The Leni Riefenstahl of Our Generation…

Propaganda-meister Michael Moore’s latest smear campaign, Fahrenheit 9/11, opens Friday, June 25. It is rated R for “violent and disturbing images and for language.” I personally think it ought to be rated BS since it’s nothing but a steaming Liberal pile of bullsh*t.

I’ve made this reference about Michael Moore several times in conversations with friends, and it’s the first time that I’ve done so here on the ConBlog. I do so now, for all of you.
I sincerely believe that Michael Moore is the Leni Riefenstahl of our time.
Now, I want everyone to be clear about this before the Libs start obfuscating the truth. I am not calling Michael Moore a Nazi. I would not do anything of the sort…I would never make such a comparison. When I say he is the Leni Riefenstahl of our time, I mean that he makes modern-day propaganda films. Ms. Riefenstahl, who passed away last year at the age of 101, was the director of many propaganda films for the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler. Although her films were widely praised in a cinematic sense, they were obviously–and correctly–criticized as “ideologically repugnant.”
Now, speaking of repugnant, we have Michael Moore. You remember him, I’m sure. He’s the guy who made Bowling for Columbine and won an Oscar for it. When accepting his award, he launched into a tirade of the Bush Administration which made news all over the world. Moore has seemingly turned his career into making movies that do nothing but propagandize and proselytize for the left.
Granted, there is a First Amendment, and it’s a beautiful thing. However, let’s look at what defines propaganda…

pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: “prä-p&-’gan-d&, “prO- / Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

By his own admission, Moore’s goal is to prevent the re-election of President George W. Bush. While I support his right to have his belief, I wish he’d just come out and call his film what it is–propaganda–instead of saying it’s a documentary. Documentaries are supposed to be factual and objective. Moore’s “film” is certainly not the latter, and I’d be willing to bet it is hardly the former.
What charges does Moore level at Bush? Moore claims that there is a relationship between the families of George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden. James Bath, a Bush friend, was hired by the bin Laden family to manage their interests in Texas. Bath, in turn, reportedly invested in George W. Bush’s Arbusto oil company. In 1976. Moore also highlights other business investments tied to the Carlyle group, which both Presidents Bush have worked for.
OK…wait…so a friend of George W. Bush managed money for the bin Laden family?? You know, it’s been reported that Osama watched the 9/11 attacks on CNN. Using that logic, does that mean that I have a relationship Osama bin Laden because we both watched CNN? No, it doesn’t. Oh, but wait…the charges get even more blistering.
Moore also claims that charter flights, carrying Saudi nationals and members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to depart the United States and were authorized by high-level government officials. On his website, Moore cites this part of the 9/11 Commission’s report:

“After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin.” National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12

What Moore DOESN’T reprint on his website is the very next paragraph in the report.

The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12

Well, that was conveniently left off of his website, wasn’t it? The reason why they were allowed to leave is that there was no reason to detain them further! Last I knew, people in this country were innocent until proven guilty–even if they’re from Saudi Arabia.
Who supposedly gave the clearance for this plane to depart American air space? Former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke. Clarke, who can’t seem to get his story straight between his book, testimony before the 9/11 Commission, and press reports. Oh, yeah…there’s a credible source for you.
Moore also claims to be refuting false claims against the film in a “war room.” Looking at the “Fahrenheit 9/11 Facts” on the right hand side of his site there are only four (as of 6/23)–and I know there are a lot more people saying this film is bogus.
Even Ray Bradbury, author of Fahrenheit 451–the book from which the title of the “film” is derived–is demanding an apology. Moore never sought permission from Bradbury to use the title. Bradbury called him six months ago to complain and request that the name be changed, and he didn’t get a call back…not until it was supposedly “too late” to change the film’s name. Bradbury, a registered independent, had hoped to avoid litigation.
The bottom line is Michael Moore’s film is nothing more than a Liberal propaganda film disguised as a documentary. It is a slanderous attack against a Republican Administration and those who support it.
Sadly, there will be those who see this film and accept it as truth. Moore says that with this film he is “asking for is the right to show what they HAVEN’T shown us, the real truth. The truth that ain’t pretty (and is, sadly, damningly hilarious).”
There is nothing hilarious about September 11, 2001, the war in Iraq, or this piece of rubbish called a film. It’s our job to make sure that the real truth–and not Michael Moore’s version–is remembered by all Americans.
You know, at least Leni Riefenstahl was an artist and a pioneer. One could never make that mistake in describing Michael Moore. Moore is a sad and pathetic person who deals in half-truths and conspiracies. His propaganda film will be revealed for what it is–and if not now, then in time.
William Smith
ConservativeBlogger.com