An example of a lie from the movie 'Fahrenheit 9/11' is _________________?

Answer 1

Some critics contend that Fahrenheit 9/11 contains distortions and untruth and is propaganda.[4] In response, Moore has published both an extensive list of facts and sources for Fahrenheit 9/11 and a document establishing agreements between the points made in his film and the findings of the 9/11 Commission (the independent, bipartisan panel directed by Congress and President Bush to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks).[5]


[edit] Claimed flip-flop on Osama's presumed innocence
According to Christopher Hitchens, Michael Moore had argued in a previous public debate that Osama was to be presumed innocent till proven guilty, and thus questions the treatment of Osama in the film. "Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell."[6] But according to Stephen Himes, who reproduces a partial transcript of the actual discussion, Moore also expressed his view that, "if he and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured and brought to justice."[7]


[edit] U.S. presidential election, 2000
The introduction to the movie includes a collage of video footage depicting the events surrounding the U.S. 2000 presidential election, particularly those involving the contested Florida recount. This fragment of the movie is presented to convey the illegitimacy of Bush as a president. It includes a newspaper headline reporting that Gore actually received more votes in Florida than Bush did and a quote by Michael Moore expressing his opinion that Gore would have won if the Supreme Court had not interfered with the recount process. However, there are differing views of what would have happened had a recount occurred. The movie shows a clip of CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin stating that "if there was a state-wide recount, under every scenario, Gore won the election." A comprehensive six-month study commissioned by a consortium of media organizations including CNN,[8] The New York Times, and the Washington Post concluded that Gore would have won if there had been a statewide recount that included disputed, machine-uncountable ballots. The study also concluded that Bush would have won the election under the recount system in place at the time the US Supreme Court intervened to halt the recount, and that Bush would have won under a partial-recount scheme suggested by Gore. For more information, refer to the Florida Ballot Project recounts.


[edit] Interview With Mark Kennedy
At one point in the documentary, Moore addresses Republican Minnesota Congressman Mark Kennedy. The film plays as such:

Congressman Kennedy: How are you doing?

Moore: I'm trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the army and go over to Iraq. Is there any way you could help me with that?

Congressman Kennedy: How would I help you?

Moore: Pass it out to other members of Congress.

Critics speculate that this scene was meant to create the image that the members of Congress are unconcerned about American soldiers in Iraq, suggesting that those in power believe it to be too dangerous for their family to be involved. By ending it that way, he implies that Kennedy would not, in fact, pass it out. However, there were more lines in the interview.[9]

Congressman Kennedy: I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.

Moore: Because there is only one member who has a kid over there in Iraq. This is Corporal Henderson, he is helping me out here.

Congressman Kennedy: How are you, good to see you.

Moore: There it is, it's just a basic recruitment thing. Encourage especially those who were in favor of the war to send their kids. I appreciate it.

Congressman Kennedy: Okay, bye.


[edit] Bush reading to school children
Early on in the film, Moore explains that President Bush continued reading 'The Pet Goat' to a classroom of children for an extended period of time after being told of the attacks. The book is actually titled Reading Mastery 2, with an exercise titled 'The Pet Goat'.

The school's principal, Gwendolyn Tose’-Rigell, explained, "I don’t think anyone could have handled it better. What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?" This point, however, is widely dismissed as a false dilemma[10]. Many figures and pundits, including personality Bill Maher, argue that he simply could have excused himself and calmly left without creating a stir.

According to the Washington Times, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was holding up a legal pad upon which he had written a message telling Bush not to do anything yet.[11]

A claim has been made that the Secret Service was using this time to determine the extent of the threat to the President and plan an appropriate protective response, while the Department of Defense was ramping up readiness levels. The argument continues that nothing could have been done, by or for the President, which would have made a difference at that point, and the Secret Service protective detail wanted him to stay in a place where they had developed a multilayer defense, until they were ready with an equally strong protection elsewhere.[citation needed]

Critics of this argument counter that, if it was indeed felt that the President may have been in danger, permitting him to stay in a room filled with young children, for that long, unnecessarily puts the childrens' safety at risk.[citation needed]


