Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush Pt II

[John D Harris]

I saw the O'Man-MooreMan Interview, it was not heated, contentious, confrontational in any shape form or manner. As much as it galls me I must admitt Mr. Moore was well mannered never raising his voice or loosing his temper. The same thing can be said of Mr. O'Reily, both men discussed their points of view in a calm and level headed manner, exchanging points and counter points. "Hale" they even laughed and smiled while doing so. Frankly it was the first time I could stomach hearing Mr. Moore, I still disagree with him on most if not all issues. But the interview I saw was conducted with manners and respect from both sides.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Grojlach: The heated words -- which were edited out of the program seen by viewers -- involved O'Reilly's criticism of the New York Times and its coverage of the controversy over whether there were links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. In kicking off what he called "no-spin coverage" of the issue, O'Reilly began the show by saying that "the Times and other newspapers have been under heavy fire for their misleading headlines, basically saying there was no link" between Iraq and al-Qaeda. As Cole listened from Washington, the program played a clip of commission chairman Thomas Kean saying: "There is no evidence that we can find whatsoever that Iraq or Saddam Hussein participated in any way in attacks on the United States -- in other words, on 9/11. What we do say, however, is there were contacts between Iraq and Saddam Hussein, excuse me, al-Qaeda." O'Reilly complained that this was the wrong sound bite. In retaping the commentary, he paraphrased one of Kean's points but not the other: "Governor Thomas Kean says definitely there was a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda. And he's the 9/11 investigative chief, but that's not enough for the Times." "I was sort of astonished he would do it so brazenly in front of guests," says Cole, an activist attorney who has challenged the USA Patriot Act in court. O'Reilly calls "totally absurd" the suggestion that he cut the sound bite "because it didn't fit my thesis." A producer had simply selected a clip that wasn't right for the segment, he says. But Cole says: "Here he is castigating the New York Times for misleading its readers, and he was misleading his viewers. I wish the show had been live because I'd love for his viewers to see what he was up to."

I'll quote the article here: As Cole listened from Washington, the program played a clip of commission chairman Thomas Kean saying: "There is no evidence that we can find whatsoever that Iraq or Saddam Hussein participated in any way in attacks on the United States -- in other words, on 9/11. What we do say, however, is there were contacts between Iraq and Saddam Hussein, excuse me, al-Qaeda."

Now I don't know why O'reilly was complaining about this sound bite, IT clearly says there was a link, and I quote again: "There is no evidence that we can find whatsoever that Iraq or Saddam Hussein participated in any way in attacks on the United States -- in other words, on 9/11. What we do say, however, is there were contacts between Iraq and Saddam Hussein, excuse me, al-Qaeda."

The problem lies in what the definition of links and contact is. Other evidence has come out showing clearly that Sodamn Insane and the Iraqi Intel were actively talking to Al-Qaeda about working together on opperations. Does that mean they were working together on 9/11 NO!!!! it does mean they had contacts/links/cooperation together on some issues and opperations. And Since President Bush said we are going after terrorists and the countries that harbor, and lend aid(paraphrased by me) Iraq falls inside of this. President Bush didnot say we were ONLY going after Al-qaeda and nobody else. He said terrorists, al-qaeda and "al-qaeda like" groups.

Now the NY times put in BOLD 72pt min. type above the fold "NO LINKS", not that there were no links on 9/11, but NO LINKS. A week or so later when the new stuff came out SHOWING there were LINKS/CONTACT/COOPERATION bewteen the two, the NY Times in a smaller maybe 48pt type below the fold that there were contacts.

You guys can make the call.

[Davros]

No links is my read JD.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Davros: No links is my read JD.

That is because it was linked by Grojlach in his post, I quoted his post, as stated by me I clearly quoted the article he posted. I saw no need to link it a second time, why not save the time and scroll up to Grojlach's post and click on the link. And check it out to see if Grojlach posted it correctly for yourself? or complain about me not posting a link either way is fine by me.

[ 07-01-2004, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Davros]

Sorry JD - you weren't with me - I will clarify for you - "NO LINKS" is my read on things. A couple of contacts do not constitute the links that some people in theAdmin want us all to believe. Hale, Rummy had contact - does that make him complicit?

[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Godwin's law aside...

That's not a real law, nor does its stated meaning have any value in our present context. I believe the exactitude is the use of ad hominem or ad hominem tu quoque attacks playing the Nazi card. Not comparing a subject of discussion to a particular act or behavior. The Nazis are an excellent source for a broad range of negative emotional extremes. It seems to sort of trivialize the raw horror and pure evil of what they did, but there's no denying the straight-and-honest comparability.

Moore's critics are equally guilty of the same by ommitting parts of his works when making critisms.

