This could get interesting. Of course, as he always does, Michael Moore will say everything in his films is absolutely factual and true. Distorted? Well that's not illegal, right?

From the website of Roger L Simon.

Susan

May 31, 2006
Which Side Are You On - Part 1304

According to the NY Post , a double-amputee Iraq War vet is suing Michael Moore for 85 million for making the vet sound anti-war in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, who strongly supports America's invasion of Iraq, said he never agreed to be in the 2004 movie, which trashes President Bush.

In the 2003 interview, which he did at Walter Reed Army Hospital for NBC News, he discussed only a new painkiller the military was using on wounded vets.

"They took the clip because it was a gut-wrenching scene," Damon said yesterday. "They sandwiched it in. [Moore] was using me as ammunition."

Damon seems to "voice complaint about the war effort" in the movie, according to the lawsuit.

But what the father of two from Middleborough, Mass., was really talking about was the "excruciating" pain he felt after he lost his arms when a Black Hawk helicopter exploded in front of him.

Damon wasn't expressing any opinion about the war, the suit charges, but rather extolling the drug.

Of course this is typical of the auteur who is well known to have exploited members of the Writers Guild for years. Taking advantage of amputees is more repellent. I hope this one goes to trial.

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Jordan .

The answer to why more don't sue Moore is because he doesn't actually make most of the deceptive statements himself. He generally has someone else say it for him on camera. It's more about the way he assembles the whole to LEAD you to a certain conclusion but neglects the CONTEXT. It's classic propaganda methodology.

When the film was in the theaters, we covered the "deceits" on the old Gazette many times, Dave. I know you were around then but perhaps you've forgotten. Try this link -- 59 Deceits of F-9/11 as a good place to let the debunking begin. The name of the link says "Fiftysix" but he discovered more after he started breaking it down. Dave Koppel, btw, is not a conservative but was an active Ralph Nader supporter in 2000.

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

As far as being embarrassed I think that is a fait accompli with Michael Moore. When was the last time you saw him hanging with any potential Democratic candidates???  Example:  There is a big leftie event going on next week in Las Vegas -- The Yearly Kos, sponsored by the Daily Kos. You think Michael Moore is an invited guest? Nope. Think he would have been back in 2004? Abso-friggin'-lutely! But the unbearable embarrassment of being Michael Moore has been achieved so much so that none but the fringiest lefties would want to hook their prospects to his declining star power these days. Remember that Moore sincerely believed his Cannes festival winning so called documentary was going to win the election for the Democrats. No one likes to keep a loser around.

Newsman Brian Williams ends the NBC clip by adding, "These men, with catastrophic wounds are . . . completely behind the war effort," according to the lawsuit.

That would seem to lend credibility to the fact that the vet did not suddenly have a public change of heart about his support for the war and is now lying about it.  And yeah, $85,000,000 is a lot of money. Damon will never see anything close to that amount even if it does ultimately go to trial.  My guess.  They will settle for something in the mid-to-high 6 figure category without a trial.  Stay tuned. 

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I only wish I could sue president Bush for $85 million for selling us the Iraq war on false pretense and context.

 R_Flagg

Well that was fast! A notable lack of specifics topped off with a Traditional Leftie Loosie "so what you're sayin'" switcheroo there at the end, Dave. I never said anything about whether I think this case is valid or not. Nor whether I believe the plaintiff should be awarded $85,000,000. By this stage of the game, I think you are probably aware of my feelings on lawyers and civil law suits.

Anyway, with the amount of time it took you to read my post and the 56 (59) Deceits plus write your own, I'm thinking you should get some kind of a monetary judgment yourself if only for "speed reading and comprehension." Something tells me you only read the summary and none of the links as it took you approximately one half-hour to gobble up the lot of it plus composing your own response.

I am quite uninterested in replaying the Tubby Reifenstahl threads of two years gone by. I can scarcely remember the movie anymore. All that remains is a residual chuckle over memories of the pure unadultrated transparency of the thing that I paid nine bucks to see so that the MM afficionados on the TPG wouldn't continually ask, "HOW CAN YOU JUDGE IT IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT?" You can very easily do your own searching if you were actually interested in knowing the hows and whys of Moore's many distortions which go over and beyond mere political agenda into the puerile and the deceptive.

