« Former Navy Sec'y Middendorf delivers broad hints on Kerry's discharge | Main | Open election thread »

Monday, November 01, 2004

Michael Moore is proud to have Osama bin Laden mimic "Fahrenheit 9/11"

I cannot adequately express how much it disgusts me to read this, in Michael Moore's own boastful words on his own website, as part of his so-called pre-election letter to the President of the United States:

There he was, OBL, all tan and rested and on videotape (hey, did you get the feeling that he had a bootleg of my movie? Are there DVD players in those caves in Afghanistan?)

Instead of expressing shame or remorse that his bogus talking points have found their way into a pathological maniac's videotaped taunt of and threats to America — instead of emphatically disassociating himself from Osama bin Laden's use of his material — Michael Moore boasts and jokes of it.

I would defend to my death Michael Moore's First Amendment rights to make himself into the most offensive and ridiculous piece of excrement in the United States.  But there is no living American for whom I have more loathing.  That Sen. Kerry has not used Michael Moore for his own "Sister Soulja moment" makes me long for the political cunning or comparative marginal integrity, however you'd like to characterize it, of Bill Clinton.

Posted by Beldar at 07:05 PM in Politics (2006 & earlier) | Permalink


Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Michael Moore is proud to have Osama bin Laden mimic "Fahrenheit 9/11" and sent a trackback ping are listed here:


(1) Mr. K made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 7:23:13 PM | Permalink

Michael Moore has been a more effective aid to the enemy than 10,000 suicide bombers...in fact, the Team America movie got it exactly right.

(2) anon made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 8:03:50 PM | Permalink

This is also bad, I think:

Monday, November 1, 2004 4:22 p.m. EST

DNC Targets Bush's Daughters
Anyone who still thinks Kedwards' invocation of Mary Cheney in the debates was innocent should consider what Ben Johnson, deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee, had to say about President Bush's daughters in a radio debate with conservative commentator Armstrong Williams this morning. The subject was the possibility of black Americans voting for Bush over moral issues like abortion and same-sex marriage:

No one has a monopoly on morality in this country. And if you want to talk about morality, I mean, look at George Bush's daughters. If he was such a heck of a father, why couldn't he keep those girls from drinking?

An MP3 audio clip from the program, which was hosted by Karen Hunter and Steve Malzberg and aired on WWRL-AM, "New York's Urban Talk," is here.

(3) loki made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 8:25:26 PM | Permalink

Mirrored it almost too closely. The more we learn about what the tape said, the more it seems bizarre to me. Is this the normal talk of an Osama video? Talking about the U.S. political process, budgeting, etc.?

C'mon, Osama. Hold up a paper. Put on a Sox cap. Show us you are alive and not the work of some talented Al Jazeera editors.

And, just when you think that there is nothing Michael Moore could do to sink even lower. . .

(4) David Blue made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 9:20:42 PM | Permalink

'Fahrenheit 9/11' screening fans anti-Bush flames (Yahoo News: link)


"With less than 24 hours before Americans head to the polls, Moore was still going for Mr Bush's jugular, urging people to vote for Democratic Senator John Kerry." . . .

"To Mr Kerry, he [Michael Moore] wrote: Thank you. And don't worry - none of us are going away after you are inaugurated. We'll be there to hold your hand and keep you honest. Don't let us down. We're betting you won't. So is the rest of the world."


"We'll be there to hold your hand and keep you honest." Michael Moore, I believe you.

"Don't let us down. We're betting you won't." I believe you will win this bet if John F. Kerry wins the election.

But I think George W. Bush will win, with at least 55% of the popular vote and at least 300 Electoral College votes.

(5) Steel Turman made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 9:57:30 PM | Permalink

I am a vet. A war vet and proud. And what I'm
going to say is the most difficult and onerous
thing I have ever said. I would NOT fight for
Michael Moore's right to speak freely. No more
than I would fight for the rights of rats to inhabit
my space. To hell with him and quickly.
There is a line over which when once stepped
has no retreat. NONE. I would grant the same
consideration to Hitler. No mercy. No quarter.
No way, no how. Dead is the best resolution
as regards Mr. Moore. Plain old pennys in the
eyes dead. DEAD. I make no apologies to any
concerning this. Not even to myself. DEAD. A
new day is dawning and we can chose. VOTE! As
if your life depended upon it. It does.

(6) Chads made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 10:31:10 PM | Permalink

Steel Turman

I agree that Moore has crossed the line. I also, think Dan Rather and the good Senator Kerry are over there with him. None of those three would know the truth if it smacked them upside the head. The problem is, in making these judgements where do they stop? Don't get me wrong, I agree with you wholeheartedly, but where would good intentions stop and the slippery slope begin?

