Disclaimer: I haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet, but we did find a theater about 45 minutes from here with tickets available tonight. It wasn't easy. So we're going shortly. Thus, I have no idea if there are any "lies" in Michael Moore's film yet, unlike the many who haven't seen it and have announced it full of lies. Without actually giving us any.

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, however, apparently has seen the film. And tonight, he's heading into the second half-hour on his show featuring a topic he calls "Moore Lies?".

Perhaps he's holding the lead for the end of the show, because in the thirty minutes I've watched so far, he's not given a single "lie" from Moore's film.

His "Moore Lies?" topic began with a 7 minute package from Lisa Myers which promised to outline all those "lies". And 7 minutes later, I was still waiting for a single one. She gave us precisely 0 lies. She did, however, show an interview with a "Republican Strategist" who disagreed with Moore's analysis of several undisputed facts that are, apparently, shown in the film.

After the package ended, Scarborough picked up with his own lies by talking about the "countless lies" in the movie. Pointing over and over again to the Myers report as if it exposed any.

Scarborough, obviously, is not the only one apparently so disturbed and frightened by this movie that he's happy to call it "full of lies" without actually detailing any.

You'll find such as-yet-wholly-unqualified claims anywhere that a Fake Conservative is opining and blustering. For instance, this shameful internet blog, (which calls itself "The Blog of Truth" without apparently not much more than a whiff of intended irony) has been calling the film "Debunked Before Release" for the past two weeks. Never mind that the Blogmaster there hasn't seen the film, and never mind that he's not given a single piece of evidence to "debunk" it. Yet, like so many Bush Dead-Enders, he'll say and do anything to discredit it. Evidence be damned.

The most puzzling of the non-debunking, non-lies that the Rightwingnutz keep going back to is the matter of the flights containing members of the Bin Laden family and other Saudi Royals (140 in all) that, Moore reportedly claims, were arranged for, and allowed by the Bush Administration in the days following 9/11.

Apparently, Richard Clarke, the former Bush Terrorism Czar turned Bush Administration critic has recently taken credit for having authorized these flights and stands behind the decision to do so. Okay. Fair enough.

Whether he was talking about the same flights Moore was talking about is yet to be determined. Whether they are the same ones recently acknowledged to have occurred by the Tampa Bay International Airport is also unclear.

But what's so puzzling is that somehow, in the seemingly deluded and addled brains of these Bush Apologists, the alleged fact that Clarke was the one who signed off on these flights somehow either pardons George W. Bush for it, or succeeds in showing Moore to be a "liar".

Am I missing something here?

Didn't Richard Clarke work for the Bush Administration? Does it matter if he is the one that approved these flights for the Bush Administration? Doesn't the buck stop with the "President"? Does it somehow make it less true that these flights, which the Administration has denied for months, actually occurred? Is this all these guys have got on Michael Moore?

Surely they can do better. Or maybe not. Only time will tell. But so far the only proven liars seem to be the Bush Administration and those who would shamelessly defend them by calling Moore a liar without actually giving a shred of proof to back that up.

As Joe Scarborough well knows, and as one of his "Democratic Strategists" said before her mic was turned off by Scarborough, "Editing is the highest form of commentary". I have no doubt that Moore, as he even acknowledged last night on The Daily Show, has presented the facts in a way that best proves the case he is trying to make. He admits to "not being fair". Scarborough knows that, as does Rush and Sean, and the NY Times, everyone working at MSNBC and yes - even the Bush Whitehouse from Karl Rove on down to the President of the United States.

Well, Joe...here's the Real Deal: When you ask a guest how they "can say this film is not full of lies" and tell them that "Lisa Myers says there's all these lies in the movie" you must realize that some of us watching don't fall for the old Limbaugh Trick which you guys have so well mastered. The real question is how can you keep suggesting Moore is a liar without actually giving a single lie? It sounds to me like you're pissed that Michael Moore is using that trick --- though unlike Limbaugh, he actually uses facts and reporting --- and it's now turning against you.

That sucks, doesn't it? No wonder when your other guest, "Republican Strategist" Jack Berkman started calling for a boycott on your show, you couldn't shut him up quickly enough.

You've learned the power of the media, even if it wasn't until you were hoisted on your own petard. And now you may even finally be understanding how your attempts to shut folks like Moore up, do nothing but give him a louder voice. Perhaps Fox News has already learned that. They, shocking the world, gave the film a glowing review! Go figure.

I'll let you know what I think of the film...after I actually see it.

                 

Article Categories: (Uncategorized)