[edit] Saudi flights
Moore implicates the Bush administration in allowing relatives of Osama bin Laden to leave the United States without being thoroughly interviewed by the FBI. In his narration in the movie, Moore states that "At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the Bin Ladens out of the US after September 13." While private flights were still generally banned at this time, the movie does not mention that the ban on commercial flights was partially lifted on September 13, though not to the proportional extent afforded members of the bin Laden family. Moore has based this on a book by Craig Unger called House of Bush, House of Saud. Passenger lists can be found at the House of Bush website.[12]


[edit] Richard Clarke's various statements regarding the approval of the flights
Critics point to various statements and testimony by former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, which they contend indicates that Clarke had the initial responsibility which he then passed off to Dale Watson, who was the agent in charge of investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks at the FBI.

However, Clarke's statements about the flights and how they were approved have varied over time. The following is a chronological summary:

September 3, 2003: In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Clarke said: "It is true that members of the bin Laden family were among those who left. We knew that at the time. I can't say much more in open session, but it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House."
March 24, 2004:[13] In testimony to the 9/11 Commission, Clarke indicated that the request was not abnormal, "The Saudi embassy, therefore, asked for these people to be evacuated; the same sort of thing that we do all the time in similar crises, evacuating Americans." He goes on to explain that the FBI eventually approved the flights and he describes conversations in which the FBI has said that there was no one who left on those flights who the FBI now wants to interview.
However, under questioning by Commission member Tim Roemer, Clarke appeared to suggest that the White House may have had a role in originating the request for approval: "I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don't know. The two — since you press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State or the White House Chief of Staff's Office. But I don't know."
May 25, 2004: In an interview with The Hill newspaper, published the following day,[14] Clarke said "I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again." He went on to say that "It didn’t get any higher than me... On 9–11, 9–12 and 9–13, many things didn't get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI."
Critics of Moore have, on the basis of Clarke's statements about the flights, attacked the fact that Moore does not mention Clarke's testimony or the FBI's role in the approval of the flights. Moore's supporters contend that Clarke's statements on the matter have been inconsistent, and point to his statement in March that the "request for approval" may have originated in the White House and may have been an executive decision passed down for approval by inferiors.

Since leaving his White House position, Clarke has become a prominent critic of the Bush administration's war on terrorism and the movie includes footage of many of Clarke's statements.


[edit] The FBI's denial that it had a role in approving the flights
On May 18, 2004, Washington newspaper The Hill quoted FBI spokesman on counterterrorism John Iannarelli as denying that the FBI had any "role in facilitating these flights one way or another."[15]

The FBI's denial of involvement was repeated to The Hill by another spokesperson, Donna Spiser, in the May 26, 2004 article. She is quoted as saying "We haven’t had anything to do with arranging and clearing the flights."[14] She states that the FBI's involvement was limited to interviewing those people on the flight it thought were of interest: "We did know who was on the flights and interviewed anyone we thought we needed to".


[edit] Statements by Commission members regarding the flights
The May 18 article in The Hill, which was published prior to Clarke's May 25 claim of responsibility, quoted 9/11 Commission vice-chair Lee Hamilton as saying: "We don't know who authorized [the flights]. We’ve asked that question 50 times."

The May 26 article in The Hill another Commission member, Tim Roemer, as being unconvinced by Clarke's claim of sole responsibility for approving the flights: "It doesn't seem that Richard Clarke had enough information to clear it... I just don't think that the questions are resolved, and we need to dig deeper... Clarke sure didn't seem to say that he was the final decisionmaker. I believe we need to continue to look for some more answers."[14]


[edit] Alleged lack of cooperation from the White House over Saudi flights investigation
Allegations concerning the Bush administration's refusal to provide information to the 9/11 Commission about the Saudi flights are disputed. The May 18, 2004 article in The Hill[15] says that Democratic Commission member Lee Hamilton "disclosed the administration’s refusal to answer questions on the sensitive subject during a recent closed-door meeting with a group of Democratic senators, according to several Democratic sources." However it also says that Republican Commission member John Lehman "said... that he told the senators the White House has been fully cooperative."


