OpEdNews Op Eds        7/10/2004

Deception; Desperate Right Wing Attacks on Fahrenheit 9/11;

Author Unknown     Permalink
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
- Advertisement -


Deception; Desperate Right Wing Attacks on Fahrenheit 9/11; If you pile up enough excrement in front of something, you may block the view, but the fact is it's still just sh*t blocking the view. 

by Anthony Wade



If this keeps up, Michael Moore is going to have to start paying me. Every week, in the face of more and more Americans being awoken to the truth, we see more and more desperate tactics by the right to try and smear Fahrenheit 911. Initially, Christopher Hitchens was dispatched with hatchet in hand. The thought process was that because once upon a time he was a left leaning person, he would be above reproach. Unfortunately, his "review " was an exercise in excess, with very little substance. This week, we find David Kopel with a daring piece called "59 deceits in Fahrenheit 911 ". This deceptive article can be found here:


Now, being the eternal optimist, I was hoping that Mr. Kopel would have been from the objective, independent thinking line of reviewers. Imagine my disappointment. First, Mr. Kopel is the Research Director for something called the "Independence Institute. " Well, that sounds good, hearty, and American, doesn 't it? Until you actually go to their site and realize that it is nothing more than another conservative think tank trying to pass themselves off as non-partisan. Kopel 's own page glowingly links to the new NRA attempt to pretend to be a news organization so it can avoid McCain-Feingold and still spew their right to arm bears agenda (I think they actually do support the right to arm bears, and that 's the sad part). On the main page of editorials we find such middle of the road topics such as "Reagan dared to walk his talk " and "Are conservatives allowed to be funny? " Let me help you out with that one, conservatives make me laugh all the time, so yes, dare to be funny!

- Advertisement -

Mr. Kopel begins his assault on the truth by proudly stating that this article will soon be on the National Review Online site. I thought to myself, well, that sure sounds like a wholesome, middle of the road, middle America kinda site, maybe there is where I will find some objectivity. Unfortunately, I am saddened to report that the National Review seems less objective than the Independence Institute. On the main page you can show your support for the President by buying your own "W " hat as well as popular conservative tee shirts such as "Viva la Reagan Revolucion ". Oh well, undeterred, I plodded on through the more in this article, hoping for some semblance of fairness. Unfortunately, I was continually disappointed.

Kopel opens with some supposed questions from supporters of the movie. He offers no proof that these questions have actually come from any true supporters of the movie. He of course dismisses the first question as nonsense, because of the movie "is so permeated with lies that most of the scenes amount to lies. " He does grant some truth to the parts addressing the Patriot Act, but again dismisses the Iraq portions because it has "several outright falsehoods. " The alleged question is asking that even though there are lies in the movie, doesn 't it contain important truths nonetheless? This is very clever on Kopel 's part. The actual question being asked is that even considering the film can be taken as propaganda, because Moore makes no bones about his desire to have this film unseat the President, shouldn 't the truths contained be addressed. Kopel twists this into some kind of admission from the film supporters that indeed the film has lied. In fact, no one on the side of the film has ever stated that. This is a devious attempt to lie by Kopel, yet blame it on the people he is attacking. The answer though, reveals a consistent theme from the right since this movie threatened to open up. Dismiss it out of hand, by any means possible. Call it propaganda, but follow that up by saying, so don 't see it. Say that you found a lie here or there, do not substantiate that accusation, but again dismiss it out of hand. This has been tried for the past several weeks. Christopher Hitchens tried it, Bill O 'Reilly tried it, and now Kopel is trying it. By dismissing it out of hand, the hope is that some simply won 't go see it, and decide for themselves.

The second alleged question is phrased as such: "Second, say the Moore supporters, what about the Bush lies? " Basically, Kopel argues that two wrongs do not make a right, although he grants that the accusations about the Patriot Act are warranted. It is difficult to respond to such a long movie by disagreeing with everything. The hope that Kopel is banking on is that he can say that he trashed the Patriot Act, so therefore the whole article is balanced. Unfortunately, it does not pass the smell test, as we now will see, point by point.

Before going into the "deceptions ", Kopel feels compelled to paint Moore in as negative a light as possible. The bottom line is that if he lied, he lied. Readers do not need to know a quote taken out of context from 3 years ago, that serves no other purpose than to taint readers own judgment of the so called deceptions. Kopel then swears that if there are errors in the report, he will correct them, well thanks, we will see!

1) Moore opens with the celebration in 2000 by the Gore people. Kopel states somehow Moore has inferred that this was a scene where Gore was celebrating his Florida victory. Unfortunately Moore says no such thing. This makes this conjecture on Kopel 's part, not a lie on Moore 's part. Anyone who watched the election that night, or even the events following, know very well that Gore never had a chance to celebrate a Florida victory. To infer otherwise by Kopel is disingenuous and gives us an insight into where this article is going.

- Advertisement -

2) The second deception is described as such: " Moore thus creates the false impression that the networks withdrew their claim about Gore winning Florida when they heard that Fox said that Bush won Florida . " Really? I direct Mr. Kopel to the following link:


If you scroll down to 2:16 am, you will see the following quote: "At 2:16 a.m., the call was made: Fox News Channel, with Bush's first cousin John Ellis running its election desk, was the first to project Florida -- and the presidency -- for the Texas governor. Within minutes, the other networks followed suit. " This is exactly what Moore was stating. Another link here:


In the middle of this article we see the following quote: "The genesis of this call, and in particular the chronology of the ensuing echos are telling. The story began on election night at 2:16 AM. Fox News projected George W. Bush as winner of the Florida primary and the Presidential election. In a classic case of pack journalism that college professors will no doubt cite for years to come, ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN all followed Fox 's lead during the next four minutes, calling the election for Bush. " That is the truth, and that is what Moore was saying, regardless of the spin Kopel would like to put on it. What is quite telling however, is the glossing over of Ellis, by Kopel. In this same analysis we see the following cogent points being made:

"Weeks later, Ellis ' former colleague, Bill Kovach, while defending Ellis ' integrity as a journalist, reported that Ellis had been in telephone contact with both Jeb and George W. Bush on election night prior to his making the election call. Even Kovach admitted this was improper.

It 's a clear a conflict of interest for a presidential candidate 's close and loyal first cousin, the nephew of a former U.S. President, to end up in a position to call the election for the U.S. national media? "

It would seem to me that these are the important points Mr. Kopel.

3) Deception 3 indicates that the statement made by CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin, that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential vote, "under every scenario Gore won the election. " Is somehow misleading because he didn 't quote other sources as saying the opposite. Again, Moore makes no bones about his slant in this film. He is not required to show every opposing view. The question is, was that clip inaccurate? The answer is a resounding no. There are reports claiming over 200,000 disenfranchised African American voters. There were reports of people expunged from the rolls based on bogus criminal records and many other improprieties. There were reports of obviously democratic senior citizen votes being switched to Buchanan. These are not in dispute Mr. Kopel.

4) Mr. Kopel, was Katherine Harris in charge of the vote count AND Bush 's Florida campaign co-chair AND did she eventually certify an incomplete vote count? Those are the salient points. The attempts to misdirect by pointing out a number like 1,100, which does not take into account all of the reports of disenfranchisement, is again quite transparent. The number is not 1,100, it is over 200,000. Moore did not say that the purge targeted black felons; the obvious point is that minorities are more likely to be the felons who are being purged.

5) I am not sure where the "lie " is here. Kopel does not disagree with the near riot on inauguration day, because he cannot. Moore then points out the trouble Bush had during his first several months in office. Kopel then points to the passage of the tax cut, which happened around the same time as Jefford 's switch, as a success by Bush. The No Child Left Behind initiative has yet to be funded correctly, so trumpeting this as a triumph does not seem fair. Either way, despite these two monumental successes, one cannot argue that things were not going well for Bush at the start. This is a lie, or a deception by Kopel, not Moore.

6) Moore correctly states that 42% of the time during his first 8 months, GW Bush was on vacation. This means he was not at work, in DC. If Kopel has no problem with GWB working from home, then I guess we disagree philosophically. Either way, despite hanging out with Tony Blair to concoct wars, I view this time as "vacation " as I am sure most clear thinking people would. Thus another lie from Kopel. The fact that weekends were included by Moore in the calculation seems to infer that being President is a Monday-Friday job, which I disagree with Mr. Kopel about.

7) The second "lie " in this portion, seems to revolve around another assumption made by Kopel. The "boilerplate " terrorism response followed by the "now watch this drive, " comment. Three points. One, I do not like a President that gives "boilerplate responses " to a subject that he pretends to take so seriously. Two, the comment of this is what you get when you catch the President on the golf course, is inane. Thirdly, Moore never tries to convince you that this response was specifically about 911, but rather it is a look at how sincere this man can look when talking about ANY terror, then in the next breath be joking.

8) Deception 8 is a pathetic. Kopel now wants us to psychically know what Moore is feeling about terror, based on a 3-year-old quote. Because this quote makes light of the threat of terror, he thus concludes that the scene about the 911 attacks in the movie must therefore be a lie? Are you serious? Then to delve further into nonsense, he makes a comparison of Moore showing this scene to a hypothetical case of a Klansman making a film feigning admiration for Rosa Parks. This shows, only at number 8, how low Kopel is willing to go.

9) Deception 9 also pushes the limits of sensibility. Moore correctly shows how the President sat in that classroom with a "deer in the headlights " look for several minutes while people were dying all over the country. I could care less if the Principal of the elementary school thought this conveyed leadership. It conveyed a hopeless, unsure, and confused look. How exactly the principal 's reaction makes Moore a liar is beyond me.

10-12) These deceptions now start to show the true stupidity of this effort. Mr. Kopel, when Moore says "Or perhaps he just should have read the security briefing that was given to him on August 6, 2001 that said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes. " he is being sarcastic. No offer of proof is needed, because I am sure Moore believes that he did read the brief. The purpose of the sarcasm is to show the lies of this administration that said emphatically that "no one could have envisioned terrorists using planes as weapons ", when in fact there was briefings about it. Those briefings were being kept confidential in the hopes that no one would find out. So your statement of: " Moore 's assertion appears to be a complete fabrication. " is baseless, and quite frankly silly. The second "lie " here is "that the memo's title was offered as an excuse for not reading the memo ". Again, maybe conservatives can 't be funny, but this was obviously sarcasm, not an assertion of truth. It was done to again show the silliness of the administration saying that a report entitled "bid Laden determined to attack in the United States " was somehow vague. The third lie here is "omitting that the memo was equivocal, and that the hijacking warning was something that the FBI said it was "unable to corroborate. " Mr. Kopel still seems to think that Moore must include all opinions, including Kopel 's for the film to avoid being accused of lying. Regardless of whether Mr. Kopel believes that this assertion from the FBI gets the administration off the hook for lying about knowing about planes being used as weapons, or about any of the previous discussed issues, it does not prove a lie on Mr. Moore 's part.

13-16) The right wants to continue to muddle this issue. The facts are these. Despite when they left the country, Saudis, including members of bin Laden 's family were flown around on 09/13, by the FBI, when I, Ricky Martin, and the rest of the citizenry were not allowed to fly. If this doesn 't bother you as an American, then we respectfully disagree but let everyone make up their own minds without muddling the facts. Here is a link asserting this:


The salient point this time is that the administration LIED about the existence of these flights until recently caught. Kopel then finishes this segment with more misdirection, a tactic used frequently by the right. Because Clark has become a cause celeb with his turning on the administration, does not remove the fact that he worked for this administration when these decisions were being reached.

17) This deals with the Bath deletion by the White House. Insisting that Moore has lied, Kopel states that it was Bath 's own money, not the Saudi 's money that was invested in Arbusto. For proof, Kopel cites such bastions of fair-minded press as The Weekly Standard and Newsweek (which has been cited for errors on Moore 's own website). Well, why didn 't you say so Mr. Kopel? If the Weekly Standard says it is so, it must be. Actually, lets quote Time magazine about Bath , shall we?

"Time magazine described Bath in 1991 as "a deal broker whose alleged associations run from the CIA to a major shareholder and director of the Bank of Credit & Commerce." BCCI, as it was more commonly known, closed its doors in July 1991 amid charges of multibillion-dollar fraud and global news reports that the financial institution had been heavily involved in drug money laundering, arms brokering, covert intelligence work, bribery of government officials and --here's the kicker --aid to terrorists. "

Glad we were able to clear that up. Yes, I am sure the White House didn 't cross out his name for any particular reason.

18) Prince Bandar worked both sides of the aisle? The heck you say! I never would have imagined that Saudi Arabia 's ambassador would have tried to work with a democratic president as well; I mean that is his job right? What was your point again Mr. Kopel, oh that 's right you don 't have one. This movie is dealing with the Bush administration, not the Clinton administration. If you wish to do a documentary on that subject, get in line. Moore does not lie, by discussing Bush 's involvement.

19-20) If Mr. Kopel thinks that getting inside information about a company you own, selling off the stock, and avoiding huge losses is appropriate behavior, then again we disagree. The fact is that the source Mr. Kopel uses is the National Review Online, certainly not a non-partisan outfit. Try again.

21-23) The Carlyle Group does have many people involved. By discussing Bush Sr., who essentially was their ambassador to Saudi Arabia , and choosing not to discuss Soros, does not make Moore a liar, nor does it remove the connection to the Bush 's. The point about the cancellation of the crusader rocket is also not a valid point, as this was cancelled after public scrutiny about its out-datedness. It also wasn 't just canceled, it was ordered of the US Army to "come up with alternatives " to the system. I am curious who got the replacement project. Notwithstanding this, the facts are still that 237 million was made in one day by the Carlyle Group by taking US Defense public. Kopel tries to muddy the issue again by saying that the bin Ladens withdrew prior to going public, but that holds no relevance. Attempting to discredit the 1.4 billion dollar quote from Moore , Kopel argues that Bush Sr. did not join Carlyle Advisory Board until 1998. Of course, what he is omitting is that those close to the Bushies, such as Carlucci and Baker, had been involved in Carlyle since the late 1980 's.

24) Although Moore himself did not state the 860 billion number, and the fact that he asked for an estimate, I will concede this as the first possible mistake made. I won 't go as far as to call it a lie, and I would appreciate any INEDPENDENT source to validate the true amount.

25) Hmm, it seems that Kopel is accusing the Secret Service Guard in the film of lying here. That is who said "Uh, not usually, no sir " when asked if this was a normal function. I am inclined to believe him, who does the job, than Kopel 's source, Debbie Schlussel, a conservative political commentator and columnist, as described by her own website.

26) Deception 26 takes us back to that voice of reason, Christopher Hitchens. The "review " he did can be found here:


My rebuttal can be found here:


I have no intention on rehashing all of this in this piece. Suffice to say that again, Mr. Kopel has chosen an unreliable source to be his redeeming proof of lies on Moore 's part. The truth is that Hitchens lied throughout his article.

27-31) I will try to summarize these points because again, Kopel 's sources are the ever non-partisan NY Post (owned by FOX WePretendtobeNews Channel 's Rupert Murdoch), the Weekly Standard, and the previously discussed Isikoff. Essentially these supposed inaccuracies revolve around the Unocal issue. First, Moore never asserts that Bush met with them in 1997, merely that he was Governor of Texas at the time they visited. Secondly, Kopel boldly states, "According to Fahrenheit , Afghanistan 's new President, Hamid Karzai, was a Unocal consultant. This is absolutely false. " Well, I am sorry Mr. Kopel, but it is absolutely true:


The source Mr. Kopel cites here is the Knight-Ridder Washington Bureau. I can only assume that Mr. Kopel was hoping readers wouldn 't still be checking these links this far into the article, but I was. The quote from this source is as follows:

            It alleges that Karzai had been a Unocal consultant.

A Unocal spokesman denies it. "Karzai was never, in any capacity, an employee, consultant or a consultant of a consultant," Barry Lane said. He said Unocal also never had a plan to build a Caspian Sea pipeline.

What's true in the movie is that Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan , was a Unocal consultant in the mid-1990s, Lane said.

Oh, I see, a Unocal spokesperson denies it, you cover it up by pretending Knight-Ridder said it, and Moore is a liar. What would you expect a Unocal spokesperson to say?

32) On this point, to say that Bush was not sympathetic to the Taliban is again, a lie. Here is a link to an editorial from the LA Times, from May of 2001:


33-34) Kopel is citing the already discussed Hitchens piece filled with lies. To make matter worse, Kopel compounds the lies. Moore 's statement was not Osama is innocent, it was people are innocent until proven guilty, a concept that this administration needs to try and remember. Then, trying to again muddy the issue, Kopel points to inconsistencies in Moore 's comments about Afghanistan as proof that he has lied. The problem is that the statements are not inconsistent. On one hand Moore , felt that the war in Afghanistan was not warranted, which is his right. In his movie he is trying to make a point that since Bush thought the war was so important, why didn 't he commit more ground troops. By stating this Moore is not saying HE wanted more ground troops, he was just pointing out the inconsistencies of the administration.

35) I refer readers to my rebuttal of Hitchens piece where I cite sources telling the truth about what is going on in Afghanistan . Just another lie, but from Kopel and Hitchens.

36) A cheap shot is not a lie. Grow up Mr. Kopel. Ashcroft lost to Carnahan, not his wife. His wife was never put on the ballot. Either way, the voters at best chose a woman with no political experience over Ashcroft.

37) If Goss said he had an "800 " number which caused confusion because it was an 877 number, then he had misspoken, not Moore . I personally laughed the hardest at this point of the film. It should be noted that here is where Kopel throws in his non-partisanship by agreeing with Moore on the horrendous Patriot Act. I will say though if this was an honest mistake on Goss ' part, then I could see this as a cheap shot, but not a lie.

38-39) This is the Moore quote where he says Saddam never attacked the US , or murdered an American citizen. Mr. Kopel apparently does not like the parsing of words that Moore chooses. He clearly states, "murder ", as opposed to kill. In a desperate attempt to pin something on him, we are told that harboring a known terrorist, over ten years ago, is akin to direct murder. I do not buy that line of rationale and will leave it up to the readers to decide. Kopel continues on though citing the National Review again as a credible source. The bottom line on this is that even if you felt Saddam deserved what he got because of weak terrorist ties 10 years ago, that does not remove the fact that Bush did not use that as his rationale for war. He lied.

40) This deals specifically with Moore 's assertion that Saddam never threatened to attack America . Obviously, Moore is referring to events leading up to the invasion, you know, this year, maybe last year. Unfortunately, to prove Moore lied, Kopel looks at every comment Saddam ever said, and found some threatening ones from many years ago. Again, this does not pass the smell test, as Bush never said those were the reasons we were going to war. I know that right loves to confuse the issue and blur the lines but Bush said WMD, and there are none, deal with it. Further illustrating the bias Mr. Kopel wants to use, his source here is none other than Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, who has already been discredited on this very subject, by multiple sources, including the 911 commission. CIA experts have said of this connection and the Hayes "proof "

"It's disgusting," said Vincent Cannistraro, the former CIA chief of counter-terrorism. "It's bullshit," said Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst who served in the agency's Near East division.

41-42) This deals with the already debunked connection that never existed between Saddam and al Qaeda. This is a fact, corroborated by the Republican led 911 commission, yet the right wants to continue to hammer the lie down our throat. Again as his source, he quotes directly from Hayes book about this phony link. I am sorry Mr. Kopel, but quoting a discredited right wing individual, who works for the Weekly Standard, is not my idea of "proof ". For a more detailed explanation of the nonsense this man has put forth, please go to this article, ironically enough by Isikoff:


To finish off this part, Kopel again states a lie:

"Whether you agree with the staff report or the critics, there is no dispute that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with al Qaeda, an organization whose only activity was terrorism. Fahrenheit dishonestly pretends that there was no relationship at all. "

Hmm, I am not sure how many times we have to go over this, but THERE WAS NO RELATIONSHIP! Period, end of story. To continue to assert there was one, in the face of official reports to the contrary is to continue to LIE. Your source is the Weekly Standard, again. The 911 commission stated NO relationship. That isn 't being misrepresented, it is a fact. Here is a detailed breakdown of this deception:


43) Iraq before the liberation is a topic for debate. Moore makes everything seem rosy I agree but I also think the other extreme being put forth by the right is equally unbalanced. Were there happy children in Iraq prior to this invasion, I would have to think yes, there was. Are some of them dead now because of this invasion, again, I would have to say yes. Additionally, I am not sure where Kopel thinks all of these happy Iraqis are to state his case since it is a known fact that we have not been welcomed as liberators. Kopel then quotes another NY Post article where it is intimated that we should be blowing up far more countries than Iraq , regardless of whether children are playing with kites there or not. Point taken Mr. Kopel, point taken.

44-45) I am not sure how this qualifies as two lies, especially when it isn 't even one, but here he is pointing out that Moore 's footage infers that our pilots only hit women and children. Now, obviously that is not what the footage infers. I am sure that Moore believes that somewhere a target they meant to hit, got hit. This is an area that so few on the right want to address though and that is the true cost of war. The news estimates are that over 11,000 civilians have died in this invasion. Those are all people who were guilty of nothing more than being born in a country with a lot of oil. I know you do not want to look at them dying, but you should. Either way, this is clearly not a lie or deception by Moore . We obliterated a wedding during this war. By the way, the sources here are again, the Hitchens piece, and the Weekly Standard.

46) Here it seems that Mr. Kopel wants to produce the movie himself. Moore is making a statement in this part about the so-called "coalition of the willing " that Bush likes to trumpet. He chooses humor as his vehicle. To deliver the laugh, he focuses on countries such as Palau , instead of England , which everyone knows is on board with us. For the record, Spain should really not be considered as part of the coalition anymore, should it Mr. Kopel? Moore 's point is well taken. We have no real coalition, outside of England . The rest are stating they are for the war and sending a handful of soldiers at best, and in some cases none. They are in the coalition because of economic reasons, which is why I have often referred to them as the coalition of the bribed.

47) Using the Debbie Schlussel source again, Kopel now expects us to believe that the media has not given this President a free pass on this war? The complicity of the media is a well-known and widely accepted truth that Moore correctly points out. Whether Jennings actually opposed the invasion, does not belie what his network did not do, in holding this President accountable.

48-50) I have heard enough rhetoric about this to know one thing, Bush will have no problem using veterans for his photo ops, but once it is over, he cuts their benefits just as quickly. Doing a simple google search, all of these hits came up on the first page. I have no intention of splitting hairs with Mr. Kopel over this. Read the truth about this administration and decide for yourself.






51-54) If Kopel is correct, I would have no problem saying that Moore is inaccurate. However, whether it is one congressperson or three, it was a valid point Moore was making. The second point is on Representative Kennedy and I am sorry but the quotes that Kopel uses makes Moore 's point. Kennedy agreeing to pass out literature that we know very well he never passed out, is not making Kopel 's point. Thirdly, Castle was presented as a Congressperson that would not even talk to Moore , never was it said that he wouldn 't send his kids. Maybe if he had bothered to talk to Moore , he could have told him. The fourth distortion here according to Kopel is a "False impression that Congressional families are especially unlikely to serve in Iraq . " He bases this on the fact that there are 102 veterans in the Congress. This is the misdirection approach again, as Moore never said that the people in Congress were not veterans, he was saying that if they believed so heavily in this war they should send their kids. The point about how many are veterans is never made by Moore , so I am unsure how this is a "lie " by him.

55) Quoting from the conservative personality, Schlussel, again, Kopel makes the argument that because there are other military mothers out their who disagree with Lila Lipscomb, Moore is somehow lying by showing her story. This is so outrageous that Mr. Kopel owes Ms. Lipscomb an apology, as does Schlussel. If the woman didn 't want to be in the movie, you could say it was exploitive. The fact that you do not like what she is saying does not make it exploitive. It was the most touching, heart-wrenching scene in this movie that moved most to tears, at least those with hearts.

56) I had never heard of Life for Relief and Development until Kopel pointed them out for me. A google search revealed several hits describing this as a charitable organization with a mission, which is "dedicated to alleviating human suffering around the world regardless of race, color or cultural background. " Oddly, I found no stories about any link to terrorist organizations or money laundering, which is a very serious charge. I would welcome Mr. Kopel to supply a reputable source, unlike the right wing organizations used to write this article, and I will certainly look into it. Jim McDermott is a duly elected representative of the people of Washington . His opinion does count, despite whatever unfounded allegations Mr. Kopel, through Ms. Schlussel wish to lodge toward him.

57) How exactly is showing Brittany Spears being deceitful because he didn 't show celebrities on the other side? Oh that 's right, it 's not. By the way, calling people like Sarandon and Penn brain-dead bimbos doesn 't help your cause. There is a difference between social activism, and blindly accepting what your leaders say, which is what Ms. Spears was advocating.

58) Deception 58 accuses Moore of supporting the terrorists. It accuses him with no real evidence. Two points for Mr. Kopel:

In the 1770 's we were not fighting for a constitutional democracy. The constitution was not written until 1787. We were fighting against being unfairly occupied, something the Iraqis know all to well.

The insurgents in Iraq are fighting for their country. That is what Moore is pointing out. The fact that they do not like, nor want our form of government may be confounding to you, but it is what they live and die for. To say that because Moore points this out, means he doesn 't support the troops is nonsense. The right still doesn 't get this major point. You can completely support the troops and completely hate the policy, which puts them in harms way based on lies. Learn that Mr. Kopel.

59) I was hoping for an easy one, but now Kopel has lost it. Deception 59 accuses Moore of "Working with Terrorists to Distribute His Film ". His proof is based on the distributor in the mideast and Moore 's desire to not have it blacklisted there. I cannot answer for Michael Moore, despite this long rebuttal. I will leave this answer to him, as I am sure he will address it before long, since it is a serious accusation.

I want to be very clear, I do not know Michael Moore, nor do I work for him, although some may argue that by this point I should. I have seen this movie, have my own mind, and made it up as the movie went along. I simply think that all Americans should do the same. The right would have this movie censored. They would have you dismiss it out of hand as propaganda, so you won 't see it. They will send out their emissaries who are from the right, such as Kopel. You should not be confused by their propaganda either. Just go see the movie and decide for yourselves. If this President having close business ties to the Saudis, then having the FBI fly them around the country when you were banned from flying doesn 't bother you, then you may dismiss this movie. If having a President pretend to be serious on terror then drop the façade and golf on doesn 't bother you, then you may dismiss this movie. Just please, don 't dismiss this movie because of the Weekly Standard, Christopher Hitchens, National Review Online, Debbie Schlussel, or any of the other biased, right wing sources that Kopel has used here to prop up his misdirection.

Anthony Wade is an independent writer from New York .

Email to takebacktheus@gmail.com

Website: ibtp.org


The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Editor
- Advertisement -