Badmovies.org Forum

Let me start off by saying that I think Michael Moore acted like an idiot when he went off on his tirade against President Bush at the Academy Awards.  Let me also say that I do not have any allegiance to any political party.  I am an Independent.  Sometimes I agree with the Republicans, sometimes I agree with the Democrats, sometimes I agree with the lesser-known political parties, sometimes I think they are all full of hot air.

Anyway, I saw FAHRENHEIT 9/11 yesterday, and here are my thoughts:

1.  I am glad that Michael Moore admitted that he editorializes throughout the movie, because he does.  The movie is an all out attack on George Bush and his administration, carefully edited together to show only the negative side of every issue, and full of Michael Moore's voiceover opinions;

2.  The movie is often funny and amusing, regardless of which side of the fence you might be on;

3.  The movie is also depressing;

4.  The last 30 minutes tend to drag.  I think the movie would flow better if they cut about 10 minutes out of it.

Do you need to see it in a theater?  No.  Wait for video, DVD, television or whatever.  The only reason you might want to see it in a theater is to experience audience reactions.  I had a group of Bush haters sitting behind me who kept cackling every time the movie made fun of Bush or his cronies.  They kept saying stuff like, "Oh, my God" every time the movie showed something "shocking" about Bush's policies or business dealings.  At the end they stomped their feet and applauded and made asses of themselves just like Michael Moore did at the Oscars.

My overall opinion:  Michael Moore knows how to assemble documentary footage in a way that will (for the most part) hold an audience's attention.  However, he blames the Bush administration for cover-ups and "spin doctoring," yet Moore himself is guilty of these things throughout this film.  He is like a sleight of hand illusionist who lets you see only what he wants you to see.  This is okay.  It is a free country and he has a right to express his opinions.  The danger is that many people will think that they are watching an unbiased representation of reality when they see this movie,  But that isn't Michael Moore's fault, it's the fault of the misinformed public.

Overall, I'd say I believe about 10% of what Moore is saying.  The other 90% is VERY SUSPICIOUS . . .

I kind of agree.  He is like a lawyer making his case and he does it well, particularly on Bush himself.  Bureacracy gets in the way of important things getting done, etc.  That was the strongest stuff.  But I don't really have a problem with people mkaing money on a war, particularly if it helps getting rid of hussein who to me was just in a whole other catagory of dictator.  I'd like to see someone in Iran or Syria make a movie like this about their government hahahaha

I liked Fahrenheit 9/11, but there were a few things that bothered me. First of all, those shots that they put in of Iraq before the war, with all the kinds on playgrounds and flying kites and dancing in the streets? The war may be unjustified, but let's not act like Iraq was heaven on earth.
Also, there's that mother whose son died in Iraq who is featured prominently in the second half. I have a suspicion that the interview taken with her before her son's death (with her being a pro-was conservative) was staged. It just looks too good to be true.

Moore was accompanied throughout the Fahrenheit 9/11 project by the New Yorker's top fact checker.  I have no particular reason to believe he'd lie outright, as the stakes are rather high to allow any sort of loophole in his credibility.  Certainly, he contextualizes footage to suit his anti-Bush agenda, but he's said as much.  As for the case of Lila Lipscomb, it wouldn't be the first time someone's hubristic bubble was popped by a quick, nasty shot of reality.

Michal Moore is still Rick Moranis loudmouth fatter evil twin.

Michael Moore has rarely interested me, both politically and filmmaking-wise. I've seen BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE and, for a documentary, it was nicely put together. However, on the issue of being "accurate" and "truthful", it can be challenged. FAHRENHEIT 9/11 hasn't really kept my interest, but I will say that I await for the DVD release instead.

Speaking on the topic of FAHRENHEIT 9/11-and not to take it on a too political route-I'm getting a bit tired of the radio Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. being all in a huff about the film. True to form, it is an Anti-Bush film. And coming from the likes of Michael Moore, Limbaugh and Hannity act as if they are quite suprised by this. They shouldn't be; it's typical Moore and it's no suprise. However, what worries me is their "double standard" approach to the film. Rush Limbaugh is a perfect example: weeks ago when the film first opened, Limbaugh recieved an on-air caller asking Limbaugh's opinion on making a petition to ban the film for playing in theatres. Limbaugh's response: give it a shot. Funny, because when Limbaugh attended a private screening of THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST and singing praises towards the film, he also was telling the Jewish Community rallying against the film to basically "Get a life" and give it up. For a guy who says he doesn't have double standards and is not for full censorship (which he has been lately re-canting with more double standards), he sure is showing a different side here. Just something to think about.

Me personally: I choose not to see the film. My personal preference. But, FAHRENHEIT 9/11 doesn't need to be banned. Maybe avoided, but not refused a theatrical showing.

I liked it a lot, though I didn't think it was nearly as artfully done or as entertaining as his other movies. I think that this is probably due to the fact that its focus was a lot more narrow than his others; Bowling for Columbine was about a lot more than the Columbine massacre. Still, I'm glad it's out, and getting the widespread release that it is. (For the record, I agree for the most part with Moore's views, though I do agree that he can be a bit overbearing at times)

Rick Moranis?! Whatever.

I came away from the movie feeling like we really haven't had a president for the last 4 years.  More like a committe headed by Condi Rice and Dick Cheney.

That is exactly the kind of things he wants you to think.   Do not believe anything you see in this movie.  it is propaganda plane and simple.

Here's  all I will say about this subject:

Michael  Moore  -  a dickhead who bends the truth to fit his agenda

Sean Hannity  -   a dickhead who bends the truth to fit his agenda

Rush  Limbaugh - a  dopefiend dickhead who bends the truth to fit hi agenda
 
If I left someone out please keep it to yourself.  Farenheiht 9/11 is making a big splash because of all the news media free publicity it  got for being  'controvesial', the same way the Passion of the Christ  did.  Everyone has to run out and see what  it's about.  It probably won't convince anyone to change their point of view unless they were already leaning that way.  

p.s.  You can add Bill O'Reilly to that list  as well as the great majority of  politicians both  Democrat and Republican.

