They're not all Moore-ons

Some folks who defend Fahrenheit 9/11 are thoughtful and constructive

By Dave Kopel

I've received a lot of e-mail, both pro and con, regarding my report on Fahrenheit 9/11.

Many readers have agreed with some items, but disagreed with others. Thanks to all the readers who have sent thoughtful suggestions or criticism. The report has been revised many times in response to your ideas. Among the people who have helped me improve the website have been some of Michael Moore's defenders who have sent me thoughtful counter-arguments to particular items. Usually, I haven't agreed with these counter-arguments, but often the counter-arguments have shown that I need to clarify or elaborate my reasoning, or supply additional information.

Below are some other e-mails I've received. Rather than discussing particular items in my article, they offer more general critiques. Some of the critiques are intelligent and well-written. Others are less so.

These e-mails represent a significant percentage of the pro-Moore e-mails I've received, but they do not necessarily represent a large percentage of Michael Moore fans. I have no idea to what extent these folks are representative of any broader group of people. Perhaps not at all.

For some letters, I've inserted some introductory comments in brackets. For other letters, I just let the writers speak for themselves.

Sometimes Moore's fan are derided as "Moore-ons" for their uncritical, and nearly hysterical devotion to their hero. Some of the letter-writers do fit this category--but many do not. Among the writers below you'll find many articulate and thoughtful folks.

[For example, this writer was polite and constructive.]

I just wanted to say that yes, there are "deceits" in that movie, however, i also wanted to say that he is pointing out his opinion on Bush, among other things. I am anti-Bush, but I am Pro-American, I don't believe in war, however, I do hope that everyone who goes over, comes back, unharmed, naturally I will see that movie. This is not supposed to be important points, etc. or try to get you to like the movie, etc.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions in every situation, it's in the Constitution. The movie may have been fabricated, but it was done to what he personally believed was being said, whether or not it was actually said out loud. It is only a movie, let him have his way, that's all, no one should pick apart something that you believe in so faithfully. Don't be a bully, stand up for what you and many people believe, but please don't bully anyone about it.

Thank you for your time, this is just rambling, but I am doing this in a hurry, I do appreciate whoever stands up for their beliefs, in a civilized manner.

[An articulate expression of the viewpoint that since Bush is wrong, Fahrenheit must be right.]

I read your critical analysis of Fahrenheit 911 and would like to comment.

I have seen the movie three times, once with a friend, then I brought my wife, and today I saw it with my daughter. I have also read John Dean's book regarding his analysis of the Bush Administration, Richard Clark's book "Against All Enemies" and several books about Al-Qaida.

I mention the books because I always am skeptical of any "facts" in film, as it is a medium which, through its impact on the senses, can easily persuade and distort by the use of emotional and sensual devices (music, sound effects, close-ups of people, etc.)

Many of your "deceits" are open to interpretation. Mr. Moore, like all of us, is an imperfect human being with biases and limits of viewpoint that no human I've ever known, met or studied has been without. But compared to the monstrous administration of Mr. Bush's that Michael Moore is critiquing, Mr. Moore's so-called "deceits" are child's play.

The facts in Fahrenheit 911 compare quite favorably with what I have learned from other sources. Apologists for Mr. Bush can deny all they want that Iraq was the wrong war on the wrong people at the wrong time, but it is true. They can scream till the cows come home that oil, strategic positioning and corporate wealth isn't the driving impetus of our foreign policy, particularly our invasion of Iraq, but intelligent, educated people who know how to think reject that, and rightfully so.

Taking Mr. Moore to task for being hyper-critical of this president, who wasn't even elected by the people, and probably did not win the electoral vote, seems a bit over the top. I myself would turn some of that criticism toward the Bush administration, where it really belongs, with all of their lies including causing directly the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, perhaps that would be more constructive. You say that Mr. Moore is helping our enemy. I have news for you: The U.S. government is creating new enemies faster than we can shoot them down. Mr. Bush has done more for Al-Qaida recruitment than Mr. Moore ever will. The Iraqi insurgency is the exact response Americans would embrace if we were invaded by another country, occupied, and treated with the countless human rights abuses that are beyond reason.

Michael Moore hasn't detained any innocent people, hasn't tortured people, hasn't murdered and bombed civilian homes, but Mr. Bush has. Mr. Moore hasn't dragged a nation into the wrong war with the wrong society and botched it in the process.

It isn't Michael Moore who makes Mr. Bush look stupid or self-serving. It is Mr. Bush who does that himself (he calls the "haves" the "have-mores" and says they are "his base"). If this isn't pandering to the corporate class with their greed and lack of concern about justice and peace in the world then as far as I am concerned these journalists are as corrupt as Bush himself.

The role of journalism in a so-called democratic, open and free society IS to be critical of those in power, and, more importantly, how they use and abuse it. Michael Moore is contributing mightily in ways that Newsweek, Time, ABC, CNN and other media giants refuse to. The bottom-line for corporations is profit, pure and simple; that is their legal mandate. Telling the truth to the American people is a distant second. If appeasing those at the top of government and influencing the government to serve corporate interests is the way to increase that profit, then so be it. Even if that government murders innocents, destroys nations or denies Americans due process. And even if those media giants distort the news to fit the needs and worldview of those short-sighted predators who are out to take what they can while they can.

American journalism has sunk to a new low. Attacking the messenger because one doesn't like the message is deplorable, and I for one don't see an ounce of integrity in this. American foreign policy is hated all over the world, and if Bush wins in November, the world loses, the public good loses and democracy and freedom will be that much further from realization. Why don't you spend some energy investigating the deepening corruption between Corporate America and fascism, where warfare is used as a means to enrich the few? Why don't you spend energy investigating why people all over the world, including the majorities in Britain, France, Ireland, Germany, Turkey, etc. etc. hate our foreign policy because of how unjust and self-serving it has become?

America is a society that fears, above all else, looking in the mirror and seeing its own dark side. It isn't a society that values self-examination, much to its own demise. Michael Moore has the courage to look in the mirror and a lot of people are pissed off that he is doing so.

We need the Michael Moores of the world who don't drool all over those with power and kiss their ass like so many media darlings are willing to do.

The scourge of Nationalism is repugnant to all thinking people.

Nice try, but your criticism lacks any ability to convince me that Mr. Moore isn't helping to enlighten Americans as to how rotten our foreign policy is, and has been for many years, and for this I applaud him, warts and all.

I have to say- I've read your website and I really think 98% of your proven 'deceits' have holes big enough to drive a mac truck through them. Every SINGLE one of your theory's is the definition of flimsy.

Let me just say- that if, as you say in your website- " To use lies and frauds to manipulate people is contrary to the very essence of democracy, which requires people to make rational decisions based on truthful information." Then have you considered joining the massive fight against the completely fraudulent Fox New Network, and the Stalin-eque media war it is waging on the Democrats??

Well why not? They're quoted about a THOUSAND times in then new 'Outfoxed' documentary spewing absolute rubbish, and ridiculous 'bush tv' propaganda. Is that ok with you??
Guys like you are totally hilarious- because you think you're being so incredibly riteous with web-sites like that, but at the end of the day, as long as it fit's your bill of what you think- then it's ok.

I'm not even going to comment on 'Michaelmoorehatesamerica.com' - because to align yourself w/that ridiculous GOP funded nonsense sucks even more credibility from your site.

Oh- and in case your wondering, if you think George Bush is a good President- you're a fool. That's been proven as well. Talk about hating America, this guy has turned this country upside-down, inside-out, and doesn't give a damn. How long do you think it will take to fix this country after he's gutted it for all his corporate buddies? think again... about a
hundred years.

You say that two wrongs don't make a right, and that maybe true, but when the government uses deceit to win support for its own agenda's, why not reverse it and do the same thing -> deceive people and change their opinions and views against Bush? Isn't that then what Moore is doing? And if so, is that wrong? Many would say that Bush has done exactly that.

[One writer began with a stupid question, but then posed a provocative existential question.]

have you seen the movie..do you know who you are, we now know who you are and you are nothing. We will never watch you again nor read your BS! have a nice life on bush's ranch when we send his sorry ass back to texas.

your a moron

Like the subject title says, your a moron. Your a tool for the repug mahchine

very discerning. it would all be simpler if senator mccain were nominated. then either way i wouldnt wince with embarassment for my country every time the president gave a speech. maybe if bush jr were able to complete sentences with regularity he would not be the target of so much derision. i for one am pleased that politicians arent the only deceitful propogandists involved in this years elections.

I guess you believe what you want to belive !!!!
Far too many reasons to believe Moore than who is in power.
But they say ingorance in Bliss.
Oh and look at all the money that has been made.
Just hope the people of the Good old US of A get to see it, but some how I dont think they will.

I HAVE SEEN FAHRENHEIT 911. AT LEAST SOME OF YOUR CRITICISMS MAY BE VALID, BUT I STILL BELIEVE THE BASIC PREMISE IS TRUE BUSH AND CHEBEY HAVE LED US INTO AN ILLEGAL WAR AND NOW CLOSE TO A THOUSAND PRECIOUS AMERICAN LIVES HAVE BEEB LOST. ALSO, I DIDN'T SEE ANY CRITICISM FROM YOU ON THE COMMENTS BY THOSE IN THE ADMINISTRATION INCLUDING CONDELEEZA RICE SAYING IN THE SUMMER OF 2001 THAT SADAM WAS NO DANGER. THE FILM DID NOT CHANGE MY VOTE, THAT WAS MADE UP LONG AGO. ALSO. WITH TEN MINUTES LEFT TO VOTE I DOUBT 5,000 VOTERS WERE LEFT, WHAT ABOU THE ESTIMATED 19,000 OVERVOTES, ALSO, THE BUTTERFLY BALLOTS, ALSO, I HAVE HEARD OTHER COMMENTS THAN YOURSA WHERE AT LEAST HALF OF ALL SCENARIOS FAVORED GORE. ALSO, IF NADER WERE NOT IN THE RACE GORE WOULD HAVE WON IN BOTH FLORIDA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE IF NADER WERE IN THERE. PROBABLY AT LEAST HALF WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR GORE.I AM DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED IN BUSH, I VOTED FOR HIM LAST TIME, BUT NO MORE.

I think you underestimate the intelligence of the masses.

I assure myself, anytime I watch a documentary, or worse in the case of a docudrama, that the point of view will be one sided. Usually, the public has a perception and the driving desire to create a piece, is to present a new, different or opposing view.

To believe their is deceit here is to believe we are all ignorant except a few intellectual (or I guess it is all) right wing view points.

What Rush Limbaugh does in an hour of his broadcast is criminal if you truly believe all his listeners believe him word for word. He makes Michael Moore look like a socially conscience saint in comparison.

Rush Limbaugh is a prime example, he along with others including Howard Stern present an exaggerated viewpoint of politics and culture to make statements and entertain. Often, the entertainment portion is the listeners who call in and demonstrate blind devotion.

I trust Stern, Limbaugh and Savage listener's are smart enough to glean the general message, be inspired to follow up on issue to come to their own conclusions and be open to debate with friends rather than blindly assume because "X" said it, it must be true.

You point out technicalities but the overall perception is not invalid.

The very first example of the election results are a great example.

My assumptions when I saw the movie were similar to your clarifications of the facts.

I didn't believe that FOX had an in with someone but that Michael Moore was just trying to slam them because they are right wing and often take liberties of a Rush nature more than a CNN Nature.

The bottom line gist of that segment was the election was close most experts expected Gore to take Florida and it was a surprise that Bush took it. It is also adds to the controversy that a brother happened to be Governor of the state that had the issues that changed the outcome of the election.

Usually in non arms length transactions it is generally accepted protocol in business to err on the side of the non arms length party to validate an action. So, the questioning the situation is quite valid.

