In his own voice, Moore describes the beginning of the Iraq war this way: “On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush and the United States military invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq. A nation that had never attacked the United States. A nation that had never threatened to attack the United States. A nation that had never murdered a single American citizen.” Absurd. He does not mention that Iraq had been in violation of its agreements from the conclusion of the 1991 Gulf War. He does not mention that Iraq had been in a state of fairly open conflict with the United States for over a decade, including on numerous occasions attacking American aircraft patrolling the UN-imposed “no fly zones” (to which Saddam Hussein expressly agreed in the 1991 surrender). He does not mention that Iraq undertook to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush and, on a separate occasion, the American ambassador to the Philippines. He does not mention the violation of more than a dozen UN resolutions requiring disarmament and reporting of weapons programs. He does not mention that Iraq paid the families of suicide bombers who killed Israelis and on several occasions killed Americans in Israel (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml). He does not mention that Iraq sheltered Abdul Rahman Yasin, a leader of the group that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm). He does not mention that Iraq sheltered the ruthless Palestinian terrorist Abu Abbas (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.abbas.arrested/) and the notorious Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/19/mideast.nidal/).

And of course Moore does not mention, as the 9/11 Commission made clear, that Iraq also made an offer of shelter to Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organization (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf, p. 66).

Saddam’s regime also routinely threatened the United States and called for attacks against it (see, for instance, http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd20/20iraq.htm).

Moreover, the description of the Iraqi regime as an innocent victim of American aggression belies mountains of evidence of that regime’s abuses of human rights; its scorn for international norms and laws; its belligerence toward its neighbors; and its decades of mass torture and despotism. Moore offers no description or rebuttal of the actual American case for the war in any of its elements, he simply asserts there was no reason at all to engage in it.

Having asserted the war had no reason except Bush’s villainy, Moore then proceeds to show scenes of civilian casualties in the war. Having refrained from showing us any of the thousands of civilians killed intentionally on September 11th, he shows footage of some of those innocent Iraqi civilians killed inadvertently in the invasion of Iraq, when even the herculean efforts taken to use only precision bombing based upon reliable intelligence proved imperfect. Moore does not describe those efforts, of course. He also offers no evidence that the scenes we are witnessing are the result of American actions, and not those of errant Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery (http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110005402). It seems reasonably likely that the scenes are indeed the result of American actions, and there is no question that civilian casualties occurred as the result of the American invasion. But Moore distorts the truth by not balancing these pictures against the lengths to which the U.S. went to avoid civilian casualties (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/23/weekinreview/23JDAO.html?ex=1091678400&en=d3f4215ca4abe605&ei=5070), or the good done by the American invasion (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/100days/100days.pdf). There is no denying the reality of what is being depicted, but it is clear that Moore has put these scenes in an intentionally distorted and inaccurate context.

Moore then seeks to depict American soldiers in Iraq as heartless animals, psyching themselves up to kill by listening to violent music. He shows a soldier saying, “It’s the ultimate rush cuz you’re going into the fight to begin with, and then you got a good song playing in the background and uh, that gets you real fired up. Ready to do the job.” And he has soldiers explain that they can pipe music through the tank’s internal communications. By putting this scene immediately before and after scenes of civilian casualties in Iraq, Moore makes it look like the Americans are savaging the innocent to the tune of classic rock. But the footage of these soldiers, which was taken from an Australian documentary called “Soundtrack to War” (http://www.soundtracktowar.com/), is taken out of context. The maker of that film, Australian documentary artist George Gittoes, told an Australian television network, “I was concerned of course for my soldiers because their interviews were taken out of context,” and that Moore “got access to my stuff and assumed that I would be happy for it to be in 9/11. I would actually have been quite happy for it not to be in 9/11” (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/27/1090693936198.html?oneclick=true).

Moore shows several other soldiers talking about the heat of battle, and the costs in civilian lives, without giving any further context, without telling us what the soldiers were asked, and without offering any better understanding of the reasons and circumstances of the Iraq war. Then, with footage of an injured child, he plays a clip of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld saying, “The targeting capabilities and the care that goes into targeting is as impressive as anything anyone could see. The care that goes into it, the humanity that goes into it.” Rumsfeld is correct (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/23/weekinreview/23JDAO.html?ex=1091678400&en=d3f4215ca4abe605&ei=5070), but Moore puts his statement in the context of some of the civilian casualties and suffering that did occur, in an effort to make Rumsfeld look ridiculous without directly asserting that he is wrong.