Heh. This piece of obvious crap succeeds at making money only by appealing to the comfortable fictions of the "blue state" leftists. I imagine a film in the same style taking the exact opposite position could raise an equal amount from the "red state" righties, although of course it would be villified by the same 90% of newspaper film critics who are currently pretending this leftist crap from Michael Moore is the greatest thing since sliced bread. After all, a film showing that the Democrats really are anti-capitalist anti-life anti-Christian anti-American haters of all humanity would rather tend to puncture every fiction our far-left media monster tends to believe. (Remember, we're talking about people who didn't even know anyone who knew anyone who'd voted for Reagan, here....)

In fact, as I recall, that's what a whole lot of these critics did to the Passion, albeit for puncturing a different set of popular fictions. (Turns out, to no one's surprise, that the far left also believes everything Pontius Pilate's enemies said against him, thinks Caiaphas deserves our sympathy, and only listens to  theological "scholars" who attack everything the Bible says.) In my local paper, one critic was such a moron that he even knocked the film for not advocating gun control! Gun control in ancient Rome? "Hey, Peter, don't you know there's a five-day waiting period on that sword?" Ha! Gimme a break!

So, anyone hear going to buy the book "Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" (Jason Clark, David T. Hardy) or see the documentary by Michael Wilson "Michael Moore Hates America"?  If the leftist media pushed Michael Moore's film than I am sure the rightist media will do the same for these.  Personally I am interested in seeing both sides of the coin.

I'm a little concerned with the warm reception the movie has gotten here in Canada, from the folks who just aren't comfortable with that Bush fellow (although many can't give a good reason why). Up here, people like politicians who pay a lot of patriotic lip service, while not doing anything to offend anyone (or anything at all). As a nation, we're kind of obsessed with being liked. Politicians who stand for something, left or right, make a lot of Canadians nervous. Helps that only a minority bother to get any facts for themselves. Our federal election last week was true to form - middle-of-the-road government whose highest priority is holding onto power. Goes nicely with our country's whole doormat mentality.

Personally, I can't speak to the content of the movie, because I haven't seen it. I generally believe in seeing something before I criticize it, but in this case, I don't want to do like everyone else, and give my money to an a***ole like Moore just to satisfy my curiosity. This is especially true because I think the whole sensationalistic idea is in very poor taste. This seems to be the secret to Moore's success - tie your movie to a horrific tragedy that touched a lot of people, promise to provide some additional insight, and watch the money roll in. Moore is being hailed as an important filmmaker, and basking in the publicity, by hitching his wagon to a major disaster. Sick.

I don't care if he does say he's doing a service to society, or even believes it himself. It's all about his ego and his wallet. Feel like a bigshot by shooting at the biggest target you can find. Make yourself feel important by taking down somebody who has accomplished more than you could.

I used to work for an editor like that. Over about 25 years, he went from promising young newspaper entrepreneur to local crank. At first, people listened to him and believed him, then they debated what he said, then they hated him, then they laughed at him, then they ignored him, even when he made a good point. Oh, he always had supporters, but most people couldn't stand the constant negativity and paranoia and egotism. And nobody could try to accomplish anything without him sticking his nose in. He got worse and worse, lost what credibility he had left, and was eventually run out of town. By that time, I really think his cheese was slipping off his cracker, so to speak.

Looking forward to seeing it happen to Michael Moore, the arrogant smartass.

andy c wrote

"I'm a little concerned with the warm reception the movie has gotten here in Canada, from the folks who just aren't comfortable with that Bush fellow (although many can't give a good reason why). "

i could give u some good reasons.

maria paula wrote:
> i could give u some good reasons.

No offense, but that's what I'm talking about - clever quips with nothing to back them up.

That's still not as annoying as opinions that are cobbled together from bits of other people's opinions, tossed together with second-hand accounts of half-understood news reports and biased editorials. I can't get into a good political discussion anymore, because that's the best most people seem willing or able to do.

That also worries me, because that is just the sort of person who will watch a Michael Moore 'documentary' without the necessary grain of salt. When this one opened, I got to listen to an interview with a woman coming out of a theatre, talking about how much she learned that she hadn't known. Scary.



Post Edited (07-07-04 13:34)

of course i have lots, anyway i will give u one reason i dont like him.
All the reasons for which the war was concived  are falling down one by one
 not found the massive weapon destruction, there have no been relations
a mong Osama Bin Laden and Sadam Hussein, the Iraqis they are not considered
Liberated, every day innocent people die and this situation its more culminating With every hourtthat goes by ,now,  he said that the war its over, well, i dont really think so, and nowadays the situation its even worse than when it started . and the oil?? ok i wont talk about it because  everybody knows whats going on with it, the price its growing day by day and this its not only afecting americaor  europe too, africa, central america, south america, asia  where millions of poor people  are affected too,and yes, the prices for oil are for everybody the same.
i have to say too  that thanks to this war 200 hundred of people died in my country the 11of march , students, middle  and low class workers,  and i have to tell u that my bestfriend boyfriend  was in that train and he´s been 3 weeks at hospital.
while the 90% of the population wanted to avoid the war, and was againts it, our president, that was supporting george bush, didnt care about his population opinion, and with the disagreement of the almost entire spain, he diceded that it was better for us to got into this war, ok, the train terrorist attak was the end of his goverment., and the spanish population punished him for that.
and i could give u more reasons why i dont like him, but i think that with this ones i have enough.

maria paula wrote:


> while the 90% of the population wanted to avoid the war, and
> was againts it, our president, that was supporting george bush,
> didnt care about his population opinion,

Has everyone forgot that after 9/11 that over 80% of the country was in favor of  taking out any terrorist  that would want to harm our country.  Which is why we first started to go after Osamma.  Now that the memory is no longer fresh on everyones mind, they have decided that perhaps we should not have done what we did.  

>All the reasons for which the war was concived are falling down one by one
> not found the massive weapon destruction

There were canister is Saren(sp) gas found in a warehouse, but everyone decided to turn their heads and say they must have forgot about them.  This man knew a year in advance that we would come after him, do you not think that  is enough time to mony any and all weapons he had to another country that he would buy off?

noone has said that ossama wasnt need to be found, i agree that terrorist have to be caught and condemned for it but........ it was necesary to pierce a whole country?? why for??lots of people died for it and  still he hasnt been found.

I think you are getting Afganistan(sp) confused with Iraq.  To my knowledge the loss of life in Afg.  has been nowhere near as large as in Iraq.  At least that we have heard of.   And noboday ever said that he had WMDs.  We attacked him because we had proof the he was behind 9/11.

"Has everyone forgot that after 9/11 that over 80% of the country was in favor of taking out any terrorist that would want to harm our country. Which is why we first started to go after Osamma. "
u mentionated him, not me. so im not confusing anything, i was just mentioning the things why i dont like him.
anyway, im glad u can have your opinion and i can have mine, maybe u like bush, thats fine, its your president, and u think he is defending your country, i dont like him, at all,and its fine too, im i right?

My wife and I finally caught this flick last night, and I was quite suprised.  Seems that Moore's film is pretty much a sumation of everything I've been saying since the "WAR ON TERROR" first started.  

I still think that our attack on Iraq was uncalled for.  Sure, Sadaam was a bad guy, an "Evil Doer" if you would.  That does not give us a reason to attack him though.  He has never attacked our country, and yet we sure bombed the hell out of him.  

There are no WMDs.  I don't care about the Sarin (sp?) that was found in Iraq.  The only news source I had heard that from was Fox News and well all know about them (Hannity).  

I'm not a democrat and I'm certainly not a republican.  It just p**ses me off to see this puppet in office, being controlled by his father's friends.  F**k that man.  Bush is on his way out and I will rejoice on election day.

maria paula wrote:

> of course i have lots, anyway i will give u one reason i dont
> like him.
> All the reasons for which the war was concived  are falling
> down one by one
>  not found the massive weapon destruction, there have no been
> relations
> a mong Osama Bin Laden and Sadam Hussein, the Iraqis they are
> not considered

You mentioned him first. :)
Boy now we sound like a bunch of kids.

I understand your views, and I tend to agree that things have not worked out the way that everyone hoped. Which was that we would run in there and in two days we would be out and there would peace in the middle east again.  But unfornutaly that did not happen.  So people are starting to say we should never have been there.  But, this is what happens during a war.  Just because things did not work out right, does not mean that our reason for being there is any less just.

>>There are no WMDs. I don't care about the Sarin (sp?) that was found in Iraq. The only news source I had heard that from was Fox News and well all know about them (Hannity).

The sarin and mustard gas shells were found and verified by Polish troops.  That was covered by AP, hardly a right-wing news outlet.  Here's a CNN story:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/25/iraq.main/index.html

What about the uranium they just removed from Iraq?  Is that enough for you?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040707/ts_nm/iraq_nuclear_un_dc_2

that's good that they found those weopns before they could be used on us, but rumsfelt and those guys led us to beleive there were STOCKPILES. of these and other things EVERYWHERE

You give better reasons than most people I know.

Still, I don't understand how anyone can be blamed for a train bombing but the people who did it. I've certainly never understood what makes people lay the blame on the people who 'brought it on' by doing something they were entitled to do. A group of criminals attacked civilians because your government supported Bush. How is that his fault? I wouldn't even say it was your president's fault.

There is only one reason for people to use terrorism. It works. People turning their outrage in the wrong direction, a government turfed out of office, the incoming government determined not to stick their necks out. I'd call that pretty effective. The Spanish people punished their government, and gave the terrorists exactly what they wanted.

As for the war in Iraq, the real goal, to me, was to get rid of Saddam. Mission accomplished. In the long run, Iraq will be better off. Things would settle down sooner, without terrorists doing their best to mess it all up.

And high gas prices have more to do with the consumer being over a barrel (no pun intended). People are so dependent on the stuff, they can't just stop buying when the price gets out of hand. And competition in the industry is virtually non-existent.

I don't see any of these as particularly strong reasons to hate Bush specifically.



Post Edited (07-08-04 04:54)

As I said before he had over a year to remove any weapons he may have had.  
And example:
You are sitting in your house growing pot plants. You hear that  on august 23 at 10:00am the police are going to come and search your house.  Are you just gonna sit there looking at the plants and say, well maybe they will not find them.  NO, you will get them out of there.
This is exactly what they think Saddam did, they believe he moved them to Lybia(sp) or somplace like that.
The bill that HE himself signed said that Iraq would destroy and and ALL WMD's.  Even finding on shell with sarin(sp) gas was a violation of that bill.  

Now if you go one mile over the speed limit, the cops have the right to give you a ticket.  But they are usually very cool about that.  But that is the law.  It is a LIMIT.

So how can anyone say that he did not break the law, you have the proof.......

I'm not denying the fact that Sadaam broke the agreement.  One canister of sarin is enough proof of that.

But, what about when Bush was saying that he had no fears about Sadaam and how he did not think that he had any biological weapons?  And then once Bush's approval rating started to dip, Sadaam instantly has WMDs!  And now he has new and improved factories for these weapons!  He is Satan incarnate!  All fear him or he will eat your children and your soul!

