Filmmaker Kept Quiet About Iraqi Prisoner Abuse

Documentarian Kept Quiet After Filming US Soldiers Abusing Iraqis
Ruthe Stien – sfgate.com Sunday June 13, 2004

Filmmaker Michael Moore said Friday he wasn’t sure he did the right thing by saving footage of U.S. American soldiers’ cruelty toward Iraqis for his controversial documentary, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” instead of releasing the evidence earlier when it might have helped halt such abuse.

“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.”

The footage, eerily similar to film of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib prison, shows GIs laughing as they snap photos of each other putting hoods over Iraqi detainees.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/13/MNG2K75D7S1.DTL&type=printable

The closer one looks at Michael Moore, the more dubious he appears. The millionaire moviemaker, who portrays himself as a champion of the common man, has a tendency to blur fact with fiction.

According to John Fund, writing in the Wall Street Journal: “Moore would deserve an Academy Award if there were an Oscar for Best Cinematic Con Job. If Bowling for Columbine is a comedy, most of its fans don’t know it. They believe they’re watching something that is in rough accord with reality.”

In other words Moore has a tendency to take liberties with the truth.

However he may be more than simply dishonest and despite his protests, more sinister too.

After supporting former NATO General Wesley Clarke’s failed bid for presidential nomination, Moore went onto to interview Nicholas Berg.
Moore has refused to disclose the contents of that interview but has revealed that he filmed US soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners long before the Abu Ghraib abuses were made public.

Now just think about that for a moment. Moore actually filmed US soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners but said nothing. Then, after the storm over prisoner abuse broke (and maybe just in time to edit in such sequences for the film’s debut?) he admits the he knew about the abuse all along, but thought that he would be accused of exploiting it to publicise his film.

So Moore said nothing and let the torture continue.

It just doesn’t sound right – unless Moore is actually working for one of the covert agencies.

Who else could put him onto Nicholas Berg, a virtually unknown political activist, who was being questioned and held by US military intelligence? And where did Moore, a supposed political “radical”, get the security clearance to film Iraqi prisoners being interrogated in a high security environment?

This features in Moore’s latest movie but it only makes sense if one accepts the possibility that Moore is an intelligence asset himself. The CIA and suchlike have a long history of employing supposed “radicals” to do their dirty work. For example drugs guru Professor Timothy Leary, who championed the use of LSD and the ‘alternative’ lifestyle in the 60’s, was in fact a CIA asset.

Indeed this is a familiar pattern that has been repeated throughout history. From Marx to Garibaldi, the Illuminati or their subordinates in the murky world of intelligence, have long employed the services of supposed ‘radicals’ to further their own agenda.

Although one former associate has described Moore as “money obsessed”, money may not have been what motivated him in this instance. The chance to get ‘inside’ information and generate more controversy to publicise his film may well have been the overriding factor.

But for a man who courts controversy, Moore has been remarkably reticent over his interview with Nicholas Berg. Saying only that he had “approximately 20 minutes” film of Nicholas Berg, which he says, will never be released.

Which prompts one to wonder, not just what was said but who put Moore onto Berg in the first place? We know that US Intelligence initially held Berg and there are strong indications that he was held in Abu Ghraib and ultimately killed during interrogation — in spite of the film of intelligence operatives masquerading as Iraqis.

Did US intelligence introduce the two, or did Moore bump into Berg by chance at Abu Ghraib?

Whatever the answer, this writer believes that Michael Moore needs to be seen with a little more scepticism and scrutiny.

Also see:
Berg decapitation video was filmed inside the Abu Ghraib prison

http://www.aztlan.net/berg_abu_ghraib_video.htm

Michael Moore Exposed

http://www.mooreexposed.com/

General Wesley Clarke: War Criminal

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1161

Bowling for Columbine

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Not So Stupid White Men Fight Back

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=859