Reality Check On Michael Moore - Democratic Underground

Joe Fields

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jun-26-04 01:58 PM
Original message

Reality Check On Michael Moore

Thousands of people, maybe hundreds of thousands of people, maybe millions seem to be all caught up in the hubris of Michael Moore. Me? I'm disappointed.
That's right - I'm disappointed in him. When we have before us an administration that has done so many injurious things to us as a nation that we don't have to embellish one damned thing, Moore has to go and do just that - embellish.
"Embellish,?" some may ask. Yes. Michael Moore has an agenda. He freely admits it, which is fine. I contend that a movie could have been made, call it a documentary, if you will, that could have put Mr. Bush in just as bad of light or worse, all without any disputable distortions. One such distortion happened when Moore solicits congressmen that he catches on the street near the Capitol to pledge their sons and daughters to the ranks of soldiers in Iraq. First of all, I have to say that that was a pretty disingenuous stunt. That decision is strictly up to the congressmen's sons and daughters - it is theirs and theirs alone to make. But even after one of the congressmen he interviewed told him sometime after the interview that his son was going to Afghanistan, Moore didn't pull the interview from the movie. But where he made his biggest mistake was trying to tie potential terror suspects to the flights filled with Saudi's that had top priority to leave the country after the shutdown of airspace was liffted directly after 9/11. This is a point that can be speculated on, but not proven. To me, and I hate Bush as much or more than the rest of you, that is a giant leap to make. The vetting of passengers on those Saudi flights was the responsibility of terror expert Richard Clarke. In a recent interview Clarke categorically denied the possibility of any persons of interest leaving on those jets. He said that had there been any questionable people booked for those flights, he would have detained and questioned them. There were no such people. This is the same Richard Clarke that all of us were rooting on and so eager to believe, when his book came out and he testified in front of the 9/11 commission, making the Bush administration look inept and foolish. Are we NOT to believe Richard Clarke now that his statements directly conflict with what Michael Moore supposes may have happened? Is he now a liar and it is Moore who is telling the truth? I don't think so. I believe that if anything Moore suggests really happened, regarding those flights, Clarke would have mentioned what happened either in his book, or in front of the 9/11 commission. He wouldn't have hesitated. But he was there, was directly involved and said there was no connection of persons of interest, possible terrorists and the Saudis who were allowed to quickly leave the country.
Michael Moore is a very talented and successful filmmaker, and his movie will be successful beyond his wildest dreams. The best thing he could have done for us though, would have been to scupulously vett every minute detail of the movie, so that no critic could dispute what he put on screen. As I said earlier, god knows Mr. Bush has given us plenty to wag our fingers at, without having to distort a thing. I think he owed us all that, and he fell short. In doing so, he runs the great risk of being not a lot different than those on the other side who embellish to make their points. These are just a few random personal thoughts, before everyone decides to "Reaganize" Michael Moore and nominate him as the Patron Saint of Progressives. For more, hit link below.

Joe Fields