I also believe in a lot of conservative values but I am afraid by you knocking Michael Moore's portrayal of Bush has you operating in Blind devotion as you must question Bush, as a lot of conservatives do, as to his motivations.

In your presentation of the "deceit" you are using the same tactics as Moore, extrapolating specific facts to prove your point. You are the pot calling the kettle black.

You don't have to live in fear, Even Kerry, who I do not support, would not destroy America or set it back on its heels.

It is Ok for your values to be true, but question your leadership.

That is freedom and that is America.

Just read your entire response to Mike's last movie. I guess you don't like him so much.

To keep this simple and save you the labour of having to make a fool of yourself I will concede that Moore did in fact do a wonderful job using the Footage and vaguaries of heresay and partial statements to make his point.

Do you know how disturbing it is to an intelligent man to realize that this is all you have to attack him with. Most of what you are saying is obvious, and you of all know it.

Why are you afraid? Who pays your way?

Speak of the media and you become a hypocrite, tear down the opposition for its work and you lose efficacy. You have negated yourself, you have become a mathmatical insignificance.

Complicated situations are often very simply explained when basic fundamentals can be used, I could have roasted Bush in about 10 mins givin the information Moore collected. I wouldn't have needed to grill him using the editing table, Moore did that for fun, Bush damn well deserved it. I wouldn't have needed to play on the shock value of blood, destruction and domestic loss, he did that because many people know nothing more than that. You should know Kopel, the people you defend operate this way constantly. It comes down to common sense, when a guy, any guy, the guy that sells you papers every Sunday, or the President of the U S of A tells you one thing, then tells you another 8 months later it's a lie. When thousands die, and a small few become massively rich, well, that deserves as much Proaganda as anything else, funny thing though, nobody is laughing in the White House today are they, I wonder id GW is fishing? Perhaps Hitting balls?

On Moore Supports Terrorists...

First, the quote:

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.

I disagree with your interpretation here. I think Moore was making the point from the notion of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." In their own eyes, the fighters in Iraq see themselves as heroes, revolutionaries and martyrs for a cause. I am sure many Iraqis see them the same way. I am reminded of the line from the Vietnam war
movie, Apocalypse Now..."Charlie had only two ways to get home... death, or victory." I'll concede the Vietnam analogy is not perfect, but in these respects, it is: We are an occupying force, unclear on our mission, unsure of the identity of the enemy, and uncertain of support from the local population. Those who we are fighting against can use
guerrilla warfare when it suits them and can fade into the populace when they need to. They can fight us on our terms, and while they may never match our tanks and planes, they know they only need to wear down the will of the American people to support a long drawn-out campaign.

In any case, the point Moore made here was an opinion, not a fact. To label his opinion as deceit is to perhaps borrow some of the tactics you accuse Moore of relying on.

[We disagree here. I don't think that people who bomb churches, or who kidnap and behead aid workers can be analogized to the American minutemen, in any way. Neither the al Qaeda fighters nor the Saddam remnants nor the Islamonazis can possibly be considered "freedom fighters." They want the opposite of freedom.]

You are just another apologist for murdering, power hungry money crazed fools.

As a English person, I was apalled that my country joined with yours in the oil motivated, immoral and illegal invasion of Iraq.

What a tragic waste of life on all sides.

When will people like you learn that war has never solved anything. Look at WWII - we wrested control of Europe from the hands of one murdering lunatic only to give more than half of it to the equally mad murderer Jo Stalin.

Look at Vietnam, look at the Civil War etc, etc, etc

You obviously have a fine mind. What a shame you cannot use it for good.

[If someone thinks it was wrong to fight against the Nazis, it's not surprising that he also opposes fighting a modern regime founded on Nazi ideology, as was the Ba'ath party, founded in 1943 as a synthesis of Hitlerism and Stalinism.]

[Well, I've only met one person from Grand Blanc, and he always said he was from "Grand Blanc." I understand that people sometimes state the nearby hometown for simplicity when they're talking to people from out of state. A person from Northglenn might say he was from "Denver." In Moore's case, however, his so-called "hometown" of Flint is part of a deceptive persona.]

While I agree with most of your article, and that Michael Moore does spin the facts on one side, I do take extreme issue with your comments about Davison, MI.

I live there.

Quote:

"... is comfortable middle class, suburban, and white. Overwhelmingly white. It's where the managers and professionals live. While many of the children of Flint go on to work at the factories...the normal trajectory for the children of Davison is university."

This is misleading on your part. A lot of people work outside of Davison, like in Fenton or Grand Blanc. Some even work in Flint. Yes, that includes factories.

My subdivision I live in is racially mixed.

Not all rich white people live in Davison. You didn't get us confused with Grand Blanc by any chance? (Of course, you cite a census; it is quite possible some demographics might have changed since)

All you need to say is that Moore says he's 'from Flint' when in truth he's from Davison. To imply that what happens in Flint does not effect the surrounding area is insane.

Aside from this, I again commend you on your stand; surprisingly, you don't comment on the MPAA fight with Moore or the Disney refusal for distribution. While I was for Moore's right to opinion and free speech, I was offended at his spin of what censorship is.

Just a few points about your sweeping demolition of "911".

Rightly or wrongly by our perspective there are many residents/observors in the Middle East/Islamic world that see the insurrection in Iraq as resistance. We were quite ok with Baathist tyranny under several administrations and didnt put Iraq on the terrorist list during some of his more egregious killing campaigns. We have numerous double standards of our own and are not a spotles template of innocence and virtue. We were quite happy form the Kissinger perspective when Iraqis and Iranians were butchering each other.

Does Hezbollah commit terror? Sure, but the assessment depends also on whose ox is being gored. H is acknowledged in Lebanon for leading resistance to Israeli occupation (the famous I word -one of the great blind spots of political discourse in the US, something that can't be rationally discussed (unlike Israel where former heads of security services can question these issues with some dispassion). H also performs a very broad and deep range of social and health and welfare services as does Hamas. These groups fill a void and it is altogether too simplistic to broadbrush them (leaving aside the existance of "state-terror" and its supportrers. By the way where is the evidence of Hezb support of al-qaida. Might be true but where is the verified content? Our British allies once classified many militias in Israel as terrorists.

Boy, are you picky with many of your points! Compare this litany to the full tilt obfuscation, rationalization and pap served up by an administration that now appears to be sizing up Iran as its next bete noir. I guess muslims should feel blessed and grateful to have Condy and Bush and Rummy and Blair and Wolfowitz and a legion of other well wishers who care more about them then they do. The ingrates!

Any kudos for saddam for killing off Abu Nidal?

That Soros may or may not be in the Carlyle group hardly discards the idea that it may or may not be a Bush "playground".

What is the extensive record of "collaboration" between Al Qaida and Iraq as opposed to "links" I mean we had links with the mujahdeen in Afghanistan, with the saudis. Don't intelligence services make it their business to have links?

Dont diplomats welcome and condemn each other all the time? The Bush admin gave over $40 Million to the Taliban pre 911 to fight v drugs. Ironic that since liberation one doesnt hear of the war against drugs much more. Prices of the raw material are at or near lows and business is good for the warlords and their

You write about good and bad reasons for patriots to to support or be against the Iraq war. But the reasons posted (oh, so many of them, one was bound to work) by the administration (which this movie bites and yelps at is sort of left floating as a given. Where is the logical reasoning of that originating postulate? So clumsy and misguided an effort (who thinks it rational to send a largely Christian army to the arab heartland without and arab or muslim allies unlike Bush Sr's effort in the first gulf war?) deserves a propagandistic and polemical counterpunch.

At any rate, I must off. Thanks for the opportunity to engage.

If right wing Bush supporters applied 1% of the scrutiny to the president as you do Moore, George would be in prison right now, and awaiting trial on dozens more counts.

Your diatribe is pure tripe... not unlike latest attempt to skin Joseph Wilson alive (again) with untruths.

I don't see why you give this movie so much attention if its as incorrect as you say it is. I don't have a website to disprove anything said in The National Enquirer, I know its not true. But I do truly appreciate to other side of the coin view you made available to me, I disagree with you just as much as I disagree with Moore, oh well

A freedom and democracy is based on freeedom of speech, meaning you can say what you want to say especiallyin regards to the truth. This means let me start withpoint one.
1.Michael Moore's Film 911- is much more than a filmit enlightens millions with information both true for humor ,but majority information found from allsources. This means it is true if more than one person turns up the same facts not propaganda like backgrounds of apresident.
2. George W. Bush- here's a guy who had to have a postponed vote in Florida to doctor a election, heavenforbid he is a doctor he can't seem to focus when on CRACK. He is not our President by choice with the people , he is by the Republican.
3. Waiting for something to fly abound into a building for 2004 election for Bush, is a really bad plan but when this is all you got honey, for chances of re-election might as well plan another attack like in Iraq. AIn't justified for correct reasons to go to war when Bush has smoked WMD(Weapons of Mass Dopamine) the man
smoked his WMD. He had a model airplane of the Pentagon attacks before 911.
4.They planned the model demonstration of what to do when election time rolled around and passed to ensure their definite role of new presidency. Bush I quote said''I have found WMD and it is in Iraq, very soon we will have it and Saddam Hussein in our custody. Bush has someone who is either from hollywood representing saddam or saddam knows he has kicked our asses in Iraq. he is not afraid of Bush. THen when he found saddam , what happened the wmd ran away. It was never found in the sand, it was never found in their land, but in our land and Bush's Hand.
5.If you want to make all the money in the world by bringing it in, you never shun it wise republicans. WRONG Big mistake with celebrities in life , you piss one off more than them will not show up for a show. Linda Rondstadt comments truth on 911 in the film, and rich people with each other's lips to their asses get upset. They threw out the lady from both the show and room in hotel. SHe and others will never come back and deserve not to for being hanged out dry because people love the truth like HOLLYWOOD.
I conclude by saying a quicker response will be greatly appreciated since all publicity is good publicity.
I am co-author of executive conspiracy? and studied Iraq War both pre-emptively and intelligently and come to the conclusion. After studying for a year and half, that something other than saddam needs to be in his hands our president not just rumors and lies.Book can be found at any online bookstore.

I agree with all that you say about this country has got to know the truth and not let propaganda or Bush Adminstration stand in their way of voting; solely based on one people's chance of people bullying people from both sides of the fence in politics. Now with Fahrenheit 911, only a little bit was warped or doctored for the humor of the film for HOLLYWOOD, to say propaganda is this film, roll on brother but remember people already will decide for themselves who is President REAL looking back on HIDDEN facts on 2000. ANd look on with this truth for 2004, except when you put fear into our lives , and throw out a Patriot Act which says you cannot do or act against the President whether it be talking or anti-war rallies justified with NO WMD when President said he already spot it in eye view or had it in his hand. OHHH Wait that was a model of WMD and Bush tinkering with it and Kerry also. Kerry saying stop to Bush and Bush saying""You'll ruin my chances for popularity and trickery on Homeland Fatherland America.'' I conclude you are Republican but as co-author of truth since you simply the judge, jury, and decide from my book why this information isn't public and why is someone not guilty for war crimes. Also hear of Linda rondstadt, she's at the Aladdin Hotel in Vegas for performance last night ,and comments on the film 911 and gets thrown out of her hotel room same night. WOULDN"T you know there is bad service in Vegas amongst all bad politicians , head up the next person's ass, spoon in mouth, spank to your son everythings fine only the poor folk will serve in the military after draft reinstatement happens if war is ever justified. check out the book executive conspiracy? by me and co-author look forward to fast feedback any publicity is good publicity so bash me honey, bash away. so you know linda rondstadt said the 911 film was the truth , and if it ain't lies nobody cares too much for when it's lives they want, and justified war or '''WHere's the model, WMD,Daddy? - spoken from Bush at the age of CURRENT status President.

Try as you may, there is no disputing the fact that George W. Bush lied to we, the American people, to get us into this Iraqi mess.
Moore's movie proved that when faced with a crisis President Bush failed miserably.
A question for you to ponder:
How come the school was not immediately evacuated when learning we were under attack? I don't want to hear about they "didn't want to alarm the children" as that is nonsense.
Why is it Bush did not just excuse himself and get on the phone with NORAD or at least call Dick Cheney and ask him what to do?
Why did Bush feel safe sitting in that class when it was a known fact exactly where he would be? Strange don't you think?
You may have found things that you think are lies in Moore's movie sir but have you researched all the lies this administration has told to us?

i am very impressed with all this research and info discrediting michael moore. you are right, michael moore was misleading in many ways. but we both know george bush has been as misleading as michael moore if not more. can you take the time and put in the same effort in discrediting the president? after all, research on the president would be alot more important. looking forward to it

Money. That's what its all about. Why should the average believe Bush ? Are the policies really in our interest?

You accuse Moore of using facts which suit his movie but you do the same for your argument. I guess I believe Moore and the premise of who's you Daddy, you bet there going for the money and that's the tragedy

Just gotta say that I stumbled across your site, and I am appalled.

I have to admit that my starting point is "Anyone but Bush".

But why should anyone put any faith into your words?

I am opposed to Bush, not because I am in favor of anyone else, butbecause I am opposed to Bush, and virtually everything that he has doneand stands for. Based entirely 100% upon his ACTIONS in the last 4 yearsand beyond. And the IMPACT that HIS actions have taken PERSONALLYupon me and my environment.

I am a Goldwater Conservative (57 years young). Don't believe it? Tough.

Exactly what is your motive?

Why should I not believe, based upon what I read in your site, that you arenot just another one of the many RNC "think" tanks that have just go onand on with blatherings looking for a right wing, mindless "christian" to support them?

I watched Fahrenheit 911 last night, and my reaction is "yeah!!!"

I don't really care if some things were taken out of context.

All is fair.

Virtually EVERYTHING that Bush has done and said were taken out of context from the very beginning. Where is YOUR BALANCE!!! Where is your soul?

So, of course, you have dismissed me as an idiot, just as I have dismissed YOU as an RNC idiot, of which they have many. I turned in MY RNC card in 1981, when I learned that Reagan was another idiot, who you admire in another thread in your site. More RNC dribble?

Exactly what is your motive????

You would have us believe that you voted Nader Green?

What proof? Why would you do such a thing?

Why would you throw away your vote and support to result in the environmental tragedies that are now reality yet you profess to defend?

We are to hold you in esteem?

Obviously you are well educated, well informed, and well spoken.

This doesn't mean that you aren't using your "advantage" for your own personal gain, now

does it?

If you are so educated (I am a PhD from Cornell), so informed, and so well spoken, and so motivated, and so Green, then why don't you don't do something truly useful like getting Bush out of office????

Sorry. Looks like RNC. Sounds like RNC. Smells like RNC. Carry your bucks to the BANK.

And to the HELL with your country and everything else.

Until you do something truly useful, I hold you in complete contempt.

Anyone but Bush. What is YOUR motive?? Why should anyone believe YOU??

I am sorry if I am angry. But Bush and his supporters like you have angered me.

Why not call them lies? You neocons are pathetic traitors to the values of America, Truth, Justice and Freedom.

YOU SIR

ARE THE DUMBEST F[ ]K I KNOW YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE WORLD OF POLITICS FITS
ON A PIN AND YOUR BELIEF THAT REPUBLICANS ARE A TRUST WORTHY BUNCH OF
S[ ]T HEADS THAT KNOW HOW TO RUN A COUNTRY COULD NOT BE FARTHER FROM THE
TRUTH. I S[ ]T ON PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT TAKE FOR GRANTED OUR FREEDOM OF
CHOICE AND FREEDOM OF DEMOCRACY THERE IS NO ROOM IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS AND POOR OR THE REST OF THE WORLDS MIDDLE CLASS OR
POOR.

MAY YOU DIE IN A NURSING HOME POORLY FUNDED AND NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD
YOUR DRUGS BECAUSE YOU FELT THE REPUBLICANS ACTUALLY CARED ABOUT YOUR
SORRY ASS

I haven't seen Moore's film, and have read your article first. And I have felt that Moore makes a bit too much of some of the Bush/Saudi links - I imagine there is a lot less personalstuff going on here than he suggests.

BUT... Having read your 'rebuttal' I'm now not so sure! Were you engaged by Mr. Moore?!? The 'deceits' are so picky and many of them so inconsequential that one can't really escape the idea that while you criticise the art of documentary film-making (ALL DOCUMENTARY FILM-MAKING) you do not criticise Moore's central theses; these emerge largely unscathed from your very long and insubstantial critique.

I don't mean to be rude, but I was genuinely surprised. That the 'deceits' were such things as the actual time some footage of Gore celebrating was filmed or why Moore only included contributions that agreed with his thesis (!!) is truly surprising. Because you do not question the fact that, at one stage, Gore believed he had won. So when the footage was taken from is simply part of the documentary film-makers' art. Ask any documentary film-maker. They don't have a camera ready for every second of the story they choose to tell, but the film needs to retain a visual aspect. If some footage illustrates your point, then that is what you use. I probably still think he made too much of the Saudi flights after 9/11, but not really any thanks to your slightly bizarre critique.

I've just read your first 2 deceits in Michael Moore's last movie Fahrenheit 9/11, and let me tell you something, I had to stop reading because I couldnt stop lauhging so loud. From your first words i realized it doesnt even deserve to go on. It would be a waste of time. I have better things to do man! Your arguments are just ridiculous and so stupid. You better admit you are paid for doing this. But you are very bad doing this man. Ive could done it better than you. But, dont worry, it doesnt matter how much you kiss Bush ass, you are already lost, Moore is a Genius!! You can not do anything to revert what he has done. You can not revert the consecuences of TRUTH!! HAHA!! America is awakening!!

I read your article about the deceits in Farenheit 9/11. It was very interesting as was the film. However, as usual the public is not given much credit. Are we really at a point when we need someone to tell us what is right and wrong? Do we really need columnists and reporters to tell us when we are seeing a biased presentation of the facts? Sadly this seems to be the trend. What is even more unfortunate is that we as Americans seem reluctant to take cointrol of our society and our government. I must say that I don't really care if the fact that the president lied is wrapped in a half truth. What I care about is that he lied. Michael Moore is not my president and he can say whatever he wants. George Bush is my president and he owes it to me and every single American to be honest and to genuinely protect the interests of America. If that is too much to expect from him or any other politician, then we are failing as citizens of this country.

The fact of the matter is that Bush has too many freinds in high places and too many loyalties to other people than the american public to ever be able to act correctly and unbias for the american people. America is rotten to the core, the phrase "For the people by the people" is no longer inn affect. Its time to kill the corporate beast.

The only brain-dead bimbo "celeb" (you should be so lucky) is you, youname-calling dolt.

What a horrid waste of time your article is. Why don't you step back, shutup, and open your eyes.

Fahrenheit 9-11 tells the truth

And your OWN personal Opinion of Michael Moore and the statements
regarding his Patriotism show your BIAS and Biggotry

I can not believe you would actually be allowed to publish this bit of tripe.In all your prose you could not point out once that what Michael Moore presented was in fact a "deceit".In fact,you should probably view the movie a few more times to actually see what he was trying to say.At least he was honest,unlike yourself.He will readily admit his stance,why he made the movie,etc.You on the other hand ,under the guise of truth,have presented your case and not really said anything.DO YOUR RESEARCH!

Having read the first ten deceits, I've had enough. You have chosen WHAT AMOUNTS TO TINY DETAILS

or pointless points to make your case that Moore is deceitful. You, like many others Bush supporters, aren't talking about the real

issues raised by the movie, instead you use pointless points to create fifty nine deceits.

The article is a desperate attempt to discredit those whom you disagree with, which the way 99% of Republicans handle all issues.

The truth is this movie reveals much about Bush, his family and how much his administration has messed things up.

Our President cannot think three sentences ahead, yet he's the leader of the free world. Get Real!

Most of the so called 59 deceits are not relelvant to the truth as I am sure you are aware. The "one is lead to believe" is not a factual representation of anything but gullability. That you adress so many artistic points of film making as falsehoods and are quick to "assume " what the viewer believes beforehand stretches your own credabilty.

I do agree that the "documentary" is a propaganda peice by Mr. Moore. But it does give some necessary insight into the president that is quite telling.

Thanks for your efforts. The aiding the enemy part at the end though is pretty lame.

i appreciate your in depth analysis of michael moore's movie. instead of george w. bush being a lying, power hungry, egotistical messianic, crusading moron. we now know he is just slightly less so?

it's like a lawyer telling a jury that his client didn't murder 25 people.....he only murdered 23 people. the client is still a murderer. bush is still a lying, power hungry, egotistical messianic, crusading moron.

After veiwing the Michael Moore movie, I was excited to find your "fifty-nine deceits in Fahrenheit 911" web article. As a fair person, I am as eager to hear one side of a story as I am another. But I was disappointed as I found your article weak...VERY weak. The "deceits", as you point them out, are lame and petty and only minutely offer any value except to those who are diehard Bush enthusiasts. The sheep will no doubt cling to the "deceits" you have proclaimed....so kudos to you for putting up this web page giving them something to cheer at/for.

[One writer brought up some spiritual issues.]

god will make you burn for your sins, you right wing dork. you are part of the problem. bush' weak and moronic lack of leadership cannot be justified. he has made the world a much more chaotic and dangerous place. [f--k] him and [f--k] you.

you are pathetic...- ps...with 56 supposed reasons to not see 9-11 (or how america was sold to the greedy sods!)....GIVE US 1 REASON FOR TO VOTE REPUBLICAN LET ALONE NEO-CON LET ALONE BUSH? (GEE JUST ONE WILL DO!)

ps...i live in nyc..have not worked since 9-11 (who did 9-11 hmmmmmmmmmmm?) and AM NOT A MALE BILLIONAIRE WITH A TEXAS ACCENT...SO GIVE ME ONE REASON TO VOTE FOR THIS GUY!

AND GIVE ME ONE REASON TO BELIEVE ANY OF YOU HAVE A SOUL, HEART OR CONSCIOUS...VIVE MICHAEL MOORE!

I found myself chuckling out loud when reading your piece attempting (perhaps quite honestly) to discredit Moore's film. Chuckling I think because of the futility of your article. After all, how many people are going to bother delving into such a detailed article? Much easier to pay 6 bucks or whatever and munch on popcorn while being entertained by Moore. It reminds me of the scientists who years ago criticized the revered Canadian writer Farley Mowat for his inaccuracies and artistic license in his books about the north (and Never Cry Wolf). For some reason, they attacked him
with a vengeance, analyzing and dissecting his writings in great detail. Problem was the public didn't give a [s---] and continued to revere Mowat and buy his books. And you know what? Farley Mowat got it about right. Some of the details may not have been entirely accurate but the gist of it was true. Well, that is how I see Moore. He might not get all the details right, but he gets the broad picture.

