From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
Uncovered: My First Movie!

October 28, 2003 6:34 PM

As regular jimlog readers have undoubtedly noticed, my posting frequency has been scant the last few months. That's because I've been working on my very first movie: Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War. It's an hour long documentary that reveals "the distortion of intelligence by the Bush Administration which led to the first preemptive war in the history of the United States." We interviewed over 20 experts ranging from weapons inspector David Albright, to former Ambassador Joe Wilson. You can see the trailer and several clips online.

How I got involved in this project is truly a testament to the power of blogging and the Internet. In June, MoveOn started the "Great MoveOn Interview" where two people in the same area code were paired up to interview each other for an hour and report back what we learned. I was paired with a movie producer. I told him about my blog, and he encouraged me to keep up the fight. A month later he forwarded me an email from Robert Greenwald looking for a researcher. I noticed that he was the executive producer of Unprecedented, an award winning documentary about the 2000 presidential election. I was hooked. Robert checked out jimlog, we talked, and I started work the next day. Three months of long nights and thousands of pages of documentation later, my first documentary was finished.

Uncovered was Produced and Directed by Robert Greenwald, and sponsored by and John Podesta's new think tank, Center for American Progress. The press offensive will begin on Monday, November 3rd, and the DVD will be available on November 9th.

The LA premiere is November 11th, 7:30pm at the Laemmle Theatre on Second Street in Santa Monica. Send me email, and I will give you details as they become available. Additional screenings are currently scheduled for DC, NYC, San Francisco and Boston; stay updated here.

More from the archive in Bush, Lies and Deceit, Me, Uncovered.

Uncovered: My First Movie! (10.28.2003)

Next Entry: HUGE Response to Uncovered! (11.03.2003)
Previous Entry: Christina blogs for Jesus (10.22.2003)

Read the 17 comments.

ms. haplopia:

I can't wait to see the film! I am so very proud of you.

Wed Oct 29 2003 10:31 AM


So is this going to also cover all the disinformation being spread by the left leaning press after the war?

Thu Oct 30 2003 6:32 AM

Jim Gilliam:

Yes, dhermesc, it covers all the disinformation being spread by the left after the war. Of course, it didn't take very long... ;-)

Thu Oct 30 2003 7:58 AM

Paul in OC:

I never did watch "Unprecedented", because I figured it would just make me more upset. But, I'll definitely watch this one. Congratulations on the project, Jim. I hope it wins lots of awards and draws lots of attention.

Like all great American movies, we need to give this one a happy ending. Let's show Bush the door, shall we?

I'll be looking in the classifieds for career opportunities for a failed President. Something where he doesn't have to do any public speaking, actual physical labor, or make important decisions. I've got it! How about a job in middle management, Mr. President?

Thu Oct 30 2003 9:22 AM


He could open an office in Harlem in about 5 years after the constitution prevents him from running for a third term.

Considering the press is all saying the same thing (give back the victory) it shouldn't take long to cover.

Teams of rhetoric inspectors have been pouring over Bush's comments, utterances, speeches and gesticulations for about as long as we've been looking for WMD in Iraq and, to date, nobody has found a shred of proof that the president - or anybody in his Cabinet - ever once said Iraq or Saddam Hussein posed an "imminent" threat to the United States.

In fact, one of the only good finds on this score actually says the complete opposite. In President Bush's State of the Union Address last January, he said: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."

This is important because the favorite talking point of Democrats and liberal pundits right now is that the president "lied" when he said that Iraq posed an "imminent threat."

Just the other day Sen. Jay Rockefeller said on Fox News Sunday, "What I keep having to remind myself is that we went to war in Iraq based upon an imminent threat which was being caused by weapons of mass destruction." And New York Times columnist Paul Krugman hyperventilated: "The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra."

Ted Kennedy offered the most infamous summary: "There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership, that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud."

And why Bush will serve a second term:

"Liberals are always complaining that they haven't figured out how to distill their message to slogans and bumper stickers – as they allege Republicans have. Though it can't be easy to fit the entire Communist Manifesto on a bumper sticker, I beg to differ. (Bumper sticker version of the current Democratic platform: "Ask me about how I'm going to raise your taxes.""

Thu Oct 30 2003 2:19 PM



If you need help on research as to how long the disinformation had been spread before the war, I will give you all the help you need. Considering tales of nuclear and biological weapons have been spread by two administrations in this country, and most members of the UN over the course of 9 years you could have quite a job ahead of you.

Fri Oct 31 2003 11:31 AM

Jim Gilliam:

I think what made the Bush administration's claims more important than previous administrations was the actions that resulted from them. The whole invade-the-country-before-they-attack-us thing.

Fri Oct 31 2003 12:31 PM

Paul in OC:

This is entirely unrelated, but there's an article in the L.A. Times today about how, for 6 months, Bush sat on California's request for federal assistance in removing dead trees from fire prone areas. Bush rejected the request hours before the fires started.

This President sure knows how to hold a grudge.

OK, back to discussing the movie. ;)

Fri Oct 31 2003 12:38 PM

Paul in OC:


You mean Iraq didn't attack us? But, I thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11?!!

Are you telling me I've been lied to?

Someone should make a movie about that.

Fri Oct 31 2003 12:43 PM


Thank God for people with the expertise to create a movie detailing in sequential order the lies and manipulation of intelligence information that Bush and his warmongering cabinet used to bring us into this pre-emptive, reckless war. No weapons of mass destruction have been found even though we have had access to the entire country for six months. We have also captured or killed 44 of the 52 "deck of cards" Iraqi most wanted and have had access to numerous Iraqi scientists. Result: zero.
The WMD issue was never the real issue. Saddam's links to Al Queda did not exist and no evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11. An attack being launched in 45 minutes was a figment of Blair's imagination. There was no "reconstitution of nuclear programs" or any threat of a "mushroom cloud." The real reason for this war is to carry out zealous nation building policies of this administration. Their goal--Gain a military presence in the region to control the Middle East and Iraq's vast oil reserves. It's all about oil, folks--all about oil!

Mon Nov 3 2003 10:06 AM


Actually it was the Slickmeister himself that said Saddam had WMD and also asserted that Saddam had NUCLEAR WEAPONS to theaten the rest of the region. Hope that part is well covered in the lead up to the Iraq war.

The fact that Slick didn't "go to war" over its is easily explained, he didn't face a second impeachment. If he had the middle east would have been a smoking ruin by 1999.

As for it being about oil, what a joke, OF COURSE ITS ABOUT OIL. Imagine the damage to the US economy if Iraq had repeated its actions of the early 90s. If anything, US oil companies would welcome a tightening of world oil supplies, profits are a lot easier to make in a shortage. Maintaining oil supplies has been a goal of US foreign policy for over 30 years, thats why we watch the Middle East so close and allow Africa and South East Asia destroy themselves in tribal and civil war.

"Their goal--Gain a military presence in the region to control the Middle East and Iraq's vast oil reserves" ain't gonna happen. The goal since day one is the give Iraq back to the Iraqis, once they are nolonger a military threat to us or their neighbors. Also, give the administration some credit. They know they cannot maintain a strong military presence in a country like Iraq without tying up so many forces the US can't act upon any other threat. Name one permanant base that is being built in Iraq. Last thing any president want's his name linked to a West German style occupation in a middle eastern nation.

So now it's Bush's fault that California wouldn't trim it's trees or allow logging? Or is it his fault that its been dry and windy? Blame that on all the hot air blown around during the recall election.

Mon Nov 3 2003 11:35 AM


Paul in OC,

Who told you that Saddam was behind 9-11? Read my post above. No one from the Bush Administration has said that.

Mon Nov 3 2003 12:21 PM

Paul in OC:


Here are some speeches where Bush said that Hussein trained and supported Al Qaeda terrorists. These statements appear to be distortions which were designed to build public support for the neocon agenda to finish the job started by former President Bush. It's impossible to say for sure, because the Bush administration is witholding key information from the 9/11 investigation. However, there has never been any credible evidence made public to support these allegations, and there is plenty of evidence to indicate that no alliance between Hussein and Al Qaeda could have ever been possible, judging by their mutual hatred and distrust of one another.

If you're aware of any credible evidence that Hussein trained and harbored Al Qaeda operatives, I'm all ears. Please don't present information provided by the Iraqi National Congress. They have no credibility whatsoever, and they had an agenda to promote a U.S. invasion of Iraq. (Only a fool would accept them as a reliable source of intelligence. Oops. Did I just say the President is a fool?)

Here is what Bush said:

"Al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq."
- Speech to United Nations urging disarming of Iraq, Sept. 12, 2002

"We've got the terrorists on the run. We're keeping them on the run. One by one the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda."
- State of the Union address, Jan. 28, 2003

"The (Saddam ) regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now."
- Speech to nation setting 48-hour deadline for Saddam to leave Iraq or face war, March 17, 2003

Mon Nov 3 2003 2:53 PM

Paul in OC:


Tell us a little about yourself. Are you a paid troll, or a real person who is interested in what's best for the country?

Mon Nov 3 2003 2:55 PM


dhermesc says:

Also, give the administration some credit. They know they cannot maintain a strong military presence in a country like Iraq without tying up so many forces the US can't act upon any other threat. Name one permanant base that is being built in Iraq. Last thing any president want's his name linked to a West German style occupation in a middle eastern nation.

Bush November 3:
"America will never run." "We will not be intimidated..."

Tue Nov 4 2003 6:43 AM


I ask again, when did Bush say that Saddam was behind the attacks on 9-11? As for harboring terrorist, who is causing all the explosions over there?

As for stating the US won't run or be intimidated, what does that have to do with establishing a permanent military presence? Would you or the rest of the world feel more assured if he had said "When the first US serviceman is injured we will leave the country to torn apart by Saddam loyalist"?

As for who I am, I am sorry if an occasional outburst from an informed citizen is upsetting to you.

Thu Nov 6 2003 2:00 PM

Rev Bryan Peterson:

I just purchased and watched your movie. BRILLIANT! Thank you for what must have been tireless research in putting this movie together. The interviews with intelligence professionals interspersed with footage of Bush, Rice, Cheney, Powel and others is the best overview of the lead up to war I've seen or read.

Please continue your work!

Thu Dec 11 2003 10:51 AM

Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam


Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Weekly Artists Chart