Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
The truth is out there, unfortunately for Moore
Published on September 15, 2003 By Draginol In Politics

Believe it or not, there is an entire website dedicated to debunking Michael Moore. Even more unbelievable, I am very glad it exists.

Michael Moore is the master of plausible falsehoods. When you read one of his books or watch one of his "documentaries", you are left with the impression of "Well, I may not agree with his politics but he makes some good points..."

Except he doesn't because he twists, exaggerates or outright fabricates his "facts". There's usually just enough truth in there to make his lie believable.

Michael Moore's works have something in common with another Moore -- Demi Moore.  Demi Moore started in the 1988 move "The Seventh Sign" The movie got a low rating on IMDB but while you're actually watching it, the story is quite compelling. The story is about 7 signs that occur before the end of the world. In it, the well of souls, the "Guff" (or something like that), has to be refilled. Various bible passages are read from that establish the guff and how it needs to be filled. It talks about how the end of the world would come with the birth of the first child without a soul.

It's all quite chilling. I remember thinking, "Wow, the bible has all this?" When I got home, I looked into it and it turned out it was complete bullshit. They just made it all up to make the story more compelling. But while watching it I I was enthralled.

Moore's books such as "Stupid White Men" and his documentary such as "Bowling for Columbine" are a lot like that. When you read them or watch them, you think "Wow, I never knew that." His arguments are quite compelling to those ignorant on the facts. Liars always have a significant advantage because they are not bound by the truth.

He also is a master of putting his opponents in the no-win situation.  For example, he has argued at various times on how the Bush Administration brought 9/11 on us by paying for the training of people who would end up flying jetliners into the WTC. At first though you think, "Hey yea, those stupid CIA bozos trained these guys and now they're attacking us!" 

But think about that for a minute. What really happened? The United States funded the rebels in Afghanistan who were fighting the Soviet Union. Oh shame on us.  But why stop there? After all, for much of the cold war the Soviet military machine ran on American trucks supplied to them during World War II. Many wore uniforms made in the USA.  Or go even further back and point out that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor with planes manufactured with iron from the United States and were powered with fuel from the United States.

Essentially if you are cynical and dishonest enough, you can always find some sort of "irony" in any situation.  What would Moore and his ilk suggest? Do nothing? Remain paralyzed out of fear that some action may in some distant and obscure way come back to haunt us? Oh no, that food to Somalia was stolen by warlords and used to fund terrorists! Don't send food. Sheesh.

Moore is a creation of the media. He happened to hit on something at the right time and his lack of principles in truth telling have enabled him to build up an impressive resume.  Luckily for us, the Internet is full of people who are willing to put time and effort to fight back with facts.  There is another site called Michael Moore Hates America to go along with MooreWatch. What's really interesting is just how wrong Moore gets it. Whether that be the statistical reasons why there is so much gun violence in the United States to why economic differences exist in society, Moore gets it wrong and there are people to set the record straight.

Gotta love the net!


Comments (Page 1)
on Sep 15, 2003

You can also go to
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
to get specific debunking on Bowling for
Columbine.

on Sep 16, 2003
>But think about that for a minute. What really happened? The United States funded the rebels in Afghanistan who were fighting the Soviet Union. Oh shame on >us. But why stop there?

And I guess the fact that the US, after pouring in tons of weapons, left those people to fend by them selves the moment after the soviets pulled out dosent have anything to do with it right ? No Oil = No US occupation, sorry guys. The fact they Mr. Bush after 11/9 PROMISED that they would not be forgotten again and that the country is once again falling into anarchy has nothing to do with terrorists, right ?

It feels like an analogy of a one night stand with an assh**e, he'll say anything he needs to get them into bed, then f**k them. And in the morning say, oh what you believed me ? Well, everybody knowns you cant trust what people say to get you into bed.

>Moore is a creation of the media. He happened to hit on something at the right time and his lack of principles in truth telling have enabled him to build up an >impressive resume.