What I find truly unfathomable is how the American public could have been taken in by people so obviously dishonest and deceitful as Bush and Cheney and Rumsvelt. Plus the rest of the gang of course. Bush is such a juvenile dimwit that I suspect he is little more than a mouthpiece for those around him (or hidden behind the curtain). I can almost see the strings when he speaks. I do agree that there are inaccuracies in the film. But I am convinced that the full story is much, much, worse than even Moore portrays. The small mountain of evidence for that has simply been ignored by the media, but search for it and you'll find it. All I can say is, Moore has done a great service to America and the world by exposing the Bush regime. And to think that a previous US president was impeached for a mere sexual
indiscretion. It boggles the mind. Many Europeans think Americans are nuts. ( It was well known that the French president had a mistress for years)

Better get a 6 pack and sit back and relax Dave. At least until you learn to focus on the Big Picture. Once you see it, you can then assemble the details to tell the story. And it may well be a true story even if a few details are not entirely accurate.

[This writer shared some secret information.]

You forgot one very important point...

The fact that Saudi Arabia is nearly dry of oil and that without the Iraq oil, the world economy will grind to a standstill, while Saudi Arabia collapses into civil war.
It is ok that you omitted this fact, as it is supposed to be a top secret item.
Have a nice day.

[This one suggests that selling dollars and buying foreign currency would be a good investment strategy.]

Just read your dissection of Moores 911. Labelling all these points deceits does what exactly? You think you're article brings clarification to the subject matter? No. It is clearly intended to undermine Moores credibilty..no more no less, otherwise you would have merely challenged his research teams accuracy. The very subjectivity of your tone belies the truth behind your label; Independance Institue. You have contributed nothing more than mud in the waters of Americas tainted media. The very existance of the "Rupert Murdoch the social Engineers" Fox station should be enough to worry any historian and you have merely provided more grist for their anti-democratic mill.

This is the point. The election was and will always be contentious. For you to dimiss the ambiguity of your democratic process is treacherous. A six month study by media entities? Wake up to yourself! That was as independant as your lame 911 commission. All of Americas private life has now become fodder for the ultra capitalists that entwine the white house. That is a clear and demonstrable fact. You however, as one of the herd who blather oft repeated memes as truth, will no doubt see me as a conspiracy theorist.

Moores work is a red flag sport. There's so much wrong with you country right now you cannot afford whatsoever to suppress the lone effective voice speaking against the 'system'. Bush is heading that system right now. If Kerry was in I'm sure he'd have issues with him too, but for you to issue such a vociferous attack on Moore can only be viewed as a funtion of the same machine he rails against.

I've quickly gleaned some of you other articles and it is clear I'm wasting digital ink here. You're what used to be called a jingoist but has recently been re-branded as patriotic. My country right or wrong! Is that good enough for you Dave? You might want to to try veiwing the worlds assets as being entirely human and nothing more, instead of being chained to dirt and flags as you are.

FYI: I am an Australia stockbroker. Your country is staving of bankrupcy with every known and unknown trick in the book right now and unless some reisistance is revived in you countries lamentable protest(?) system your currency will collapse 50 % or more. Hello banana republic!

Who do you serve?

[This one seems to have come from the guy who lives across the street from me.]

About your internet site...

Ok, you think that what you wrote is actually believable??? It is a attempt, but a poor one; that I will agree on.

And yes....it really does make Americans look 'stupid'. Oh, greed....greed...greed..what it makes people do...Sad.

I think what the Bush administration is doing is immoral and just disgusting.

You Sir, are in DENIAL of REALITY. And like so many Americans, you are being brain washed!

Your friendly neighbor to the north....Who, I may add, didn't take part in that LIE in Iraq. We are not as foolish.

As a suggestion, instead of putting your money in weapons of Mass Distruction, put it into educating your population and free them from their chains.

Who really won that war anyway??? Americans are still being killed and your country is in a constant state of fear....Like everyone there is in gail...HA. geee....Guess that answers it.

Your right wing neo conservative diatrade on Michael Morre's brilliant documentary is pitiful and is a perfect example of how you right wing neo cons try and distort the facts of reality. You will not succede. The american public has been wakened to the realities of the war mongering right wing and their goals of world domination. All this in the name of the almighty dollar. Hope you chaok on
yours

Reading Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 I realize your blind agenda is stuck in stone.

Michael Moore is an integral part of the spine that allows the USA to have the ability to be honest, strong and great. He is a true American and the truest of patriots. God Bless his work and his combating an almost endless stream of white house lies. MM's work is proof there is a God that restores balance when human greed for power sends the world awry.

Whatever it takes to vote Bush out of office, those are the lies that I'll go for. :)

I just wanted to thank you for not-so-succinctly illustrating Moore's point about Americans being the "dumbest people on the planet." The American "way of life" has become one of such intense xenophobia and paranoia that the rest of the world views your ignorance and pretentiousness with jaws agape.Your column (and others of yours I have read) illustrated it perfectly. Is a vigilante band of truckers going to stop the next terrorist (or "dirty Islamist", to paraphrase one True American) attack? How about a continual ring of soldiers around every monument in the good-old USA? "We need 3,000 Marines around Plymouth Rock!" Your feelings of insecurity and vulnerability that generated such empathy from the global community after 9/11 have now become an eye-rolling punchline. The only way to fight terror (incidentally, you don't fight terror - you fight terrorism or terrorists or possibly a terror) is to completely scrap your inane, impotent, foreign policy and to begin working with the world to towards a common goal of not killing each other. Give it a try - it's contagious

including as I recall the failure of his administration to take the Al Qaeda threat seriously
despite warnings from the outgoing Clinton administration

WELL, as you have CROSSED OVER THE LINE SO MANY TIMES IN YOUR CRITIQUE (you didn't stay on the film, and THUS added info with YOUR KNOWLEDGE, as opposed to the poetic license YOU SEEM TO allow MOORE TO HAVE ARTISTICALLY)..the question:

warnings from the outgoing Clinton administration were given to BUSH.......SINCE CLINTON DID NOTHING BUT WARN....what SHOULD BUSH HAVE DONE.

WITH THE INTELL.....ALL KNOWN, and READ...WHAT SHOULD THEY HAVE DONE?

You must be OUT OF YOUR COTTON PICKING MIND if you think for ONE ITTY BITTY second, WE, THE USA , AND ALL THE KINGS HORSES could have prevented ON IOTA of what was to come.

ISRAEL, EG, CATCHES 99% of the INCOMING ATTACKS from the FANATICS.

teh 1% IS WAY TOO MUSH, as ISRAEL IS SMALL.

WE CATCH 98%, and with as MANY PEOPLE AS WE HAVE, THAT Ain't bad!

AND ISRAEL HAS YEARS (since the 60's) OF SEEING HIJACKINGS up to HOMICIDE bombings.....

SO IF CLINTON SAID (AS OSAMA DID LAST YEAR) IN ONE YEAR, I HEAR THERE'LL BE HIJACKINGS!....what could have been done?

I hear the PATHETIC NEW YORKERS saying THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN WARNED.....JERKS!

When the TERROR ALERT WS RAISED to ORANGE a while back (OR WAS IT ECRU`?), they should have FILMED THE GRAND CENTRAL STATION, and PENN STATION!

I would EAT MY HAT if ONE PERSON LESS was on the platforms at rush hour.

3-5000 EVETY MORNING could be gotten.

AT LEAST THE FBI COULD SAY "WE TOLD YOU SO"........

WITH ALL THE WARNINGS IN THE WORLD,,,,nobody does anything!

WHEN AIDS CAME OUT...you know what MOST PEOPLE DID?

NOTHING!

with ONLY A 1 in TEN CHANCE.........it wasn't like 50-50 YA KNOW!

That was the only point that I would let pass....but when you digressed off the CINEMA-CORRECTIONS, You strayed into my territory.

AFTER the killings, THESE MOUTHS will complain they should-a been warned.

BUT WHEN WARNED, they take NO PRECAUTIONS.

Like the TANKS ROLLING UP ORANIENSTRASSE in BERLIN......they wouldn't TAKE ME...NOOOOOO...I delivered theior BABIES,,,I;m a DOCTOR,,,THEY LOVVVVVEEEEE ME.

So whether CLINTON SAID ANYTHING TO BUSH ON THE WAY IN (????WHERE DID YOU HEAR THAT?) OR THE CIA and FBI HEARD ABOUT IT.......UNTIL it happened, HOW ON EARTH could we figure ARABS TRAINING TO BE PILOTS was the key?

They have PATIENCE, and TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK is FINE WITH THEM.

YOU nor I, will EVER SEE THEM COMING....it's like the expression a "JAP PUNCH" (in a bar, while a person talks to you calmly, or appears to be leaving, they SUDDENLY TURN AND PUNCH YOUR LIGHTS OUT), coined for their abrupt attack.

IF YOU RIDE THE TRAINS, and see STATE TROOPERS (NY) on them, in uniform....TELL THEM IT'S GREAT TO SEE THEM,,,,and WHY ARE THEY ON THE TRAIN!

The answer (If they tell) will shock you.

They are currently there, when intel shows a possibility of a MANHATTAN attack.

YOU MAY THINK...TO GRAB THE BAD-GUYS?

TO WATCH FOR VIDEO EQUIPMENT OF PEOPLE filming EXITS, or ROUTES?

TO SEE IF BACKPACKS ARE TICKING?

NOPE!

FOR AFTER the BOOM< to access the best routes for SURVIVORS, and MEDICAL CREWS, or HAZ-MAT (BIO) STAFF for the least colateral.

THAT IS RIGHT...TO HAVE A FLASHLIGHT SO IF YOUR TRAIN MAKES IT< to guide you through the sewers to the surface, if the surface is BREATHABLE.

THAT, IS OUR CONTINGENCY, at thie point.

SOrry so long, but the thought that someone telling you "WHEN YOU LEAST EXPECT IT, EXPECT IT" is a WARNING...is ludicrous.

A curse on you................

Nit pick all U want. THis film has enough truth and obvious lies and deceptions from the Administration for all of your nit pickin' to fall by the wayside. I am fully aware of who Michael Moore is and what he stands for and as far as I am concerned this film, agit-prop or not does what the overall Megalomaniac Corporate owned media did everything possible to cover up the truth on the war(s) and to discourage the public from seeing this film. MM has been skillfull and has beat back the Reactionary scum of the Media and others and the lines to see this film prove once again that:"you can't fool all of the people all of the time!" What are U going to do to the latest Documentary: 9/11 Hidden in Plain view? All of you fraudulent Think tank Reactionaries are always there to " stir the pot and create CONfusion, working for the system that allows your existence. The point is that these NEO-CONS(NAZIs here since 1944 Operation Paperclip) have CONsolodated their power and are now posing as the legitimate power structure. Do a little research into that history and lets see how many falsehoods you come up with. NO Mr. KOPEL, Michael Moore is NOT the ENEMY here and YOU sir, seem to be surrepititiously working for the Bastroid Bullshes and their ilk.

Big deal. You spent all that time compiling 59 whatevers. The joke's on you. Most people who saw the movie knew not everything would be presented as linear truth, no matter what Michael Moore says. But he's still right because he exposed the right wing's own ignorance and hypocrisy regarding their own propaganda. Are you only angry because the right wing lost its monopoly over half truths, short stick presentations, and arguments based on presumptuous conclusions? Why don't you put as much energy and analysis into Rush Limbaugh's daily broadcasts before you take on the cause of creative clarity with such snubbing elitism?

Or are you one of those who believe that because he communicates so well he's just "right". Kinda like Mike and his movies.

Idiot!

You have way too much time on your hands. Not only in the font you pick irritating so is your meaningless diatribe.
Most of what Moore said is true and when Moore said that about terror before the show he was talking about how the idiots in the White House used 911 to for their own agenda. The acceptance and the loss of civil liberties was a ridiculous reaction.

Why don't you quit distorting the truth? Moore's message was right on target. The real terrorists are the pieces of crap residing in Washington. That is the truth. The other pieces of crap are the journalists who do not do their job and cry foul when Moore does.

[This writer apparently believes that Bush was involved in planning 9/11]

Is this the best you can do?