But I will give you one memory for you to do with as you will. The scene where Bush is teeing off on a golf course and a reporter asks something about a terrorist attack -- it's all so long ago and I'm sure it's one of the deceits. MM inserts that footage at a point where they've been Bush doesn't care about the troops. So when Bush answers in a vague manner about terrorism being bad, then smiles and says, "Now watch this drive" Moore was deceiving the audience. The viewer would reasonably believe that glib comment was in reference to our own troops in Iraq. The deceit: it was actually filmed much earlier and was in response to a comment about an event in Israel. I could look up the details. But then again, you just read all about it, right? And were unimpressed. That's just Michael Moore's way of demonstrating he has different political views, right?

If Dave Kopel is keeping up his website, he may be adding the distortion of an absconded NBC video interview with a suffering hospitalized vet which leads the viewer to believe said vet is bitching and moaning about the war when the vet actually holds the opposite view. I'd say that's significant.

Maybe something from Christopher Hitchens will interest you. Oh, wait a minute. This one was linked from the other site too. You probably already read it. Oh well, just in case you missed that link, here it is:

http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/

It's a good 'un.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

All I ever hear about this well-worn issue from conservatives is generalized claims that the film is full of lies and/or falsehoods but I have never been able to get a specific list of where in the film these lies are to be found. I would welcome any specifics as to where in the film Moore tells lies or is untruthful, as it may help me to understand this perplexing phenomenon

Been there and done that last year, Dave - guess you don't remember those discussions, or just decided that they weren't specific enough for you. 

So spend an hour or two here:  http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/index.htm

Jordan .

Susan, you never fail to make me laugh. I guess you've got me all figured out, I answered so fast that I couldn't have possibly read all of those 59 reasons in detail, hey you know I actually did, and I don't think I broke any world records, but whatever gets you through the night, as somebody once said. I actually do not feel that the "now watch this drive" thing was too horrific or shocking of a revelation, as I said, an unabashed political film with a definite agenda will in most cases play with context, is it entirely fair, no, but I feel that it's commonplace for the genre and to be expected. How do you even know that what Kopel says on that is true? Did YOU do YOUR own independant research on it, or just accept what Kopel says? You could do it if you cared to, or does that just apply to us "Leftie Loosies", as you so eloquently put it. You got me on that Leftie Loosie thing though. Those of us on the left are all un-thorough, we don't think independantly, and we all adhere to a doctrine that is "traditional" as you put it. You are truly the queen of unflattering mis-characterization. Moore is no saint, and I myself recognized some cheap shots from the very beginning. It ain't gospel, but I still believe it is much more true than untrue, which is why Moore has come out so unscathed. Also, I never made any insinuation that you felt this 85 million dollar case is warranted, when I said "hey we should all get 85 million" I was being a smartass and expressing MY doubts about the man's purity of intent. The only question I have for you is, other than him obviously being a kindred spirit in loathing Mr. Moore, what basis do you have to believe what Kopel says when the majority of his claims are just contradictory statements, with no evidence or context to back them. One of the ones that got me is where he just flat says "The Saudis were not flown out when all planes were grounded, but were flown out after commercial flights had resumed." Hello McFly, where is your evidence? Why should I believe this, because we both hate Michael Moore? This could be true, it could not, but I'm not going to believe it because I don't like Moore. Where is the science in that? If this guy had backed his claims, then I might really re-think my opinion of Moore. I have to wonder why he wouldn't do this if he really wants to be taken seriously across the board. I don't believe Moore for the most part because I like him, I believe him because he has so far presented the stronger case, warts, unfair context manipulation and all. I don't know why Susan you seem to have to suggest that I'm being disingenuous with my views or that I have not been thorough in my consideration, and I do think that this tendancy says quite a bit more about you than it does me. As for me, I have never doubted that you give your views careful consideration, and are quite thorough in your considerations, even though I usually do disagree with you. It is quite frustrating for me to feel that you look at me with such suspicion, when I am very concerned with the integrity of my views and do try hard to stay honest and true to what I believe. Is it possible that we see things differently, with intelligence and insight on both ends, or does one of us have to be full of crap for the world to make sense to you? I don't feel that you are being disingenuous in believing Kopel, just a little hasty. Why do my reasons for disagreeing with you here have to viewed as nefarious? I apologize if I came off as derisive and reading back I can see that I was somewhat, but I was just really surprised at the lack of evidence Kopel offers, and that this is accepted it seems, as pretty much gospel.

