Michael Moore pathological liar

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
This guy just can't stop. It's to the point of being a mental illness. Here's his latest invention.



Quote:

...



My wife and I were invited over to a neighbor's home 12 days ago where Clark told those gathered that certain people, acting on behalf of the Bush administration, called him immediately after the attacks on September 11th and asked him to go on TV to tell the country that Saddam Hussein was "involved" in the attacks. He asked them for proof, but they couldn't provide any. He refused their request.



...



Of course this false. He invented this conversation based on a pervious lie that Clark had said just after 9-11 that the whitehouse had pressured him to link 9-11 to Saddam while on the air. That never happened. You can get the full details and reasoned analysis here



Pundits won't stop spinning Clark's phone call



Quote:

...



A careful reading shows Clark never said the White House had anything to do with the call he received. Instead, he describes the call in reference to his statement that pressure also came from "all over," which is why he mentions "Middle East think tanks and people like this." But because he referred to the two so closely together, some viewers reached a hasty conclusion that Clark said the White House made the call.



...



Why would Moore invent this? Why would Moore invent a conversation and put words into Clarks mouth? Is he trying to help or hurt Clark?
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 72
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Please stop. I'm begging you....
  • Reply 2 of 72
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Hey Pot, meet the Kettle. X 100
  • Reply 3 of 72
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott:

    When were Saddam and OBL on the US "payroll"? Never. Just another lie that gets repeated until we all take it as fact



    From a different thread. Hmm... even if Michael Moore is a pathological liar (I would need to do some research to determine if he is or not because I'm sure as hell not trusting you, Scott), are you really any better?
  • Reply 4 of 72
    Clark's original statement looks very ambiguous to me - the way it is worded appears to be the real reason for the confusion.
  • Reply 5 of 72
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    That article in spinsanity.org is somewhat ambiguous. Even if the White House didn't directly call Clark, it looks as if whoever did were pretty damned close to it.



    There's another article in Fox News referring to a similar incident...where it is alleged that the White House called CNN to get them to fire Clark as a military analyst...(which in the end happened).



    The quote goes something like this: once is by chance, twice is coincidence and three times is a conspiracy. Here we have two incidents, so lets just call it a coincidence.
  • Reply 6 of 72
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Luca Rescigno

    From a different thread. Hmm... even if Michael Moore is a pathological liar (I would need to do some research to determine if he is or not because I'm sure as hell not trusting you, Scott), are you really any better?



    Care to back up the assertion that OBL and Saddam were on the "payroll". Or is this just another anti-american lie that has legs because it sounds good? BACK IT UP!
  • Reply 7 of 72
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Check Clark's phone records, dumbass.
  • Reply 8 of 72
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    Check Clark's phone records, dumbass.





    WTF is this supposed to mean?
  • Reply 9 of 72
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    WTF is this supposed to mean?



    The white house says "nope, no call, check our phone records!" Surely, Clark should have no record of a phone call as well.
  • Reply 10 of 72
    A solid 95% of the human world hates MM with the fires of a thousand hells. However since he thrives on this, it is a no win situation. I have long since given up slandering the guy. I could call him so many well deserved names and attack him on so many dozens of fronts....but I digress. There really is no point. Such a pointless person doesn't deserve such a pointed discussion.
  • Reply 11 of 72
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself

    A solid 95% of the human world hates MM with the fires of a thousand hells. However since he thrives on this, it is a no win situation. I have long since given up slandering the guy. I could call him so many well deserved names and attack him on so many dozens of fronts....but I digress. There really is no point. Such a pointless person doesn't deserve such a pointed discussion.



    Has any one seen any footage of Michael Moore eating...?



    look at the size of him...



    He must really LOVE himself so much.....



    Or is it the giant ego that gloats within that enormous carcass....



    My advice to Michael Moore..



    If anyone from hollywood ( via Washington ) offers him the role of the tyranical husband in "Steel Magnolias episode Part 2 "



    I'd say go for it..Michael .



    All you have to do is stand there as some petite old Southern Belle lands you with the back of her shovel...



    Hmm Dinner's cookin....

  • Reply 12 of 72
    In keeping with the pedantic nature of debates on AO, note that MM signed the article:



    Yours,



    Michael Moore

    www.michaelmoore.com

    [email protected]



    Not "Yours truly".



    Mebbe this letter is another "documentary"?
  • Reply 13 of 72
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    It is sad to see what has happened to Michael Moore.
  • Reply 14 of 72
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    It is sad to see what has happened to Michael Moore.



    Indeed it is. All this hatred would be far better reserved for Anne Coulter who is far more dangerous and far more venomous.



    It is curious, is it not, how selective Scott and Aquafire et al are when it comes to crusading against hypocrites and serial liars.
  • Reply 15 of 72
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Hassan i Sabbah:



    Quote:

    Indeed it is. All this hatred would be far better reserved for Anne Coulter who is far more dangerous and far more venomous.



    Anne Coulter has always sucked, Michael Moore was once great.
  • Reply 16 of 72
    I wasn't suggesting you were ever an Anne Coulter fan. Edited my post...
  • Reply 17 of 72
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    It is sad to see what has happened to Michael Moore.



    He became a very large ( double fries & coke ) version of the once noble Don Quixote...



    ......tilting at modern day windmills..8)
  • Reply 18 of 72
    Didn't Bush officially eliminate email use by his administration for the explicit reason of not leaving a paper trail of confidential communications?



    Is it really a tremendous jump to believe that IF the Bush administration wanted to get pundits making connections between 9/11 and Saddam that they might not use actual white house phones to do contact them? Maybe via a third party, perhaps?



    I know, I know, a conspiracy theory is when the lack of evidence is the evidence, but seriously, only a moron would think that the lack of a phone record from the white house is proof of their innocence.



    I certainly don't think the Bush administration has done anything to discourage the public perception of a link between 9/11 and Saddam.
  • Reply 19 of 72
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Nordstrodamus

    Didn't Bush officially eliminate email use by his administration for the explicit reason of not leaving a paper trail of confidential communications?



    The best way to destroy the data would be to run Windoze there! Everyone would accept the fact that the email servers crashed and all the clients had a virus.
  • Reply 20 of 72
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquafire

    Has any one seen any footage of Michael Moore eating...?



    look at the size of him...



    He must really LOVE himself so much.....



    Or is it the giant ego that gloats within that enormous carcass....



    My advice to Michael Moore..



    If anyone from hollywood ( via Washington ) offers him the role of the tyranical husband in "Steel Magnolias episode Part 2 "



    I'd say go for it..Michael .



    All you have to do is stand there as some petite old Southern Belle lands you with the back of her shovel...



    Hmm Dinner's cookin....





    Wow. He's fat. He sucks.
Sign In or Register to comment.