[edit] Moore's claim about inadequate interviewing of bin Laden relatives
Moore also claims that the bin Laden relatives were not seriously interviewed by the FBI before being allowed to leave. However, the September 11 Commission has found that 22 of the 26 people on the "bin Laden" flight were interviewed before being allowed to leave the country with many being asked "detailed questions".[16]

A September 2, 2004 CNN news article[17] reported that "However, in a recent interview with the AP, bin Laden's estranged sister-in-law said she does not believe that family members have cut him off entirely. Carmen Binladin, who has changed the spelling of her name and lives in Switzerland, said bin Laden is not the only religious brother in the family, and she expects his sisters support him, too. 'They are very close to Osama,' she said."


[edit] Taliban visit
Members of the Taliban are shown visiting Texas during George W. Bush's term as governor. Critics allege that Moore mentions this in order to imply that Bush invited the Taliban. They counter that the Taliban contingent was hosted by oil company Unocal (which maintained a relationship with Halliburton, headed by Dick Cheney at the time), and their visit to the US was authorized by the Clinton administration, which also met with Taliban members[18] (although the Clinton administration later imposed economic sanctions against the Taliban[19]), and that the Bush governorship did not meet with the Taliban during that time. In the United States, state governors have no authority with respect to the hosting of foreigners in their state.

Moore also links the Bush Presidential Administration with the Taliban by reporting that this Administration met with Taliban representatives in the United States in early 2001. The Bush administration contends that its primary goal in these meetings was to encourage the Taliban to extradite Osama bin Laden.


[edit] War in Iraq
The film implies that the invasion of Iraq was an illegitimate attack on a sovereign nation. The film makes a case against components of the Bush Doctrine, specifically against the concepts of pre-emptive war combined with American unilateralism. The film also contends that the focus of the United States should have been directed elsewhere — that the primary aim of United States' military and foreign policy should have continued undistracted on its efforts to find, capture and destroy Al-Qaeda, their leader Osama bin Laden, their close allies and influential sympathizers, rather than attacking, invading and occupying Iraq.

Critics point out that the film does not mention the history of repression, aggression, war crimes under the rule of Saddam Hussein, nor Iraq's reported noncompliance with numerous United Nations resolutions.[20] On the other hand, Moore has frequently stated his opinion that Hussein was a brutal tyrant, though this opinion is not mentioned in the film. Moore has stated that noting Saddam's crimes was unnecessary considering that mainstream media have continually pressed this point themselves, making it public knowledge. Many critics and opponents alike consider this issue a red herring due to the fact that, despite the criminal acts committed by Saddam, the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation is still a violation of international law, and especially contentious when many perceive greater enemies to be ignored.

Another controversy involved the statement of Marine corporal Abdul Henderson in the film. When asked if he would return to Iraq if ordered, Henderson replied "No." Marine Corps spokesman Patrick Kerr remarked that Henderson could face charges for desertion if he did not report as ordered.[21]


[edit] Bush, Unocal, and the war in Afghanistan
Moore alleges connections between George W. Bush's decision to begin the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and Unocal's desire to build a gas pipeline in the country. Moore asks: "Was the war in Afghanistan really about something else? Perhaps the answer was in Houston, Texas. In 1997, while George W. Bush was governor of Texas, a delegation of Taliban leaders from Afghanistan flew to Houston to meet with Unocal executives to discuss the building of a pipeline through Afghanistan bringing natural gas from the Caspian Sea. And who got a Caspian Sea drilling contract the same day Unocal signed the pipeline deal? A company headed by a man named Dick Cheney. Halliburton." Moore goes on to say that "When the invasion of Afghanistan was complete, we installed its new president, Hamid Karzai ... Who was Hamid Karzai? He was a former adviser to Unocal."

However, when Bush took office in 2001, Unocal had already withdrawn plans for the proposed pipeline in Afghanistan. Unocal formally withdrew[22] its support from the project after the U.S. missile strikes against Afghanistan in August 1998,[23] reiterated its position in 1999[24] after several inaccurate media reports, and reiterated its position again in 2002. The United States Energy Information Administration reports that no major Western companies have expressed interest in reviving the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline plan.[25] However, in 2002 Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf agreed to revive[26] plans of a trans-Afghan gas pipeline; Alim Razim, Afghanistan's minister for Mines and Industries, described UNOCAL as the "lead company" in the revived plans, although they continue to deny renewed involvement.

