Michael Moore et alia peddle lies for profit and political gain while calling George W. Bush a “liar”

By Marilyn M. Brannan, Assoc. Editor

Unravelling The New World Order

July 19, 2004

“Entertaining”... “powerful”... “masterful” are some of the words being used to describe Michael Moore’s fraudulent and inflammatory film, Fahrenheit 9/11.  Naturally, the lefties are delighted with the success it has enjoyed at the box office thus far. 

It would be difficult to determine how much of the film’s “success” is due to the fact that a high percentage of the film’s viewers lack the information and discernment to realize that the film is not a documentary, but a carefully crafted hit piece designed to bring down George W. Bush.  For most of the Bush-haters who see the film, that probably makes little or no difference.

But whatever else might be said of Moore’s work, it is becoming clear that facts and documentary are two words that cannot legitimately be used to describe it.  Even high profile, left-friendly media types have serious reservations about the film.

Tom Brokaw hit Moore's film hard, commenting that it “took a lot of liberties, not just with the facts but with how you arrange the facts.”

Ted Koppel had problems with Moore's accuracy, or lack thereof.  His comment:  “It is to the documentary what the [Oliver Stone]  ‘JFK’ film was to history.”

(Editor’s Note:  When our chief editor had the opportunity to see the Moore film recently, he commented that following the film, Democrat activists stood outside the theater and handed out envelopes containing information on how to join the Democrat party.)

Bush and Blair Vindicated

Now, two official government reports released over the past two weeks have conclusively refuted the wild-eyed propaganda of Michael Moore and others concerning the dangers from Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction programs.

The first report was from the Senate Intelligence Committee, which, although frequently divided over partisan issues over the last year, nevertheless reached unanimous conclusions in their report.  One of the most significant is that American intelligence organizations—like those of every other major country—did, in fact, believe that Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction and was engaged in ongoing WMD programs.

That intelligence seems to have been mistaken. But given Saddam Hussein's documented development, possession and use of WMDs in the past—and his refusal to account for the disposal of those weapons—it is hard to imagine what other conclusion reasonable analysts could have drawn.

With 3,000 murdered on American soil and the world’s best intelligence agencies suggesting that a known mass murderer—who had previously used WMD— possessed biological weapons and was trying to buy uranium for possible production of nuclear weapons, only a fool or a coward would have gambled on the chance that the intelligence was wrong and opted to do nothing. The committee concluded Bush was justified in relying on the intelligence. 

Bush simply said what was believed by everyone who had access to available intelligence—which includes leading members of the Clinton administration before 2001 and Senators John Kerry and John Edwards, as evidenced in their speeches in October 2002.

Further, the Senate committee did not find “any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.”

Another official report, issued last week in Britain by former civil servant Lord Butler, reaches similar conclusions. That report, the British Parliamentary Inquiry, concludes that Prime Minister Tony Blair did not pressure intelligence organizations to change their findings and that there was no “deliberate distortion” of intelligence or “culpable negligence.” It supported the conclusion of British intelligence that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Africa. (Michael Barone, The ‘Bush Lied’ folks can't be taken seriously,” July 19, 2004 ).

Sixteen “Radioactive” Words

Another issue the Senate Committee directly addresses in its report is the issue of what the left-wing has widely touted as Bush’s “lies”—namely, the sixteen words from his 2003 State of the Union address in which he said,

 “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

Shortly after Bush’s address, retired diplomat and CIA consultant Joseph Wilson, who had gone to Niger in 2002 to investigate the uranium yellowcake connection, publicly denounced Bush’s claim as bogus. 

A huge media frenzy ensued.  For a year, Democrats and the media—based solely on Wilson’s claims—lambasted President Bush at every opportunity over the sixteen words.  Nevertheless, Bush stuck to his guns and steadfastly maintained that his statement was based on official British information.

Liberals lionized Wilson for what they chose to believe was his “courageous” contradiction of the President.  Wilson wasn’t content with that, however; he accused the Bush White House of “punishing” him for his contradictory statements by “outing” his wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA agent. The liberal press, loving it all, harped incessantly on the alleged security risk created by Plame’s “exposure.” After a syndicated column by Robert Novak appeared, identifying Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA employee, a U.S. Justice Department special prosecutor was tasked to determine whether any crime had been committed.

In his column, Novak wrote that Plame, a CIA employee, had used her influence to promote her husband for the mission to Niger in 2002.  Wilson steadfastly denied it, asserting that his wife “definitely had not proposed that I make the trip” and expressing astonishment that anyone could imagine his wife was somehow involved.  The Senate Report flatly rejects Wilson's denials and even quotes Plame's memo taking credit for the appointment.

Further, the Senate report states that Wilson’s trip did not produce any information that cast doubt on the now-famous “sixteen words.”  In fact, a recent report in Financial Times demonstrates that it was Wilson who is the liar, citing European intelligence sources that confirmed Iraq and four other countries did discuss the purchase of uranium yellowcake with smugglers in Niger.  Even partisan Democrats on the Senate Committee did not dissent from the committee’s findings that Iraq apparently asked about buying yellowcake uranium from Niger.

The normally mild-mannered Pat Roberts (Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman) is harsh in his condemnation of Wilson’s outrageous attacks on President Bush and Vice President Cheney:

“Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had ‘debunked’ the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa . . . [N]ot only did he NOT  ‘debunk’ the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true” (Robert Novak, “Errant Former Ambassador,” July 15, 2004).

According to Novak, Roberts would have gone further by including in the report that much of what Wilson said “had no basis in fact.”  The Democrats refused to go that far, and the report is silent on that point. 

Not surprisingly, mention of the Intelligence Committee’s unanimous statement on the Niger-Wilson affair has had scant coverage in the liberal press. 

Truman and Bush

This writer heard Vice President Cheney addressing a crowd on the campaign trail recently.  One of the questions Cheney was asked was, “What, in your opinion, is the most significant thing that President Bush has done thus far?”  Cheney’s answer was that President Bush has drastically changed our foreign policy in the aftermath of 9-11. 

Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report says Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis believes Bush has transformed American foreign policy more than any president since Harry Truman—with one big difference.

“In the late 1940s, Truman got bipartisan support from Republicans like Arthur Vandenberg and Thomas Dewey, even at a time when there were bitter differences between the parties on domestic policy, and received generally sympathetic treatment in the press.

“This time, George W. Bush has encountered determined opposition from most Democrats and the old-line media. . . . They have done these things with, at best, reckless disregard of the effect their arguments have had on American strength in the world.”(Michael Barone, “The ‘Bush Lied’ Folks Can’t be Taken Seriously,” July 19, 2004)

Lies have consequences, and Joseph Wilson’s lies have had devastating consequences not just for Bush's re-election prospects, but also for the War on Terrorism, the prospects for a stable and peaceful Iraq, and even the security of the American people.

Unfortunately, there is no way the liberal media are going to get the message of Wilson's lies across to the American public, as evidenced by the fact that the Washington Post did its front page report on the release of the Senate document without once referring to the section on Wilson.

One bit of additional information is reported in Ann Coulter’s July 15 column, “Wilson lied, kids died!”  She reveals that Wilson is an “unpaid foreign affairs adviser” to the Kerry campaign, and his website was created and paid for by “John Kerry for President.”

Divide and Conquer

The bitter lesson in this (which the Democrats have not yet learned) was Vietnam: the more division the enemy saw in America—thanks to the likes of Jane Fonda and John Kerry—the bolder they became.   Similarly today, the Democrats are jeopardizing the national interest for the sake of their own partisan power; in so doing, they are making the job of bringing peace and stability to Iraq immeasurably more difficult.

John Kerry’s campaign message—which could not be more divisive—goes something like this:  an evil (or stupid) President, motivated by unrealistic dreams of bringing freedom and stability to Iraq, avenging his father, enriching American oil companies (and especially, Halliburton), lied to America and dragged us into an unnecessary war which has resulted in the deaths of many and did nothing to advance the “real” war on terror.

That's the Kerry message, and it appears to be working.

I like what syndicated columnist Jay Bryant had to say about how Bush needs to deal with it:  “[R]ight now at this moment, Bush has the opportunity to deal it a mortal blow. But he cannot be a girly man about it. He must be as blunt as Cheney was to Senator Leahy, and he must do it himself.” (Jay Bryant, “Hit ‘Em Again, Harder, Harder,” July 19, 2004)

Bush’s strategy must include a gutsy attack on John Kerry and the left-wing coalition of Bush bashers and the Hate-America bunch that includes lunatic luminaries such as Michael Moore and Whoopi Goldberg. 

The President cannot count on the liberal media to help him; in fact, they will leap at the opportunity to accuse him of “negativity.”  But his message must get out, and soon—through scheduled events, massive media advertising, and by the Internet.  Supporters have a unique opportunity via the Internet to disseminate the campaign message widely and frequently—and at little cost.

And if the Democrats and the media don’t like it, that’s tough.  Hit ‘em again!

####