I know a lot of people seem to hate this guy and call him a liar, but yet I don't think I have ever heard what was it that was in that movie that was the bold face lie(s) he was supposed to have uttered.
I watched the film and it all seemed factual to me. It just seemed to mostly be a lot of behind the scene stuff that most americans did not know about because they were not reported greatly by the mainstream media. To me it looks like he is hated for simply telling what really really happened and really was going on. Why would americans hate a fellow citizen for speaking the truth about what is going in their government and on top of that call him a liar?
2007-12-02 08:03:05 · 15 answers · asked by ron j 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The Truth will set you free.
A few are
1. It accuses President Bush as being lazy and shows-- But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.
2. The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm.
3. You are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. When you actually look at the clips they are recognize as various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment.
4. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait.
5. There are over 50 flat out deceptions in the movie Fahrenheit 911, you can read more at the links provided below.
2007-12-02 09:39:29 · answer #1 · answered by oldcorps1947 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He didn't exactly lie. He just told you a lot of half truths.
There are many pages of people debunking the movie.
two areas that i caught myself were Miss Rice saying that Saddam was connected to 911. Well she did say that, but Mr. moore didn't show the rest of her statement, that said something along the lines of" in the sense that he supports international terrorism in general"
The other was When President bush was at the podeum and saying "you are my Base" and the crowd was in Tuxedos. Well moore doesn't say that that was at an anual function of the Washington Media and the President is always asked to attend and poke fun at himself, nor does he tell you that the other speaker that night was John kerry.
So believe as you will, but dig a little deeper for truth.
SFC, US Army Retired
2007-12-02 08:20:59 · answer #2 · answered by SFC_Ollie 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Trust me; you can leave this question open for a year and you will not get a meaningful answer from a Republican. Moore presents a particular point of view and he admits he has an agenda, but at the worst he cherry picks some of the facts and tries to support his personal point of view. Objective people, including those who disagree with him, generally admit that his films and books effectively and honestly represent his points of view.
The same people who call him a liar have no problem justifying the lies the Bush Admin has told for the past 6 years.
2007-12-02 08:16:21 · answer #3 · answered by golfer7 5 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Most of what the issue was were misquotes or quoting out of context. Many people who he interviewed or showed interviews of in came out and stated that he quoted them out of context or that he edited their interview in such a way to misrepresent them.
But a few examples..
In the book he stated that the coalition of the willing were only a few tiny tiny countries that really dont have militarys and only voiced support. When asked by the LA Times "why he left out England, Spain, Italy, Poland". He said he did it to counterbalance what you were seeing on cable news.
He had that part where he was on the street trying to confront congress members about why their children were not in the military and then first claimed "only one" then claimed "none" of the members of congress had children in teh military ... when in fact seven of them had children that were serving.
There are many dozens of these kinds of things look them up.
Also Moore's middle east distributor is involved with Hezbollah, and when he was confronted about it he first denied it but then when he was confronted with evidence of it he refused to answer.
2007-12-02 08:25:31 · answer #4 · answered by sociald 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Only Republican Neocons and useful idiots could call Michael Moore a liar. On the contrary Michael Moore is a hero and very courageous individual who is singlehandedly took on criminal Bush at the time when Bush was very popular. I watched "Farenheit 9/11" and did not see any lies whatsoever. The one who is indisputable LIAR is evil and criminal Bush and cronies.
2007-12-02 08:15:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
He totally made that movie with an obvious bias attached, which he FRAMED accordingly right out of the Lakof doctrines. That movie was nothing more than supplemental brainwashing for smelly picketers.
2007-12-02 08:10:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
when bush was in the classroom with the kids he was in there for like 7 minutes reading the book with the kids. 7 minutes is not a long time, and if the secert service would have just bum rushed in there they would have scarred the s**t out of the kids
2007-12-02 08:12:46 · answer #7 · answered by youngandfly 1 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Mike can be extremely adept at manipulation of facts. Given that I take most of what he says with a grain of salt. Very entertaining otherwise.
2007-12-02 08:10:34 · answer #8 · answered by Plano 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
sensationalism isn't really lying, and can be used to bring up some serious questions about issues that need to be addressed, rather than ignored.
2007-12-02 08:07:25 · answer #9 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
all you have to do is google it...
Micheal Moore is into it for the money
and so many people hate bush they are willing to pay
anyone aka Micheal Moore to reinforce what they believe
to be true regardless if it is or not,,
hes sicko movie is another prime example..
the health care system over there is awful..
only those with money or influence get the care that he claims is open to all the people..
what a load a crap...
2007-12-02 08:12:05 · answer #10 · answered by pokerfaces55 5 · 4⤊ 4⤋