Furthermore, both Unocal and Karzai have denied through spokesmen that they ever had a business relationship of any kind; this claim appears to have originated in the French newspaper Le Monde and resurfaced in the American Christian Science Monitor. The allegations have also been widely repeated in European newspapers, although UNOCAL has consistently denied them.


[edit] Secret Service guarding Saudi embassy
During a scene filmed outside of the Saudi Embassy in which Moore is discussing the level of Saudi investment in the U.S. economy with Craig Unger, they are approached by uniformed Secret Service officer Steve Kimbell. Kimbell explains that he is just ascertaining information, and asks Moore if he is doing a documentary regarding the Saudi Arabian embassy. In voiceover narration, Moore notes that "Even though we were nowhere near the White House, for some reason the Secret Service had shown up to ask us what we were doing standing across the street from the Saudi Embassy." Moore responds to the officer by saying, "I didn't realize the Secret Service guards foreign embassies," to which the officer replies, "Uh, not usually. No, sir." Moore continues in voiceover: "It turns out that Saudi Prince Bandar is perhaps the best protected ambassador in the U.S. The U.S. State Department provides him with a six man security detail."

Critics contend that the movie leaves viewers with an inaccurate impression that the Secret Service plays no role in protecting any other embassy. That statement is not made in the movie, but the critics claim that Officer Kimbell's comment, which is an explicit part of the movie, is wrong and should have been corrected by Moore.

Under Public Law 91-217 section 202, passed in 1970, the uniformed division of the Secret Service plays a role in protecting "foreign diplomatic missions located in the metropolitan area of the District of Columbia" (among other things).[27][28] However, this does not mean that all embassies receive full-time on-site Secret Service protection (as opposed to area patrols), nor that all the embassies so protected receive the same number of personnel. Neither side has offered a conclusive comparison of the level of security attention given to the different embassies to shed light on Officer Kimbell's statement (that other embassies are "not usually" treated this way) or on Moore's speculation that Prince Bandar might be the best-protected ambassador in the United States.

In addition, Article 22, Section 2 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, adopted in 1961 and ratified by the United States, reads, "the receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity." If Prince Bandar were indeed to be proven to be the best-protected ambassador in the United States this could be due to a perceived greater threat in post-911 America (hate crimes, assassinations, etc), or alternatively this could (as Moore portrayed it) be indicative of the "Saudi-friendly" nature of the Bush Administration.


[edit] Saddam Hussein murdering US citizens
The scene where Moore states that Saddam Hussein has never murdered US citizens has been criticized because Saddam ordered attacks on pilots enforcing the no-fly zone. Supporters of the film argue that Moore's statement is true in that Iraq had never directly attacked the United States or its soldiers, and therefore not an illegal murder, but a legitimate act or war or arguably self defense. The US planes shot at over the Iraqi no-fly zones were attacks on warplanes that were flying over Iraqi territory. US casualties from the Gulf War resulted from Coalition Forces attacking Iraq, which had been initiated by an unprovoked invasion of Kuwait.


[edit] Peter Damon scene
Moore's inclusion of a scene with amputee Peter Damon has been criticized, including by Damon himself, who states that he thinks Moore "should be ashamed of himself" for claiming that soldiers were deceived into supporting the war and for using his injuries as reason to oppose the war. Damon "agree[s] with the President 100%. A lot of the guys down at Walter Reed feel the same way." According to Damon's doctor, Moore took "a very positive thing we're doing for soldiers" who lost limbs and "used it to tell a lie."[29] Damon sued Moore in federal court for $85 million, alleging that the film gave a false impression and was defamatory.[30] Moore's attorney argued in response that the film quoted Damon verbatim and did not take his statements out of context or give a false impression. The judge agreed and dismissed Damon's suit.[31]


[edit] Cuts to Soldiers' Pay
Michael Moore states, “While Bush was busy taking care of his base and professing his love for our troops, he proposed cutting combat soldiers' pay by 33% and assistance to their families by 60%.”[32]

What Moore is referring to is two bonus allowances given to deployed soldiers. When he says soldiers’ pay he means Imminent Danger/Hostile Fire Pay, a bonus received by soldiers in designated combat zones. By assistance to their families he means Family Separation Allowance, one of many benefits that soldiers with families get. In reality, no soldier, combat or otherwise, was in danger of having their pay cut by a third, and no family was going to lose 60% of their benefits.

