He sure can down a cheeseburger

June 17, 2004 10:58 PM

Michael Moore witheld Abu Ghraib torture footage - So, when do we get to see it, Michael ? Liberal torture apologia is OK then ?
posted by troutfishing (43 comments total)

Your government owns that footage, why don't you bug them about releasing it? Or are we so far down the corruption slide that one has to attack the few mainstream dissident voices out there?
posted by skallas at 11:02 PM on June 17, 2004

I think he ate it.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:04 PM on June 17, 2004

If true, if your government is so fargone that the normal democratic process doesn't work then what good is Moore showing you powerless citizens some video?

Also: Last week Moore didn't give me $20! Ignore the fact that I have a crappy job. Where's my money, bitch?
posted by skallas at 11:08 PM on June 17, 2004

skallas, Sy Hersh - who says he has seen more of the Abu Ghraib material than has been made publically available - says he has seen images of young children being tortured in front of their parents.

Michael Moore is OK.

But - where's the footage ?
posted by troutfishing at 11:09 PM on June 17, 2004

If he withheld footage documenting a war crime, then fuck him. I'd like to see some actual information about it, though, instead of that ridiculous article, or editorial, or whatever it was.
posted by Hildago at 11:09 PM on June 17, 2004

Hidalgo - you might be right. Indeed, the article has it's weak points. Meanwhile, Abu Ghraib torture was pretty bad, eh?
posted by troutfishing at 11:16 PM on June 17, 2004

"withheld" = "didn't put it in his movie?"

Is he a public official now, required to edit his shit with the Freedom of Information Act sitting open next to him?
posted by scarabic at 11:17 PM on June 17, 2004

Damned if you do... Damned if you don't...
"I had it months before the story broke on '60 Minutes,' and I really struggled with what to do with it,'' Moore said in a telephone interview with The Chronicle. "I wanted to come out with it sooner, but I thought I'd be accused of just putting this out for publicity for my movie. That prevented me from making maybe the right decision.''

Besides, I don't think it's Michael Moore's fault that the government knew what was going on (more info) at Al Ghraib months before the story broke but decided to withhold the information from the public.

I would think since the conservatives running this country tried to pressure CBS News's 60 Minutes into not releasing the footage on the basis that it might worsen the tensions in Iraq and result in more dead soldiers, that they might at least have to concede to Michael Moore the same lame excuse. A bit hypocritical I think. The government had the responsibility here, not Moore.
posted by banished at 11:31 PM on June 17, 2004

I've heard that in America one party controls both houses of congress. I'm sure if you called their headquarters or your representative they would quickly bring proceedings against the president if he was doing anything remotely illegal, just like they did to Clinton.

*the cluephone rings*

What? The president is a Republican too? Hypocrites of the highest order? Oh my!

*hangs up cluephone*

Yeah, lets attack the fat documentary guy because our government doesn't work anymore.
posted by skallas at 11:34 PM on June 17, 2004

I'm sure that the footage will get out now that Hezbollah has volunteered to help distribute it!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:40 PM on June 17, 2004

Hey, lets also attack the vets who hate Kerry because the government doesn't work anymore!
posted by jmd82 at 11:42 PM on June 17, 2004

that Hezbollah has volunteered to help distribute it!

of course! because if you're against torture, then you're pro-hezbollah!
nice try!

let's hear it from Sy Hersh:


He said that after he broke (the) Abu Ghraib (story) people are coming out of the woodwork to tell him this stuff. He said he had seen all the Abu Ghraib pictures. He said, "You haven't begun to see evil..." then trailed off. He said, "horrible things done to children of women prisoners, as the cameras run."
He looked frightened.

you didn't strike me as the guy as the guy who approved of torturing children, Steve.
but it's good to know.
posted by matteo at 11:59 PM on June 17, 2004

Stupid, ignorant op ed piece.
posted by Keyser Soze at 12:05 AM on June 18, 2004

I thought the article read "organisations related to the Hezbollah" not "Hezbollah." And what organisations are they?
posted by josephtate at 12:06 AM on June 18, 2004

Hey, lets also attack the vets who hate Kerry because the government doesn't work anymore!

Actually, that makes perfect sense, as attacking them will help Kerry oust the incumbent president You know, Bush, aka: the government that doesn't work anymore.

der.
posted by scarabic at 12:10 AM on June 18, 2004

Moore's right. Painfully and miserably, but he's right. He just didn't possess the moral gravitas to make Abu Gharib anything more than a freak show, yet another "I HATE BUSH" in a litany of the same.

_Alot_ of people knew very bad things were happening. It took a long time for those people to arrange things such that the message could be received correctly -- in such a manner that, months later, the story has not blown over, is not yesterday's news, was not the ravings of an ultra-liberal.