Oh, you mean like all that talk about the WMD, why yes, thats really nausiating when people lie like that. Thank god Mr Moore is not president, right ?

Take Care / Falaffel
on Sep 16, 2003
Excuse me but I think you’d better stop using the, ahem original, afghan debacle to push your point. screwing over another ex WWII ally because they threaten the powers that be an instituting fascist or fundamentalist governments around the world because anything’s supposedly better than an ideology you don't like. (I suggest you revue other American campaigns against Chile or Korea). This is something you should be ashamed of not boasting about. I have no idea why you felt you're argument was helped by talking at length about Demi Moore somehow i doubt you really understand the politics of either. Michael himself on the other hand makes, by your own admission, some incredibly good points, if in the cold light of day after you put the book down, or more likely turn off the television you decide you can't be arsed to do anything about it then that's a different issue. I'd hardly call the bourgeoisie, it subjects a bit of class, let's say vanguard are very good at saying white is black, and largely your happy to help that wool over your eyes. When you are tired of this comfortable fiction ask yourself this, what were 9/11 or pearl harbour (both of which you seem to believe are worse than IRA activities (punishment beatings and bombings) and the Blitz over all England respectively) really caused by? Both you were warned about repeatedly by the international community and your own officials on the ground, you ignored got hurt and haven't stopped harping on about ever since. secondly you might ask: Well this Micheal Moore says our president cheated his way into office, why don't I check this out for myself? try Kazaa for copy's of the BBC program (sorry section of newsnight) that inspired his work or BBCi. Why don't you check every "fact" in his books while you're at it see what you find. Then come back and at the very least write a decent article on the Internet. After all that you can explain to me why Liberty is more important that Equality when your constitution education bangs on and on about the abuses of a monarchy. Liberty and epuality are the crux of a true debate on Communism vs Liberalism in case you didn’t know.
on Sep 16, 2003
Falaffel: Are you suggesting that because the US didn't go and rebuild Afganistan after the soviets left that we deserved 9/11? That's absurd. I'd say we did plenty to help them win their freedom.

It would be like us being mad at the French for not building up the United States after the revolutionary war. The US did send million in aid via the various relief agencies to help the people of Afghanistan.

Tom: You seem too far gone to reason with. The websites I pointed to in my article provide a wealth of actual facts that more than counter Michael Moore's propaganda.
on Sep 16, 2003
>Falaffel: Are you suggesting that because the US didn't go and rebuild Afganistan after the soviets left that we deserved 9/11? That's absurd. I'd say we did plenty to >help them win their freedom.

What is obvious to me ( and others i believe ) is that you can't ( or at least shouldn't ) use a conflict to meet your ends just to discard the poeple you have used when they are not of immidiate interest to you. And if you do, you should certainly not be suprised of the hate they feel due to the betrayel. Do you not think that the promise from the worlds superpower should not carry value ? Do you feel it's ok to make promises when you need people and then break them as soon as they are of no interest to you ?

>It would be like us being mad at the French for not building up the United States after the revolutionary war.

I certainly hope that you agree that the world has come a long was in the past 150 years. And further more, it wasen't bloodshed and chaos that the french left behind.

>The US did send million in aid via the various relief agencies to help the people of Afghanistan.

1) They sent this money into aid agensces instead of giving it to the government that dosent have the money to do anything let alone create order. The aid agency worker wages are gigantic in afgan conpareson.
2) They sent just a small part of the aid they promised in the TOKYO givers conferense ( not alone in this ).
3) They further distabilized the afgan government by working with local warlords when it fit them thus giving legitimety to their rule.
4) They refused and continue to refuse call from countries like germany to give the peacekeepers mandate to move outside the capital and put other areas under the command of the afgan government which could restore order somewhat.

Does this sound like they are keeping the promise to build up the country to you ?

/ Falaffel
on Sep 16, 2003
You don't address the main issue: You seem to be implying (or more than implying) that the US "had it coming". That thousands of American civilians deserved to die simply because the United States, which did a lot for Afghanistan (helping free them from the Soviets and being the world's leading supplier of humanitarian aid) just didn't do enough.