All kidding aside, do you really believe that we were not duped into going to war?  

And now I'm sure that the reply: "Well most wars have been based on lies......"  

Whatever.  I call shenanigans!  This war happened without merit.  It happened for Bush's gain and for the gain of his friends.  This is something that cannot be denied.  I don't care who you are or what political party you affiliate yourself with.  

The proof is with Halliburton.  How could good ole' Dick not have made huge amounts of cash from the contracts Halliburton recieved in Iraq.  This is not a conspiracy theory because it's not a conspiracy if it's completely obvious.

This isn't to say that there isn't crooked politicans on the left side of things cause there of course are.  It just p**ses me off that America was lied to and that our troops are dying for the wealth of a group of the elite.

That's not America.  I don't care if you are a republican and support this type of behavior and dare I say it; this type of dictatorship.

I have never heard Bush say the he did not think that Saddam had any biological weapons.  That does not mean that it is not true, but please show me where he said this.

I thought the  purpose of the war was so that the Rangers would win the AL West.  I mean, the current president is  the ex-owner of the Rangers and they've been doing really well since we invaded Iraq.  They're in first place in the division.  And the MLB season ends shortly after the next election...Co-incidence?  I think not!



Post Edited (07-08-04 11:31)

OH MY GOD!!!!
It all makes perfect sense now.

HA HA HA

Quite funny Freep.  :o)


As for Acidburn and seeing Bush say that Saddam is not a threat - Go buy a ticket to Fahrenheit.  You'll see him at a press conference saying exactly that.  No trick editing - no voice overs.  Just Bush being Bush.

acidburn- you're dodging the question.  We didn't go to war because we thought saddam had three sarin gas things.  Rumsfelt said he had massive stockpiles of these and other weapons and that we knew where they were.  So if they say there are massive stockpiles and there are actually 3 canisters than it is a lie.

It is funny how I am dodging the question when I have said at least three times, why would (if indeed he had a stockpile) he just let them sit around so we could find them.
He had over a year to move any weapons he had.

As as for you saying take a look at the movie.  I would not believe ANYTHING that is in this piece of Bush hating crap.  It would be one thing if this film was done by a neutral party. But this man has said over and over how he hates bush and hopes this film will sway the vote.  How would you beleive anything he says after  he says he would do anything to see that Bush is not reelected.

Well, he doesn't really SAY anything so I don't have to beleive it.  He shows the clip of Bush in front of the class as the country is attacked, shows clips of bush's interviews at his ranch, and interviews people around the capital.  I'm sure any factual errors he may have made will be pointed out.  I've seen a few and they didn't seem particularly significant.  Like the guy who's nephew went to iraq or whatever.  We wanted BIn Laden after 9/11, not saddam hussein.  We had no emotional investment of any kind in old saddam, he was old news.  

So you're saying that saddam hid his weapons of mass destruction before we got there.   Must be some hiding place.

Acidburn,

Now why all of the hate against Moore?  If this was Hannity or someone else from the right wing making a documentary about how Kerry is an all around a***ole, then you would be praising him.

Give Moore the benefit of the doubt.  Go watch the flick, and see just exactly what Bush says.  You can't deny what the man says.

making a documentary about how Kerry is an all around a***ole

I think, somehow, the meaning of  the word "documentaty" has been lost somewhere

Freep,

Sad but true.

Skaboi wrote:

> Acidburn,
>
> Now why all of the hate against Moore?  If this was Hannity or
> someone else from the right wing making a documentary about how
> Kerry is an all around a***ole, then you would be praising him.
>
> Give Moore the benefit of the doubt.  Go watch the flick, and
> see just exactly what Bush says.  You can't deny what the man
> says.
>

Now let me tell you a little something.  I HATE all politicians.  I feel they are all just a bunch of greedy bastards.  The only reason that I do not like more is because of the way that this movie has been made.  It takes clips that people say  out of context  to make it sound like they are saying something totally diferent.,  I have never heard Sean Hannity speak.  The only seaon Ieven know who he is, is because a local radio station bashes him all the time.  
I do not go by what a politician tell me to go by, I speak about my own oppinion.
I actually kind of like Kerry, at least he was smart enough to marry this VERY VERY rich women. :p
On another note I disagree with alot that bush says, but I do believe that this war was necessary.  A lesser of the two evils if you will.  we could go to war now and have some soldiers give their life fighting for something that they believe in, or we could have waited untill Saddam nuked LA  or somewhere and killed hundreds of thouseands of civillians.

I agree with you about politicans being greedy bastards, Acid.  Like I said in a post before, I'm not defending the left wing of politics cause they are just as corrupted.

As for Kerry I don't really care for him much either but, I do like him quite a bit better than Bush.  And, I think he picked a pretty good VP as well.

As for Moore, he does twist the facts, and his films are biased.  But the video clips don't lie.  And in Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore serves up some fairly effective clips.  I believe the most effective is watching Bush's reaction after hearing about the 9/11 attacks while visiting an elementary school and how he just sat there even after hearing about the second attack.  Quite Quite Quite effective stuff.

believe me I am not downing him, I recently watched 'Bowling for Colombine' A very interesting film.  It is just hey way that he is trying to use a film that is as one sided as this to try and influence people that do not know any better.
John Edwards is just a pretty boy, I think he belives since he is from the Carolinas that he will help carry the souths votes.   I have never really heard of him, I think he sould have picked Hillary.  :)

Boy, I wish you guys would shut up about this s**t, Moore's film will not sway anybody who is not leaning that way already.  I don't want to put myself in the situation of defending any politician.

Bush screwed up going to Iraq, but I don't see that stiff Kerry being any kind of a saviour.   I get more disillusioned over this stuff everyday, everything is so biased these days that you don't have a clue where the truth is hiding among all the partisan bulls**t.