Your sources are crap. If you haven't noticed, America is a country with zero credibility. The majority of the stuff printed in the mainstream press from the U.S is lies. Everything Bush and his criminal cohorts claimed about Iraq has been found to be a lie. There are so many lies being told about what actually happened on 911 – most of the world has no idea what really occurred. You should acquaint your pathetic little self with the Sibel Edmonds story amongst others.

I won't bother going into detail about how stupid your arguments and commentary really are. I will only point out one matter for consideration.

Andy Card whispered into Bush's ear that America was under attack. Planes were hijacked, off course, changing direction and flying into buildings. Bush's itinerary was changed about 4 days before he went to that school. It was publicly known Bush was going to be there several days before 911.

With all the madness going on of the morning of 911, Bush being told by Card America was under attack – why wasn't Bush removed immediately from that building and rushed away to a destination where the public (and terrorists) didn't know his location? How could Bush or the Secret Service who were there with him possibly have known he would have been safe at that location? Ask yourself that one simple question.

Terrorists trained on US military bases, Terrorists in touch and living with FBI informants prior to 911, the Visa Express program, Terrorists named by the FBI who are still alive, the collapse of WTC 7, the little hole in the pentagon wall, continuous video of the pentagon impact never released, bullshit anthrax attacks, jets not launched in time and then flying slowly, the Project for the New American Century who wanted pre-emptive attacks prior to 911 and stated they "needed a new Pearl Harbor" prior to 911.

Think about all of these things when you think about why Bush stayed put at the school when America was under attack and his location was well know. You might figure out who the real terrorists are.

First off, I would just like to tell you how interesting and informative your article is, and how interesting and valuable it is to know some of the provided information.

However, I strongly believe you are in error factually on the deceit numbered 11, in which Michael Moore asserts that "the memo's title is offered as an excuse for not reading the memo." Michael Moore is no stranger to bitter sarcasm and he uses it often in his work. The title of the memo in question is "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S." In the film Moore suggests Bush did not read this briefing... this is a deceit, deceit number 10 in fact. However, you say that Moore's suggestion "perhaps he did not read it because the title was so vague" is also a deceit, because the title is clearly not vague. This is not a deceit though, as Moore immediately follows that statement with Condollezza Rice reading the title of the briefing. If he were trying to decieve anyone here he would have kept the title to himself. All that Mr. Moore is doing is being sarcastic for the direct purpose of showing that there would be no reason for Bush not to read the report. Perhaps he is contradicting himself by providing evidence against his suggestion that Bush did not read the report, but he is certainly not decieving anyone by sarcastically stating the title was vague, then providing the title for everyone to see that it was clearly not vague (and possibly provoke a laugh or two).

If someone is looking for an object they misplaced, tells you, and you notice it is sitting in plain sight on the table in front of you both, perhaps you might say to them sarcastically, "gee, I wonder where it could be," then a few moments later hand them the object or point to the object so they may see it. This is the same sort of sarcasm as used in the film, the only difference being the goal of this sarcasm is to make the person in search feel foolish.

I hope you understand what I am trying to express, and I would appreciate it if you appended a note to that section about how #11 is not really a fallacy or deceit, or simply removed it from the list altogether, for the sake of accuracy. Thank you.

I watched this film and about halfway through I felt similarly to you - by the end however, after seeing the injured US soldiers and their families, as well as peace protestors being shown, you cannot help but leaving with a feeling that war begets war and that the rich constantly use and abuse the lives of soldiers for profit........

I think you fail to see that this film would not recruit anyone: the rampant ant-arabic/islamic hollywood films already do a great job in that respect, not to mention the aggressive and blase US foreign policy in the area (not to mention images from Ghraib etc).

I don't agree with anything you say but thanks for a few interesting points (Soros and Carlyle is the best I had missed) -

Even if Moore had lied his ass off 10x more than you claim I think - sometimes you have to fight fire with fire...It seems that FOX news and other media outlets have not been doing a good job of this...fuelling the
fire instead of solving problems.

I read the rebuttal to the "facts" in the movie Fahrenheit 911. and will agree that Micheal Moore's agenda is to rip apart the reasoning behind our involvement in Irak. The deceit is blatant on both sides of the issue. How can one believe that the oil in Irak is incidental to the whole mess we,ve got ourselves into. Or that we treat Saudi Arabia with undeserved respect. To say that the Bush family has no personal ties to that country is redicules. Every President that comes into office brings along baggage.History has shown that favors owed are often paid for by the American people. I wish that the right and left ideologist would quit making excuses for those they deem their heros. I find much of what Mr. Moore does distasteful. What's going on in Irak I find tragic.
I lived through the Viet Nam years and bought into President Johnson's rhetoric. Later I rejected it with my conscience. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water when dealing with this movie. I walked into the theater to see the movie and felt a sense of freedom. I knew I could speak freely to the people in attendance and not fear a right wing attack of my patriotism. I love my country as much as anyone. But I won't make excuses for our mistakes or deceit. Thank you for reading this and please keep an open mind.

After all, it is much harder to lead people over a cliff with their eyes open! The attacks on Moore and attempts to keep people from the film, as opposed to dealing with the issues, should raise a red flag for Americans.
We patriots of a free country deserve to hear all sides of an issue before drawing our conclusions. We are not incapable of understanding, nor unable to discern fact from opinion, nor should we allow ourselves to be led
blindly! Knowledge is power, and it is time we become indignant at those who attempt to rob us of it!

The critics of Fahrenheit 9/11 seem more obsessed with attacking Michael Moore than in engaging the arguments he makes in his film. The facts that serve as the basis for Moore's critique have yet to be disputed.

[This one arrived a week after I updated the article to provide a point-by-point discussion of the "facts" presented in Moore's "war room." This writer apparently didn't notice.]

You need to visit M. Moore's warroom.

After seeing Fahrenheit 9/11, I came across your site and read your arguments. I wondered more about Moore's points in the movie, and decided to look online to see if he addressed certain criticisms. He did even better than that. He disclosed his sources for just about every line in the movie. You need to visit this link. Your arguments vs. his arguments make you look ridiculous. You have no point on any of your issues, except to do some absurd whining about the way he made certain things "look" when he used actual footage that if gone back to doesn't change the context one bit.

You are on the wrong side. You should be on America's side, not this liar's. You need to start thinking for yourself, and quit parroting the assinine rhetoric that the bush administration constantly spews out at us through the media. Our country has been nothing but divided and living in fear since that no brain W took office, and I do mean took. He certainly was not elected. And your attempted point about the recount was ridiculous, as there was no recount...it was stopped before it could get started good, because of W's contacts in high places.

Things have been snowballing since he took office and he's stolen our rights as American's. It's time to take back our country. It's time to ELECT a real American...Kerry, with his lifetime of experience, will make an excellent president and the sooner you admit that to yourself the easier it'll be for you.

read your story

That's all BS.

For example you are saying:

Fahrenheit shows Condoleezza Rice saying, "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11." The audience laughs derisively.
Here is what Rice really said on the CBS Early Show, Nov. 28, 2003:

Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It▓s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York. This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a
peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they're all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful
and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East....

Moore deceptively cut the Rice quote to fool the audience into thinking she was making a particular claim, even though she was pointedly not making such a claim. And since Rice spoke in November 2003, her quote
had nothing to do with building up American fears before the March 2003 invasion, although Moore implies otherwise.

Well, words cut or not cut, the truth is that there is no proof between 9-11 and Iraq, and that's what Mrs Rice should have said. Everything else is a lie. You seem to know more than the 9-11 Comission, so why didn't you alert them?

BTW, are you aware that 15 of the 9-11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia? Then, why did we invade Iraq?

I saw the movie and read your rebuttal.

However, it is a know fact about the Bush family (Preston, Daddy and baby) ties to the Nazi Party, during WW2, the Saudi Royal family, Bin Ladin, oil and government contracts. It is all about making money, lying, cheating, misrepresentation and deception. The Bush family, Ron Reagan and all their Washington "buddies" are not in it for America but to pad their own pockets.

GW Bush never did ANYTHING for Texas and after Ann Richards stepped down,and Bush got in, it is the only time in TX history that a multi billion dollar debt was created.

I reside in Houston and have now seen the downward slide of this American Empire. Hell, even the Romans, Germans and British could not hold onto power forever.

Bush has destroyed everything he has touched.

Now who is the real enemy?

Michael Moore is waking-up America and God Bless him!

If the documentary is soooooooooo filled with lies, then why hasn't Michael Moore been sued? The simple answer is the fact that it is NOT filled with lies....only the bu$h administration is filled with lies...and his lies kill Americans. Wake up America! bu$h is commonly called the International Terrorist and he is certainly living up to it.

Wow, Moore sure has a lot in common with Bill O'Reilly!

I eagerly await your take down of that other blowhard who millions of Americans get their "news" from every evening, free of charge.

I don't see why you give this movie so much attention if its as incorrect as you say it is. I don't have a website to disprove anything said in The National Enquirer, I know its not true. But I do truly appreciate to other side of the coin view you made available to me, I disagree with you just as much as I disagree with Moore, oh well

If just one tenth of what Mr. Moore illustrates in his movie is truth, shame on Mr. Bush. Maybe you should highlight the truths instead of the deceits. The title of this article, "59 Deceits..." is quite contrary to the title of your organization, "Independence Institute." How about "59 Deceits and 59 Truths in Fahrenheit 9/11"? That sounds much more balanced.

I have read with interest yours and Justin Raimondo's review of Michael Moore's latest film, "Farenheit 9-11".

I have not yet seen this film (intend to see it on Sunday), but I have seen his "Bowling with Columbine" and I have read some of Moore's books and articles.

Before we analyse the veracity of facts in his films or books, we need to remember that Moore is a "rebel" working within a society and system of intricate progaganda, half-truths, and long term deception. As a writer and a documentary film producer, Moore is attempting to awaken Americans and to encourage them to seek the truth. And as history has taught us with the downfall of many cililisations, the "truth" depends on the perception of the storyteller....we all have our own versions of what is "real" and what is "right".

Over the past four years I have read countless versions of "what really happened". Theories about the "truth" range from incredible conspiracy theories with President Bush and his 'neocons' plotting to take over the world to sinister connections with the Mossad and a new Israeli-world order promulgated by Zionists. The danger with many of these theories is that they foster and encourage the same racial profiling that the dissidents are attempting to "expose". An interesting historical parallel is the Nazi's rise to power in the early 30's when Hitler was perceived as a leader who would help the common German people whose economy was devastated by previous wars and the profiteering of victors. In turbulent times of change, the versions of truth swing dangerously from extreme right to exreme left. I admit that I do not yet know the truth, and I suspect that history will eventually show that the "truth" is somehwere between these extremes.

If Michael Moore is able to awaken thousands of Americans to the point where they start to seek the facts for themselves, then he will have succeeded. The details of whether a particular film segment is presented in the right context are, I believe, irrelevant. Most educated viewers are well aware of the need to cut and paste, to edit, and to present a story that keeps the viewer interested and most importantly, encourages the viewer to check out the facts for themselves.

[I interpolated some answers in brackets below.]

A couple of quick questions on your article on Fahrenheit 911, as I am afraid that I am not convinced of your impartiality on the subject of anything to do with Michael Moore ( I am aware of your position on Gun Law and Bowling for Columbine, but this is not what I am interested in hearing about).

If you were to write an article listing the truths in Fahrenheit 911, how many would they number? Have you tried to count them?

[I don't know. As my main article says, the main method of F9/11 is to rearrange small snippets of truth in order to deceive. I haven't counted the snippets of truth.]

Do you support the Bush administration?

[Sometimes.]

Do you believe it was necessary to go to war with Iraq? If so, on what grounds?