I'm sorry but I find that view incredibly warped. By that kind of thinking, the US would have been better off doing nothing at all. Of course, the other problem with your reasoning is that the facts to bear them out. 9/11 had nothing to do with Afghanistan in that sense. Afghanistan was simply the base for Al Queda.
on Sep 16, 2003
I feel compelled to comment about this, and it may not have any direct relevance about the Michael Moore conversation that is the root here. What a lot of people don't get is that there are a lot of different cultures who view each other quite differently in the world. There is always going to be a difference in opinion on how "Man" should lived based on these cultural idiosyncrasies they're going to react differently. Take a look at the Palestinians and the Israelis. They've been fighting over the same piece of land since 1948. To me, who they would probably label as an "infidel American pig" this seems similar to a five year old shouting to the neighborhood kids to "Get off my property." To both of them, it is an important part of establishing something they call home. So, to reach their goal, does it seem justifiable to bomb nightclubs and buses full of innocents to prove a point? Sounds rather extreme for me. Violence only begets more violence in the long run and nobody really wins from it.

Tying in to the 9/11 situation (which, honestly, I've got a whole different rant about our propensity to hold on to the dire and mundane and continue to dwell on the event), did we really have it coming? Well, to be honest, we're not exactly winning any new international friends with GW in office. Again, different cultures will react differently to catalysts. The Middle Eastern countries tend to be filled with zealots who will die for their cause. How many Americans can you say that about? Do I feel bad about it? Sure. Do I think we deserved it? Absolutlely not. But it sure raised the ire of our elected officials. I think the War on Terrorism is a pointless venture used to create new government jobs and justify spending more money. I eqate it to the "War on Drugs" which hasn't done jack shit. So are these wars going to create new enemies of the state? Are we going to create another Timothy McVeigh or Unibomber based on unpopular political vehicles that are moving forward today.

I think the thing that I am trying to say is that no matter what anybody does, as an individual or as a body of people, they're bound to piss somebody off. So, sleep with one eye open, because you never know when they're going to punch you in the face.
on Sep 16, 2003
If someone can make teh case for why American civilians just going to work or being on vacation or whatever deserved death please make it.

9/11 was specifically the hijackign of 4 civilian jetliners and crashing 3 of them into buildings full of people. They weren't attacks on troops. They were attacks on civilians.

The attack had been in the works since the mid 90s. Please feel free to show what we did that deserved that. I am unaware of the United States intentionally massacreing thousands of civilians. Because if we're going to get into that game, let us remember that if the American "culture" had the kind of attitude that the Islamo fascists have, the middle east would be a glass parking lot now.
on Sep 18, 2003
>You don't address the main issue:

No, it would seem that you dont see the obvious connection between the main issue and the background which led to it.

>You seem to be implying (or more than implying) that the US "had it coming".

Your asking me if a super power that conducted very selfish and dirty forgein policy towards others causing immasurable suffering in the process would recieve backlash ? Jeee, i have no idea.

>That thousands of American civilians deserved to die simply because the United States.

You avoid all of my reasoning and questions in the previous post and ofcourse go for the "They killed innocents" argument. I guess i would to if my argumentation was on such shaky grounds. Well to answer YOUR question, i was among those that sent money to the victems and i live nowhere near the us so dont try to catagorize everybody that thinks that american forgein policy is abysman to being a sick basterd who want to kill lots of americans and enjoy seing them die.

>(helping free them from the Soviets and

This had nothing to do with "help", it was coldwar policy, if there was real wish to help you would have continued to do so after the soviest pulled out.

>being the world's leading supplier of humanitarian aid) just didn't do enough.

Sorry to burst your bubble but howabout you take a look at those numbers per capita or % on BNP instead of the entire amount. Oops, not so high anymore are you.

From your posts i feel that you avoid any argument what you cant answer and desperately try to catagorise anybody who dosent think the us is great and have a good policy to being "haters" and "extremists". How about trying to actually counter arguments and conduct a intresting debate ?