On his website, without citing the original error, Michael Moore actually misquotes himself by adding the word bonus to the line, "…proposed cutting the soldiers’ combat bonus pay 33 percent and assistance to their families by 60 percent."[33]

Cash compensation for active duty service members increased by some 25 percent between 1999 and 2005, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.


[edit] Coalition of the Willing
At one point, Moore reads a list of nations which are members of the Coalition of the Willing. However, he only mentions nations such as Iceland, Morocco and several other minor coalition-partners, often with intentionally stereotypical archive footage (monkeys for Morocco, drug users for the Netherlands, etc.), all of which are portrayed to have either a very small or no armed forces, claiming that the United States would be going it alone when in fact even many of the countries that Moore himself mentioned have highly professional and advanced armed forces. The Netherlands in particular is recognized for having some of the most highly trained soldiers in the world and form an integral part of United Nation peacekeeping forces. Nevertheless, the Netherlands only sent 1,345 troops to Iraq beginning in July 2003(The population of the Netherlands is only 16,491,461, meaning that per capita their contribution is actually 18 times greater than a simple number comparison would show compared to US population).

In addition, several other nations, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Denmark, Italy, and the Republic of Korea, not listed by Moore, all contributed larger numbers of ground troops and resources than those mentioned in the film, although their contributions are significantly outweighed by the American presence(by numbers alone), although by population size their contribution is greater.


[edit] Marine recruiters
A scene in the film in which Michael Moore interviewed a recruiting party for the United States Marine Corps at a local mall in Flint, Michigan, was criticized by the Marines themselves and their parent organization. The Marines claimed that they were duped by Moore into taking part in a film they did not endorse, that their methods were portrayed unfairly and that they were quoted out of context during the encounter. [34].[35]

Answer 2

I love the way American Conservatives use this web site to show the world how desperate they are. They ask Right-biased questions is the hope that they'll find some consoling evidence that NeoCon-styled Facism is still alive.

Sad.

Answer 3

I watched it for what it was, a documentary on the 9/11 terror attacks, the Bush administration, Washington politics, and the Iraq war.

I didn't watch it looking for "lies" because quite simply, there were no misrepresentations in the movie. If there were, they were inconsequential to the movie's message as a whole.

Answer 4

"Now which one of the guys that my daddy's been dealing with screwed me? ".

That would assume that Bush was an unwitting pawn, if Michael Moore had a shred of honesty there would be no way he could have researched that days events and come to that conclusion.. Michael Moore is a disinformationalist on the Miramax/Disney payroll, hence his long absence post that film...
there is nothing left wing about michael moore.. just another tool used to "blur" the reality of the situation.

Answer 5

I wouldn't stoop to watch such bias propaganda, but what if you were followed day and night by hundreds of cameras. Then imagine some jerk put together all the negative one minute or less clips that made you look the worse. Who among us can stand up to such scrutiny? The more important question is, why would any American do such a thing to any president, even if he did make millions of dollars?
It seems very much like Michal Moore is working directly for Osama.

Answer 6

The wounded soldier whose comments about his pain was edited to make it sound like he blamed Bush. It was quite the contrary and he has since tried to sue Moore for falsely portraying their conversation.

Answer 7

The saudi govenrment and the Bush family having ties was the biggest lie. The implication of conspiracy was another big lie.

Answer 8

Bushs brain size.

Answer 9

None of them have ever seen it, so they don't even know what was said.

Only what Rush and Coulter have babbled about.

Answer 10

http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

I can't stand that fat basturd.

Answer 11

?. What about " The selling of Iraq " . Did you see that ?