["Necessary" could be debated. I certainly think it was a good idea: To stop Saddam's active support of international terrorism and his pursuit of WMDs, and to remake the balance of power in the Middle East, by eliminating a major terrorist base. And to frighten other pro-terrorist regimes into changing their behavior--as Libya has already done. Also, to destroy an evil tyranny.]

I would be grateful for any comments you might have. I personally do not support the Busg administration, and am suspicious of America's foreign policy, as I believe there is an inherent conflict of interests between sales of arms and perpetuation of war. On this point, I believe you have "done a Michael Moore" in your articles quotation of George Orwell's novel 1984.

As a journalist I believe it is your responsibility to scrutinize the policy of the men who govern your country. I personally find it hard to think of any benefit the Bush administration has done to the world at large through his gung-ho attitude to world politics, particularly in ignoring the United Nations and proceeding in going to war with Iraq. Please let me know of any areas in which you believe the current government is excelling.

[Tax cuts. Afghanistan.]

Any articles you may have written that are critical of the Bush administration, I would take great interest in reading.

[Some articles criticizing Bush administration terror policy:

Air Neglect. What's wrong with trained pilots having guns? The TSA is strangling the armed pilots program. National Review Online. July 2, 2003.

Wasted. Can't the DEA or Congress find a better way to use the DEA's resources? Medical marijuana raids in California. National Review Online, Nov. 26, 2001.

Don't Press the Panic Button.The antiterrorism legislation before Congress is dangerous. National Review Online. Sept. 21, 2001.]

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, could you tell me why you felt it necessary to write such a long article, intent on nit-picking, and seemingly ignoring the overall message of the film.

[I don't think I ignored the over-all message. I attempted to show that the over-all message was a fraud, based on collection of particular frauds.]

I'm from Sweden. I read your article about Fahrenheit 9/11, and even if I don't agree to half of your article, I'd like to point out especially one thing:

"I agree with Lee Hamilton, the Vice-Chair of the September11 Commission and a former Democratic Representative from Indiana: 'Bush made the right decision in remaining calm, in not rushing out of the classroom.'"

The above reaction is ofcourse only suitable if you already know the outcome of the attacks. Let's pretend this was the first attacks of a hundred, followed by a full scale attack?

It's a nice gesture to stay with the children in school, and calm everyone in the room, but seriously, the only correct thing to do when your intelligence service informs you, the president of the united
states, that the country is under severe attack, is of course to excuse yourself, explain that you are needed somewhere else, walk out the room and then rush to an open phone line with the defence
generals.

There's really no other option unless you already know the outcome.

There are a couple glaring ommissions I would like, if I may, to point out about your article 59 Deceits in Farenheit 9/11. First of all, let me say that at 23 years of age, I only started following or even caring about politics after the September 11th attacks. I'm a High School grad, with no other education. The opinions I'm going to share with you here, I mention only because most everyone I know who's in my situation (working for the man, if you will) agrees with these things. I don't wish to discuss whether or not Moore has lied, but rather, a couple quotes from G.W. Bush in the film. He made two statements that shocked me.

First, he said "I'm a war president. I make decisions in the oval office regarding foreign policy. with WAR on my mind." Well, regardless of what context it was in, this is a direct quote, and frankly, it startles all the christians I know who've seen the movie. We don't want a war monger running our country. We will not strengthen OUR OWN society by fighting someone else's. If they had decided that Iraq or Afghanistan were threats to us, I wouldnt say this, but they haven't. The people want a president who will focus on local issues. Where's the free healthcare?

Secondly, while speaking at a banquet to some rich people he said "Some people call you the elite. I call you my BASE." Everyone I know has interpretated that to mean that those (the elite) are the one's he's working for the most. A base is a foundation, something on which you build. Name one blue collar worker who wants a president whose foundation is the elite.

In closing, Mr. Kopel, I think it's safe to say that with all the focus on the falsely so-called lies of Michael Moore, many politicos are just trying to draw attention from what forms the backbone of this movie, which
is the quotes from Bush, Cheney, and all the other lying liars. No amount of arguing can discredit the things they say. And what about that guy who said "Do you think we have time to read ALL the bills we pass" It's a sad state.

What you are saying is that 21% of the 142 Saudis onboard were asked if they had any involvement or information on Bin Laden? What did you expect them to say? 'Sure, that Bin, he's such a kidder... in fact, I just spoke with him the other day...' Under the Patriot Act, shouldn't they have all been kept for more 'in depth' questioning? I mean if we can all be in more trouble for downlading atomic bomb details from the internet, surely they should have been kept from going anywhere? Oh, they just wanted to get home to thier families... just like Michael Moore... now you sound like a sympathizer... Another... come on man, wake up, smell the coffee...

It is with great interest that I have just read your piece on the 59 deceits in Fahrenheit. Whilst I would not go so far as to count every one of them as a deceit, I believe that you have done an important service in working out these issues. Moore is an over-stylized provocateur who is in danger of discrediting more credible critics of Bush.

And yet, in regard to your comments that this film will increase anti-American sentiment, and maybe even terrorist acts, I was wondering if not the opposite could also be possible.

Simply because Michael Moore sells himself as a true American and the movie is so popular in the USA, one could expect that it thus might also be more difficult to vilify all of the US in the Arab world. I believe that Moore's film has the power to disrupt the notion of the USA as one coherent target, an assumption which forms the basis for any terrorist attack, and many an Arab Weltanschauung.

In this sense, whilst Moore is engaging with questionable techniques he might actually be forcing the rest of the world to regard the US as a more nuanced entity, than simply George Bush's country. This is not because of what he says, but who he is. Due to F-911's popularity the most popular, and propagandistic, critique of Bush's policies comes from within the USA. I think that this might have a more important and longlasting impact than Moore's embarrasing editing.

wow dave,what an interesting day! first i go to see the movie and am very moved by it,moved to tears and rage and laughter like most in the audience.then i come home and resume doing research on michael moore and this movie(as i have been doing the last month).and it gets all so confusing because we all really want to believe that we are being presented the truth,whether it comes from a lefty filmmaker, or the leader of this nation.and i realize that we are NEVER going to get at the truth as long as there is a reason for those in power to withhold it.and of course we both know that this administration does play very loose with the truth.but it does disturb me to think this movie was so entertaining and moving simply because it chose to use creative editing to make its point.but as a seeker of truth i am willing to consider all the information you have provided.

I happen to share Michael Moore's views about the war in Iraq, and I believe he is sincere in those views, like the majority of people around the world. I don't find him cynical or manipulative. I looked at some of your list (59 deceptions is too many to read and I think you should cut them down to 10 main ones to make your case better; otherwise people will not read your piece, like they won't be able to read Christopher Hitchens' piece). I found most of your criticisms not really deceptive at all. I think Moore believes he is telling the truth and that what he has presented are facts to the best of his knowledge. This film is an anti-war statement that will transcend the politics of the moment and shows who profits from war and who pays the price in all wars through history. As an academic who has studied the middle east, married to a middle easterner, I think I am not speaking out of ignorance. I personally may not agree with everything Moore believes in the film (one can argue about Bush's motives for war), but I never was convinced Iraq was a threat to the United States, even if it had weapons of mass destruction (which I doubted). It is true that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, but we choose to remove him; he was not threatening us. I think if we really wanted to encourage democracy in Iraq we would be going about it in a completely different way, without war profiteering and attempts to install a government we can easily control and will not look out for its own interests. In any case, Moore only had two hours to make a case against the war, and he did it as an artist with the same theme as his other films--the burden on the working class, and questioning the motives of those who took us into war. He might have done better to have focused less on the Saudis and more on the people around Bush, but a film is not a book and must leave a lot out to have coherence.

The Bush Administration has used propaganda brilliantly during the last four years with the help of an uncritical media, and we should be focusing on Bush's deceptions more than Moore's, but Moore is an easier target! What you said about Bush's deceptions are just a drop in the bucket. I don't want to take on the numerous deceptions of the Bush administration, but it was obvious there were not WMD's before the war and no links to Al-Qaeda, so Bush's stated reasons for going into war were pretexts.

I think we should follow the golden rule in criticism and not judge people's motives but look at their case as a whole and present out counter arguments.

I understand you voted for Ralph Nader in the last election, as did I. I see Nader's position on the war and his anti-corporate stance as close to Moore's, which could have been predicted, so I'm a little confused about why you voted for him.

I just read your piece on the deceits you found in Michael Moore's new film. I actually worked as an intern on Bowling for Columbine, and have avidly followed Michael Moore's career. I was disturbed by some aspects of his new film, but generally pleased. I was very impressed with your breakdown, though I think at times you mistake issues of tone for factual errors. Moore's voiceover is often sarcastic and humorous. Obviously, a lot of people wanted to fly home to relatives after 9/11. You don't have to like his use of biting humor, but I would put that more in the opinion category.

However, the reason I decided to write you is that your piece made me incredibly sad. I have lately read a great many critiques of Farenheit 9/11, many breaking it down into tiny disputable facts. And it occurred to me that this is rarely if ever done with actual news events occuring in our world. What we see on TV and hear on the radio is often the briefest sound bite. It sometimes feels like real investigative journalism is dead.

In the end, Farenheit 9/11 is a movie. I'm not convinced it will have much success ousting Bush or converting terrorists as you claim. Maybe it's a piece of lying s[--]t. Maybe not. The sad thing is, with the current state of reporting, Moore remains one of the few individuals willing to delve into an issue past the surface layer. If you don't like how he does it, and since you clearly have the skills and ability to do a more thorough job, I think the best course of action is to encourage fellow writers and reporters to take up the torch, present a fuller, more in depth picture of the world, so that when inaccuracies (either thrown out by a filmmaker or president) occur, the American public has the background to spot them for themselves.

Your 59 deceits article was very interesting. I wonder how long it took you to debunk Michael Moore's movie and your reason for doing so. If you are an actual truth seeker then I have a great suggestion for you. Don't worry, I didn't copyright it so you can use it free of charge. Its called 108 deceits, but it's the deceits are from the Bush administration.

There are tons of websites pointing out in-depth the "inaccuracies" of the Fahrenheit 9/11, but the authors of those same websites aren't interested in the LIES of Bush and his cronies. Go way back into the past of President Bush up until now, and you will find enough lies to fill the white house several times over.

I wonder if you even read these emails... If you do consider this a challenge. If you are all for fairness and the truth, make a website about the lies and propaganda spread by the Bush administration. I bet you won't even reach the half-way mark before the end of the century.

I appreciate your views in your article outlining the '59 deceits' of Micheal Moore's film (need I enter the title?). I have to say that the republican right is either stupid or ignorant of truth in anything that points fingers to the party... I question also your insight into the truth... did it ever strike you as odd that the voting (cards/ballots) got so f[---]ed up in a state that is run by the brother of President to Be Shrub? Did it ever once strike you as odd? Or did you sit back and say well 'it just must be a coincedence' - you can't be that dumb or blind... As for the Saudi Nationals leaving this country on 09/13... are you saying they never left the country except after the ease of flight restrictions? Who gives two shits when they actually left, I don't give a s[--]t about exact time... the fact remains they left this country WITH government protection AND assurances... sheesh, you can't be that stupid too? Can you?

And, isn't it standard law enforcement investigative practice in this country to question relatives and close friends of parties suspected of committing crimes? Especially in a murder/homicide investigation? Were the Saudi's who left questioned at all? As yourself that... and, I know you aren't that stupid... come on man, wake up and smell the coffee. You and the rest are really depressing the rest of us...

P.S. Feel free to sling your poison this way anytime... just like WMD in Iraq, I just can't seem to find my protective clothing around the house here, and the duct tape and plastic onmy house is really starting to look bad... you can't be this stupid...