(7) Terry Gain made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 12:14:22 AM | Permalink

Steel Turman should not have to fight this battle. He has already served his country. Did he fight for his country only to have the Michael Moore's spit on him and on those who today are giving their lives for their country?

Yes, Moore has a right to speak but he ought to have been "taken on" i. e. his lies ought to have been challenged- and if the mass media wasn't going to do it (because they agree with him or his goals) the supporters of the administration ought to have taken him on directly, en masse.

When the spiritual leader of America's sworn enemy parrots Moore it ought to be clear that's it's long past time for Americans to stand up to Moore. Moore's lies are undermining the war effort abroad and costing American lives.

If Bush is elected he needs to develop a better communications strategy. A first step would be not to let the lies of the Michael Moores of this world go unchallenged. It shouldn't be necessary for those who support the war to go to Chrenkoff or IRAQ THE MODEL to get the whole story from Iraq. If MSM isn't going to give it to us the administration must.

I saw a clear example of this tonight while watching Pala Zahn's townhall meeting from Florida. One gentleman said he had been in South America and voiced concern over being confronted with signs of Abu Ghraib and allegation of 200,000 people being killed in Iraq. Ralph Reed did a wonderful job of defending the Bush record throughtout the night, but his answer to this question was inadequate. He didn't point out that this is a war which has saved Iraqi lives even as it's being fought.

The number of Iraqi civilians killed during this 18 month war is reliably estmated at less than 20,000.This number, however regrettable, is to be compared with the number who were killed by the regime or died because of sanctions. It is estimated that the number of Iraqi civilians killed during Saddam's 25 year reign of terror is between 600,000 and one million. In addition, according to Unicef, Iraqi children were dying at the rate of 40,000 per year and nearly one million were malnourished (because of sanctions.)


This information should be at the fingertips of everyone who is called upon to defend the administration's decision to liberate Iraq.

Your soldiers are doing the work of angels while the world points an accusing finger. The war on terror cannot be won without winning the propaganda war. Given what Saddam did to his people and what America is doing for his people winning the propaganda war is possible, if difficult because of ignorance and bias.

You must also fight the enemy within or the war to defeat the foreign enemy will take that much longer. Moore should be severely challenged and criticized for his partisan lies. He should be ostracized by decent society and those who support him should be asked if they wish to take resposibility for the effect of his propaganda.

(8) Joe made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 4:23:59 AM | Permalink

OT, but Beldar, I hope you'll be able to squeeze in a comment today about the farcical suit that Tom Daschle filed against John Thune in South Dakota overnight alleging intimidation of voters on Indian reservations. All Daschle got for his trouble was egg over his face (and a penny-ante order to the GOP not to record license plate numbers).

(9) VA Jim made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 6:08:40 AM | Permalink

On the subject of free speech and filmakers.....

Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh who made a controversial film Submission about violence against women in Islamic societies, has been assassinated in Amsterdam. Eyewitnesses said Mr Van Gogh was attacked by a man dressed in a traditional Moroccan jalaba, said to have stuck a pamphlet to Mr Van Gogh's chest before the murder.

Google's links on this.

(10) Ron made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 7:26:19 AM | Permalink

I think that freedom of speech is an inherent right that Beldar is correct in defending. I don't know if he'll agree, however, that freedom of speech today, and the freedom it was meant to give by the framers of the Constitution, are one and the same. You see, the big difference here is in degree. Our founding fathers envisioned a land where speaking one's mind in public or private quarters, held no penalty. In the late 18th century concern swirled around John Smith telling Joe Jones he thought the King's Church was a bad religion, and getting flogged or censored was wrong for John Smith speaking his mind.

John Smith may have said this to a few people at home or maybe in a public square, later to be misquoted in the Philadelphia Times. This reached John Smith's intended audience; the local few. That is the context and the application of free speech.

Enter the age of the mass media. The voice of one man carries the voice of millions. This is where I think we all get mad at the free speech issue. It doesn't matter which side of the aisle you occupy, if Michael Moore stands before his countrymen on television and calls us all idiots and fools for voting a certain way, we have no similar voice in rebutting that claim. The same applies to the print media.

The point I'm trying to make, and I'm no Beldar, is freedom of speech should be given to all, not just a select few that hold the microphone. All I see are well dressed rich people bashing other well dressed rich people. None of them speak for us and we are not allowed freedom of speech to rebut it.

(11) Rove made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 8:58:50 AM | Permalink

[Comment deleted. Those who use my bandwidth to cut-and-paste 4200-word off-topic screed-and-link lists, like "Rove" here, get their IPs banned. He's welcome, of course, to start up his own blog.
— Beldar]

(12) Cap'n DOC made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 9:24:26 AM | Permalink

Thank God there is a limit...

Kerry Lied. Good men died.

