Moore Facts (Part 3)? by Jeffrey J. Jackson (7/15/04)

The Land of the Free - A Conservative Politics Web Site

Books of Interest

*Author's Note: This is the first part of a multipart exposure of Michael Moore's lies hidden around nuggets of truth. Mr. Moore attempts to post a "Fact Sheet" on his website to debunk critics of his "documentary" While many of the items are indeed truthful, they are not true in the way Mr. Moore attempts to portray them. So without further delay here is Part 2. To read part 2, follow this link to Moore Facts 2?

Continuing on with Moore’s “FACTS”, we start part 3 with part 2 of Michael Moore’s list.

“Should he have held at least one meeting since taking office to discuss the threat of terrorism with his head of counterterrorism?”

Why is it presented: to show that President Bush is a liar, and idiot and an incompetent President

This is in reference to the vaunted Mr. Clarke. In fact, Richard Clark himself admitted that nothing he had to say would have prevented 9/11 in his testimony before the committee:

“… Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?

CLARKE: No.”

This is another one of Mr. Moore’s red herrings. He first presumes that Mr. Clarke had something relevant to say on the issue of the events of 9/11 and then implies that based on this assumption, that meetings with Mr. Clarke would have been fruitful. Fortunately, Mr. Clarke’s own words refute this claim.

NOTE that Mr. Clarke’s warnings centered around cyberterrorism. What would a meeting with a man that had it all wrong have to do with 9/11? The official White House statement is that Clarke used the one meeting he did get to push the threat of “cyberterrorism” and nothing else. Richard Clarke, to date, has provided no evidence to the contrary.

After all of this what would a meeting with an ineffective bureaucrat accomplish? Answer: nothing except give Michael Moore something to add to his “FACT” sheet. This is definition #2 of a lie, which is “to create a false or misleading impression”.

“Maybe Mr. Bush was wondering why he had cut terrorism funding from the FBI.”

Why is it presented: to show that President Bush is a liar, and idiot and an incompetent President and that that George Bush is responsible for 9/11.

Turning to the big board in the hope that Michael Moore has finally said something true we find…nope. He sites as his source John Dimsdale, who said “This question of resources will also come up in the commission's questioning of Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was brand-new on the job in the fall of 2001 and on September 10th cut the FBI's request for new counterterrorism money by 12 percent.”

However if one actually reads the source link he provides it says this:

“Counterterrorism Equipment Grants:
The Budget also proposes to reduce funding for counterterrorism equipment grants by $65,000,000 leaving $44,400,000 in 2003. As of June 2001 was operating with an unobligated balance of $180,000,000 which represents two years of appropriated funding. OJP has been unable to obligate this money because Congress has requested that the states submit comprehensive state-wide preparedness plans as a condition of receiving funding. Only one state plan has been received; the other plans are expected in 2002.”

First of all, counterterrorism spending was not cut. Counterterrorism equipment grants to the states were cut because the states had not done what they were required to do. Note that those are two entirely separate issues. Counterterrorism equipment grants is only a part of counterterrorism spending. Michael Moore provides no evidence to back up his claim that over all counterterrorism spending decreased as he claims.

Secondly, these requirements were made by Congress NOT President Bush. The sum of $180,000,000 was sitting around, unused (2 years of spending) and why? Because the States had not submitted their plans.

Michael Moore’s own source trumps his allegation that Bush caused 9/11 by cutting spending. We see clearly that Congress and the States however were responsible for not being prepared. Thank you Mr. Moore for making that one so easy.

This claim actually falls under definition 1 which is “to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive”

“The security briefing that was given to him on August 6, 2001, said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes.”

Why is it presented: to show that President Bush is a liar, and idiot and an incompetent President and that that George Bush is responsible for 9/11.

Here Mr. Moore is again using a truth and attempting to link it to events which were not mentioned in either of his sources to create a half-truth, or the assumption that hijacked planes were going to be flown into buildings.

He sites Clarke J. Scott saying “The Aug. 6, 2001, document, known as the President's Daily Brief, has been the focus of intense scrutiny because it reported that bin Laden advocated airplane hijackings, that al-Qaida supporters were in the United States and that the group was planning attacks here.” And also sites: the PDB of August 6, 2001 “Al-Qa'ida members -- including some who are US citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qa'ida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s. A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks. We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (redacted portion) ... service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of ‘Blind Shaykh’ 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists. Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.”

Please note that neither source supports the theory that al-Qa’ida members were going to hijack planes AND fly them into buildings. Both mention hijackings and the PDB claims that these would be to obtain the release of certain comrades of theirs. This event did not in fact happen.

Also note that no specific information was given on any plots to crash planes into buildings.

Mr. Moore’s use of the term “attack” and linking it to the WTC and Pentagon and the flight in Pennsylvania is different than the use of the term “attack” in the PDB. He is attempting to link the term “attack” used in the sense of a hijacking to obtain release of prisoners to mean “attack” in the sense of being physically struck.

It is yet another half truth and is presented to give a false impression, hence definition #2 of a lie “to create a false or misleading impression”.

“On August 6 th, 2001, George W. Bush went fishing.”

Why is it presented: to show that President Bush is a liar, and idiot and an incompetent President and that that George Bush is responsible for 9/11.

Uh oh, President Bush went fishing! CONSPIRACY! I refer you to the previous claim made by Mr. Moore about how much vacation time President Bush was on during his term. This is the same thing. He provides no evidence to show that he was on “vacation” in the traditional sense of the term but instead bases this claim on the fact that President Bush was not in the Oval Office pandering to bureaucrats.

It is presented to give a false impression, hence definition #2 of a lie “to create a false or misleading impression”.

“Was it the guy my daddy’s friends delivered a lot of weapons to?”

Why it is presented: Why is it presented: to show that President Bush is a liar, and idiot and an incompetent President and that that George Bush is responsible for 9/11.

Hey, did you know that during the Iran/Iraq war, President Reagan and VP Bush helped Saddam? No? Boy you are living under a rock. This is Mr. Moore’s attempt to show that after the attacks on 9/11 President Bush’s first thought was of Iraq and not of anyone else.

Some FACTS:
1) Saddam Hussein had sworn to get even with the United States
2) Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate former President Bush
3) Saddam Hussein had ties to al’Qa’ida (whether you choose to believe it or not)
4) Saddam Hussein had violated UN resolutions for 10 years
5) Saddam Hussein had been actively using our pilots upholding UN resolutions for those 10 years as target practice.

Gee, knowing that I would think of Iraq and a maniacal dictator too.

Of course, this statement by Mr. Moore is nothing more than an emotional ploy. He doesn’t mention WHY one would consider Iraq and Saddam as a potential source of the attacks, only that people loosely associated to President Bush made a deal with a devil to defeat another devil.

It is presented to give a false impression, hence definition #2 of a lie “to create a false or misleading impression”.

“Was it that group of religious fundamentalists who visited my state when I was governor?”

Why it is presented: Why is it presented: to show that President Bush is a liar, and idiot and an incompetent President and that that George Bush is responsible for 9/11.

Mr. Moore adds this own comment to his source which is presented in bold:

“A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.” “Taleban in Texas for talks on Gas Pipeline,” BBC News, December 4, 1997 (Sugarland is 22 miles outside Houston.)

He is attempting to link then Governor of Texas George Bush, the Bush family, Big Oil, Unocal, and the Taliban together in this one statement. FACT of the matter is however, that Unocal has an official statement on the record of “Unocal has no plans or interest in becoming involved in any projects in Afghanistan, including natural gas or crude oil pipelines.” Also note that Governor Bush did not have anything to do with this meeting. Rather it was former President Bill Clinton who set it up.

Damn. Another strike out for Moore.

This is presented to give a false impression, hence definition #2 of a lie “to create a false or misleading impression”.

Damn, another 0/6 outing for Mr. Moore. That puts Moore at 0/20 so far. Not a very good record at all.

Author’s note, I just realized that this drivel from Michael Moore goes on and on and on for another 50 or so “FACTS” on his part so this rebuttal is going to take a few more days.

(To be continued in part 4)

Return to Land of the Free Conservative Op/Ed & Discussion