To support this point, Moore shows clips of administration officials giving warnings about dangers, and intersperses them with clips from a speech in which Bush says things like “fly and enjoy America’s great destination spots,” and “take your families and enjoy life” and “get down to Disney World in Florida.” These statements are from remarks Bush made at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport to airline industry employees on September 27, 2001. He was not offering advice, but describing a goal of the war on terror:

And one of the great goals of this nation’s war is to restore public confidence in the airline industry. It’s to tell the traveling public: Get on board. Do your business around the country. Fly and enjoy America’s great destination spots. Get down to Disney World in Florida. Take your families and enjoy life, the way we want it to be enjoyed. And we’ve got a role, the government’s got a role. Not only do you have a role to play, which you’re playing in such fine fashion, but the government has a role to play, as well. We’ve got a significant responsibility to deal with this emergency in a strong and bold way. And we are doing so. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010927-1.html)

In any case, is Moore suggesting that the appropriate response to the dangers of terrorism to bring life to a halt, and stop all travel?

But Moore and McDermott insist that the contradictions—surely contradictions that define the nation’s life just now—are part of a government conspiracy to … well, to whatever. McDermott says, “It’s like training a dog. You tell him to sit down or you tell him to roll over at the same time, the dog doesn’t know what to do. Well the American people are being treated like that. It was really very, very skillfully and, and ugly in what they did.” What may be the aim of these “ugly” efforts—to what end this “skill” is employed—is never stated.

Moore then shows a clip of Bush on a golf course, taking a break to answer reporters’ questions. Bush says, “We must stop the terror. I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive.” And then he swings the golf club. Moore wants to leave us with the impression that Bush is talking about terrorist threats to the United States, and that making such a statement and following it with a golf swing is a profound show of unseriousness. Actually, Bush’s statement, made on August 5, 2002, was about a suicide bombing in Israel (http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/hyper/2002/0805/epf102.htm), and he made the statement between golf swings because he was asked about it on the golf course. (Indeed, when President Clinton learned of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, he played some golf as well, http://www.jewishsiliconvalley.org/clinton.html.) Why this should mean that Bush was not serious is not apparent.

McDermott then concludes his paranoid rant, saying, “They will continue, in my view, as long as this administration is in charge, of every once in a while steeling everybody to be afraid, just in case you forgot. It’s not gonna go down to green or blue. It’s never gonna get there. There clearly is no way that anyone can live constantly on edge like that.” He again offers no proof that terror alerts have not been based on facts.

Next, Moore offers a few clips showing various commercial security products—a “safe room,” a skyscraper escape parachute, and the like. He shows news clips of worried Michiganders, and residents of a small town in Virginia that had been mistaken by the FBI for a different town against which a terrorist threat had been perceived. This is all apparently intended to paint the threat of terrorism as silly and comical, and the attempts to predict and prepare for terrorist attacks as a kind of deception. Why we should think the threat is comical is not made clear.

Moore seems wholly oblivious to the hypocrisy of criticizing the Bush Administration for being too lax on terrorism before the 9/11 attacks, and then criticizing the administration for making too much of the threat afterwards. He introduces us to Attorney General John Ashcroft, whom we see singing a patriotic song he has written. Moore tells us that, “in 2000, he was running for reelection as Senator from Missouri against a man who died the month before the election. The voters preferred the dead guy. So George W. Bush made him his attorney general.” In fact, “the dead guy” was late Missouri governor Mel Carnahan, and after his death, the new governor announced he would appoint Carnahan’s wife, Jean, to take the seat if Carnahan won the election—so while a dead man was technically on the ballot, the voters understood that a Carnahan victory would put the widow in office. The death naturally caused Ashcroft to strictly curtail his campaigning, and in the end Carnahan’s widow won the race by just under one percent—after a state court allowed polling stations in heavily Democratic St. Louis to remain open an hour beyond the legally allotted time (http://www.mdn.org/2000/STORIES/SENSWRAP.HTM). (Despite those irregularities, Ashcroft gracefully declined to contest the election.) Jean Carnahan was appointed in her husband’s place and served an abbreviated two-year term before being defeated by Republican James Talent in 2002.

More importantly, Moore tells us that “during the summer before 9/11, Ashcroft told acting FBI director Thomas Pickard that he didn’t want to hear anything more about terrorist threats.” We then see a brief clip from the 9/11 Commission hearings, in which commission member Richard Ben-Veniste and former Acting Director of the FBI Thomas Pickard have the following exchange:

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE: Mr. Watson had come to you and said that the CIA was very concerned that there would be an attack. You said that you told the attorney general this fact repeatedly in these meetings. Is that correct?

THOMAS PICKARD: Yes, I told him on at least two occasions.

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE: And you told the staff, according to this statement, that Mr. Ashcroft told you that he did not want to hear about this any more. Is that correct?

THOMAS PICKARD: That is correct.
(http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing10/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-04-13.htm)

What Moore does not tell us is that later at the same 9/11 Commission hearing (April 13, 2004), commission member James R. Thompson and John Ashcroft had this exchange:

MR. THOMPSON: Acting Director Pickard testified this afternoon that he briefed you twice on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and when he sought to do so again, you told him you didn’t need to hear from him again. Can you comment on that, please?

ATTY GEN. ASHCROFT: First of all, Acting Director Pickard and I had more than two meetings. We had regular meetings. Secondly, I did never speak to him saying that I did not want to hear about terrorism. I care greatly about the safety and security of the American people and was very interested in terrorism, and specifically interrogated him about threats to the American people, and domestic threats in particular. One of the first items which came to my attention, which I mentioned in my opening remarks, was the question of whether we wanted to capture or find and kill bin Laden. I carried that immediately to the national security adviser and expressed myself in that matter. Together with the Vice President of the United States, we got a briefing at FBI headquarters regarding terrorism, and I asked the question, “Why can’t we arrest these people?” because I believe an aggressive arrest and prosecution model is the way to disrupt terrorism. These are things about which I care deeply. When the Senate Appropriations Committee met on May the 9th in the summer of 2001, I told the committee that my number-one priority was the attack against terror; that we would protect Americans from terror; and I wrote later to them a confirming letter saying that we had no higher priority. These are the kinds of things that I did in order to communicate very clearly my interest in making sure that we would be prepared against terrors. In addition, when we went for the largest increase in counterterrorism budgeting before 9/11, in the last five years, that signaled a priority in that respect. And when we, for the next year, had a 13-percent higher counterterrorism budget than was provided in the last year of the Clinton Administration, it was also a signal that counterterrorism was a matter of great concern to us and that we would treat it seriously. (http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing10/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-04-13.htm)

In its final report, the 9/11 Commission said it could not decisively settle this dispute about what was said, but noted that no one else present at the meetings between Pickard and Ashcroft had any recollection of Ashcroft ever telling Pickard he did not want to hear any more about terrorism (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf, p. 536, note 52). The report also notes that in the months before 9/11, Pickard met with Ashcroft several times to present terrorism information (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf, p. 265). But Moore ignores this, claiming instead that “Ashcroft’s Justice Department turned a blind eye and a deaf ear” to terrorism information.

All this turns out to be an extended introduction to a section of the film that purports to discuss the Patriot Act. After telling us Ashcroft didn’t care about terrorism before the September 11th attacks, Moore says: “But after 9/11, John Ashcroft had some brilliant ideas for how to protect America,” and we then see what seems to be a local television news report about the Patriot Act. The reporter says, “The USA PATRIOT Act, adopted by Congress and signed by Bush six weeks after the attacks, has changed the way the government does business. The USA PATRIOT Act allows for searches of medical and financial records, computer and telephone conversations, and even for the books you take out of the library.”

What the report does not mention, and Moore doesn’t choose to add, is that these powers can only be used with a court order (read the law here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf). Nor does Moore mention that the government already had these powers, and commonly used them in cases related to organized crime and drugs—and the Patriot Act just explicitly permits these powers in terrorism cases. The act itself says nothing specifically about library records, which for some reason have become the focus of criticism of the law. It simply extended the government’s longstanding power to examine public records of individual transactions (which could, in principle, include public library records) if such an examination is deemed by a judge to be relevant and important to a terrorism investigation.

Moreover, a report to Congress on September 13, 2004 from the Justice Department’s Inspector General found no Patriot Act abuses (http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0409/index.htm). And, at least as recently as September of 2003, the Justice Department reported that the power to examine public records (including possibly library records) has not even been used (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/19/national/main569135.shtml). Congressional testimony from the Deputy Attorney General on September 22, 2004 describes several instances when the powers provided by the Patriot Act have proven useful to investigators (http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1312&wit_id=3279).

Moore then proceeds to tell the story of a local activist group called Peace Fresno (http://www.peacefresno.org/), about which he says, “Unlike the rest of us, they’ve received an early lesson in what the Patriot Act is all about.” He tells us that the group had been infiltrated and monitored by a member of the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department in 2003. Such a step certainly seems excessive and unwarranted (although Moore does not quite give us an accurate impression of this very-active protest group, which among other things has suggested that the Bush Administration staged the September 11th attacks: http://www.indybay.org/uploads/550_the_march_begins.jpg) but Moore never explains how any of this is related to the Patriot Act. And indeed, it has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. The infiltration he describes was clearly undertaken by a local sheriff’s department, not any arm of the federal government, and the Patriot Act does not permit the federal government to engage in any similar activity. As the Justice Department points out (http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm), the language of the act limits the definition of “domestic terrorism” in ways that would never permit a group that does not violate the law and endanger others to be considered a terrorist or terrorism-related group. The language of the act is clear on this point (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf) and Moore makes no effort whatsoever to provide any connection between the Peace Fresno story and the Patriot Act.