(13) Paul H. made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 9:37:12 AM | Permalink

"Rove" (is that handle meant to be a sarcastic touch?):

You start your post "THE COMPLETE GUIDE TO BUSH'S DEFEAT 2004" by saying:

"A 'short' but informative guide to everything you need to ....etc"

"short"? It's never good for one's credibility to start a post with a blatant lie, Rove.

7-day artillery preps worked in WWI because the poor bastards in the trenches on the other side couldn't go anywhere. But here on the internet, we Bush proletarians can just grab our rifles and move out from under smartly.

A smart "Kerry-shevik" would know that it's necessary to begin the Reign of MAss. Kerryism with less outward condescension (try for some good old - fashioned Brahmin patrician brevity: "less is more").

I know the urge to pound deluded "Bushites" is almost irresistable, but remember your Yale Shakespeare classes, would you? "The quality of mercy is not strained; it floweth like federal bailout payments to the Big Dig... etc.etc. "

(14) MD made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 10:32:57 AM | Permalink

Beldar, Michael Moore is beneath you (by several orders of magnitude). That an entire political party can be conned and seduced by a shameless carnival barker is an interesting topic for discussion. Perhaps because they have no ideas of their own?

(15) Paul H. made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 11:01:27 AM | Permalink

Beldar: "I would defend to my death Michael Moore's First Amendment rights..."

I think we can take this for granted, Beldar. I'm tired of folks on our side feeling that they have to repeat this "mantra" ad nauseum; it just delights Moore and his ilk, who constantly imply that we are out to "suppress" them, "chill" them, etc., due to hinted-at-but-deep-seated latent "fascism" etc.

Micheal Moore won't lift a finger to help you if you get caught at "ground zero" in the next terrorist attack (except to point his video camera at you, to record some footage for his next movie).

I'm sure you'd go into a dangerous situation to help him. Just resolve (as I do) that you'll first assist all other individuals in the "blast" area, before returning to save him -- last.

(Another, not inconsiderable advantage of this approach is that if he gets "fried" while waiting for help, you won't have to strain your back...)

(16) VA Jim made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 11:09:57 AM | Permalink

[I was going to email asking for 'Rove's' post be removed; but on second thought it's fitting as a representation of the campaign]

Certainly one aspect the Founders probably didn't think about was the government-granted monopolies on some (TV, radio) media. Several attempts by the FCC to grant "micro station" have floundered; but the issue needs revisiting.

Whether the FCC was truly interested in the concept or whether the plans were poorly laid out is immaterial. It's clear that granting huge swaths of communications monopoly has will lead to, and has led to, horrible abuse.

The newly apparent power of the internet is due to the fact that anyone can setup and publish. That model needs to be translated into the broadcast spectrum.

(17) Connecticut_Yankee made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 11:13:53 AM | Permalink


A comment and a question. Comment: I find it rather interesting that Michael Moore can get rich from making a movie that gave OBL some of his best lines, while a Dutch filmmaker (Theo van Gogh) is murdered for making a movie critical of Islam.

Question: As a lawyer, what is your take on this statement from Jim Dyke (communications director for the RNC)? (Link courtesy of Charles at Little Green Footballs).

Link: http://www.rnc.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=5045


(18) LarryD made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 11:21:27 AM | Permalink

Chad, that's why the Founders defined treason in the Constitution. They knew how easily the treason charge was abused.

Unfortunately, Congress hasn't passed anything explicly labeled "Declaration of War" since WWII, so the first part of any treason trial would be establishing that we are at war, either because of the 9/11 attack establishing a state of war, or because Congress's resolution constitutes a declaration of war, even if it isn't labeled as such.

(19) Kent made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 11:23:50 AM | Permalink


Just my opinion, but I think Rove's post is far enough over the line that you are justified in deleting it. Opening your mouth is not an invitation for someone to stuff it full of hostile campaign flyers.

As for the free speech issue, my experience is that whenever a liberal pauses to acknowledge the free speech rights of a conservative, it is because he is about to demonize the conservative. I believe this is a kind of ritual of self-absolution -- "I'm a good guy who believes in free speech, so it's okay that I'm about to calumnify another human being in a way that would be completely socially unacceptable in any other context." Let's not make this mistake.

Of course you recognize freedom of speech; it goes without saying, or ought to. It is sufficient to politely explain why Moore's behavior is helping a brutal and dangerous enemy of the country we both love. Any reader with an I.Q. above room temperature can then draw the obvious conclusions about Moore's character and motives.

(20) JAT made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 11:25:00 AM | Permalink

'Fahrenheit 9/11'

I can only hope that America defends its right to speach and boycotts the Oscars - if this is the trash Hollywood thinks should receive awards.

(21) Chads made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 11:26:09 AM | Permalink

Conneticut Yankee

So who's the greatest threat, Islamic militants or the Patriot Act?


(22) Kent made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 11:32:41 AM | Permalink

Pardon me for posting twice in succession. I'm not a moonbat, really...