/ Falaffel
on Sep 18, 2003
"Your asking me if a super power that conducted very selfish and dirty forgein policy towards others causing immasurable suffering in the process would recieve backlash ? Jeee, i have no idea."

And the people who attacked the US were the victims of the US' very selfish and dirty foreign policy when exactly?

on Sep 19, 2003
Falaffel,

You keep weaseling out of answering the questions or when challenged you raise the bar.

When I point out that the US was the #1 humanitarian aid provider to Afghanistan, you raise the bar saying how we didn't giv eneough on a per capita point of view. Who the hell cares? Talk about irrelevant. The bottom line is that we still give the most food to Afhganistan before and after 9/11.

Are you suggesting that terrorists attacked us on 9/11 because our aid on a per capita basis was insufficient? Good grief.

You still haven't explained what the beef of these terrorists was. Put up or shut up. What do you think the US did specifically to the members of Al Queda (or their interests) to provoke them to commit mass murder against civilian Americans?
on Sep 23, 2003
I made numerous points you seem to be ignoring my actual questions. Which makes your rather brief counter comment hardly satisfying. As opposed to being far gone I was trying to address a bigger picture, if you cannot understand or appreciate matters of ideology, or world politics don’t write an article about a subject with direct relevance to both. As for the websites look at the titles "Michael Moore hates America" "moorewatch" wouldn't that suggest certain factions consider his work a threat. They also fail to satisfy in terms of "facts" I cant see an example of them saying “look mike, here you wrote this specific phase or paragraph it's incorrect look at this newspaper/official document/testimony form someone with reasonable intelligence and direct experience.” Exactly what Moore does do throughout stupid white men, and he gives you the references. That’s professional. moorewatch is a joke in terms of content and argument, it seems to be celebrating the cold war American attitude that someone should be ignored and fired on the grounds of quotes plucked out of any context and ideas held. I’m surprised it doesn't actually say "look how un-American he is!" but there is a word with multiple syllables there.
Though I would be interested to see the film Michael Moore hates America intends to produce, I say that tentatively as it's hard to be optimistic about it given the title.
A brief note on the other commentary I believe all have the right to life, but life is often cheap across the world. Innocents deserve to live as do people with ideas, the CIA tried to kill Castro with exploding cigars and poison his beard, face it there are many idiots in positions of power in your country.
Please don't accuse me of being beyond reason without qualifying your statement. If my ideas and arguments scare you, that's one thing. If you feel you cannot in all honesty answer the questions I challenged you with, I pity you. But on that basis do you for a minute believe they are dismissible with one short sentence.
I'll ask you one more question. Why do you think it might be harder to believe one voice telling you "there are things wrong with our society, there are people in power who shouldn't be, why don't you act" than another telling you "he lies"?
OK OK two questions: Have you actually checked out any of the "facts" in Moore's book for yourself yet?

Incidentally the BBC is having a great big row with our government about the wording of one quick report and to my knowledge nothing was ever said about the feature on newsnight by yours.
on Nov 04, 2003
All the facts in the film are true.

All the websites are the same NRA spammers repeating old information that has long been discredited. [fight10]

http://www.wackoattacko.com
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607
http://www.bigsugar.wrestling-fan.com/truthaboutbowling.html

you can watch the video evidence of mike buying the gun on his website, and see the police reports that show the kids were bowling.

All irrelevant to the basic premise of the film, but its worthwhile pointing out that these scenes were not staged and it all happened

kind regards
kev
http://www.michaelmooreonline.com
on Dec 08, 2003
I'm pretty sure that some of the Iraqi people who were killed during American bombing campains were just going to work or just working to support their families.
on Jun 09, 2004
>>Or go even further back and point out that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor with planes manufactured
with iron from the United States and were powered with fuel from the United States.<<

What US fuel?
Meta
Views
» 2693
Comments
» 19
Category
Sponsored Links