I rate all the pundits like Moore, Hannity,  and the others on both sides as certified dickheads. They  represent the extremes and I believe most people fall in the middle somewhere.  I am a fiscal conservative, but a lot of my social views would be called down right liberal.  I pray we get a candidate some day that has an ounce of common sense.



Post Edited (07-09-04 13:02)

Acid,

Well, I am from NC therefore I'm pretty familiar with Edwards' policies.  He seems to be one of the more honest ones, but one can never tell

Trek,

I agree with you to some point.  I believe that there should not be party lines, there should be ideas.  I believe that canadates should be voted into office by what they represent not which party they are with which in our current time is two completely different things.

I believe the most effective is watching Bush's reaction after hearing about the 9/11 attacks while visiting an elementary school and how he just sat there even after hearing about the second attack. Quite Quite Quite effective stuff.

From The Lies Of Michael Moore (http://www.christiancounterculture.com/articles/michaelmoore.html)

---------------------
More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup
---------------------

Easy to spin a video clip any way you want it, if you're trying to make it fit your agenda.

This is why I said the definition of 'documentary' had been lost.  I don't care if Moore doesn't like Bush.  That's his right as an American.  But he's on a political carade masquarading as a "documentary film-maker" and if he was honest he'd fess up and admit his stuff it notably twisted.

A real documentary about te events before and after 9/11 would probably be pretty interesting; but I think I'd enjoy it more on History Channel than in the silver screen, by people who were actually interested in documenting for the future everything that we can know about that time, not some political hack with a camcorder who's the darling of the media for now.



Post Edited (07-09-04 12:28)

guess you really couldn't face any of my points.  Anyway you say if we hadn't taken out saddam he may have dropped nukes on us.  Well, now that we have taken him out we have more terrorists who are more inclined to do just that.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the next terrorist attack on our soil is in retaliation for the iraq war.

Ummm, what points was that.   I will gladly  give you my oppinions on any points you may have tried to make.  Sorry I must have just missed them.

moore admits to being a propagandist. i only hope people that go to his film are aware of that.

take the scene where he is confronting congressmen to sign up their children for war. 1. you can't sign someone up. and second, moore says "not one congressman agreed." do you really think he stood around and asked every single congressman the question. if i was a congressman, i'd avoid moore like the plague no matter what my political stance would be. no telling what sound bite he'd use to his advantage.

The congressman he was confronting told him that his son is a soldier in either Iraq or Afghanistan at the moment. Moore cut his reply out of the movie, and shows it as if the guy refused to answer him.

I agree that Michael Moore wouldn't put this film out there if his facts weren't in order. Even though I haven't seen his Columbine film, I would ask you to consider (and I should find out myself) how factual that documentary was because that could be an indication of how factual we could expect Fahrenheit 9/11 to be. As for me, even if there was a little spinning, I found Fahrenheit 9/11 to be as factual as watching CNN or Fox News. Afterall, who doesn't spin a little? And if it is true that Bush spun a whole war in Iraq into existence in the first place, then Moore should be credited for being the first to put it out there so eloquently.

I am a Protestant Christian who voted for Bush in good faith--not because I followed politics all that closely. I even willingly supported Bush's decision to invade Iraq right up until I sat down in the theater tonight and began watching 9/11. I applaud Michael Moore for his effort in revealing this other side of Bush and his presidency that I had not been privvy to.

You may be intrigued to know that I've been extremely anti-Clinton ever since the Lewinsky scandal broke. Interestingly, one of the reactions I had to this film was that yes, Clinton was selfish and screwed up, but at least no one (other than Monica, his family and some other people in politics) was hurt physically. I am appalled actually, that Bush, Cheney and the rest of them would compromise their duty to protect our nation to such an extent. And for what? Financial gain? That's the height of selfishness, and even more so at a time like this when innocent people are dying!

One of the theories this whole time has been that the Iraqi invasion was all about oil. When I think of it now, probably a lot of the people who said this were just as ignorant about politics as I, with the exception that they were sitting on the other side of the fence. Well, now I admit that to an extent, I believe they were right. So, until someone can convince me otherwise, I thank you, Michael Moore, for sharing your insight with the world and for changing my views on Bush and war.

What is the matter with all you people?  

Everyone is just as bad as bickering politicians!!

I am definitley not a Bush supporter, I loathe the current state of world politics, and my personal stance on Iraq is that it's too late to b***h about what should have happened, and move on to fixing the mess the world is in PROPERLY!  Yet I also don't think that Moore is in any way an accurate 'documentary' maker.

I'm not stupid enough to take Moore's 9/11 on face value alone, but I do think that it will raise, at least, some interesting points.

What really annoys me is many of you seem to be confused over why there was a war in Iraq.

I can't speak specifically for the US, but the main reason here in Australia was the WMD issue, and that Saddam appeared to be an immediate threat.  We were seemingly led to believe that a war in Iraq was an urgent matter.  It was only after there was no brilliant discovery of WMDs that people started talking about liberating the Iraqi's as a major reason.

Whilst Saddam was almost definitely a threat, he wasn't an immediate one, and as of yet, no real evidence of WMDs were found [a few cannisters don't really count as much in my eyes].  This, in my opinion doesn't justify going to war, one that btw has definitley polarised global opinion against the US.  Sensationalising and dramatising a situation to suit your political aims seems to be very wrong.

This doesn't mean that war should never have happened, given proper planning a realistic approach, and the complete collapse of any other peaceful options, war would have been more justified.  It's just that violence is something that spreads, and should be used as a last resort, not a first or a second.  It doesn't solve long term problems, and I don't see what the Bush administration really expected from this.

Also, as a final point, everyone, get your facts straight before going on rants, and that goes for all bush-haters too.  It seems that everyone jumps on the 'hate Bush' bandwagon with only, as previously mentioned earlier, second hand opinions.