The worst thing Moore could have done would have been to release the videos next to his smirking mug and been a bigger story than the people being tortured.

It may be painful. But he's right -- he wasn't the man for the job. Those of 60 minutes were.
posted by effugas at 12:15 AM on June 18, 2004

of course! because if you're against torture, then you're pro-hezbollah!
nice try!


Do you ever read the links?

Meanwhile, in the United Arab Emirates, the film is being offered the kind of support it doesn't need. According to Screen International, the UAE-based distributor Front Row Entertainment has been contacted by organisations related to the Hezbollah in Lebanon with offers of help.

I'm not saying Moore is Pro-Hezbollah, I'm saying Hezbollah (or organisations related to Hezbollah) is apparently Pro-Moore.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:17 AM on June 18, 2004

>I'm saying Hezbollah (or organisations related to Hezbollah) is apparently Pro-Moore.

Of course, it never dawned on you that they are so anti-Bush that they would support an infidel westerner's movie as opposed to being "Pro-Moore." I mean, what the hell does that mean. Are they watching Roger & Me right now and laughing?
posted by skallas at 12:24 AM on June 18, 2004

No, they're watching Roger & Me and cursing us for our freedoms.
posted by interrobang at 12:33 AM on June 18, 2004

No, they're feeling a vague hunger for rabbit.
posted by scarabic at 1:47 AM on June 18, 2004

"Steve_at_Linnwood": drawn like a moth to Michael Moore's big fat flame...
posted by sic at 2:17 AM on June 18, 2004

Mmmm, rabit. (I am from Flint)

Unelected president claims mandate, goes to war on false pretense. Americans go Bahhh Bahhhh. No story at 11.
posted by Goofyy at 2:43 AM on June 18, 2004

Well given that Daniel Wolff is taking the liberty of putting words in Michael mouth by using the nice trick of interpretation mixed with actual words (poetic licence I guess ? ) I can do that as well, why not :

"I wanted to release the information that U.S. soldiers were abusing Iraqi prisoners, thus, potentially, creating enough stir to stop the practice, save lives and reveal the inhumanity that is at the core of this war.

But I also figured that my stances against corporations, the considerable amounts of hate and prejudice I managed to attract could have been used against my scoop on iraq abuses, ultimately bringing more attention on me then on the abuse itself. Of course I could have told that some abuse was happening and I know this could have been a very good PR move, a ton of good advertising for me and for free, because the abuses were facts not baloney.

But instead I decided that it was much a better idea to just let know in the inner circles of journalism, the ones in which there's still some journalist that doesn't fear going against special interest or against governments and that, as the same time, is not already a public enemy number one. I felt the story was too imporant and that, even if I could have profited greatly from it, I decided not to take advantage and, instead, I just whisteblowed to "more respected" people "
posted by elpapacito at 2:50 AM on June 18, 2004

It's interesting how you can reverse bait and get no qualms, yet as soon as you're truthful about the state of-- Whoops, wrong answer. The truth summed up in 20 bullet points gets yanked. I.E. my "FPP" to what illogical hoops one must jump through to be a Bush apologizing Republican these days.

That's sorry. I suppose Matt would pull a link to a story about all those non-partisan officials that said Bush must go too as this is far too charged an issue. Apparently it's still partisan to call a spade a spade.

And of course, don't get me wrong, I'm not angry in the least. It's just funny. "He sure can down a cheeseburger".

Matt, troutfishing does not mean that. Where's the liberal outrage, you know? How dare anybody make fun of MM's weight? This is cheap, a travesty in fact. Yet you let this post through. . .

Oh well. I wasn't trying to bait anyone. I thought it was an interesting list and I was fully prepared to back it up with comments about how I thought it was different than most lists.

And trout: nice underscoring of irony whether you meant it or not in the way I took it. It worked at least in my mind. ;)
posted by crasspastor at 3:15 AM on June 18, 2004

Hah, if Michael Moore had ever tried releasing the torture footage, we'd probably be looking at pictures of his big old naked butt in pyramid pics one day. I would guess Ashcroft & co would have loved to find a reason to lock him up and throw away the key for some trumped up treason charge. National security, you know.
posted by madamjujujive at 3:31 AM on June 18, 2004

I'm not saying Moore is Pro-Hezbollah, I'm saying Hezbollah (or organisations related to Hezbollah) is apparently Pro-Moore.

So what? Mel Gibson's The Passion was very popular in Egypt and throughout the Middle East because they approved of how it made the Jews look horrible. Who knew Mel was aligned Islamic Fundamentalism, right?
posted by crank at 5:55 AM on June 18, 2004

No, they're watching Roger & Me and cursing us for our freedoms.

Coffee + this comment = new keyboard purchase
posted by DrJohnEvans at 5:59 AM on June 18, 2004

Hah, if Michael Moore had ever tried releasing the torture footage, we'd probably be looking at pictures of his big old naked butt in pyramid pics one day.