I think you read the summary only, Dave. That's all. For IF you had read the whole thing, you would have your answers.

For example to the McFly question of the Saudis, which btw, is amply covered in the 911 Commission Report. Take your time, go back to the website and CLICK ON THE LINKS not just the summary. Remember the part that has a 1-7 Table of Contents? If begins with:

1-2000 Election
2. Bush Presidency Through September 11
3. Saudis

If you click on #3, you will have a finely detailed and annotated report on the Saudis. If you want to dismiss Kopel based on the insufficient summary of points he would deal with in his COMPLETE report, fine. Do so. You can also find the answer to the "It's The Great Saudi Flyaway, Charlie Brown" question in the 9/11 Commissiion Report. Or for that matter, go to Richard Clarke's own statements about having given the permission to allow those Saudis out of the country, when and why. Did you really forget that stuff?

Yes, I did my own independent research two years ago when Michael Moore was a newsworthy name. I actually have a thick file on F9/11 including the transcript of the "documentary" film. Please don't make me resurrect the big ole thing just for the sake of reminding you about all those points made back in 2004.

I forwarded the 56 (59) Deceits link for you because you said, "I have never been able to get a specific list of where in the film these lies are to be found." I said it was a good starting point for you if you were interested in understanding how Moore uses distortions and avoids being sued. Jordan's link is also chock full of Moore's distortions from all of his work, not just F-9/11.

Seriously, Michael Moore has long since been discredited by his own team and I'm a little surprised you've not noticed his conspiciously absent uh... prominent form these days. I'm just trying to save you from embarrassment when you get involved in the campaign of 2008. Even Jimmy Carter and General Wesley Clark -- former FOMs -- have distanced themselves. I promise you if I were still a leftie myself, I would NEVER have been in Michael Moore's corner because of the blatant transparency of his modus operandi which, while possibly compelling to those with metasacized BDS or college students, is so easy to deconstruct. Why would anyone who is serious about their case want to affiliate themselves with MM?

But all of this is beside the point as usual. We begin with a story about a vet who is suing Michael Moore and veer off to Dave being offended by Susan's not taking his (non-specific) points seriously.

If I did, I guess I'd begin with the only one that's on point with the subject of this thread. The vet might be lying. Who's to say a double amputee wouldn't lie? Michael Moore may have accurately depicted the vet's view. And, as Roger Simon titled his piece, "which side are you on?" I've chosen mine and it wasn't even that difficult.

And if I had to identify the most frustrating aspect of responding to you, Dave, it is your LACK OF SPECIFICITY. Here are a few of the examples of the vagueness. Examples are useful.

No, I would not agree that the above statement is an accurate characterization of how I view the left. However, it is how I'd define those who still cling to a Michael Moore synthesis of historical events. Yes, I'd definitely concur with that fine distinction. I still view Christopher Hitchens and Marc Cooper as men of the Way Left for whom I have the highest respect for their willingness to weigh all angles of any given argument. They both, btw, have written wonderful negative pieces on Michael Moore. It's truly not a feature of an independent thinker to accept someone's false propositions just because they echo a general disdain you share. On the flip side, it is why I wouldn't hang my hat on the words of say, someone like a Michael Savage.

Lastly, I'm not "looking at you with suspicion," Dave. I just believe, that in your haste to rapidly discredit the MM discrediting contained within the 56 (59) Deceits, you ONLY READ THE SUMMARY and missed all the information you were unable to locate. Why not confess? I would understand.

The Queen,

Susan

PS  This is a good one too.  Tells you about Michael Moore screwing the Writer's Guild folk who worked for him. As you can see it is from the Left of Center magazine, The New Yorker.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/040216fa_fact7 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin