Moore sued for falsifying newspaper headline for movie

[ThatGuy]

A_Wanderer, I'd like to know of a completely unbiased documentary. Seriously, please name one.

Edited to add:

Also, Anthony. I completely agree with everything you've said in this thread.

 

[Diemen]

Re: Re: Forgive me for being blunt.

Gee,

You remember this post:

"Imminent threat?"

The difference being "imminent threat?" was in direct response to your post. If I recall correctly, my initial comment on the US not going in mainly for the benefit of the Iraqi people wasn't even directed towards you.

 

[Diemen]

So tell me what Bush has KNOWINGLY said that is false?
WMD in Iraq is not one because the President had intelligence information that backed up each of his claims regardless if some of the intelligence later turned out to be inaccurate.

Even though it's pointless debating with you, I will mention this, just to get it out there.

I for one find it extremely hard to believe that the Bush administration didn't in some way know that his information wasn't as rock solid as it should be, as only a couple years back all reports indicated that Saddam was well contained and unable to build any arsenal or even threaten his neighbors. Couple that with Richard Clarke's statements (yes, I know you'll immediately try to discredit him), and reports that Cheney's office was heavy-handed in directing the flow of information to and from the CIA and FBI, and I am extremely skeptical that no lies (as you define them) were told.

A scenario I find more likely is that the Bush administration felt it necessary to go to war, whether or not the evidence of WMD was solid. Now they very well may have wanted to go to war solely because Saddam failed to verifiably disarm and thus broke the UN Resolution, but they knew that this alone would not convince the American people to go, especially since the rest of the UN wasn't eager to take action. Knowing they would not be able to convince the American people to go to war without additional evidence, they presented what they had and beefed it up a bit. And kept drilling and drilling in the message of an imminent and growing threat from Saddam, and planted the 9/11 pixie dust by hinting at Al Qaeda ties.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Okay ThatGuy, I would say that the World At War series is a very good documentary that gives the facts with minimal bias, presents them in an appropriate way that does not demonize either side, it shows WW2 for what it was. Michael Moore is a propagandist and not a documentarian and the way that he distorts the facts and blantantly lies about some issues is a testament to this. He is using film as a medium to spread a blatant political message by demonizing his opponents, if you count this as serious documentary then Triumph of the Will or Der ewige Jude arent propaganda pieces either.

I strongly suggest that you read 'Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man'.

 

[ThatGuy]

Every documentary is subjective because it is produced by people with their own biases. There is no way around it, even if the filmmakers try to be balanced. In the end, what you see on the screen is the filmmakers' version of events as they see it, and nothing more.

And I'll never understand why documentaries are now supposed to "present both sides" and be "fair." When did this become law when making documentaries? The first documentary wasn't even truthful. Do you know the story? Imagine if Michael Moore tried to get away with that?

Edited because you edited while I was responding:

I don't think it's fair to compare a film about one American president's unfitness for office with films that glorify the Aryan "race" and demonize the Jewish race to justify the Jews' extermination. Apples and oranges, and frankly little different than comparing someone to a Nazi to prove a point.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

A_Wanderer, I'd like to know of a completely unbiased documentary.

While it's true people who make documentaries usually do it with their own agenda in mind and do slant things in their favor, perhaps avoiding adding things that would not favor their points, there is a difference between that and outright falsifying of documents as Moore has done.

 

[STING2]

Even though it's pointless debating with you, I will mention this, just to get it out there.

I for one find it extremely hard to believe that the Bush administration didn't in some way know that his information wasn't as rock solid as it should be, as only a couple years back all reports indicated that Saddam was well contained and unable to build any arsenal or even threaten his neighbors. Couple that with Richard Clarke's statements (yes, I know you'll immediately try to discredit him), and reports that Cheney's office was heavy-handed in directing the flow of information to and from the CIA and FBI, and I am extremely skeptical that no lies (as you define them) were told.

A scenario I find more likely is that the Bush administration felt it necessary to go to war, whether or not the evidence of WMD was solid. Now they very well may have wanted to go to war solely because Saddam failed to verifiably disarm and thus broke the UN Resolution, but they knew that this alone would not convince the American people to go, especially since the rest of the UN wasn't eager to take action. Knowing they would not be able to convince the American people to go to war without additional evidence, they presented what they had and beefed it up a bit. And kept drilling and drilling in the message of an imminent and growing threat from Saddam, and planted the 9/11 pixie dust by hinting at Al Qaeda ties.

A couple of years ago, Saddam had a total military force of 387,000, over 2,700 tanks, as well as unaccounted for stocks of Anthrax, Mustard Gas, and the means to deliver those agents, just to name a few things. Saddam had the 13th largest military force in the world, much larger than anything Kuwait or Saudi Arabia had.

The SERIOUS problems the United Nations inspectors had when they were forced out in November 1998, still existed as problems at the start of the Bush administration. Where do you get the idea that somehow those problems were magically resolved?

The condition of sanctions and the embargo against Saddam were falling to pieces. If Saddam was so contained as you say, why was he able to sell over 4 BILLION dollars worth of oil on the black market in the year prior to the start of the war?

I'll say this again, The United Nations in the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire authorized the use of military force if Saddam failed to verifiably disarm! These resolutions and the ceacefire agreement were all passed by the United Nations.

If the use of force against Saddam if he failed to verifiably disarm was not as you say a strong enough reason to go to war, the United Nations would NEVER have approved the resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement that in fact authorized the use of military force if Saddam failed to disarm.

More importantly, it has never been incumbent upon any member state of the United Nations to prove that Saddam had WMD X, Y, or Z. The terms of the Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement make it the responsiblity of SADDAM and SADDAM alone to prove to the international community that he had fully disarmed of all WMD.

The Central case for war against Iraq has always been Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD. Liberals like to cherry pick various pieces of intelligence mentioned in speeches AFTER the decision to go to war was already made, but the fact remains that the coalition went to WAR NOT ON SINGLE PIECE of intelligence about building x or y or campground a, but based on the overwhelming documentation by UNITED NATIONS inspectors on Saddam's failure to disclose and account for thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas, thousands of Bio/Chem capable shells among several things that Saddam had not verifiably disarmed of.

The international community had tried for 12 long years to achieve full verifiable disarmament of Saddam through peaceful means and failed. Countries like Ukraine, Belarus, Kazaksthan and South Africa all successfully verifiably disarmed of their stocks in under a year. Saddam had the means to do this and clear example to follow but he chose not to. That is why war became a necessity as it had become the only way to insure that Saddam was fully disarmed.

The President went to the United Nations on September 12, 2002 and presented the facts of Saddams failure to comply with the UN resolutions and why action was necessary based on that fact. In October, the US congress gave the President full authority to use military force to disarm Saddam. In November the United Nations passed resolution 1441, further authorizing the use of military force if Saddam failed to comply with his obligations. There was never a point during those 2 months that the American public or the United Nations wavered in their general support to insure that Saddam was disarmed by all means necessary. Even Syria voted in support of resolution 1441!

 

[Klaus]

Sting

The SERIOUS problems the United Nations inspectors had when they were forced out in November 1998

That you forget to mention is that the inspectors had to leave because of airstrikes against Iraq and Saddam didn't let them back into the country after that.
And in this Iraq war there were successfull UN Inspectors but they had to leave the country again because war started.

 

[STING2]

Sting

That you forget to mention is that the inspectors had to leave because of airstrikes against Iraq and Saddam didn't let them back into the country after that.
And in this Iraq war there were successfull UN Inspectors but they had to leave the country again because war started.

You forget to mention why the airstrikes were needed and the UN inspectors report following the airstrikes reporting how the inspections process had failed to accomplish its goals because Saddam was unwilling to cooperate.

The UN inspectors who went back in 2002 were totally unsuccessful in dealing with the problems listed in their report from 1998, once again because Saddam was unwilling to cooperate. The problems listed in the UN report from 1998 still existed in March 2003 despite all efforts to resolve those problems peacefully. That is why military action became a necessity.

 

[Scarletwine]

"The UN inspectors who went back in 2002 were totally unsuccessful in dealing with the problems listed in their report from 1998, once again because Saddam was unwilling to cooperate. The problems listed in the UN report from 1998 still existed in March 2003 despite all efforts to resolve those problems peacefully. That is why military action became a necessity."

Revisionist history and BS to boot. Sadaam was cooperating if you listen to Hans Blix.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

Oh sure, he 'co-operated' after they had to keep giving him more and more deadlines, which gave him time to hide or destroy everything, as a drug dealer flushes his stash when the cops are at the door. I used to laugh my ass off when I'd hear of these "UN inspectors' giving him more time.

 

[zoney!]

No you misread that. It said there WAS a line reading that way in the paper, but it was over a 'letter to the editor' one individual person had written, on the back page, and came with a disclaimer that it did not reflect the views of the paper. Moore falsified the paper's headline to look as if this was a big story they had written and put on the front page! That's FRAUD!

Yes, it was over a letter to the editor...but who writes the headlines over the letter to the editors? The letter writers? NO...the paper!

Yes, in fact the dates were smudged. I bet Moore settles the $1 lawsuit, unlike Bush who will continue to lie, or, send our troops into a war situation based on incorrect information.

someone lied about the WMDs - and in the end, Bush is the Commander in Chief, and told us this is why we need attack Iraq - it was NEVER sold to the American public as a humanitarian mission...It was sold as a way to protect the world againt terror and potential attack using WMDs - but now that there are no WMDs, and the Iraq link to terrorism is weak....the Bush admin will sell it off as a Humanitarian campaign....I guess, like Moore, make the situation fit the picture you want.

Back to the lies...I do not approve of lies, but, has anyone lost their lives due to Moore's movie touch ups?

 

[BluberryPoptart]

Yes, it was over a letter to the editor...but who writes the headlines over the letter to the editors? The letter writers? NO...the paper!

Sometimes, sometimes not. I've given my own letters headings which they have kept. But even if they did, they were only referring to the content of the person's letter, which they did not endorse, and even put a disclaimer on.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

But no matter, dragging something off the back page and making it look like a headline is still fraud. Your big stupid fat white man is a fucking fraud. Just like Bush! No more hero for you!

 

[STING2]

"The UN inspectors who went back in 2002 were totally unsuccessful in dealing with the problems listed in their report from 1998, once again because Saddam was unwilling to cooperate. The problems listed in the UN report from 1998 still existed in March 2003 despite all efforts to resolve those problems peacefully. That is why military action became a necessity."

Revisionist history and BS to boot. Sadaam was cooperating if you listen to Hans Blix.

Name one thing that is an example of revisionist history or BS? Name one problem listed by UN inspectors in 1998 that Saddam helped to resolve in 2002/2003?

Dr. Kay successfully found over 300 items involved in Saddam's WMD program that Saddam could have given to Hans Blix but never did. All 300 items were violations of resolution 1441.

Fact: After 12 years of inspections, Saddam had yet to comply with a single UN resolution! If you want an example of how a cooperative verifiable disarmament is completed successfully, look at the disarmament of Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and South Africa. Each of these countries successfully disarmed in under a year.

If Saddam was Mr. Cooperation as you claimed him to be, all of these issues would have been resolved years ago.

I guess I should not be surprised that some think Saddam is innocent on this particular issue though.

 

[STING2]

Yes, it was over a letter to the editor...but who writes the headlines over the letter to the editors? The letter writers? NO...the paper!

Yes, in fact the dates were smudged. I bet Moore settles the $1 lawsuit, unlike Bush who will continue to lie, or, send our troops into a war situation based on incorrect information.

someone lied about the WMDs - and in the end, Bush is the Commander in Chief, and told us this is why we need attack Iraq - it was NEVER sold to the American public as a humanitarian mission...It was sold as a way to protect the world againt terror and potential attack using WMDs - but now that there are no WMDs, and the Iraq link to terrorism is weak....the Bush admin will sell it off as a Humanitarian campaign....I guess, like Moore, make the situation fit the picture you want.

Back to the lies...I do not approve of lies, but, has anyone lost their lives due to Moore's movie touch ups?

Saddam never verifiably disarmed of all WMD which is why the war became a necessity. Today, Saddam has yet to account for numerous stocks and other materials as sited by the UN inspectors report from November of 1998. It is not incumbent upon the USA or any other country to find these stocks to prove the case for war. The Case for war is there because Saddam would not disclose where these stocks were regardless of whether they were intact or dismantled.

A Lie is when one knowingly says something that is false. To date, Bush has not lied about ANYTHING!

 

[verte76]

The irony is that I thought the WMD argument was weaker than a humanitarian argument. Yes, I remember the occasional mentions of torture and such, but they barely used this argument. After the fall of Baghdad I was shocked at some of of things I'd heard were going in Iraq and wondered why in hell's name no one told me these things!

 

[zoney!]

nothing drives home a point like using the word "fuck" !!!!!11!!!111!!!!!

But no matter, dragging something off the back page and making it look like a headline is still fraud. Your big stupid fat white man is a fucking fraud. Just like Bush! No more hero for you!

Who is calling Moore a hero?

And if this is directed at me...I do have a hero.

It is the first perosn I ever voted for when I turned 18. It is a person who raised two children, instilling strong values and educating them at every turn. It is a person who struggled through three lay-offs late in his "career"and the death of his wife, yet was still able to keep his children out of trouble and doing well in school - and providing for a college education for both of the children.

My sister and I may not be the most succesful people in the world (yet... ), but I do have to say, my hero is my father!

 

[ThatGuy]

A Lie is when one knowingly says something that is false. To date, Bush has not lied about ANYTHING!

Really?

 

[zoney!]

A Lie is when one knowingly says something that is false. To date, Bush has not lied about ANYTHING!

Yes, again, thank you for the definition.

Why do they keep changing the reason for why US troops are in Iraq everytime something is debunked (WMDs not found...Iraq/Al Qaeda connection WEAK at best)?

Bush's admin sure responds like someone caught in a lie.

 

[STING2]

Yes, again, thank you for the definition.

Why do they keep changing the reason for why US troops are in Iraq everytime something is debunked (WMDs not found...Iraq/Al Qaeda connection WEAK at best)?

Bush's admin sure responds like someone caught in a lie.

Why do you keep on screaming LIE, LIE, LIE, when there is not evidence of a Lie at all?

The Central case for the invasion is the same today as it was in March 2003. Saddam had failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD per the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement. 12 years of attempts to achieve disarmament without using military force had failed.

There continue to be thousands of stocks of WMD that Saddam has yet to account for. You conclude that because the USA has not found these stocks in Iraq that they don't exist. Iraq is the size of Texas and stocks of WMD could easily be hidden underground anywhere in the country. The UN inspectors already documented the existence of these stocks back in 1998 and I found it absurd that you want to presume they do not exist based on the word from a man like Saddam!

If you believe insuring that Saddam was disarmed, at what point would you be willing to use military force, in light of the fact that all peaceful attempts had failed to achieve the goal over the past 12 years. Also realize that the disarmament process when one is cooperating does not take that long at all. Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and South Africa all disarmed in under a year!

It is a fact that Saddam failed to Verifiably Disarm of all WMD and even the French would not dispute that.

By the way, I've never changed my reason for believing why the invasion of Iraq was the right course of action so I don't know where your getting that from.

 

[STING2]

Really?

If you had indisuptable evidence that proved otherwise, the President would be facing impeachment and the election would already be essentially over.

 

[Scarletwine]

If we had a democratic controlled House he freakin would be.

Afterall the R on the Senate Intelligence Commitee has stated he wouldn't have voted for the war. I think Dubyah is a modern day war criminal.

 

[zoney!]

By the way, I've never changed my reason for believing why the invasion of Iraq was the right course of action so I don't know where your getting that from.

Are YOU the Bush admin? I have said that the Bush Admin. keeps changing the tune.

There continue to be thousands of stocks of WMD that Saddam has yet to account for. You conclude that because the USA has not found these stocks in Iraq that they don't exist. Iraq is the size of Texas and stocks of WMD could easily be hidden underground anywhere in the country. The UN inspectors already documented the existence of these stocks back in 1998 and I found it absurd that you want to presume they do not exist based on the word from a man like Saddam!

So the UN inspectors confimred it five years ago...and then, in that time, Saddam has been to take "thousands of stock" and make them dissapear to the point that we have not been able to find anything? Suddenly, "thousands of stock" becomes a needle in a haystack?

I am not relying on Saddam's word here...I am going on the fact that little or nothing has appeared.

 

[STING2]

Are YOU the Bush admin? I have said that the Bush Admin. keeps changing the tune.



So the UN inspectors confimred it five years ago...and then, in that time, Saddam has been to take "thousands of stock" and make them dissapear to the point that we have not been able to find anything? Suddenly, "thousands of stock" becomes a needle in a haystack?

I am not relying on Saddam's word here...I am going on the fact that little or nothing has appeared.

Substances such as Anthrax, Mustard Gas, and other chemicals do not require large facilities for storage. All of this stuff could be buried and hidden in a matter of weeks.

Think about it this way, if I take a container of Juice or something from your house and buried it 100 feet underground somewhere over 200 miles from your house, what do you think your chances of ever finding that container again would be?

The WMD exist in some form, even someone like Hans Blix admitts that. The question is where is it and what condition is it in. If Saddam did dismantle the WMD, it was his responsibility to show the remains to prove that he had done so. If the WMD is still intact, it was Saddam's responsibility to hand it over for disposal by the inspectors. Saddam did neither. Saddam always had the capability to hide and bury his WMD so that it would be unlikely that anyone could find it.

It is not a question of whether or not Saddam has WMD, he does, the question is did he dismantle it as he claims or is it still intact. In either case, Saddam never did what he was required to do, which is why military action was justified.

 

[STING2]

If we had a democratic controlled House he freakin would be.

Afterall the R on the Senate Intelligence Commitee has stated he wouldn't have voted for the war. I think Dubyah is a modern day war criminal.

Nope, most democrats voted for the war in Iraq and for any impeachment to succeed one would have to have indisputable evidence that the President had lied.

In addition, the central case for war was not these various pieces of intelligence that later turned out to be inaccurate, but Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm. I understand many in here don't care about that fact, but it is true. The United States and other member states of the United Nations have been attempting to carry out the conditions of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire as well as insure that the UN resolutions were enforced for the past 12 years. These actions were never based on some little piece of intelligence here or there. It was an ongoing process in which all peacefull means of disarmament had been tried and failed. That is why war became a necessity in order to achieve the objective.

A lie is when one says something that they know to be false. There is no evidence the President has lied about anything.

To use a phrase similar to what John Kerry has used, simply saying the President lied does not make it so!

 

[Diemen]

In addition, the central case for war was not these various pieces of intelligence that later turned out to be inaccurate, but Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm. I understand many in here don't care about that fact, but it is true.

You know, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Because the way I saw it, and the way many others saw it, this war was sold to us as war based on the #1 threat to America, a great and increasing threat, and not just that, an imminent threat, and a threat from a terrible terrorist who had ties to Al Qaeda and who at any moment may decide to give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists to wreak havoc on our soil.

When the Bush administration made it's case, sure, they started off with Resolution 1441. But do you honestly think that that's what sold the American people and Washington on this?

BA: He failed to verifiably disarm - let's go get em!

Us: Um...why now?

BA: Because he's an imminent threat! Any day now he could hand over a biological warhead to a terrorist group, any day now he may strike us hard, we have satellite pictures showing locations of weapons bunkers and manufacturing plants. We have intelligence that shows ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda!

Us: Woah, really? I didn't realize he was this big a threat - we better get him!

The way they got this country to back the war was to create the illusion that Saddam was an imminent threat - more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda, and one that if we didn't deal with it immediately might mean an attack against us. The way they got us to back the Resolution authorized use of force was to show us those bunkers and weapons photos, and to constantly tell us what a great and increasing and powerful threat Saddam was.

If the Bush administration had not misled the country at all, then why would the majority of the American people, when polled before major ground operations began in Iraq, believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11?

But anyway, it's clear you believe your view, and we believe ours. So lets just leave at that, because it's clear after all these posts and threads that no one's opinion is changing on this matter.

 

[Dreadsox]

President Bush has publicly come out and said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I love how it is somehow his fault that Americans in whatever poll, think otherwise. Maybe they think otherwise because they believe the evidence has not been found.

We were under a biological attack after 9/11. Saddam had WMD capabilities based on information from the UN and intelligence agencies (Germany) from outside the US. The president acted because Iraq has been an active sponsor of terrorism, and because Iraq had not proved itself clean.

It was sold that we were in danger. I agree with you there, just not on your interpretation of the facts.

 

[STING2]

You know, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Because the way I saw it, and the way many others saw it, this war was sold to us as war based on the #1 threat to America, a great and increasing threat, and not just that, an imminent threat, and a threat from a terrible terrorist who had ties to Al Qaeda and who at any moment may decide to give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists to wreak havoc on our soil.

When the Bush administration made it's case, sure, they started off with Resolution 1441. But do you honestly think that that's what sold the American people and Washington on this?

BA: He failed to verifiably disarm - let's go get em!

Us: Um...why now?

BA: Because he's an imminent threat! Any day now he could hand over a biological warhead to a terrorist group, any day now he may strike us hard, we have satellite pictures showing locations of weapons bunkers and manufacturing plants. We have intelligence that shows ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda!

Us: Woah, really? I didn't realize he was this big a threat - we better get him!

The way they got this country to back the war was to create the illusion that Saddam was an imminent threat - more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda, and one that if we didn't deal with it immediately might mean an attack against us. The way they got us to back the Resolution authorized use of force was to show us those bunkers and weapons photos, and to constantly tell us what a great and increasing and powerful threat Saddam was.

If the Bush administration had not misled the country at all, then why would the majority of the American people, when polled before major ground operations began in Iraq, believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11?

But anyway, it's clear you believe your view, and we believe ours. So lets just leave at that, because it's clear after all these posts and threads that no one's opinion is changing on this matter.

Some quick points briefly:

Most people following the situation in Iraq throughout the 1990s and into the new century realized the difficulty and threat of the situation. For those that were not keeping up with or informed on the largest embargo and sanctions regime in history, as well as the difficult UN inspections, bombings and no flow zones, I could see how everything would be a surprise in September of 2002.

You often ask why now, and the answer to that is that there was no other way short of the use of military force to insure the disarmament of Saddam. Saddam had cooperated to some degree for 7 years up to the end of 1998. There was hope in 2002 that Saddam would comply with the UN inspectors and resolve the problems of disarmament that were left from November of 1998, but he did not.

In addition, the President's campaign to get approval to use military force only lasted for 1 month. The President laid down his firm decision and policy on September 12, 2002 and got the over 75% of Congress including the majority of Democrats to approve the use of military force to disarm Iraq on October 13, 2002.

It had already been agreed years ago and affirmed once again in 2002, that military force was indeed authorized if Saddam failed to meet his obligations. At no point before the war did a majority of Americans or Congressman disagree with this. The President had the support to remove Saddam if need be from day 1 (September 12, 2002) that he set his policy down, which was confirmed by the overwhelming vote in support of his policy in the October 13 vote, as well as the congressional elections taking place in November which were essentionally another show of support for the President.

But let me ask you a question:

Considering that all means to disarm Saddam peacefully had failed after 12 years despite some cooperation in the first 7 years, at what point would you vote to use military force to bring Saddam into compliance with UN resolutions, which were passed and authorized the use of force if Saddam failed to meet his obligations, because of the seriousness of the threat Saddam posed to the region and the world?

How long would you let one of the planets worst dictators go, without insuring they were fully disarmed as the United Nations had mandated? I remind you that the United Nations Inspectors reported that Saddam had failed to account for thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard gas, and thousand of bio/Chem capable shells. In light of that fact that Saddam will not resolve the issue, when do you think force would be justified to finally disarm Saddam as required by the United Nations resolutions?

 

[Diemen]

I would've at least waited until the job in Afghanistan was done and Bin Laden was captured.