Thursday, July 01, 2004

More ways to lie in a "truthful" documentary...

Assume a deep, dark motive to everything.
From F911:
In early 2004, in a speech during the New Hampshire primary, I called George W. Bush a deserter for his time in the Texas National Guard. In response, the White House released his military records in the hopes of disproving the charge. What Bush didn't know is that I already had a copy of his military records - uncensored - obtained in the year 2000. And there is one glaring difference between the records released in 2000 and those he released in 2004. (image of "records," black marks) A name had been blacked out. In 1972, two airmen were suspended for failing to take their medical examination. One was George W. Bush. And the other was James R. Bath. In 2000 the documents show both names. But in 2004 Bush and White House had Bath's name blacked out. Why didn't Bush want the press and public to see Bath's name on his military records? Perhaps he was worried that the American people would find out that at one time James R. Bath was the Texas money manager for the bin Ladens.

... or it could be that federal law only allows Bush to release his own medical records, not that of James R. Bath.

Say something that, while factually true, conveys a falsehood.

NARRATOR: Even though we were nowhere near the White House, for some reason the Secret Service had shown up to ask us what we were doing standing across the street from the Saudi embassy.

MICHAEL MOORE: We're not here to cause any trouble or anything. Uh, ya know, is that...

OFFICER: That's fine. Just wanted to get some information on what was going on.

MICHAEL MOORE: Yeah yeah yeah, I didn't realize the Secret Service guards foreign embassies.

The Secret Service does indeed guard foreign embassies. Moore's statement that he didn't realize this gives the impression that he has stumbled onto something unusual.

Mention something that will not happen and then act as if it will.

NARRATOR: With the war not going as planned, and the military in need of many more troops, where would they find the new recruits?

REPORTER: Military experts say three times the 120,000 US troops now deployed would be needed to pacify and rebuild the country.

NARRATOR: They would find them all across America in the places that had been destroyed by the economy. Places where one of the only jobs available was to join the Army. Places like my hometown of Flint, Michigan.

Bush is not going to send 240,000 more troops to Iraq. Kerry is not going to send 240,000 more troops to Iraq. Nader would withdraw all of the troops already there. So why even bring it up if there is no way that it will happen? To scare you, of course.

Additional F911 quotes from Red Line Rants, pt 1.

Cut a statement so as to change the meaning completely.

Taken from the Stockholm Spectator.

But for the moment, allow me to address the film’s final scene, a montage of clips “demonstrating” that “Bush lied” about Iraq’s supposed connection to 9-11; that the American people—a trusting, if simple, group—were buncoed into connecting “secular Saddam” to the zealots of Al-Qaeda. Let’s be clear about this, for it bears repeating: the administration has repeatedly and forcefully connected Iraq and Al-Qaeda—and, as recent evidence has shown, for good reason. What the administration has not done—contrary to popular belief—is publicly link Iraq to the attacks of September 11.

But, you protest, I saw Condoleezza Rice in Fahrenheit 9-11 tell a reporter that, “indeed,” there was a relationship!


“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.”


Pretty damning stuff, isn’t it? But that was the truncated, Michael Moore version. Now for the full, unexpurgated quote:

“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.”

Well that’s a different quote, Mike. So why the editing?

No comments: