transcript Nachman v. Michael Moore

From Tuesday. On a previous thread, we discussed how Bill Press kept saving Nachman from Michael Moore.

NACHMAN: Michael, I want to start with what your critics chiefly say. And that is, while you criticize President Bush for being a fictitious president, as you called him, winning in a fictitious election, a lot of your critics say that your documentary should have been more like an Oliver Stone movie because of the liberties you took with chronology and facts in both “Roger and Me” and “Bowling for Columbine.” You’ve heard that criticism, I’m sure.
MOORE: Well, yes. No, the NRA and some gun nut Web sites have really come after...
NACHMAN: Well, it’s not...
MOORE: ... the film.
NACHMAN: ... it’s not just gun nuts. I mean it’s people who have tried to lay out a chronology of what you said happened...
MOORE: Like who?
NACHMAN: ... when it happened...
MOORE: Like who has done this...
NACHMAN: Well...
MOORE: ... that is not a conservative right-winger that has a vested interest in wanting to attack me instead of debating me on the issues I’m raising?
NACHMAN: This guy...
MOORE: Every fact in the film is true. Absolutely every fact in the film is true. And anybody who says otherwise is committing an act of libel.
NACHMAN: Did the company you said made the guns that Columbine used not make the guns?
MOORE: You mean the-what are you talking about, the-there’s nothing about that in the film, about the company that made the guns. Are you talking about Lockheed?
NACHMAN: Yes.
MOORE: Yes. Lockheed is the largest weapons maker in the country. They’re the number one private employer in Littleton, Colorado. And they make rockets that take up spy satellites and satellites...
NACHMAN: Right...
MOORE: ... that launch weapons...
NACHMAN: ... but the implication was that the two killer kids used their guns.
MOORE: No, no, it doesn’t say that in the film. It doesn’t-you’re confused. It doesn’t say that.
PRESS: Well, let me ask you, Michael, if I can, about-you mentioned Iraq. You mentioned the fictitious war.
MOORE: Yes.
PRESS: Here’s-wouldn’t you have to admit, though, and, look, I oppose the war as well. Wouldn’t you have to admit looking back and looking today that the Iraqi people are a hell of a lot better off without Saddam Hussein? So maybe for the wrong reasons Bush did the right thing.
MOORE: I don’t know that to be true. I’m not there, so I wouldn’t venture a guess. Things don’t look that good there right now. And I think we all know what’s going to happen is-see, the reason we can’t really allow free elections because we really don’t want them to be free, because if we allowed the free elections that free election they’re going to elect some Muslim cleric and his platform is going to be no more elections. And that’s going to be the end of the so-called democracy we were going to bring to Iraq.
So, that’s why, you know, we’re not really going to allow them to have a democracy, because we’re not going to like how they’re going to vote. So, I think it’s a big mess we’ve got ourselves into. There are a lot of other dictators in the world. We could have gone after them. We don’t go after them. We went after him because of the oil. And, you know, I’d have more respect for Bush and those people if they just came out and said, look, Iraq has the second largest reserves of oil in the world. We’re going to run out of it shortly. We need the oil, and so we’re going to get it.
NACHMAN: Well, that’s essentially, Michael, what his father did in the first Iraq war. Did you support that then?
MOORE: Oh, no, of course not. No.
NACHMAN: And did you ever criticize Bill Clinton for any of the incursions he made?
MOORE: Constantly. Constantly.
NACHMAN: You did?
MOORE: Absolutely, including in “Bowling for Columbine”. Jerry, you have not seen this movie. In “Bowling for Columbine”, I criticize Clinton for bombing an aspirin factory in Sudan and I criticize Clinton for what went on in Kosovo in the bombing of civilians there. So I’m-you know, there’s no love lost there for things that he did, even though, of course...
NACHMAN: So, you’re a blue-collar pacifist. You’re Joan Baez with grease on your hands.
MOORE: Gees, I’ve never received such a compliment before.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/955443.asp

