Your Thoughts Exactly

and so it begins..... (see Kopel and Moore)

Deceit 1
The opening scene of a Florida rally for Al Gore, where a large sign reads “Florida Victory.” One might believe that Gore is celebrating a victory he assumes is in hand, while the rally actually took place just after midnight that morning. Is this a deceit? Moore does not claim that Gore was celebrating what he thought to be a victory, and the rally looked like any other rally on a campaign, with signs supporting and guaranteeing victory for a candidate. It is a sight we see every four years – simply because it is good footage and is used when talking about the confusion of Election Day does not make it a deception; if anything, it is more valuable to not mention its accurate timing because it evokes the general bewilderment of that night. If I were to say to you “my nephew, at his 5th birthday party, was about to blow out the candles on the cake, but he was tipping his chair forward to do it and it slipped and he fell right into the cake, and one of the candles burned his ear” as I flipped through a photo album looking for a picture to show you of my nephew, and as I find one, say, “oh, here he is,” and show you a picture of my nephew at his 4th birthday party, would that be a deception? -1

Deceit 2
Moore says Fox News, with Bush’s cousin leading the decision team, was the first to call Florida, and the election, for Bush, after the other networks had called Florida for Gore, leading the other networks to change their prediction. Moore, however, somewhat misleads us on the timing of these events, as Kopel details.

Was Fox News the first to call Florida for Bush – yes. Did the other networks call Florida for Bush right after Fox News – yes. Could someone see this segment and believe the assumptions Kopel argues are inherent – yes. This was, however, just 4 years ago, and most Americans watched it themselves and remember that surreal night. Is there no responsibility on the viewer to avoid assuming more than the movie shows us? -.5

Deceit 3
Moore calls the chairman of Bush’s campaign the “votecount” woman, but Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris was only Bush’s co-chair, and her office only certified, rather than counted, the vote. Well, a co-chair is still a chair, and her office directed and certified the vote and recount- that’s good enough for me. She certainly was a central figure, on TV every day discussing the recount and how it was being organized and implemented. Also, Moore claims that Gore got the most votes in Florida “under any scenario.” While there are many ways to conduct a recount, the National Opinion Research Council, under the direction of a media consortium consisting of the Associated Press, CNN, The Wall Street Jounal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The St. Petersburg Times, The Palm Beach Post, and Tribune Publishing, which includes the Los Angeles Times, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Orlando Sentinel and Chicago Tribune, found that any statewide recount that tallied all votes – undervotes and overvotes included – would have resulted in a victory for Gore. Does it matter, as Kopel believes, that the type of recount sought by Gore would have resulted in a Bush victory? I don’t think so – the type of recount Bush argued for would have won the election for Gore. Does Moore overstate his case in saying that Gore would have won under any scenario – yes. Had he said any scenario that counted all votes across the state, his argument would not have been weakened, yet would remain equally significant. -.75

(bonus deceit of my own – Kopel cites a “web widget” by the New York Times that lets visitors discover who would have won under various recount criteria. Kopel writes, “It’s certainly possible under some of the variable scenarios to produce a Gover victory. But it’s undeniably dishonest for Fahrenheit to assert that Gore would win under any scenario.” Kopel’s phrasing, and its place soon after some of his cited material and arguments, leads me, and I would think many others, to believe that this “web widget” would show that under most circumstances Gore would still have lost Florida. However, exactly half (12/24) of the possible recount methods would have resulted in a Gore victory, 2/4 of the “what-ifs” would lead to a Gore victory, and 3 of the 4 terrible ballot designs gave Bush an advantage.)

Deceit 4
Moore discusses the hiring of Data Base Technologies to purge the voter rolls of convicted felons who, if convicted in Florida, are not allowed to vote. Most states grant automatic clemency to felons upon the termination of their sentence, thus re-enfranchising them, while others grant clemency 5 or 10 years later. Florida, however, tried to keep these re-enfranchised felons off the voter rolls too, going against a 1998 2nd circuit ruling. Three months after the 2000 election they changed their position, just in time! The deceit that bothers Kopel is that Moore suggests the purge was racist in intent, hoping to keep likely democratic voters out of the voting booths. 44% of those wrongfully removed from the voter rolls were African-American, so you can see why Moore, as well as countless others, makes this claim. However, an investigation of the company turned up no statements or discussions of race. Yet we have this, from an article cited by Kopel: “State officials told DBT to use broad parameters to identify as many likely felons as possible, despite warnings that this would disenfranchise legitimate voters.” Knowing that the most likely result of disenfranchising felons would remove more African-Americans than others, and that African-Americans vote heavily democratic, this statement sticks out. Especially considering the fact pointed out oh-so often by Moore that certain state officials have close ties to Bush – his brother/Governor and his Florida campaign co-chair/Secretary of State/votecounter lady (an aside – doesn’t the secretary of state have work to do? On the taxpayer’s dime, she took time from her duties as SoS to work for Bush’s campaign). Though it certainly cannot be proven without an admission or a discovered written communication discussing the need to purge blacks from the rolls (does Kopel expect this to turn up in DBT’s mission statement?), it is not deceitful to make an argument that there was racism, or some sort of discrimination against likely democratic voters using race as a demographic middle man, involved in the purging of voters in Florida in the 2000 election. -1