Moore then shows more footage of civilian casualties and a woman telling a reporter that her uncle’s house has been attacked, and venting her sorrow and suffering, calling for God. It is a moving scene, offered, again, with no context or balance of any kind. Rather than offer such context or balance, Moore jumps to a statement by singer Britney Spears, chewing gum and saying, “Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that. You know? And, um, be faithful in what happens.” She is asked by a reporter (Tucker Carlson of CNN), “Do you trust this President?” and answers, “Yes, I do.” Moore of course does not offer any images of celebrities expressing the opposite sentiment. Does the fact that Britney Spears trusts George W. Bush have more bearing on anything than the fact that Barbara Streisand does not trust him?

But Moore’s point is that all of us have been stupid, like Britney Spears. “Britney Spears was not alone,” Moore tells us, “The majority of the American people trusted the President. And why shouldn’t they? He’d spent the better part of the last year giving them every reason why we should invade Iraq.” He then shows clips of President Bush and Secretary of State Powell discussing Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs before the war. Bush says, “Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction,” which was certainly true. Powell says “Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb,” which was also true (see, for instance, the British review of prewar intelligence, the so-called “Butler Report,” http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2004/07/14/butler.pdf).

Moore then says: “Huh, that’s weird. Because that’s not what Bush’s people said when he first took office,” and shows a clip (with the subtitle February 2001) of Secretary Powell saying that Saddam Hussein “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction; he is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors,” and then a clip (with the subtitle July 2001) of Condoleezza Rice saying that “we are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” The Powell quote is from a press conference with the foreign minister of Egypt, in which Powell was asked whether the U.S. would consider removing the sanctions against Iraq. He answered that the U.S. did not intend to free Iraq from sanctions, since Iraq was in violation of its commitments, and then said the sanctions had been working (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm). In a CNN interview in September of 2003, Powell was asked about these remarks:

JUDY WOODRUFF: But you did say, though, you said, quote, "He threatens not the United States. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction." It wasn’t just you. It was Dr. Rice, later in 2001. Vice President Cheney, who said Saddam is bottled up. I guess my question is, how did something that happened here in the United States, al Qaeda behind it, affect what was going on on the ground in Iraq?

POWELL: Because it focused the president’s attention, all of our attention, on the fact that if there were nations in the world that were continuing to hold or develop weapons of mass destruction, in the aftermath of 9/11, when we saw the kinds of terrorist organizations that were out there that would stop at nothing to strike us or other civilized nations, then a nexus existed between the possibility of such terrorists getting access to these kinds of weapons. And, also, the reality of it was that Saddam Hussein did have these weapons. The previous administration acknowledged it. The previous administration went to a mini-war in late-1998 and bombed Saddam Hussein’s facilities for four days. And here it was five years later, in 2003, the president made a decision based on this continued violation of U.N. resolutions for all these years, after taking the case to the U.N., that the world in this post-9/11 environment could no longer tolerate that kind of activity by a regime as irresponsible as Saddam Hussein’s. (http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/28/le.00.html)

In other words, what had changed was September 11th, but Moore—having closed our eyes to September 11—suggests that we should have gone on operating as we did before those attacks.

Meanwhile, the Condoleezza Rice quote is used in a way that distorts her meaning. The quote is from an interview by CNN’s John King on July 29, 2001. She was asked about efforts by the U.S. to impose tighter sanctions on Iraq, which at that point had been held up at the UN because China and Russia did not approve. Her answer was:

Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions. We’ll work with the Russians. I’m sure that we’ll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work. But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt. This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we’re going to go about doing that. (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html)

So Rice was not arguing, as Moore’s snippet implies, that further pressure on Saddam would be unnecessary. Rather the reverse: She argued that the U.S. hoped to “increase pressure” on Saddam. Indeed, just before asking that question, CNN’s John King showed a clip of Bush saying, “Well, we’re going to keep the pressure on Iraq, the no-fly zone strategy is still in place. There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is still a menace and a problem, and the United States and our allies must put the pressure on him.” Moore’s suggestion that the incoming Bush Administration did not believe Saddam Hussein was a problem is just false—and in any case, how does it jive with his conspiracy theory that Bush was planning to attack Iraq all along?

But Moore quickly abandons the notion that Bush had not believed Iraq was a threat, and instead goes back to showing administration officials before the war talking about the threat of Iraq, this time as it is related to Al Qaeda. Moore shows clips of officials talking about connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and Iraq and terrorism—claims which have since been confirmed by the 9/11 Commission and others. He also shows footage of Rumsfeld saying, “It is only a matter of time before terrorist states armed with weapons of mass destruction develop the capability to deliver those weapons to U.S. cities” (which is correct), Powell saying his statements are based on solid intelligence (which seemed correct at the time), and Bush talking about Saddam’s attitude toward America and his attempt to assassinate the first President Bush (correct).