NACHMAN: ... advertising directors. I want to ask you a personal question.
MOORE: Yes.
NACHMAN: It’s really a political question.
MOORE: All right.
NACHMAN: You come from very modest roots, or you like to say that. I did, too, and yet, through your creativity and in this capitalistic system that you seem so uncomfortable with, you’ve become a gajillionaire (ph). I mean it’s a classic Horatio Alger story. Most...
MOORE: I don’t know what it is. It’s highly ironic, that’s for sure.
NACHMAN: Well, it’s ironic, but it’s also a typically American story that could only happen here. Why are you angry? You’re rich now based on this capitalistic system thanks to your books and your movies.
MOORE: Do I look angry to you?
NACHMAN: Well, you sound angry sometimes, not today, but often.
MOORE: Just when I’m on an Oscar stage (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
(LAUGHTER)
MOORE: No, I’m - look...
(CROSSTALK)
MOORE: ... I know what you’re saying...
NACHMAN: Say something...
MOORE: It’s a weird irony because...
NACHMAN: Say something good about this country that can...
MOORE: That’s all I do. All my work is about trying to make America a better place...
NACHMAN: But you talk about...
MOORE: “Roger and Me”...
NACHMAN: ... it being a violent...
(CROSSTALK)
MOORE: ... to this film...
NACHMAN: You talk about it being a violent, alienated, rage-filled...
MOORE: Yes, and I’d like that to change. I’d like to not-there not be 11,000 gun murders a year in this country. That’s a very positive pro-American thing, to not want kids to be killed by guns. How is that...
(CROSSTALK)
MOORE: ... anything other than...
PRESS: Michael...
(CROSSTALK)
NACHMAN: The corporations, Michael, have made you wealthy.
MOORE: No, actually the American people have responded to my work by the 10’s of millions because I represent mainstream majority opinion in this country. The majority of Americans want stronger gun laws. They want stronger environmental laws. They don’t like how they’re being treated at work. They hate their HMOs, go down the whole damn list. The American public is very liberal and progressive. They just lack liberal leaders who are going to do the job that needs to be done and defeat these...
(CROSSTALK)
MOORE: ... minority of right...
PRESS: Michael...
MOORE: ... wingers...
(CROSSTALK)
PRESS: Jerry, let me...
(CROSSTALK)
PRESS: ... Jerry, let me jump in here. I want to...
NACHMAN: How do you explain a progressive state like New York, which has a governor, a Republican in a third term, a Republican mayor in a third term. Are you out of sync? Are you in sync with the American public? We know how they feel about capital punishment. We know how they feel about gun laws. There seems to be...
MOORE: Well...
NACHMAN: ... some disconnect between you and them.
MOORE: No, the disconnect is that you don’t, for instance, with capital punishment, you don’t know where the American public is at now. Five years ago, 80 percent of the American public was in favor of capital punishment. That is now down to like 52 percent. It’s dropped almost 30 percentage points...
NACHMAN: OK...
MOORE: ... because the American public...
PRESS: Hey Michael...
(CROSSTALK)
PRESS: Hold it...
(CROSSTALK)
PRESS: Yes.
MOORE: ... is shifting toward the left.
NACHMAN: Go ahead Bill.
MOORE: And that is what’s driving the right-wingers and the conservatives crazy because they’re a dying breed, and they go to talk radio, and they get all angry and worked up, and it’s fun to listen to them. It’s like the sound of a dying dinosaur.

nt

You really believe we were saving democracy in Kuwait? Puh-leese.

But because Kuwait's was invaded by Iraq. That was something that could not have been ignored. Yes, oil was a part it--probably a large share of it--but the US was right to start that war.

but that was between Kuwait and Iraq. Up to a point, the US should definately stay out of foreign affairs, I usto think that war was justified but now I do think Iraq had a point. Kuwait was getting oil from a pipeline that traveled from Iraq, oil was definately apart of it and we should of stayed out of it. It wasn't worth all those Americans getting gulf war syndrom and getting killed.

add:The war was justified legally, but I don't think it was necessary to waste American lives to protect a country we don't even care about.

It set a bad precedent and the US had to step in there. We were right to get involved there. Now, as for the Second Iraq war, that is very much a different matter.

And it really troubles me that you are defending a dicator like Saddam Hussein.