Moore then moves on to another story which also has no link to the Patriot Act. He tells us about Barry Reingold, who told some people at his gym that he thought George W. Bush was worse than Osama bin Laden. The people who heard him apparently reported him as a suspicious person to the FBI, and FBI agents then came to his home to interview him. Moore offers no explanation of what this might have to do with the Patriot Act, and no sense of what the FBI should do when people report someone as suspicious, even if the report seems weak and misguided. There is no indication that Reingold’s rights were in any way violated, and although Moore does not make it clear, when Reingold told the FBI agents he did not wish to speak to them, they left and took no further action (http://www.progressive.org/webex/wxmc1219a01.html).

But as ever, Moore just moves right on. He next shows us an interview with Rep. Porter Goss, who defends the Patriot Act, saying it offers full transparency and that there’s nothing in the act that he is ashamed of in any way. Goss then says “I have a 1-800 number. Call me. I’m the guy you call if there’s a violation or an abuse. If you’ve got a poster child on this, I want to see it. That’s what I do. I’m hired by the people of the United States to provide oversight, I provide oversight,” but as he speaks about the 800 number, Moore flashes text on the screen saying “he’s lying” and claiming Goss does not actually have an 800 number, giving his normal office number. But Goss (who was then a Member of Congress, and is now Director of Central Intelligence) actually did have an 800 number: Anyone wishing to call his office, or any other congressional office, could reach the congressional switchboard at 800-839-5276. What’s more, the committee Goss chaired—the intelligence committee—also has a toll-free number: 877-858-9040 (http://intelligence.house.gov/ContactUS.aspx). So anyone wishing to make a toll-free phone call to report a Patriot Act abuse could easily do so, but none of the supposed abuses reported so far has panned out (http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0409/index.htm).

We then return to Rep. Jim McDermott, who says, “Trent Lott said, the day the bill was introduced, ‘Maybe now we can do things we’ve wanted to do for the last ten years.’” It would certainly have been nice if the government had had a greater capacity to prevent terrorism over the past ten years, and this statement from McDermott offers no argument against any element of the Patriot Act, but the suggestion is that September 11th offered an excuse for the administration (and apparently for 98 Senators and 357 members of the House: http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/p_congress.htm) to put into effect some despotic plan they had long held in reserve.

To support his point, Moore then shows a clip of the President joking: “a dictatorship would be a heck of lot easier, there’s no question about it.” The clip is from July 26, 2001, from this exchange between a reporter and the President:

Reporter: The Alamo up on the wall is not an indication of how you feel in the White House right now, is it?

President Bush: I feel great. Listen, I think we’ve had one of the most constructive first six months of any presidency. And we're making great progress on a lot of issues. No, I've always—a dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it. But dealing with Congress is a matter of give and take. The President doesn't get everything he wants, the Congress doesn't get everything they want. But we're finding good common ground. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010726-3.html)

We then return to McDermott, who says, “I mean—they, they, they had all this on the shelf somewhere. Ideas of things they would like to do. And they got 9/11 and they said, ‘It’s our chance, go for it!’” Again, he offers no argument as to why having ideas about how to improve counterterrorism should be a bad thing, and no specific argument about the Patriot Act.

Then we are shown Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, who says: “There was an immediate assumption, on the part of the administration, that there had to be a surrender of certain of our rights.” Neither Conyers nor Moore offers any explanation of what rights they believe have been surrendered, and indeed no reading of the Patriot Act would suggest any either (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf).

Next we see Rep. Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat, who does offer a specific criticism of the Patriot Act, saying, “There are several definitions in the bill that are quite troubling. First of all, the definition of ‘terrorist’ and, and, it’s so expansive that it could include people um, who,” at which point Moore interjects, “like me” and Baldwin laughs. The Patriot Act (in Section 802, page 376, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf) explicitly defines a terrorist as a person involved in acts which are dangerous to human life, that violate federal or state criminal law, and that appear intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence government policy by intimidation or coercion, or affect government conduct by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. If Moore believes this description applies to him, so be it—but it is hard to see how Baldwin takes it to be too broad.