Then Moore shows Jim McDermott again, saying, “They simply got people to believe that there was a real threat out there, when in fact there wasn’t one.” Moore and McDermott offer no evidence that “there wasn’t one” and just make the assertion without even a pretense of support.

We then see Donald Rumsfeld saying: “You get told things every day that don’t happen. It doesn’t seem to bother people”—meant to suggest that Rumsfeld is telling reporters that they should get used to being lied to. This Rumsfeld quote is used completely out of context. It is from a Pentagon press briefing on February 28, 2003, from the following exchange about a program of anti-terrorist cooperation between the U.S. and the Philippines:

Q: We had been told last week that the Philippine activity or whatever—the upcoming program had been agreed upon and was beginning—would be beginning soon. So has the start of it been delayed by this disagreement over semantics, or—.

RUMSFELD: Well, I don’t know that it’s just semantics. It is trying to find a formula where we can provide the maximum help in a manner that’s consistent with their constitution.

Q: But again, we were told that that was agreed upon.

RUMSFELD: You weren’t told by me.

Q: Well—.

RUMSFELD: I mean, you’re going to be told lots of things. You get told things every day that don’t happen. It doesn’t seem to bother people. They don’t—it’s printed in the press. The world thinks all these thing happen. They never happened. It’s—everyone’s so eager to get the story before, in fact, the story’s there that the world is constantly being fed things that haven’t happened. All I can tell you is, it hasn’t happened, it’s going to happen, and we’re worrying through those issues in a very constructive, friendly, positive way. (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t02282003_t0228sd.html)

In other words, Rumsfeld is criticizing the press for inaccurate reporting, not saying that the government lies. In cutting and misrepresenting the quote, Moore is of course guilty of precisely what Rumsfeld is complaining about.

But Moore moves on. He accuses the Democrats of failing to keep the authority to invade Iraq from the president (showing a clip of Tom Daschle saying he will support the authority, as most Democrats did). Moore again fails to offer actual reasons why the Democrats should have withheld their support.

He next proceeds to make fun of the nations working with the United States in Iraq and in the larger war on terror. He shows clips of Powell and Bush making reference to the “coalition of the willing” and then tells us that this coalition consists of nations which he does not think worthy of being taken seriously. A voiceover says, “The Coalition of the Willing roll call: The Republic of Palau. The Republic of Costa Rica. The Republic of Iceland.” Then, showing us clips of people dancing and pounding rocks and riding donkeys, Moore says, “Of course none of these countries has an army or, for that matter, weapons.” He has indeed picked those three out of the 30-nation coalition which do not have regular military forces, and whose support for the coalition consisted of civilian medical and humanitarian assistance. Such assistance is hardly irrelevant, and these countries should not simply be treated as laughingstocks.

But the “roll call” continues, naming Romania and showing a picture of a vampire. Morocco is mentioned next (although Morocco is actually not on the U.S. list of coalition members), and Moore says, “Morocco wasn’t officially a member of the coalition, but according to one report, they did offer to send 2,000 monkeys to help detonate landmines.” It is true that there was a report of a group in Morocco accusing the government of having made such an offer (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030324-064259-1443r), but it isn’t clear that such an offer was ever really made.

Moore next mentions the Netherlands, and shows an image of a drug user, rather than an image of the 1,100 brave Dutch soldiers sent to serve in Iraq (http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:2-aov4yi54YJ:www.government.nl/actueel/dossieroverzicht/42_18993.jsp+&hl=en). Next he notes that Afghanistan is playing a role in Iraq through its new government, but he asserts that Afghanistan couldn’t play a role since it has no army (like the nations mentioned above, it is participating in a small and non-military way). Moore of course leaves out the major contributors to the coalition, including England, Italy, Australia, Poland, and originally also Spain—who together have contributed tens of thousands of soldiers to the effort to liberate Iraq and establish a secure democracy there. When asked about this in a press interview, Moore said only that his film was not supposed to tell the full truth:

Q: You mock the “coalition of the willing” by only showing the tiny countries that have voiced support. But you leave out England, Spain, Italy and Poland. Why?