We were right to get involved there, I agree with you 100%, I just don't think we should. There is no way in hell I am defending Saddam Hussein, I was opposed to giving him weapons so he could invade Iran. But I said he had a point, Kuwait was getting oil from a pipeline that was getting oil from Iraq. Now, I don't think American lives were worth defending a country we don't even care about. I hate Saudi Arabia, why are you defending them?

But you were clearly defending Saddam in that last post. And you should be ashamed of yourself for sympathizing with a dictator like that.

why are you defending him?

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2003/04/15/news/world/4bf23bb52adbe86c987caedce293617b.txt

In it's pseudo electoral process, women can't vote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/543408.stm

So it looks like one dictator fighting the other for debatable reasons. why are you so worried?

And vermontdem is right, kuwait did infact cross over iraqi territory for oil,
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/gulf22.htm

but that was between Kuwait and Iraq. Up to a point, the US should definately stay out of foreign affairs, I usto think that war was justified but now I do think Iraq had a point. Kuwait was getting oil from a pipeline that traveled from Iraq, oil was definately apart of it and we should of stayed out of it. It wasn't worth all those Americans getting gulf war syndrom and getting killed.

Now, give me the exact phrase. If someother country was taking oil from Texas without are permission, I would say we would have a point. I am not so blinded like the right wing to actually admit someone I don't like has a point, I don't think he should of invaded Kuwait, I don't like the way he handled the fucking situation but I think we should of fucking stayed out. I think we should stay out of foreign affairs as much as fucking possible.

So you are against all war then? I think that that sometimes war is necessary.

As for defending Sadaam you do so in your first reply where you state that Iraq "had a point".

against all war to be against most war. One isnt defending a dictator because he thinks that in one instance he has a point.

Why are you spouting Conservative dogma here? All people who oppose a war are idealistic hippies and all people who dont think Saddam is completely evil in everything are defending him eh?

I think WWII was necessary, like I said "as much as possible". Tell me how Iraq didn't have a point? Kuwait was getting oil from fucking Iraq, I don't think he should of invaded Kuwait but I don't think we should of defended a dictator which you are doing. Kuwait does have a cruel dictator, why are you defending him? Tell me how Iraq didn't have a point?

I am not defending Kuwait, but Iraq should never have attempted to invade it.

I know you aren't defending Kuwait, you should know I am not defending Saddam. I just think we should of stayed out of it, violence usually leads to more violence and Gulf War 1 sure has hell didn't prevent more violence.

But I think that had we stayed out of Iraq War I, a bad precedent would have been sent.

Saudi Arabia cutting off Oil supplies to the U.S.? :evilfrown:

I think the international community stepping in to end the dispute between Iraq and Kuwait was needed. The war that happened, the subsequent treatment of Iraq, the lies to saudi arabia, and the demonizing of Iraq that led to the second gulf war were not.

We had an obligation to Kuwait, our ally. No matter the reason for Iraq's invasion, it was a case of a larger country pre-emptively attacking a smaller one, breaking international law. The US still has an obligation to stop wars around the world.

that being said, we look like damned hypocrites with this Operation Iraqi Freedom debacle.

Was "angle drilling" of an Iraqi oil field from inside the border of Kuwait by Oil companies. AND the US sending mixed diplomatic signals to our ol' buddy Saddam that we wouldn't interfere if he taught them a lesson.

It snowballed from there.

Don't you remember that? I do. I was in the reserves, and set to go there as a field medic with NBC warfare Top Secret clearance and I read it in the damned Houston Chronicle.

Mere days before Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, a U.S. envoy named April Glaspie met personally with Saddam Hussien and told him that the U.S. has "no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

Bush 41 green-lighted Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the rest is history.

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

The first gulf war was a farce
with U.S. diplomats telling Hussein to
do what they wanted because Iraq was a sovereing nation
blah balh

carlos you really need to do more homework
you can start here:

http://www.guerrillanews.com/war_on_terrorism/doc2332.html

the site is really interesting

it might not have been necessary.

I just saw BFC last night for the first time, and you know what?

Moore is right. NEVER does it say that the kids got the guns from Lockheed, or that they were making weapons at the factory onscreen.
And, as a liberal I was pretty miffed to see how many times Moore DID go after Clinton's bombing of the Sudan and Kosovo.