You are a friggin' idiot.

you are a jackass and a tool. too bad you're not over there right now.

First before I go into my tirade, I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat and I vote for who I think the best candidate at the time. What I would like to know is how you can claim you're an independent when all you really are is a Michael Moore hater! You bashed Bowling for Columbine(I own a gun for home protection) and I'm really surprised you haven't bashed Roger and Me. No one reads any of your stupid columns or has seen your website of the 59 deceits of the movie (the only reason I came across your right wing opinion was when a republican friend of mine in D.C. sent me the link after I watched this powerful movie). I think you're just downright jealous and you only wish you could get your so-called Independent view to a 1/4 amount of the people that have seen this movie. You pretty much pick through every scene in the movie and call it false! I'd say you're about as Independent as Michael Moore is Republican…you should get a job at Fox News Channel! This movie isn't all about Democrats/Republicans/ it's about Bush and his motives/lies for leading us into war! Sit back in anonymity and keep writing your bullshit that no one reads. Oh and go ahead waste another vote on Ralph Nader who's funded by Bush supporters Jack Ass!

If you beleive that Mr. Moore is so full of deciet then why have you not told him yourself?

I just finished reading your report over Fahrenheit 9-11 by Michael Moore. Personally, I found your information mainly false and ridiculous. Why support a man who believes it is ok to kill our youth so that we can "stick our nose" into a country where we don't belong? You didn't even address the points of Michael Moore's positive points in your article. Does is not deserve that? There were many points that Michael Moore did not even bring up in his documentary that proves our president may not be as well suited for his position as many thought. For instance, the report he wrote on why we should attack Iraq. The report ended up being a lousy paste and cut job. The information chosen to be pasted and cut were actually theories in general and not actual information. Yet we, the powerhouse nation we think we should be, chose to go to war over this information. Maybe it is not the president who is ignorant but the people who elected him. I would like to thank Michael Moore for portraying what is really happening in Iraq. Maybe if more people watch it my friends and family can come home alive. It's about time people heard what's is really going on instead of what our government would like us to think. Think about it Dave. How much can we really trust what we hear that is put out by our own government officials? Maybe Michael did twist some of what he put on.... but it's nice to know another opinion instead of only hearing a one sided story by the people who run our nation.

You wrote: "Second, say the Moore supporters, what about the Bush lies?

Well there are lies from the Bush administration which should concern everyone. For example, the Bush administration suppressed data from its own Department of Health and Human Services which showed that the cost of the new Prescription Drug Benefit would be much larger than the administration claimed."

You have equated Bush lies with a lie from his administration. Are you a moron? If a policeman in Durham NC lies does that make the mayor a liar? Get real.

Further, it is apparently true that it was a member of the D-HHS that refused to allow the truth to be told and worse he was legally able to so. The problem here is not Bush, THE LAW IS THE PROBLEM.

I am not a Bush fan and will not vote for him in November.

Amazing that some people worry more about the deceits in a movie than the deceits, distortions, exagerations, and misleading information we were given by this administration, which have already sent nearly nine hundred Americans to their death, made many more invalids, resulted in the death of thousands of civilians, and added billions on to an already huge deficit. Newsflash, less than half the country still thinks we should have gone to war with Iraq. Of course that means nearly half are still in a coma!

I read some of your article regarding Mr. Moore's latest film and am wondering why? I find your motivation suspicious in that you take issue with statements made in the film but not the overall information. Like, with the purging of voters. Voters were unjustly purged, thousand of them. What difference does it make that 1000 were not african american. You don't share exact numbers of how many were. Despite the fact the fact that NOBODY should have been purged based on the similarity of their name to a felon's.

Even if only half of the movie is factual...we are still a society in trouble.

I respect your attempt to deconstruct Mr. Moore's presentation, but it seems to me you can't see the forest for the trees. Even we "liberals" take Moore with a heaping spoonful of salt; but we don't need his voice-over narrative (and indeed, I dismiss Moore's speculations in this segment) to explain what we're seeing when the President sits in that kindergarden classroom: a man profoundly out of his depth.

You see, while "facts" are important, it is men's hearts that determine the course of events. Neither factual information, nor their own protestations, will convince me that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld et al. have my best interests at heart. I read their characters not by what they say, but by how they comport themselves.

I read Michael Moore the same way; so of course I'm aware that he's a polemicist. But do I feel the very real empathy within this flawed man? Absolutely. And that's what filmgoers are responding to.

I read your 59 deceits article. I still don't believe I was deceived. I applaud you on your accuracy in terms of trying to show all sides. By doing so, you really support Moore. Very little of his movie is inaccurate or deceitful. If anything, it reinforced my patriotic duties and beliefs. As a citizen of the best country that the world has ever known, I feel terrible when we perform acts that are diametrically opposed to our essential founding beliefs. Even you have to admit that some of W's actions are suspect and must be questioned. This is not about Republican or Democrat; rather, it is about having someone in office who looks out for the best interests of ALL citizens, not just the ones who are multi-millionaires and whose children are home, away from harm's way. Why defend a character (Bush) who is arguably shadier than Clinton? At least Clinton's lies about sexual experiences didn't lead a country to an unjust and unwarranted war whereby the lives of our patriotic soldiers are in jeopardy as well as the USA's integrity with the world community.

Your diligence on this movie is admirable. But are you choosing to be blind for the sake of partisanship? Read your own words again and contemplate if you can really support the status quo.

I found your article while Googling for 'Michael Moore Lies'; you were linked up from Moorewatch, I believe. I was happy to see that someone was sitting down to do a thoughtful, thorough analysis of the movie 'Fahrenheit 9/11', as I wanted to be prepared with facts for whatever I was shown on screen if I ever saw the movie.

However, I found your piece to be an unbalanced, shoddily cobbled together opinion piece, rather than the incisive fact-based evisceration i was expecting. Michael Moore is obviously known for his callous manipulation of truth and outright lies, and so one would think that exposing him would be like shooting fish in a barrel. Obviously one would be mistaken. I am not familiar with your writing, but if it is all of this atrocious standard of quality, I would suggest a backup profession.

I just re-read your take on Iraq pre-invasion, and it appears YOU are theone with the real inaccuracies...

Iraq WAS a peaceful sovereign nation prior to the illegal invasion and themany bombings un-reported by US media leading up to the real theater...

You obviously have never been to the Middle East, and your depiction of gassings, murders and "silence in the streets" reveals you to be a complete and total idiot -- the type so completely misinformed and xenophobic that you swallow wholesale the lies and "deceits" told to you by your lying government and other interested parties in the oppression of the Iraqi people.

Your whole article is now suspect, and although the National Review is a worthless periodical with a shoddy low-brow reputation among us real journalists, you should never write another word for publication again. This type of pseudo-journalism is dangerous and maligns those of us who do try to relay the truth in our writings, however editorialized they may be. You sir are worse than Jayson Blair...as a journalist, I feel you should be ashamed,very ashamed.

[Same author as the message above]

While it seems to me that you are not the typical conservative that tries to discredit Mr. Moore's "lies" in order to hide the greater truth, I am curious as to your motivation. (Your first argument early in your "deceits" article about how Moore doesn't present a glaring truth is flimsy and laughable.)

It appears you are not necessarily a Bush-backer, and are in fact from what I gather some sort of an NRA gun nut or militia freak (given your obsession with the outdated and unnecessary 2nd amendment), therefore your infatuation with Michael Moore intrigues me. I would imagine someone exposed to our government's lies, corruption, and systematically failing to protect its people would either outrage you or energize you in the fact that Bush's inability to recognize threats to our safety legitimizes the need for a militia. And thus you would applaud Mr. Moore's efforts.

But what I find most laughable is the way in which all of Moore's detractors have yet to recognize one simple fact. Moore is a filmmaker, not a political figure. His words and accusations are relayed via the always inaccurate and biased media of film; and any documentary bears the stamp of its creator and is never taken as an objective portrait by anyone with half a brain. More important (no pun intended), everything Moore states is 100% constitutional to boot. Just as you are free to search for tiny inaccuracies in what is ultimately a touching, poignant and spot-on film, Mr. Moore is free to shoot his celluloid mouth off as he pleases. Fortunately, Moore scores all the points, and scores them first, and your efforts to change the trusth he created are in vain. It is like the page 24 retraction of the headline accusing an innocent man of rape. Sure, the errata has been corrected, but righting public opinion is much more difficult.

But in reality, Moore most likely will not sway any conservatives away from the axis of evil that is the Bush administration, so why shed extra light on what is simply a well made film? Or is it that deep down you know his points are valid, and just, and that this country needs to collectively wake up, but the deep sleep we've been in is a lot easier to continue than actually making the effort to change for the better?

I'm reading your article exposing F911 deceits--haven't finished it yet, but its helpful and interesting so far. Quick comment on a tendency I'm perceiving from you which may be problematic in your effort. It seems you view these matters largely in terms of Republican vs. Democrat, and this tendency may taint your conclusions. Your 'deceit 18' for instance criticizes Moore for not also pointing out the Saudi influence on the Clinton administration. To me, this is besides the point. Bush can still be criticized for being too close to Prince Bandar and for putting too much interest in Saudi affairs. Maybe many in our government deserve similar criticisms but this does not absolve Bush or hold him any less accountable. See what I mean? Bush's actions/relations should stand alone. Conversely, if a future democratic president were to be accused of wrongdoing, I don't think he should justify it by pointing out a previous republican's similar actions.

Hope you get what I'm trying to say, and I look forward to finishing your article.

Having just watched the film and now having read your critique on his facts, I am compelled to respond. I have enjoyed Moore's antics since his first film; I think he's a great filmmaker, and, even when he manipulates footage to create a context that never happened in a literal sense, it's usually done creatively and sincerely. In other words, as a journalist he's very poor (though no poorer than the journalists working for all major newspapers and networks) but as a filmmaker, as an artist, he's very good- hence, my support. Even so, I was rather disappointed by his latest film. As much as I have worked hard to alert people that Bush has done some very terrible things, I found Moore's oversimplistic rendition rather unsettling. He plays the American public like a fiddle, puprosely (as you've pointed out) focusing on big bad Bush and avoiding several other factors equally responsible for the atrocities this country has committed, not the least of which is the American public itself, who has been willfully ignorant of our government's motives over the last couple of years. Bush (and co.) wouldn't have gotten very far if Americans were doing their true patriotic duty.

Regardless, your own refutation of his film is troublesome as well; while it *seems* well-researched and factual itself, it is, in several cases, not very accurate itself... which brings up a very frustrating truth few people care to deal with: no one REALLY knows what the truth is about anything. Even if we're 100% sincere in our attempts at being impartial (and you seem to be), it will always be dependent on the sources we choose to use, and just what sources we choose to use is, itself, a very subjective thing. Though Moore's tactics are not always on the level, I know his motives have always been sincere, at least. Assuming yours are, as well, where does that leave a critical, skeptical and truth-seeking American?

I started writing a point-by point refutation of the errors you make, but I find this to be a frustrating spiral; everyone keeps criticizing everyone else's little flaws and faults, and we end up with what, in the end? A muddy picture of what is actually the truth. For example, Florida's 2000 voter scam may not have happened exactly like Moore painted it, but it was far more corrupt than what you imply. I'm sure you're familiar with Greg Palast's work, and that remains the most evidence-backed account I've seen yet on the issue... a far cry from what you claim. Another example: Moore does leave out the "significant fact" that Bush Sr. was head of the CIA... except that his being head of the CIA is a well-known fact, and not something that Moore needs to remind us of, especially when it's irrelevant to his point. How can any human being NOT let the information that a top government agency might provide influence his extremely-profitable business dealings? Your implication that Bush might "just be curious" about how his ol' boys are doing the same way a retired baseball player might still follow his old team is just silly. Moore can exaggerate sometimes, but his suspicion here is well-founded.