Arghh, as much as I love good political debates, I do get a headache from trying to understand why some people can be so ignorant, on either side of the debate.

Please, we are all [hopefully] good people, I don't see why we can't all get along and start talking about viable options available to the US, and ideas/theories to do with stopping ongoing Terrorist threats [to anyone, not just the US.]

Either that or just go back to the bad movies.  Maybe someone can make a b-movie about the state of world politics, and how stupid the whole situation is!

Kate Webster wrote:
> I agree that Michael Moore wouldn't put this film out there if
> his facts weren't in order.

As a journalist myself, I can tell you that this assumption is one of the biggest mistakes people make. There is no law requiring anyone to present all the facts, give complete quotes, or present everything in context. There is nothing requiring you to make sure people understand the issue or the reason something was done, and nothing preventing you from exploiting ignorance. An unscrupulous reporter can twist things a lot without committing libel. It's even possible to make out-and-out false accusations, provided you word them carefully.

I've seen another paper (a disgrace to the industry) do this to a mayor, partly for their own gain and partly out of personal dislike. They regularly ignored his successes while getting as much mileage as possible out of anything with potentially negative connotations. I'll give you one example out of many.

The municipality needed a specialized piece of road equipment. Only one company makes it, and the authorized dealer for this part of the country is the mayor. Thus, no competing bids could be obtained. Just the same, he quoted them a reduced price. He declared a conflict of interest and removed himself from the meeting during the discussion and vote.

My story explained all of this. The story in the other paper was different. It was about how the municipality bought a $15,000 grading compactor from the mayor's company without tendering. They got some comments from a councillor who didn't like the mayor, and generally always opposes spending money. They called the mayor (coincidentally while I was interviewing him in his office), with a lot of loaded questions, which he refused to answer because they would never quote him in full or present his comments in context. So they said he had "no comment."

This was accompanied by an editorial that made no direct accusations, but posed a lot of questions (that would be answered if they'd printed all the facts), and suggested that people should be very concerned. There was also an editorial cartoon. In these, the mayor was always drawn in a Boss Hogg suit, which says all kinds of things without actually saying them.

The controversy was entirely a fabrication, but there was no libel. Quite a few people believed it, because "they wouldn't be allowed to print it if it wasn't true." This sort of thing went on for a couple of years, and did real damage, not just to the mayor's reputation, but also to the municipality and the community.

This is the same kind of yellow journalism that Michael Moore practices, and he should be ashamed of himself. The purpose of journalism and documentary filmmaking should be to inform, and to help people understand, so they can form their own opinions based on the facts. To me, it's inexcusable to exploit ignorance, and present just enough carefully selected evidence to advance your own point of view. Moore is an unethical scumbag.



Post Edited (07-12-04 11:11)

that mans NEPHEW was in Iraq, not son.  YOU'RE response shows YOU are a propagandist willing to twist the truth to suit your pusposes.

After reading this post, I do believe the world is coming to an end....

The film should provoke you to find the facts. Maybe these links can help you do some research. Just cut and paste in your address bar and read away....

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=45294

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=64326

http://www.accuracy.org/KM072103.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=116445

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263

>that mans NEPHEW was in Iraq, not son. YOU'RE response shows YOU are a propagandist willing to twist the truth to suit your pusposes.

Either that or I was mistaken about something easily corrected, in a place in which I could be certain to be called on it if I were to lie, and in a way that does not suit my purposes. My truth twisting propaganda is located here: http://davemunger.blogspot.com

There is no documentary in the history of filmmaking (nor will there EVER be) that is truly unbiased.  Documentary filmmakers may shoot hundreds of hours of film and edit them down to 90 or 120 minutes.  The act of editing means that the filmmaker made a CHOICE about what to include and what to exclude.  Give two people the same pile of unedited film, and they will edit them into two completely different documentaries.  You can go back even further, because BEFORE the editing, the filmmakers had to decide WHO to interview and WHAT QUESTIONS to ask.  Also, WHERE to conduct the interviews (an interview conducted in someone's living room beside a fireplace will have a far different tone from the same interview conducted in front of a burning building, an erupting volcano, a riot, etc).  Plus, the script for the voiceover narration certainly has a lot to do with the message of the film.  So, even though some documentaries try to show both sides of a story, the opinions of the filmmakers are in there somewhere.  However, Michael Moore's style is much more obvious than most others.

sound like a good movie but nothing tops of house of 1000 corpses!

Alright man we get, you liked 1000 corpses.  Sheesh

Agreed that personal biases will always creep in, in spite of the best intentions. Hard to really care about an issue and still remain impartial. The important thing is to make the effort. And to deliberately skew the facts toward a desired conclusion is just plain wrong.

There's a huge difference between a little unconscious bias and deliberately misleading people with half-truths.

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=45294

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=64326

http://www.accuracy.org/KM072103.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=116445

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263

you conservitives and your links.   Your sort of like health food nuts.

I don't really think it's fair to say that making a movie with a clear slant is "just plain wrong." Moore's stuff is different from something you might see on the History Channel, but that doesn't mean that something like that doesn't have the right to exist.  I see it as the difference between newspaper journalism and people like Tom Wolfe and Hunter S. Thompson; you wouldn't want to replace one with the other, to be sure, but there's certainly room for both.

I see what you mean. It's just hard to reconcile with my sense of journalistic integrity. I've seen too many people do what Moore does, and call it news reporting. The average person doesn't know the difference. And regardless of whether a Michael Moore film is something different, a lot of people take it as completely acurate. They don't make the distinction.

I think that is where I have a problem. The line too often gets blurred.