Do keep in mind that there were significant technological restrictions on broadcast bandwidth when network TV first became big. The monopolies granted by Congress had a basis in physical reality. In return for the grant of monopoly, broadcasters were expected to act in the public interest, and could have a license pulled (for example) by broadcasting profanity.

Technology has advanced and bandwidth is much less of a problem. As a result, the broadcasters seem to have acquired more freedom to make asses of themselves, a freedom they exercise enthusiastically. But their monopoly on VHF and UVF channels is rapidly becoming meaningless, so we can hope it will all work out in the end. (And not just hope -- we can keep on blogging.)

(23) The Old Coot made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 11:33:35 AM | Permalink

Beldar: Respectfully suggest you do not delete Rove's post as it does such a good job of demonstrating the incandescent stupidity of the Moore-loving left.

(24) PC made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 11:57:54 AM | Permalink

Leave Rove's cut and paste. I needed that quick troll-scroll, excercise today.

His lame "Name" reflects his lack of creative communicatiion skills.

(25) slarrow made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 12:07:43 PM | Permalink


Here's the thing about what Michael Moore said: this is an episode of the cost of free speech, not an example of its benefits. It's like pornography: it's the price we pay to have legitimate public speech so that we don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

That's why I've never liked the phrasing "defend to the death your right to say" X. It's a noble sentiment, but it gives the offender a pass by automatically including the idiocy along with the stuff that we do legitimately defend.

(26) Beldar made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 12:15:12 PM | Permalink

The "defend to the death" phrase is a shorthand way to innoculate against Moore's claims that he's being censored, disenfranchised, oppressed, harassed, etc. But I also mean it.

(27) ODA 564 made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 2:43:21 PM | Permalink

Mr. Moore is not worth the effort of defending.

While I am a passionate defender of the Constitution, its philosphical basis in 18th century discourse, the crucible of the Revolution (in word and deed) and the Framers' thoughts (both Federalist and anti-Federalist), I must draw the line.

My family has fought in every American war since the War of Jenkin's Ear. My father for 33 (WW II, Korea, VN). I served the Republic for 20 years (GW I). My son serves it now in Iraq.

If Mr. Moore's rights need defending I suggest he do himself.

And if the Jihadis win the victory that Mr. Moore and the 'Hate Amercia' movement want, then Mr. Moore will learn how much they revere free speech, tolerance of dissent (or just tolerance of anything), and the dignity of man.

Will Mr. Moore struggle at the moment of his beheading by the Jihadis, spiting in their eyes like a brave Italian or go to his death blubbering and screaming?

(28) Rhod made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 4:40:35 PM | Permalink

Steel Turman:

I agree. I spent my time in the Iron Triangle years ago and did not fight then, nor ever will, for a worthless piece of s**t like Michael Moore. Moore is in a long line of vile, debased human beings who have populated the American Left since the mid 60's.

Many of them then were as extreme as Michael Moore, but whatever else you say about them, the times were strange enough to accomodate almost ANY opinion about ANY subject. Not any more. There is NO context suitable to justify the existence of the revolting pile of garbage named Michael Moore.

It's a cliche that Freedom isn't free, but it's also true. The men who died in my war were not all heroes, nor all good or all bad. They were simply men reaching as deeply as possible to do what was required of them. That's the price of freedom. The test. Heroism consists of doing what you dread the most, and Moore is a parasite feeding on every drop of blood ever spilled to defend this country.

The son a bitch will get, someday, what he deserves, and I wish I could be around to watch.

[Reluctantly edited for entirely appropriate profanity — Beldar.]

(29) Neo made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 6:02:24 PM | Permalink

Come on now, Michael Moore is just latest in a long string of hucksters and opportunists (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al) to run along side the Democratic Party. I say run along side because they don't really represent a majority of Democrats, let alone a majority of Americans.
Unfortunately, stupid and gullible politician will use anything that goes their way, so Michael Moore is getting a free ride for the moment.

(30) Dimsdale made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 9:58:52 PM | Permalink

Michael Moore is honored by both bin Laden and Kerry (not to mention all the other libs and France). There common thread is a "dislike" of America or aspects of it.

I wonder where the line is drawn at sedition or aiding and abetting the enemy? Does providing a declared enemy of the U.S. with a virtual script for his terrorism tapes count?

(31) Kent made the following comment | Nov 3, 2004 1:17:19 AM | Permalink

Those of us who say we would die to protect Michael Moore's right to bloviate are quite serious. The key point is that this isn't because we see the slightest redeeming social value to Moore's works. Our reasons for protecting free speech are entirely selfish: A concept of rights that allows Moore to publish his coprographies freely also allows us to blog freely. We're in it for ourselves, not Moore -- make no mistake about it.

The comments to this entry are closed.