Except in the case of Hardy's attack on BfC... He took whole statements (scenes or collections of scenes) and shows smoke and mirrors deliberately at work. He didn't, in any way as I read his articles (or used them in any discussions on the matter) extrapolate, or go beyond or strawman anything Moore said, deliberately. Moore on the other hand...

Again it is the nature of the 'opinion beast' to show the parts of a story that support the given veiwpoint being made. This is neither unethical or dishonest.

Well... I don't know how to answer this... That's amazing... Excuse me if I'm so appalled at this statement that I can't even begin to express it in words. I'll just go drink a few cups of coffee, read another passage from Joyce's Ulysses, and calm myself down, as I'll never be able to respond to this without blowing up like a shaken case of Nitro...

At least Moore actually has facts*(asterisk mine --O437) and cites sources to back up his opinions.

*He uses artificially inflated numbers, as shown by Hardy, and has a long running track record of contradicting what his sources say.

Unlike many of his critics in the links you have posted who's allegations are really a bunch of conjecture and unsupported assertions.

Except...Hardy backs up nearly every factual call with reliable sources (he's a gun enthusiast, and he even uses the VPC ((one of Moore's closet political bedfellows)) numbers against Moore) or in the case of the Denver speech by Heston, a cross-sectional comparison which shows us something that Moore didn't want us to see. It was deliberate deception. Or how about a scene which should have been enough to get Moore out of the documentary category; The Heston walk-out scene...

"Serious" according to whom?

Serious according to those who attack his film, and his credibility.

These "serious" critisms according to your opinion could be shallow, contensious and unfounded conjecture according to another's opinion.

To dismiss the nature of Hardy's most damning criticisms against BfC on the basis of opinion would be low. We're not Bill O'Reilly, or Rush Limbaugh, or Al Franken. We're John Q. Public and Jack Canada. We're way, way above that. It's a question of how sound is the basis of his film? Hardy's attacks in respect to that, and the reality and sources and logic that back them up, altogether flush Moore's film "down the fuckin' toilet" to quote Travis Bickle. They exclude it from the realm of documentary, and they put Moore in a position not as a smart, well-angled Liberal commentator or a documentarian, but a propagandist, liar and butcher of the American dream and practicing hater of his own people.

Perhaps Moore considers many of these so-called serious critisms are actually lame cheap shots not even worth replying to.

Showing that he staged the most significant scenes in the film, and distorted the truth to give those scenes the weight they had is hardly a cheap shot.

So, like the "serious" critisms themselves, Moore's lack of response to them is hardly a damning smoking gun, though you are free to claim as such.

Considering that, in all actuality they knock the whole house of cards down, this is hardly the case. Though you are right, a non-response isn't actual concession, but the fact is, he responded to criticisms that only appeared in a context with other criticisms, and he didn't respond to ones which completely flatten his credibility. And that was over a year ago. It's not like he hasn't responded for a year... And besides, he has responded to far less signficant criticisms.

I'll use Hardy's Heston argument as my cornerstone of this point.

We see an interview, between Moore and Heston, where a clock reveals foul dealings by Moore. Fully 1/4 of the actual discussion is on the film. Then the walk-out is obviously staged, with what Moore originally said to Heston lost to a cutting room.

It works like this: There was one take, looking from behind Moore, at Heston, that film is intact, but its o/s is gone. I wonder if Moore privately has all the negatives from his cameras, or what. Anyways, it's not in the film as presented, and not as won an Oscar...

Well, there's a second take, and that's obvious because you can't see the other camera, which would be the case were the whole shot done in one take. The o/s from that shot is clearly what we're hearing here, and thusly, we aren't hearing what was actually spoken to Heston. It may be just a slight difference, but Heston wasn't even there when Moore gave the showable sample of the speech. The picture, the Moore and the Heston are never together on the same screen...

Besides that, he's had three conflicting stories to tell about how it happened, one starting the one-take lie, the other purporting the second camera myth, and another including a felony.

What we have here is manipulative editing deliberate lies after the fact, and an attempt to cover it up...

[Chewbacca]

Sorry Oblivion- I think Hardy's website is full of opinion and conjecture; ( and incorrect orbroken links to the "sources") much of which is, sadly, presented as fact. That whole conspiracy theory about the Heston interveiw being staged that you highlight is the dictionary defintion of conjecture. Anyway the amount of conjecture and opinion in the guise of fact as well as the obvious antii-Moore bias is quite telling. It appears Hardy has alot more in common with Moore than you would ever care to admit.

Anyway discussing this with you is becoming quite circular and unproductive, so I am taking my leave.

The last word does not mean the correct word. So don't take my probable ignoring of your future posts on the topic of BFC as an admission that you have finally scored the ultimate 'gotcha' which has left me unable to reply.