Moore: This film exists as a counterbalance to what you see on cable news about the coalition. I’m trying to counter the Orwellian nature of the Big Lie, as if when you hear that term, the ‘coalition,’ that the whole world is behind us. (http://moorelies.com/news/specials/latimes_moore.cfm)

So his defense is that obscuring the truth is the appropriate way to tell the truth. Orwellian indeed. Incidentally, the following 31 countries currently (as of October 5, 2004) have troops in the American-led coalition in Iraq (and several other nations, including those Moore mentioned, have non-military civilian workers participating in the coalition and aiding the new Iraqi government): Britain, Italy, Poland, Ukraine, Netherlands, Romania, South Korea, Japan, Denmark, Bulgaria, Thailand, El Salvador, Hungary, Australia, Georgia, Norway, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Portugal, Latvia, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Slovakia, Albania, New Zealand, Estonia, Tonga, Singapore, Kazakhstan, Macedonia, and Moldova (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm).

Moore simply asserts there was no real coalition, and then blames the major media for not telling us so. He proceeds into a bizarre accusation that the networks were somehow in favor of the war, and hyped it up for the American people. He shows clips of reporters and anchors saying things like, “The rallying around the president, around the flag, and around the troops clearly has begun,” and “The pictures you’re seeing are absolutely phenomenal”—none of which has anything to do with the coalition and none of which amount to advocacy for the war. He shows Dan Rather “admitting” that as an American he wants his country to win when it is at war, and shows Peter Jennings announcing that “Iraqi opposition has faded in the face of American power” (which was of course true). But anyone watching the news at the time of the Iraq invasion would find simply ridiculous the notion that reporters were cheerleaders for the war (http://www.mediaresearch.org/projects/gulfwar/welcome.asp).

Having asserted it, however, he moves on and criticizes the press for not covering the stories of individual soldiers killed in the war, and the government for not allowing pictures to be taken of coffins of fallen soldiers arriving home. There were certainly a great many stories about individual soldiers killed in Iraq, but Moore is correct on the latter point—though he does not point out that barring photos of arriving coffins has been the policy of the United States for thirteen years, through Republican and Democratic administrations, and was adopted to protect the privacy of the soldiers involved. The policy was also reaffirmed by the Senate in a 54-39 vote in June 2004 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/22/politics/22cong.html).

During this section, Moore shows footage of a military funeral of a soldier killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom and buried at Arlington National Cemetery. This footage is of the funeral of Major Gregory Stone, who was not killed in combat, but rather was murdered by a fellow soldier who threw a grenade into Stone’s tent in March 2003. It is worth noting that Stone’s family never gave permission for this footage to be used in the film, and was outraged to discover that Moore had used the footage without asking for permission. Stone’s aunt told reporters, “There was no permission for it. Greg’s dead, he can’t defend himself or say what he really thinks. There’s no way he would ever let himself be affiliated with Michael Moore” (http://www.kbcitv.com/x5154.xml?ParentPageID=x5157&ContentID=x55058&Layout=KBCI.xsl&AdGroupID=x5154&NewsSection). Stone’s mother referred to Moore as “a maggot that eats off the dead” for using the footage (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040712-101816-2160r.htm).

Moore continues: “That kind of story [of wounded or killed troops] is a downer, especially when you’re getting ready for a party on a boat.” This is Moore’s idea of a transition to talking about Bush’s now famous “Mission Accomplished” speech—so called because it took place on an American aircraft carrier heading home from Iraq on which was displayed a banner reading “Mission Accomplished.” Moore seeks to advance the notion that Bush said the war in Iraq was simply over, and that no more trouble should be expected. Panning up to the “Mission Accomplished” banner, Moore shows us Bush saying, “My fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” This is followed by footage of American soldiers under attack and wounded, and then by television reporters listing the mounting casualties in Iraq. Moore’s clear implication is that President Bush prematurely claimed that our work in Iraq was finished.

Moore does not mention that President Bush, in the same speech, also said, “We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We’re bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We’re pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes.” Or that Bush told those sailors, “The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/text/20030501-15.html). Far from implying that the work in Iraq was done, President Bush clearly stated that hard work and great risk remained ahead.

As General Tommy Franks, who commanded the U.S. Military’s Central Command during the invasion of Iraq, has since made clear, the aim of the speech was not to simplistically suggest that our work in Iraq was finished:

“Mr. Secretary,” I said to Donald Rumsfeld … “We’ve been talking about the timing of Phase IV. The British are going to hold a victory parade when their first combat units return from the Gulf. But our soldiers aren’t going home yet. I’d like to figure out a way to acknowledge their sacrifice and service. There’s a lot of work to be done over here, but major combat operations are over.” I wanted the Secretary—or the President—to publicly acknowledge this fact for the troops.

And there was another reason to make a public statement about the end of Phase III. There were Coalition members who didn’t want to participate in combat, but had said they would help once that phase was over. “I’d like to see some of them start bringing in their reconstruction and humanitarian assistance troops,” I told Rumsfeld.

“What do you have in mind, Tom?”

“It would be good if the President could acknowledge the success of major combat operations, Mr. Secretary.” I tried to find the right words. “The troops have accomplished every mission we gave them. There’s never been a combat operation as successful as Iraqi Freedom.”(Tommy Franks, American Soldier, pp. 523-4, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060731583)

Thus, the purpose of the “Mission Accomplished” speech was not to declare victory, but rather to honor our troops and to satisfy the demands of countries that had signaled a willingness to assist in rebuilding Iraq once “major combat operations” were over.

Moore then shows Bush saying, “There are some who feel that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is: Bring ’em on,” and then shows us footage of contractors murdered and gruesomely mutilated in Fallujah on March 31, 2004. The Bush “Bring ’em on” statement is from an exchange with reporters more than eight months earlier, on July 7, 2003. Bush was asked if he thought the U.S. should plead with other nations to join the Americans in securing Iraq, and responded:

Well, first of all, we’ll put together a force structure who meets the threats on the ground. And we’ve got a lot of forces there, ourselves. And as I said yesterday, anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice. There are some who feel like that if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don’t understand what they’re talking about, if that’s the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like—that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on. We’ve got the force necessary to deal with the security situation. Of course we want other countries to help us—Great Britain is there, Poland is there, Ukraine is there, you mentioned. Anybody who wants to help, we’ll welcome the help. But we’ve got plenty tough force there right now to make sure the situation is secure. We always welcome help. We’re always glad to include others in. But make no mistake about it—and the enemy shouldn’t make any mistake about it—we will deal with them harshly if they continue to try to bring harm to the Iraqi people. I also said yesterday an important point, that those who blow up the electricity lines really aren’t hurting America, they’re hurting the Iraq citizens; their own fellow citizens are being hurt. But we will deal with them harshly, as well. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030702-3.html)

The attackers of course have been dealt with harshly. But Moore is trying to suggest that Bush declared victory and showed overconfidence in the face of the challenges in Iraq—ignoring what Bush has done in the year since.

Moore then shows footage of Dan Rather saying, “The renewed battle for control of Iraq raged for a fourth day today with street clashes in nearly every corner of the country. Iraq could become, quote, another Vietnam.” Moore apparently sees no contradiction between such an outrageously exaggerated negative statement and the film’s earlier attempt to paint Rather and the press as Bush stooges. We hear a reporter saying, “Officials say they see evidence that Sunni and Shiite extremists might be joining forces”—but viewers are never told that such a joining of forces never occurred.

Moore then shows footage of Bush saying: “They’re not happy they’re occupied. I wouldn’t be happy if I were occupied either.” Moore clearly wants us to believe that Bush is talking about the insurgents, and essentially justifying their actions—making Bush seem ridiculous. But the clip, from a White House news conference on April 13, 2004, is actually of Bush answering a question about the Iraqi people in general and their desire for protection from the insurgents, rather than the motives of the insurgents. Here is what Bush said:

Finally, the attitude of the Iraqis toward the American people—it’s an interesting question. They’re really pleased we got rid of Saddam Hussein. And you can understand why. This is a guy who was a torturer, a killer, a maimer; there’s mass graves. I mean, he was a horrible individual that really shocked the country in many ways, shocked it into a kind of—a fear of making decisions toward liberty. That’s what we’ve seen recently. Some citizens are fearful of stepping up. And they were happy—they’re not happy they’re occupied. I wouldn’t be happy if I were occupied either. They do want us there to help with security, and that’s why this transfer of sovereignty is an important signal to send, and it’s why it’s also important for them to hear we will stand with them until they become a free country. (http://usembassy.state.gov/posts/in3/wwwhwashnews1592.html)

Moore has again edited a clip and used it out of context. Having done so, he just shows more footage of insurgent attacks, perhaps wanting us to believe that Bush has done nothing about these attacks, which is simply false. Moore also does not tell us that he himself has cheered on the insurgents, as when he noted on his website in April 2004 (while making this movie) that:

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow—and they will win. (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-04-14)

But rather than put off his audience by explicitly stating in this film that his sympathies lie with the people who are killing American troops, Moore moves on to the question of retention and recruitment in the military.

  Continue to Section VI. The Military 

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.