There's a cheerful thought. Later we could photoshop iconomy in there, grinning and pointing at his big old butt while she's puffing on a cigarette.
posted by y2karl at 6:44 AM on June 18, 2004

FWIW, I've seen Fahrenheit 9/11, and the footage in the film doesn't look like Abu Ghraib--it's not in a prison, but outside somewhere. There are several soldiers making fun of a detainee's erection, we can see them put hoods on Iraqis, and there's actual film footage of the soldiers grinning and having their pictures taken with the hooded prisoners. If that's all Moore had, and we hadn't seen anything else yet, it would have seemed like a few soldiers misbehaving. Now that we do know what happened at AG and elsewhere, this makes the torture and mistreatment a lot more widespread.

To blame Moore for the torture and the coverup is going a bit far now, isn't it?
posted by muckster at 6:59 AM on June 18, 2004

[seem] a lot more widespread.
posted by muckster at 7:00 AM on June 18, 2004

Sheesh. I was gonna post a MeTa thread requesting a moratorium on Moore posts at least until the movie is officially released. But then I thought, naw, that's only a week. And we've discussed the movie to death from every possible vantage point. How could they possibly come up with yet another angle to argue about? Live and learn.

That said, once again I distrust Moore's motives because he is a shameless huckster, but Christ, this put-words-in-his-mouth "article" is absolute crap.
posted by soyjoy at 7:36 AM on June 18, 2004

Does that rabbit come with pancakes?
posted by Outlawyr at 9:16 AM on June 18, 2004

I like the bit where he puts Moore’s comments into quasi-modus-ponens. Although, an accusation of him having committed a straw man wouldn't seem all that wild.
posted by ed\26h at 9:18 AM on June 18, 2004

Your government owns that footage, why don't you bug them about releasing it? Or are we so far down the corruption slide that one has to attack the few mainstream dissident voices out there?

Two wrongs don't make a right, Skallas.
posted by ed\26h at 9:27 AM on June 18, 2004

Yeah, lets attack the fat documentary guy

That was a joke, right?

Or did Rush Limbaugh just become an AM Radio Newscaster, and Moore needs to keep up?

*points and laughs at both of the fat entertainers*
posted by Kwantsar at 9:40 AM on June 18, 2004

The only positive contribution I can make here is that Trout's title, "He sure can down a cheeseburger" is not a joke about Moore being a big fatty but a semi-obscure reference to a Moore-cheeseburger/"torch burger" love affair that another member likes to bring up: 1, 2, 3, 4.

Also, to me, Counterpunch links have the same value as Newsmax links.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:50 AM on June 18, 2004

Counterpunch is usually better than this, at least one notch above NewsMax, but this certainly gives fodder to those who would equate them.

In an attempt to redeem this thread, though, let me suggest that Moore's next movie should be about Saddam the Taxi Driver.

"You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me???"
posted by soyjoy at 10:03 AM on June 18, 2004

I've heard that in America one party controls both houses of congress.
Skallas you didn't take US government?
posted by thomcatspike at 10:20 AM on June 18, 2004

thom, you didn't take Current Events?
posted by soyjoy at 10:35 AM on June 18, 2004

I'm just going to quote this from a discussion about this on another site, last week.
"I do love Michael Moore's all-seeing cameras.
He's got miles of interviews with Headless Nick Berg...but you can't see them, out of consideration for the family.
He's got man-pyramids a mile high, before you were even a gleam in your daddy's eye...but he won't show them to you, because you might get the wrong idea.
I eagerly await footage he has of the CIA planting WMDs in Syria....that you can't see.
But you can see Farenheit: 911 at your local multiplex for $12."

Cui bono?
posted by darukaru at 12:27 PM on June 18, 2004

darukaru: cui bono ? Bonus for Michael, of course. But given that you're not forced to buy any of Michael product, if you don't want to, his bonus is also dependant on your decision. In this instance you really have some decision power , given that you can almost surely do without the product of his "corporation". Indipendence really is "not to need something" , not only having the decision power of consumer, which is only that of choosing between present alternatives to needs. A fake freedom of choice, so to say.

Maybe Michael isn't the best possible deliverer of powerful messages and maybe one thinks he's _only_ politically motivated : one may consider watching The Corporation movie , which is more like what many consider a documentary, without spinned references to this or that political party of choice. You'll see that if you temporarily get rid of political stances (pro or against something) the Cui Bono is more likely to stand out, regardless of whose cui bono we're talking about.
posted by elpapacito at 3:34 PM on June 18, 2004

What a worthless, stupid, irrelevant little editorial.
posted by bingo at 7:08 AM on June 19, 2004

(the article)
posted by bingo at 7:09 AM on June 19, 2004