We then return to McDermott who asserts that “no one” in Congress read the Patriot Act before voting on it. He is then confirmed by Rep. Conyers, who adds that “We don’t read most of the bills” passed in Congress. So Moore determines to read the act to the Members of Congress, and we then see him riding around Capitol Hill in an ice cream truck, apparently reading the act aloud. Oddly, Moore does not actually let us hear him read any of the sections of the act that he takes to be so egregious—likely because actually hearing or reading the act would not confirm any of what he has told us about it (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf).

But Moore moves on. He shows us a clip of President Bush at a restaurant, apparently taking orders and talking about eating ribs. It is not clear what purpose this clip serves. In what passes for a transition, Moore then says: “We all know you can’t secure the homeland on an empty stomach. And in order to remain secure, everyone needs to sacrifice … especially little Patrick Hambleton.”

Moore then tells us the story of Patrick and his mother Susan, who was made to drink two ounces of her own bottled breast milk at an airport, to prove that she was not carrying a dangerous substance. This is an amusing story about an unfortunate and ridiculous excess in airport security—one that a few nursing mothers went through in 2002—but again, what does it have to do with the Patriot Act? And what, for that matter, is its larger implication in general?

Moore wants to make the point that the security steps taken after September 11th are just diversions, and not really about our security. For proof he argues that certain obvious security steps, like keeping matches and lighters off of planes, were not taken. This has some truth to it. The Transportation Security Administration does allow certain kinds of matches and lighters to be taken on airplanes, while others are banned (http://www.tsa.dot.gov/public/interapp/editorial/editorial_multi_image_with_table_0099.xml) which does seem a very odd policy. In late September 2004, a Senate Committee voted to ban these items, though the bill has, at the time of this writing, not yet made it to the Senate floor (http://dorgan.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=226556).

Moore then says, “Okay, let me see if I got this straight. Old guys in the gym—bad. Peace groups in Fresno—bad. Breast milk—really bad. But matches and lighters on a plane—hey, no problem.” But of course, this list of items he has chosen to highlight does not constitute a list of any official government policies. There are no rules that say breast milk is not allowed on planes, and there is nothing in present anti-terror laws that had anything to do with the questioning of “old guys in the gym” or peace groups in Fresno. He has taken his own list of unconnected examples and drawn a conclusion from it. And what is his conclusion? He says, “Was this really about our safety? Or was something else going on?” Like what? Moore offers no specific answer, of course.

Instead, he moves on to another unrelated example. Showing us a lovely coastal scene, Moore says, “This is where the Pacific coastline meets the shores of Oregon. Over one hundred miles of beautiful, open coastline on our border. And, thanks to the budget cutbacks, the total number of state police protecting it? One. Part-time.” What budget cutbacks? Certainly not any federal budget cutbacks. As Moore has shown, the federal government now devotes a great deal of energy and resources to anti-terror activities. Rather than explain, Moore shows us interviews with two Oregon state troopers, who say that their patrol office has very few officers, and there are times when no one is on patrol in their area. To examine these assertions, one blogger interviewed Lt. Glenn Chastain of the Oregon State Troopers, and asked him about Moore’s claims (http://recoveringcynic.blogspot.com/2004/07/my-interview-with-lt-chastain.html). Chastain notes that the relatively small number of officers in that area of Oregon has to do not with any federal funding, but with cutbacks in state funds over the past 30 years. He also points out that state troopers in Oregon are not responsible for protection of the coast against terrorism, but for traffic and safety issues—while the coast is protected by the United States Coast Guard.

In the end, it is unclear what point Moore thinks he can make by showing these state troopers. Moore shows one trooper saying the federal government has offered them no guidance on how to deal with terrorist threats, but in the interview noted above, Lt. Chastain says that the Department of Homeland Security actually has done so (http://recoveringcynic.blogspot.com/2004/07/my-interview-with-lt-chastain.html). But Moore just goes on, saying, “Of course, the Bush Administration didn’t hand out a manual on how to deal with the terrorist threat because the terrorist threat wasn’t what this was all about. They just wanted us to be fearful enough so that we’d get behind what their real plan was.”

And what was the real plan? This is Moore’s transition to Iraq. Apparently, the lack of funding from the Oregon state government for Oregon state troopers is supposed to prove that terrorism is not a real threat, and that Iraq is the only reason the Bush Administration has pushed for any homeland security legislation.

  Continue to Section V. The War in Iraq 

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

Copyright 2004, Ethics and Public Policy Center, Inc. We encourage you to freely share and circulate this document, either electronically or on paper.

TO CONTACT US

We welcome your questions, comments, and corrections. To contact us about this document, please e-mail fahrenheit911@eppc.org.