excruciating.” Many in the audience are moved to tears.
Interestingly, even though Ms. Lipscomb is from Flint, Michigan, she hadn’t heard much about Michael Moore or his films. She loved working with him, describing him as “fantastic.” In its article about Ms. Lipscomb, USA Today noted that “Though Moore has a reputation for being manipulative, Lipscomb says he made sure that she would not be offended by her scenes in the film, offering to remove anything she found troubling.”
“9/11 Documents a Mother’s Grief,” Gary Strauss, USA Today, 6/28/04
That is so touching. What a guy—offering to remove anything she found troubling. Do you suppose Lila Lipscomb would have found the following Michael Moore statements troubling?
“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.”
What about this one?
“The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen and their numbers will grow—and they will win.”
Both of these statements appeared on Moore’s website in an April 14, 2004 post
Did he also tell her that his last book, Dude, Where’s My Country? is dedicated to Rachel Corrie, who was tragically killed when she decided to show her solidarity with terrorists by laying down in front of a bulldozer, and who was photographed defiantly burning an American flag? Do you suppose she would find that ‘troubling?’
In other words, did he tell her that he was cheerleading for the people who killed her son? We know he didn’t tell the viewers of “Fahrenheit 9/11,” preferring to leave them with the impression that he is “tired of seeing people like Lila Lipscomb suffer,” that he is oozing with concern for the poor and working-class youths who have so few options they have to go into the military, and that he supports the troops, so much so that he is angry over their treatment by the Bush administration. The truth is precisely the opposite. Another question occurs to me: shouldn’t one of the many journalists writing articles about this movie and interviewing Lila Lipscomb have asked these questions?
Moore’s treatment of Ms. Lipscomb is despicable. It’s not enough that he exploit her grief and wrap himself in it as a shield against those who would dare state the obvious, that Michael Moore roots for anyone who opposes the United States, including those who want to kill soldiers like Michael Pederson. He does so while presenting a completely phony, sympathetic face and voice. Behind the kind expression of concern is the venomous hatred that fuels his malignant persona.
Of Americans, Michael Moore says “they are possibly the dumbest people on the planet. …our stupidity is embarrassing.” He obviously believes it because he unapologetically presents us with blatant, easily provable lies as facts in the hope that the uninformed will buy into them and be so delighted that they will shower him with the devotion, wealth and adulation that he believes are his entitlement. To those who still choose to believe that Michael Moore is anything other than a narcissistic, serial liar with no values or principles other than doing what makes him rich and famous, ask yourself a couple of simple questions: why won’t Michael Moore consent to any interviews other than those in front of adoring audiences? Why does he issue ridiculous, pathetic threats to sue those who challenge him? He knows that to be an empty threat, given the libel laws in our country. If he wasn’t familiar with our libel laws before, I’m sure that he got a quick review when he was informed that the book on which he bases much of his film, House of Bush, House of Saud has not been published in Great Britain because their libel laws don’t permit a person to be smeared simply because he or she is famous. Only liars need fear simple questions about their work, and only a liar who is also a bully tries to intimidate honest questioners.