[ 07-03-2004, 02:33 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Memnoch]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Anyway discussing this with you is becoming quite circular and unproductive, so I am taking my leave. The last word does not mean the correct word. So don't take my probable ignoring of your future posts on the topic of BFC as an admission that you have finally scored the ultimate 'gotcha' which has left me unable to reply.

I haven't read the posts immediately above this (I will in a minute), but I wanted to make a comment about Chewy's post - I've quoted the key bits, and highlighted the REALLY key bit in red. Thank you for your maturity, Chewy. This is EXACTLY what I mean by being able to handle discussions in a mature manner, and keeping your cool, and deciding to use your time in a more effective way in other discussions when it looks like you're going in circles. Major kudos mate. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] As you said, whoever posted last doesn't mean they're right. It just means they can't resist always having to have the last word. Cheers mate.

[ 07-03-2004, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Sorry Oblivion- I think Hardy's website is full of opinion and conjecture; ( and incorrect orbroken links to the "sources") much of which is, sadly, presented as fact.

Most of those links are well over a year old, and Hardy hasn't updated certain portions of his site including new statistical information which bumps the US homicide rate down from 23 to 24...

You may think it all you like about his site, but at least be willing to defend that point. If you're going to stand by Moore, at least show us all how Hardy is wrong.

That whole conspiracy theory about the Heston interveiw being staged that you highlight is the dictionary defintion of conjecture.

How much do you know about parallax view, editing, camera placement, take timing, optical soundtracks or edit placement? I happen to know quite a bit, and there are certain undeniable facts that stem from that knowledge. The fact is, what Moore actually said to Heston is not on camera. Only a quarter at most of the interview between Moore and Heston is on camera... The conjecture would be what's missing... He outright lied to someone in an interview (it wouldn't be the first time he claimed to do something he would be in prison for) saying he purchased a pistol, legally, in the state of California. If it was done in one take, we'd be seeing the cameras but we don't, it's undeniable that a second take was used. From the images we have in the film, the second take's Optical sound track is obviously what's used, thus we can deduct that Moore's words to Heston, what he actually said, aren't on camera, what you think of Moore allows you to make what logical fill you want, the least of which is Moore just saying what he'd previously said, the most is Moore saying nothing more than "Hey!" or something like that to get his attention, making a gesture of some sort to then lead him off, and then Heston walking away. Somehow, and this is opinion and conjecture, unlike Hardy's essential point about that scene, and the whole damned film, I think there was enough in that interview, and Heston not walking away from anything important, that Moore would have looked like a jack-ass pestering an old man with Alzheimer's (something Moore denied knowing, which was all over the nuze) after being taken to school in a debate where a man points to one of our most real problems (racism) that he himself had a lot in helping to work towards overcoming during the Civil Rights protest era. We're to choose between a man who marched with MLK Jr. and a man who points to his own doctored Bush/Quayle campaign ads (this much he did admit) and select clips from cops (all the episodes I remember it was white trash getting kicked around, and throwing beer bottles) as "fear of the black man" and we're supposed to give them equal footing? I can't take Moore seriously at this point, but Heston I can. At this point, if I were one of the judges, I'd have said to him, "produce the optical soundtrack from the first take of the walk-out moment for us, or you're barred."

Anyway the amount of conjecture and opinion in the guise of fact as well as the obvious antii-Moore bias is quite telling. It appears Hardy has alot more in common with Moore than you would ever care to admit.

This is how the argument has become circular. I use Hardy to take Moore to task on specific points, and you dismiss it as conjecture. It's fact, and there's no denying it. I would ask you to point out this opinion disguised as fact, but that's not going to happen...

Anyway discussing this with you is becoming quite circular and unproductive, so I am taking my leave.

When you're unwilling to clarify or actually stand on your assertions, of course that's going to happen. If I build the empire state building, you can claim to build a taller building, or tear mine down, but until you can...

The last word does not mean the correct word. So don't take my probable ignoring of your future posts on the topic of BFC as an admission that you have finally scored the ultimate 'gotcha' which has left me unable to reply.

Of course, but you've not actually defended any assertions on Hardy's dissertation with a specific point of any kind, much less a reasonable claim, so this reads more like a cop-out than anything else. I'm not attacking you, this is how it looks. I don't think ill of you in either case (cop-out or tire of the circle) and I don't have any intention to attack your character with this statement.

[ 07-03-2004, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: that Moore would have looked like a jack-ass pestering an old man with Alzheimer's (something Moore denied knowing, which was all over the nuze)

Nice try, but Heston's case of Alzheimer wasn't publically revealed until August 2002 (CNN article), while Bowling for Columbine already won a prize at the Cannes festival in May of that same year.