Deceit 5
Kopel lumps together the statements of the protests on inauguration day, Bush’s declining approval rating, inability to push his goals through congress, and a joke he makes at a charity event being taken out of context. As for inauguration – 1 egg thrown vs. eggs thrown, this is worth challenging? And about saying “no president had ever witnessed such a thing on his inauguration day,” while Nixon did face protestors: ok, Moore could have said “since Richard Nixon” his point would still come across, but he didn’t. Is that wrong and deceitful? Not really. Maybe Moore was at both events, and knows for sure that Bush’s protesters were more unruly than Nixon’s. Who knows. Who cares.

Though he goes on about it, by Kopel’s own admission, the approval ratings comment is not a deceit: “This is not entirely accurate, although I haven’t counted this issue as a ‘deceit.’” Bush’s ratings did drop, and using certain selected polls his rating was as low as 45% (as Moore states). What better information could you expect from anyone with an agenda – they will pick the polls that best suit them and not mention the rest. Unless Kopel is willing to say that ABC, NBC, CNN, FOX, the LA Times, etc are deceitful – which I would bet he is not - why does he even mention this.

Kopel takes issue with the notion that Bush was unable to push his agenda through congress. He admits that the President did lose control of the Senate, could not get his judicial nominees appointed, and “some other Bush proposals did not pass,” But cites the tax cut and No Child Left Behind as evidence that Moore is deceiving us. Well, yes, the tax cut was passed in May. NCLB, however, was passed in May and June by the House and Senate, but with differences – which they did not resolve until December, two months after 9/11. Bush signed the bill into law in January of 2002. On his website, Moore cites a Washington Post article that describes the President’s troubles with his agenda regarding faith-based initiatives, campaign finance reform, and drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. Did the President have his judicial appointees blocked – yes. Did the President have trouble getting his legislation passed – certainly. Does passing two of his top priorities mean he had no trouble with his agenda – no.

To top it off, Kopel argues that the President’s quip to a wealthy audience - “I call you the haves and the have-mores. Some call you the elite; I call you my base” – is misused in an effort to show that Bush caters to the wealthy. Kopel belabors the point that it was just a joke – but we do not need him to tell us; it is as obvious in the film as is Kopel's lack of a sense of humor.  Seriously, somebody send him a Chris Rock video, buy him tickets to the Funnybone, show him a Mariner's '04 highlight reel, do something.

All these deceits, plus another quote/joke about a dictatorship being a heck of a lot easier, just to add up to one of Kopel’s deceits – its obvious he is stretching here. -1

Deceit 6
Michael Moore didn’t mention that weekends were included in the President’s 42% vacation rate. So what? No American (with the possible exception of the President) considers the Presidency a Monday-Friday, 9-5 job. The President does not get paid overtime when he has to work through dinner to meet with congressional leaders on a bill coming to a vote in the near future; nor does anyone think he should be allowed to sleep in on a Sunday morning if immediate military action is needed in response to a terrorist attack. The Presidency is a full-time job in the purest sense of the term, and weekends off should rightfully be included in determining the amount of vacation time taken by a president.

However, if we were to accept Kopel’s gripe and weekends should be removed from the equation, and we figure that every Saturday and Sunday were taken off, we would still be faced with a staggeringly unacceptable number: roughly 30 non-weekend vacation days – six weeks! - in less than 8 months. 30 days plus every single weekend. From our commander-in-chief. In his first year in office. And we pay his salary during this vacation and for his flights to and fro. Should this be a regular criticism of this President? Of course. According to an Yahoo article, President Bush, as of August, 2003, has taken 250 vacation days (including weekends and “working vacations,” which, I assume, all presidential vacations are), compared to 79 days during President Carter’s 4 years and 152 through the first 7 years of President Clinton’s two terms. (from yahoo and CBS)

