Ok, why exactly is all of the information here Pro-Farenheit? Doesn't it smack of a certain irony that this site, dedicated to exposing propaganda, containstly mostly quips deffending what is, to any rational person, a propaganda film? Hello! --
Diane/others -- I rewrote the par re the protests in Congress re Bush's election from my memory of the sequence. There's a few specific points I'm unsure of but someone in the US is more likely to know.
1. Is "joint house sitting" the correct description? 2. Was the joint sitting where Bush was "sworn in"? Confirmed? Or something else? 3. "numerous black members" - is this an accurate description? 6. Was what they were attempting to do was to get a seconder for a "motion" for it to be taken as formal business? Or is it something other than a motion?
cheers --Bob Burton 21:24, 13 Aug 2004 (EDT)
On the headline... just in case no one believes me. Some articles on the subject leave this bit of info out. The "headline" was actually a title above a reader's letter - not a news headline.
"Instead, the headline appeared in a Dec. 5, 2001, edition -- but not as a news headline. It was in much smaller type above a letter to the editor. Those headlines reflect only the opinions of the letter writer and are not considered "factual" news stories."
-- Exp on revert 1. Carlyle/Clinton: correct me if I am wrong but this wasn't canvassed in F9/11 so doesn't belong in a section that is listing the key points the film made.
- No, but it is mentioned as if it is important. Isn't the point of "SourceWatch" to expose BS? Why is this article (and many others) trying so hard to support it? The Carlyle group conspiracy theories are nonsense and the fact that this film makes a big deal out of them is evidence that Michael Moore is a partisan idiot, along the same lines of Limbaugh, Franken, etc.
- I don't recall the mention of Carlyle and Clinton but as I said correct me if I'm wrong. Is there a transcript of F9/11 somewhere? If its in there I'm happy to have it in the article as long as it is accurate.BB
2. Supposed accusation that Bush "personally" flew various people out of the country. No primary source citation to support this claim. Nor is this claim made in the film - there is a big difference between saying the White House approved the flights and claiming the Bush was the pilot!
- Michael Moore has said that this was the inspiration for this film on MANY occasions. He was on Letterman just a few weeks ago and said it there for example. Some of the reviews I've read say that it is mentioned in the film... I don't have a transcript to check it out, so I'll take your word for it that it isn't. But the fact is, Moore believes this nonsense and repeats it over and over again - and has, as I said, claimed that it was the major inspiration for this movie time and time again. It is also a BS theory that has been discredited numerous times - including at Snopes.com (which Moore apparen't hasn't read yet).
- If Moore has said it on many occasions it should be easy to find a primary source reference in support of that. If there evidence is there it is in, if not its not.BB
- Here is a quote from the film..
Moore: "In the days following September 11, all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded... [video clips] Not even Ricky Martin could fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one, except the Bin Ladens." Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): "We had some airplanes authorized at the highest levels of our government to fly to pick up Osama Bin Laden's family members and others from Saudi Arabia and transport them out of this country."
- This sure looks like Moore is saying that the out of country flights took place while commercial aviation was grounded. No, he personally doesn't use those words here - but his quote, followed immediately by the Senators quote is obviously supposed to be putting that idea in the viewers head. This certainly goes right along with the things I've seen Moore say himself.
3. Clarke quote: added correct quote of Clarke claiming responsibility for approving flights. 4. Recounts: claim that there were other "independent" recounts that came up with diff results to the others referred to. No citation to support this claim. --Bob Burton 22:37, 16 Aug 2004 (EDT)
- There have been hundreds of recounts by newspapers, tv stations, etc since the 2000 election. Some of them have very clearly found that Bush was the winner. I don't have statistics to tell you what percentage have came to that conclusion, nor do I have an archive of every newspaper in the world at my fingertips. I'll do my best to find something online though.
- Again, the onus is on contributors to provide evidence in support of points that readers are going to want to be able to check to see if it stacks up. BB
- Also on the recounts... this is an actual quote from the film.
Moore: "And even if numerous independent investigations prove that Gore got the most votes --" CNN legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin: "If there was a statewide recount, under every scenario, Gore won the election." Moore: "Moore: -- it won't matter just as long as all your daddy's friends on the Supreme Court vote the right way."
This is incorrect. Toobin was wrong. Gore would not have won "under every scenario."