I don't see it as so much of a problem if it's essentially harmless, like the fabrications in Pumping Iron for example. The worst thing that came from that was Ken Waller getting booed at contests because people thought he stole a t-shirt, and he had, to some degree, willingly played the villain. But Moore is out to destroy careers and influence people's political choices, and his deceptions can do real damage. That's why I take issue with it.



Post Edited (07-15-04 09:18)

We get it, now move on with your life and embrace a new obsession.

VX agent was found in the Euphrates River - it was reported briefly by most news outlets.  You also had the artillery shells with blister agent and now sarin gas in the IED on the roadside that fortunately did not activate.  Bush's two great failures in this war were allowing Saddam six months to hide and dispose of his stuff (VX agent does not occur naturally in the Euphrates River and Syria is a nice big country with no Americans to hide stuff); and also allowing the left to defne the terms.  "WMD" seems to mean (to the left and the media) a big giant rocket with radiation and biohazard symbold all over the nose cone and the words "New York Buster" on the side.  The other stuff we've found doesn't seem to count.  And I don't recall Rumsfeld saying anything about "huge stockpiles" - as I recall the reasoning was that a suitcase full was too much to risk Hussein having.

I'd also like to say that the whole "duped and deceived" thing is ridiculous.  Bush received intelligence that there were WMD in Iraq-that's established.  Colin Powell outlined the evidence to the UN and based just on what he showed the UN, the CIA - in my opinion - had no choice but to assess that there were WMD.  All the defectors were saying it was there; all the imagery showed very suspicious activity; the history was there - we found many intact programs after the Gulf War that we dismantled.  If the CIA had ignored all this and it turned out that there were WMDs, they'd have been tarred and feathered.

Hussein's ties to Al Qaida are documented facts.  Mohammad Atta met with Iraq's intel chief in Prague - something Vaclev Havel actually flew to the US to confirm in a press conference.  There's also all kinds of evidence that Hussein sent WMD guys to Sudan when bin Laden was waging his war from there in the 1990s.  Finally more evidence of the connection has popped up in Iraq, but that seems to be overshadowed by the story of some soldiers who put bags over some Iraqi prisoners' heads and took pictures of them naked.  Glad Amnesty Interational is all over it, but I can't wait to see their next report on Al Qaida's treatment of prisoners (yeah right).

As for Halliburton, it is the only company in the world that had the resources for the contract the US required.  It wasn't some Cheney money-making scheme.  Halliburton has been around for 100 years and has a great reputation.  Sorry, but you're just on crack if you think that multi-milionaire Cheney would risk public disgrace, possible jail, and a seat at the bad guy table in the history books just for a few million more dumped somehow into his very public and closely wtched finances.  Think, for god's sake.

The whole Bush-binLaden connection in this truly Bad Movie is also a crock as outlined in a post I wrote earlier on this subject in another thread...  Go look it up if you're interested.  My bet is that the supporters of this film aren't the slightest bit interested in hearing any more reason.

B O R I N G

BUSH SCREWED UP

DISCUSS, GEEKS!!!

First of all, 23 experienced intelligence officers retired because they were forced to make the evidence lean towards Iraq & Saddam when it didn't. For some reason, the documentary made on that seemed to go unoticed. Look it up.

It was proved BEFORE Colin Powell went to the UN that what he called "mobile chemical weapon units" were really weather balloon installations. HE LIED!!!!

This is a bulls**t, illegal war and the facts are there.

Don't you realize that the more you want to take over the world, the less you have of living the "American Dream".

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=6228#1

More Proof They Knew

This morning's Los Angeles Times uncovers an explosive document buried at the end of the recent Senate Intelligence report. It shows that before Colin Powell's now-discredited U.N. speech justifying war in Iraq, State Department analysts told Powell and top administration officials about "dozens of factual problems" in the address (which was written by Vice President Cheney's staff). According to the Jan. 31, 2003 memo, there were problems with 38 of the claims made in the speech draft, which was crafted at the behest of the White House. (It was "intended to be the Bush administration's most compelling case" for war in Iraq.) In response, 28 were either "removed from the draft or altered" – but the others were left in. Powell was reportedly irate when first given the speech: According to the 9/3/03 U.S. News & World Report, Powell threw the speech in the air, yelling, "I'm not reading this. This is bulls--t." This past May, he reiterated his displeasure with the speech, saying, "It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong, and in some cases deliberately misleading."

ADMINISTRATION WAS WARNED: Analysts advised Powell that many of the claims were "weak" and "warned Powell against making an array of allegations they deemed implausible." They also warned Powell that he "was being put in the position of drawing the most sinister conclusions from satellite images, communications intercepts and human intelligence reports that had alternative, less-incriminating explanations."

DISCREDITED INFORMATION MADE IT IN, PART I: In the speech to the U.N., Powell "showed aerial images of a supposed decontamination vehicle circling a suspected chemical weapons site." The State Department explicitly warned against using this claim. "We caution that Iraq has given … what may be a plausible account for this activity — that this was an exercise involving the movement of conventional explosives." They concluded that the presence of a water truck "is common in such an event."

DISCREDITED INFORMATION MADE IT IN, PART II: The State Department disagreed that the aluminum tubes imported by Iraq could be used in a nuclear weapons program, a claim also made by President Bush in his State of the Union speech. The State Department memo said, "it is taken out of context and is highly misleading. Meantime, we will work with our IC colleagues to fix some more egregious errors in the tubes discussion."

K-Sonic wrote:


>
> It was proved BEFORE Colin Powell went to the UN that what he
> called "mobile chemical weapon units" were really weather
> balloon installations. HE LIED!!!!
>
   
Weather Balloons........you have got to be kidding.  I suppose you would believe when somone told you that the lights that you saw in the sky last night was just swamp gas refracting off of Venus.

Sorry dude, look at the facts:

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/


Statement by Secretary of State Colin Powell
"The imminent threat is that suddenly, this biological warfare lab, for example, could have been put to use."Source: Interview on NPR's All Things Considered, NPR (6/27/2003).