And so on... you downplay Bush's stock dealings around the time of the Gulf War, but look up any of a number of credible sources and you will see plenty of evidence of insider trading. What you won't find is any actual convictions, and if you dig deep enough you might find that the person in charge of the investigation had business links to Bush himself... but I would think you were aware of that already. Perhaps federal law required the White House to black out James Bath's name, but that doesn't change the fact that Bath has plenty of connections to Bush and the Saudis, which was the main point of that scene. Moore may or may not have different personal ideas about Sept. 11, but ideas exist independently of their originators; as you put it, if a klansman made an accurate portrayal of Rosa Parks, it not be a deceit, it would be an accurate portrayal of Rosa Parks. 500 years after that klansman died, it would remain an accurate portrayal of Rosa Parks.

And so on.

My point in all of this is simply to ask- why do we play this game? Will we ever really know the truth about any current event we aren't personally connected to, and, if not, then on what basis do we form an opinion? Statistics and "facts" can be manipulated at our will. Personally, I focus on the principles. Absolute power does corrupt absolutely; human beings are too weak to prevent it to happen. Do I believe that the Bush's and Bin Laden's drink from the same cup? Absolutely. The evidence may be inconclusive, but the nature of humans isn't. Ridiculous conspiracy theories are one thing, but when enough facts (that even right-wingers don't dispute) are present, I'll go with the time-tested human formula every time. And so I ask you- despite your nit-picking of Moore's factual basis, do you honestly believe his main point is so outlandish? Do you really think, even if some of the facts are technically wrong, that Bush is anything other than guilty of the main thrust of Moore's claim? The strongest part of your critique is this: Moore's previous beliefs have definitely changed or been subdued for this film. Your comments touch upon this fact, but don't really delve into the story behind it. It doesn't make for a deceitful film, but it does make for an insightful look at Moore as a public figure, which is that he is slowly watering down his "lefty" beliefs in order to appeal to a wide range of Americans. He knew that his rise in fame and power would always be capped by his liberal ideas, and that his long-time fans would never be enough to make him a household name. The saddest thing about Farenheit 911 is Moore's own ass-kissing of America. Rather than holding everyone guilty responsible for the last couple of years, he pins it on a simple icon, and we cheer him on. This, to me, is worth noting (which is why I'm writing an article about it) since, I believe, we'll be hearing more from Candidate Moore soon.

thanks for reading.

I had a good read through your fahrenheit 911 page. You raise some
very good points but other times I felt you were just clutching at
straws. Do you think that trying to get extra milage from some of your
weaker points weakens your overall argument?
Some of the film did not sit easy with me (especially portraying iraq
as some sort of paradise) but I think overall it does make some good
points. I don't nessecarilly agree with all of the problems you have
raised, but Its good to get some balance for what is a biased movie.

I saw the Michael Moore movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, last night. Did we see the same movie? I am at a loss to find all those 59 Deceits

I don't even know where to begin. I'll leave it at this:

The National Review, The New York Post, MSNBC, Isikoff, WorldNet Daily, the Media Research Center, Christopher Hitchens, the Washington Times, and the Weekly Standard are as biased as Michael Moore is but mendaciously present themselves as "news." So most of your cites for support of your points raise more questions in my mind than they answer.

I simply do not understand what the point is in refuting Michael Moore's movie. He clearly has stated that he wants to prevent Bush from being reelected. The American public is not so naïve to realize that his movie will include biased and misleading information. So what? None of the errors and inaccuracies that you have pointed out contributed to the success or emotional impact of this movie.

The power of this movie are the personal experiences of Ms. Lipscomb and the disgruntled soldiers and the greedy business interests and the fact that Bush mislead us in order to overthrow Hussein.

I don't care if Moore's facts are not entirely accurate because I expect this from a hollywood movie. This movie is an honorable attempt to show how the folks in control can manipulate even the watchdog organizations (Congress, media) to go along with their viewpoints and agenda.

This story needed to be told. Since nobody else had the chutzpah to tell it in a way that anyone would listen, Michael Moore deserves all of the accolades he has been given. I hope his DVD breaks rental and sales records because the people who truly need to watch this movie are those who won't go to the cinema but they will certainly rent the DVD to watch in the privacy of their homes.

I have just come from seeing "Fahrenheit 911" and am sitting down to look at response to it by others. Your site comes up with its boldfaced "59 deceits (the word you're looking for is deceptions)."

Do you really believe what you say? How then is it possible that the widespread knowledge of such extreme falsehood has not made it to prime-time, even on state-run FOXNews?

Try as you might, there is no denying the agenda of these arch-conservatives, many of whom are either too disconnected from real life to understand it, or, like you, simply too ignorant.

Good try. Few are listening. Those of us who wish to give peace a chance will unseat Bush-Cheney in November.

[Before reading this letter, I had not idea that Bush was going around and toppling poles. This seems like a terrible form of vandalism, and he should stop. I agree with the writer that Americans should stop worrying about plasmoid clouds--an issue which is apparently of concern mainly among anti-Israel nuts.]

This is going to be the most vicious Presidential election campaign on record and potentially the most dangerous. Bush's actions have politically polarized the American electorate and Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 documentary has made a bad situation for Bush far worse. We can see why the Mickey Mouse boys were terrified to touch this. They are very vulnerable and an infuriated Bush gang would take out their revenge on them for such a film.

The danger lies in what probable actions Bush might take to swing the election that now is moving strongly against him. He is appealing to far right Christian groups, something that is sure to outrage more centrists and moderate religious groups. When these groups get the bit in their teeth, they become very vocal and often very vicious. More important, however, is the distinct possibility that Bush will start another military adventure, just before the election. Rumor at high levels has it that he will declare a state of emergency, based on faked reports, that North Korea and/or Iran are about to launch nuclear strikes against the American homeland and that he has ordered counterstrikes to defend this country

There are a significant number of Americans who would go for this. Hell, there are many Americans that believe Hussein controlled Al Quaeda, that the WTC was blown up by CIA missiles or plasmoid clouds or that Bush has helped the American economy instead of absolutely destroying its future growth.

Unfortunately, both of these countries do have the Bomb and both are capable of retaliation or, worse, preemptive strikes against our troops in South Korea, Iraq or even Japan. Between Israel beating the drums for a US attack on Iran and Syria and Bush's toppling pole numbers, most of us are now seriously afraid of some Godawful adventure on the part of the ‘Mission Accomplished' lad.

[This writer raises the interesting question: "If Clinton was Bush, can you imagine what you would be saying about him?" In this situation, I would probably be criticizing Clinton for the same things about which I have criticized Bush. The criticisms I made of Clinton in 1993-2000 would probably be inapplicable.]

After reading your article I can only conclude that you either are being paid by the government or are completly oblivious. If Clinton was Bush, can you imagine what you would be saying about him? Do you realize who owns mainstream news, or are you part owner? Your pissed off because for once there is another perspective on things rather than the same old right winged propaganda. Replace the word terrorist with communist and lets all be real patriots.

P.S. People all over the world hate the republicans and the Americans are turning on the Bush administration.

A good Republican friend e mailed a link to your site. My friend has not viewed Fahrenheit 9/11 but has an opinion about it based on your opinions. That's a funny thing you Republicans do but that is another opinion I wont force you to read.

My opinion of your opinion is that your beliefs are as twisted and convoluted as a drug addicted right conservative on AM talk radio.

Kopel? Isn't that a Jewish name? Ah! Well *THAT* explains everything.

[And there were a few writers who didn't like Moore or me...]

As an engineering physicist I drew my conclusions about 911 long before Michael Moore's film, and you can be darn sure I don't take anybody's word for anything.

I never saw the film. There is no need to feed Zion with my entertainment dollars.

Fahrenheit 911 is Hollywood and nothing more. But no matter--Bush & his friends still committed mass murder on 911 and no amount of wishful delusion on the part of a nontechnical propagandist like you will ever change the physics of what happened on 911.

Too many people know.

You Neocon mass murderers and war criminals are all going to political and social hell soon. I expect that many of you will finally end up behind bars, where you belong.

That's it--go ahead and call me a liberal leftist. Yeah right, like hell I am a liberal leftist.

W ell Mr Kopel, you write as if you were one of the Jewish Tribe. I have seen your assessment of the Michael Moore film 9-11 and it includes ever imaginable twist and turn, except the JEWISH TWIST. THE ZIONIST TWIST, eh?? A little strange to leave the Jews out of the picture, isn't it?

After all, isn't this where the problem began; with the reation of the bastard state of Israel? Sure it is

Neturei Karta- Guardians of the City- Home The Rabbi's at Neturei Karta (http://www.nkusa.org/), old hard-line Jews, say that Israel is a bastard state that must be disolved; that the Jews are the guilty parties. That's not what I say, that is what THESE JEWISH RABBI'S SAY.

Israel stole the Arab people's land, and continue doing so, murdering their people, and somehow, you managed, as did Michael Moore, to ignore all this.

Your paper (webpage), attempting to discredit Mr. Moore, is simply another grand decpetion. One con-artist, trying to out-do another con-artist.

[Another writer agreed]

What a catastrophe the Western world has become! It has painted itself into a corner and now is almost void of any realistic alternative national leadership. Where has it come off the rails?

Both yourself and Moore miss the most obvious point and ironically Saddam get it right:
"Those who do not want to harvest evil, should not plant evil...Despite the contradictory humanitarian feelings on what happened in America, America is harvesting the thorns that its rulers have planted in the world...Nobody has crossed the Atlantic carrying weapons against America, but it has crossed the Atlantic carrying death and destruction to the whole world." (I would add all the oceans)

Is this just too hard for a critical mass of Americans to acknowledge they have become a criminal nation and then take remedial action?

This hasn't happened exclusively as a result of the Bush regime. The phenomenon of a Bush-like leadership was a predictable and inevitable event. It is an indicative measure of America's demise, where the sense of right and wrong, good and bad is no longer distinct.

Certainly a large part of America's waywardness is indicated by its blind support of Israeli injustices. Everyone, including yourself, focus on "the terrorist Palestinians", and for some strange (but then not so) reason completely ignore and deny the fact that the Palestinians are (again predictably and inevitably) retaliating against injustices inflicted upon them by successive Israeli regimes exclusively supported by the US http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/roguestate.html How can Americans wonder why they are hated by people like Osama Bin Laden when they reserve themselves the right to dispense injustice and barbarity when where and when they like?

The US sanctions and splattering of DU munitions against Iraq (and for that matter, Afghanistan and Bosnia also) contributed to the death and misery of between half and one million Iraqi civilians, most of them children. Madeline Albright, when questioned on this, even had the audacity to go on record saying "We think it was worth it". Why on earth would you think people like Saddam shouldn't be thinking of ways to get a monkey off their backs? Now you have gone and poisoned another big chunk of Iraq for another 50 years with your despicable DU weapons and your gangster military and you call that liberation! When all is said and done, you will also be billed for the injustices resulting from most of the 13 years of sanctions, because it now appears clear Saddam did comply with UN demands to disarm. The US stands self-evidently accused and its time of not signing the ICC Statutes of Rome is quickly expiring.

The so called "Coalition of the Willing" is nothing but a bunch of prostitute nations or outright US-rape-case-nations. Bush wanted the blood of innocent people on as many nations as possible to give the illusion of world community participation after failing to get UN approval, so he either bought the nations or threatened them into participation, or both. Aren't you disgusted with your nation and the fact that you have a death-junkie executioner leading you - a fake pro-lifer?

Many of your points about Moore's Fahrenheit 911 seem to be accurate, but like him you totally avoid and/or deny the real issues.