Is it just me, or is it deja vu all over again? When Bill Clinton, carefully parsing his sentences, denied having an affair with Gennifer Flowers for 60 Minutes during the 1992 campaign, his supporters gave him a pass. When he lied about Monica Lewinsky in a much more blunt manner, they gave him a pass again, and when he was busted they said it simply didn’t matter.
With Michael Moore’s movie, we have a variety of lying techniques ranging from bald-faced lies (The bin Laden’s weren’t interviewed before the Bush Adminstration whisked them out of the country) to lies of association (all Bushes and bin Ladens have the same interest) to lies of speculation (George Bush probably wakes up wondering what he can do for Saudi Arabia each day).
The basic enterprise is intended to reiterate every Urban Legend that’s gone around about 9/11 with just enough information to keep it going and not enough to get Moore busted for straight-up lying (in most cases.)
And the people who believed Clinton believe Michael Moore and say only the stooges of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy would dare question his royal ass.
Moore has a hidden agenda, and it has nothing to do with electing Kerry: it’s all about the money. A Kerry presidency will cost Moore money.
Gabler is also wrong when he assumes the Moore attack dog stance against the media. Moore goes on the offensive when people point out that his movie is more propaganda than documentary; Gabler simply apes him.
Being balanced is not a bias, it’s journalism’s job.
Richard, why are you so truth challenged when it comes to Moore?
Actually, in Moore’s film, they do say the bin Ladens were interviewed.
But the interviews were brief.
You really should stop repeating untruths that have been emanating from the right-wing spin machine; you’re just descending into hyporcrisy here.
And people can see it. Anybody who’s seen the film knows that what you keep repeating here is false.
Give it a rest. You’re not doing your side any favors.
And there is no “balance” in trying to say that equal time should be given to people who are metaphysically certainly wrong.
That’s the problem of the media:
They were metaphysically certainly wrong about: Whitewater, Wen Ho Lee, WMDs, global warming, creationism, and a whole host of things.
They were metaphysically certainly wrong to leave out information critical of Bush’s policies. That was a lie by omission.
There’s no need to balance it by leaving it out.
Sorry, but Gabler’s right, you’re wrong.
Unger and Moore say the bin Ladens were not “properly” interviewed and they weren’t checked at all against terror watch lists. Both charges have been refuted by Richard Clarke.
Moore lies, and he’s been busted for it repeatedly.
fwiw, (prolly nothing in RB’s eyes)
Richard Clarke said “it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House.”
What does “it” refer to, little dude?