Also, Kopel gripes about the famous clip of Bush golfing while on vacation. In the clip, the president condemns terrorism, calling on all nations to work towards its end, after being asked a question about a suicide bomber in Israel, finishing by saying, “now watch this drive.” Kopel does not like how this gives the impression that he is discussing 9/11 when it was actually about Israel (which was clear when the Daily Show had a laugh at Bush for this in 2001, but Moore cut the question out for some reason). There are three problems with Kopel’s argument. First, though Bush was responding to a question of a bombing in Israel, his response turned to his general message of calling on all nations to bring an end to terror – and this is quite obvious in the movie, as it is his quote. Does it matter if he was asked about a specific event? Also, this clip came during a sequence describing the Bush's months in office leading up to 9/11 - how Kopel understands this, or tries to understand this, as possibly being about 9/11 is a mystery.  Further, the notion Kopel’s implies in his argument is that making it about 9/11 deceives us into feeling more outrage that the President could discuss terrorism and the deaths of innocents so flippantly than we should or would if we knew he was only talking about Israelis (even though he wasn’t only talking about Israelis). My question is why should we feel less outrage over the death of innocent Israelis than an American? I am offended by Kopel’s argument here and would ask for his apology or clarification. -1

Deceit 7 (and this is a biggie)
Kopel here argues that Michael Moore feels no personal horror, outrage, or sympathy for the events of 9/11 and the families that event destroyed, except the families of the innocent Afghani and Iraqi civilians we have accidentally killed in the course of our military response. The alleged deceit is that despite his personal beliefs, Moore makes a beautiful and tasteful segment on the attacks. Maybe Kopel would have been OK with this segment if we could hear Moore chuckling in the background throughout. Fahrenheit 9/11, Kopel argues, is on the whole a gigantic deception because Moore does not actually feel the emotions his documentary is intended to elicit. This, I say respectfully, is a stinking pile of horse shit. Kopel cites certain Moore quotes to show that the director does not think 9/11 was such a big deal, etc. If that is the way Moore thinks, then: 1, its his right to think so; and 2, shame on him for disrespecting the thousands of lives lost and families tormented by the events of 9/11. Does that make this documentary a farce – of course not. Moore has been lambasted by the press for not presenting both sides of the argument, only putting forth a liberal view of the last three+ years. If Fahrenheit had some conservative counter-arguments, would Kopel bemoan Moore’s deception for including ideas contrary to his personal beliefs, or congratulate him for seeing past his opinion for the sake of balance? The possible contrast between the film and Moore’s personal beliefs is not a deception. The point of the documentary is not to tell everyone Moore’s views, it is to fairly criticize the actions of the present administration.

Not convinced? How about this. Kopel uses the analogy of a Klansman making a film of admiration for Rosa Parks, honoring her as a hero. This, he says, would be a deceit. The film, by his logic, should be discredited. However, if a person has done some civil rights work, spoken a few times of the need for better protections for minorities from discrimination, and said favorable things about the NAACP, and then writes an op-ed in the New York Times saying how African-Americans are the bane of society and women should stay in the house have dinner ready when their men return from work, Kopel, it follows, would ignore this article as a deception and defend this person as a great human being and civil rights activist. -1

Deceit 7.5?
Cheap shots against Bush and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. First, Kopel thinks it is wrong to criticize Bush for going ahead with his photo op of reading with schoolchildren when he was told of the first plane right before entering the school, and then for remaining in the room reading “My Pet Goat” with the kids for nearly 7 minutes after his Chief of Staff told him of the second plane before taking any action. Kopel links an article about the school principal as defending the president’s decision (though from the looks of it, remaining seated and reading the story was less a decision and more of an uncontrollable act of confusion), and quotes Lee Hamilton, former Democratic Rep. from Indiana and Vice-Chair of the 9/11 Commission, as saying that Bush did the right thing. Well, a democrat and a principle – I’m sold. I used to think that Bush should have taken immediate action, though not to the point where he made every kid erupt in tears, knowing that we were under attack and not knowing when the attacks would end, but now a principle and a democrat! tell me Bush was right, so I guess I don’t have to waste any precious brain cells on that one. Case closed. Thank you, Dave Kopel.

Also, Kopel criticizes the use of a clip of Wolfowitz combing his hair with saliva – both his own and that of who I hope was a lowly unpaid gofer intern. While gross, this tells the viewer nothing more than to laugh. Kopel, apparently using mental abilities not normally found in humans, infers from this clip that the entire Bush administration is not to be trusted, and blames Moore for tricking him so. I really don’t think it is necessary to discuss this any further.

Despite my great desire to do so, I have removed no points here because these two “cheap shots” were included by Kopel, along with what I listed as deceits 6 and 7, as a combined “deceits 6-7.”

Deceit 8-10
Moore’s voiceover says about Bush, “Or perhaps he just should have read the security briefing that was given to him on August 6, 2001 that said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes.” Moore also quips that perhaps the title (“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.") was too vague. Kopel breaks this down into three parts.

First, there is the implication that the President did not actually read the memo. See the movie, read that quote again – any reasonable person would assume that Bush read the memo, that Moore knows and believes Bush read the memo, and that this statement is just a phrase often used to infer that something should be given more attention despite the fact that one has already read that to which the speaker is referring. -1

Second, Kopel complains of the use of a clip of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice at the 9/11 Commission hearings saying the title of the memo, right after Moore mentioned that maybe the memo was too vague. Kopel’s deceit #9 is that Moore says the reason Bush may not have “read” the memo was because it was vague, but Bush never said that was his excuse for not reading it. Well, of course not – because he read it! – which I just discussed. This whole bit on not reading the memo was obviously in jest, pointing out that there was certain information that was disregarded by Bush and his top advisors. -1

Third, Kopel disagrees with Moore’s assertion that the memo said bin Laden planned to attack “by hijacking airplanes.” Kopel correctly quotes the memo as saying the FBI was “unable to corroborate” the evidence that bin Laden wanted to hijack an aircraft. However, the next paragraph of the memo reads, “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.” Was this memo vague – sure. Did it warn of hijackings – yes. Should Moore be discredited for saying the memo warned that bin Laden planned to hijack an airplane – of course not. -1

I will, however, restore half a point because a main theme of these “deceits,” according to Kopel, is that Moore misused the clip of Rice saying the title of the memo to contradict the notion that it was vague, while her whole testimony was to the imprecision of the memo, though that is not one of Kopel’s specifically listed “deceits.” I am a benevolent man. +.5

Deceit 11 & 14
Moore, while not lying, carefully chooses his words to imply that the 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, who were flown out of the country by the government in the days following 9/11 were flown during the period when all flights were grounded and that they were not screened or questioned at all. While there was one flight which may have been illegal, the 9/11 commission has determined that the flights, cleared by the FBI, were proper and that sufficient screening was done to determine if any of the 142 should be questioned. While it is hard to understand why the FBI did not want to question any of these people for any significant amount of time, Kopel is right to suggest Moore here is guilty of deliberately misleading his audience, to a degree. The main theme that many Saudis were hastily escorted out of the country shortly following the attacks remains. -.5

Deceit 12
Moore uses counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke as a critic of the Bush Administration – which he is – but doesn’t include his testimony saying he had the final say on clearing the flights for the 142 Saudis; Kopel complains. Moore responds lamely, saying he included a shot of a New York Times article about the approval of the flights in which Clarke’s name is used, and its right there blown up on the screen. Well, Michael, most of us read a bit slower than necessary to read that article and tend to not read what you put on screen unless the relevant parts are highlighted or enlarged, like other texts used in your documentary. What you should have said was, “My use of footage of Richard Clarke is consistent with his position and provides valid criticisms of the administration, and deciding not to include him in the segment on the flights is of no concern to the rest of the film in general or the segments including Mr. Clark specifically. It is common to agree with and approve of another’s statements and actions on certain points and disagree with them on others.” Moore’s ineffectual defense on this criticism does not make Kopel right. You are welcome, Mr. Moore. -1

Deceit 13
Moore, in an interview with Jack Tapper of ABC, lies, according to Kopel, about presenting Clarke’s role in approving the flights. His lie is saying how he put the NY Times article, mentioned in deceit 12, on screen. Though, again, a lame answer, this is not a lie. Also, as far as Fahrenheit is concerned, this is the same as the previous “deceit”. Further, this is not in the film – it is a weasely answer given by Moore about the film, not in it. -1

Deceit 15
In the documentary, Moore says, “But really, who wanted to fly? No one. Except the bin Ladens,” while, on September 14, 2001, he wrote to his fans “Our daughter is fine, mostly frightened by my desire to fly home to her rather than drive.” (taken from Kopel’s article – his link to Moore’s archive for this quote is dead). This, my friends, is insanely stupid. Of course there were thousands of people who wanted to fly, maybe millions. This is not a deceit in any except the most absolutely narrow-minded and purposefully ignorant approach – in which Kopel is proving very adept indeed. -1

and so we arrive at our first intermission.  Kopel is not doing so well, as of the 15 points in his "deceit budget" at stake here, 12.25 have gone missing, leaving him with only 2.75 "deceits."  Check back soon to see how he fares in the next round.