If these talking heads want to discuss something, maybe they should SEE it before running their mouths.

Nachman talking out of his behind about New York politics is also precious. The fact that NYC has a Republican mayor and that NY has a Republican governor has less to do with people loving a neo-con agenda and more to do with 1)the internal disarray of the NY Dem party, and 2)the fact that NY Republicans aren't neo-con wingnuts like Texas Republicans, for example.

Nachman's mug shouldn't even be ONSCREEN--he's the director of programming for MSNBC I believe, and gave himself a show due to name in lights syndrome. Spare me.

The other fact is that people often split their tickets.

I've been waiting for this. Checking the transcripts page everyday but B&P don't seem to be taken very seriously by CNN.

He just gets it so right like few do. If you watch his movies, read his books or the speeches he does you just have to admire him. I wish there were more people like him, speaking out clearly against Bush and his neocon hawks. I am not from the US (European) so it doesn't affect me as it does all of you, but I really do hope that Bush (republicans) lose the 2004 elections and someone much more worthy of a president replaces him. Because everything Bush and his cronies represent is truely repugnant. I am keeping my fingers crossed that 2004 will bring changes :kick: :)

If Moore did what he did in 2000 then the Bush government might just squeak by as it did three years ago.

Is it possible to be that ignorant?

What is Nachman's position at NBC, isn't he a honcho? Jeez!

The transcript looks like someone loaded him up with talking point bullets that all turned out to be blanks! The transcript starts with a long, loaded question from Nachman, Moore gets 15 words out, and Nachman starts interrupting him! Did Nachman look as bad as he sounds on this transcript? Nice of Press to bail him out a time or two, as well.

Has he had surgery or is he ill?

I know it's off the subject but I was just curious after seeing him.
Does anyone know?

eom

M Moore: "I’d like to not-there not be 11,000 gun murders a year in this country"

Question: As opposed to just run-of-the-mill murders? What makes gun murders more special than non-gun murders?

I think Moore's point is that he'd prefer to see fewer than 11,000 gun murders every year. That appears to be a difficult concept for some people, fewer murders by gun. Unless you think the number of murders in the United States is an immutable fact, and incapable of adjustment, in which case any of those 11,000 murders would have to be made up by strangulations, garrotings, disembowelings, and other forms of murder. Moore seems to be saying that with fewer guns in circulation, there might be fewer murders committed.

it appeared that everyone in Cananda owned half a dozen guns. He actually left me unsure, I usto think it was homelessness that caused people to become more violent then other countries, he just blasted that theory in his movie. He basically says everything we have, other countries have it and have less murders.

In one of the episodes of All in the family Gloria is going on about there being too many people killed by guns in this country. Archie says something like: would you prefer they be hit over the head with hammers, little girl?

Very funny!! :)

Yes, Nachman has been fighting cancer. Yes, it appeared that his research came from GOP talking points. And yes, Bill Press was covering for Nachman and taking pressure off him -- to the point where our Bill Press was actually spouting the GOP talking points!

If Nachman is weakened (and it appears he is) he shouldn't try to go up against someone like Moore. He has that fancy title and all that power; settle for that.

I wonder if Nachman pulled Phil Donahue.

First of all, Nachman obviously didn't know what he was talking about. Now, if you're gonna host a program like that, do some preparation. He didn't necessarily have to see "Bowling for Columbine" beforehand, but that would've been the best prep. I'm sure that in an hour or less of googling, some research assistant could've come up with a list of rightwing criticisms of BFC, who made them, and Moore's defense against those criticisms.

Second, the fact that Pataki is NY governor and Bloomberg is NYC mayor says more about the weakness of the NY Democratic Party than the strength of Republicans. Heck, you can't find many stronger critics of the Republican Party than I am, and I voted for Bloomberg, largely because during the campaign Mark Green proved what I'd long suspected: that he'd be a disaster as mayor, just as he was a disaster as a candidate. And gubernatorial candidate Carl McCall ran an incredibly ineffectual and lackluster campaign, not giving the voters a single reason to vote for him.