Explanation: This statement was misleading because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0716-02.htm (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0716-02.htm/)

 
    
Published on Friday, July 16, 2004 by the Free Press (Columbus, Ohio)
Fahrenheit 911 is Fair and Balanced
by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman
 
We've come to expect poisonous and unbalanced attacks from the paid far right propagandists denouncing Michael Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit 911."  But more disturbing are the scolds from tepid moderate mainstream journalists who often fail to read their own newspapers. New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof attacks the film because "Moore hints that the real reason Bush invaded Afghanistan was to give his cronies a chance to profit by building an oil pipeline there." Kristof attacks Moore for even raising this issue,.  But he conveniently ignores volumes of information readily available to back up Moore's claim.

Perhaps Kristof, like President Bush, refuses to read. At least that would explain why he missed the raging international debate surrounding the Bush administration's well-documented, then-secret oil negotiations with the Taliban in the summer of 2001.

The book FORBIDDEN TRUTH:  U.S.-TALIBAN SECRET OIL DIPLOMACY AND THE FAILED HUNT FOR BIN LADEN was an international bestseller. Written by French Intelligence experts Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquié, the book asserts that the Bush administration threatened the Taliban with the now- infamous words: "Either you accept our carpet of gold or we'll carpet you with bombs."  The threat was made about a month before the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Kristof and his ilk prefer the simple-minded version offered by President Bush: the Taliban and Al Qaeda hate our freedom and liberty. That the world's largest military power in search of new oil supplies for the 21st century would threaten carpet bombing is something the mainstream corporate media simply refuses to consider. Kristof also ignores the fact that the U.S. government installed Unocal advisor Harmid Karzai as the President of Afghanistan and provided him U.S. Special Forces as his praetorian guard. Moore mentions this in the film, but Kristof leaves it out of his column, saying the "Administration's huge errors aren't because of deceit." But that statement itself is very deceitful.

Kristof also fails to acknowledge National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's THE GRAND CHESSBOARD.  Brzezinski calmly outlines a thesis that U.S. domination of the globe in the 21st century depends on its control of Central Asian oilfields. He also says the American public would not back an attack unless there was a terrorist attack that galvanized public opinion to seize the foreign oil.

Tom Teepen, syndicated columnist for the Cox New Service suggests that "Fahrenheit 911 is a polemic, not a documentary." Teepen says Moore "weaves conspiracy theories in part by conveniently leaving out key information." Teepen belongs to that most despicable class of columnists known as "coincidence theorists." He also doesn't understand the true meaning of "polemic."

F9/11 opens with the 2000 election debacle in Florida.  Moore could have recited from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which documented that 54% of the rejected ballots in Florida were cast by black voters and 93% of African-Americans voted for Gore nationwide. The government report singled out George's brother Governor Jeb Bush, and the Bush brothers' close friend and Republican ally, Katherine Harris, for blame. Moore could have presented investigative journalist Gregory Palast's reports for the BBC documenting that at least 58,000 eligible voters in Florida were denied the right to vote because their names were the same or similar to a felon.

Moore could have shown footage of a roadblock and told how Florida law enforcement officers turned black drivers of vans and buses away from the polls for failure to provide limousine or chauffer licenses. Moore could have detailed how 20,000 Gore votes mysteriously disappeared in Volusia County and were later reinstated.  That gap allowed Fox News analyst John Ellis to project his first cousin, G. W. Bush, to be the winner.

What else did Moore leave out?:

In his AMERICAN DYNASTY, Republican theorist Kevin Philips documents four generations of Bush family war profiteers dating back to World War I.  This includes Samuel Bush's dual role as entrepreneur with Buckeye Steel Casting and government official on the Armaments Board.   George W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, was a key operative in the Union Banking Corporation that was seized by the U.S. government in 1942 and liquidated under the Trading with the Enemy Act for helping fund the Nazi war effort. Granddaddy Bush joined the Board of Directors of Union Bank in 1934 and stayed there as the bank aided Hitler's rise to power. The government liquidation yielded a reported $750,000 apiece for Prescott Bush and his father-in-law, George Herbert Walker.

The Bush family is close friends of the self-proclaimed Messiah and creepy cult leader Reverend Sun Myung Moon. In January 1995, Moon's Women's Federation for World Peace paid Bush the Elder at least one million dollars for a speech. Former President Bush was also the principal speaker in the November 1996 opening dinner for Moon's new weekly newspaper "Tiempos del Mundo" of Argentina.

Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh reported in February 2002's New Yorker that the Bush administration authorized U.S. cooperation with Pakistan in the December 2001 "Kunduz airlift" that sent airplanes and helicopters to rescue Pakistanis fighting with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Note that the Unocal pipeline from Central Asia goes through Afghanistan into Pakistan. A coincidence?

Article VI of the Nuremberg Charter defines "Crimes Against Peace" as "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of war of aggression or war in violation of international treaties . . . or participation in a common plan or conspiracy . . . to wage an aggressive war." The Bush doctrine of "pre-emption" really had nothing to do with pre-empting an Iraqi attack on the U.S. It is simply the widely discredited Nazi doctrine of "preventive war" established by Hitler to claim the right to attack any country that may pose some possible threat at an unspecific time in the future.

FALSE PROFITS:  THE INSIDE STORY OF BCCI, THE WORLD'S MOST CORRUPT FINANCIAL EMPIRE, by award-winning journalists Peter Truell and Larry Gurwin, documents in detail that Bush brothers Jeb and George both had close links to the drug-running Bank of Credit and Commerce International (aka "Bank of Crooks and Criminals International," according to the CIA).

Criminal and civil suits against BCCI establish that Bush's good buddy James R. Bath, was a close business associate of Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law, terrorist financier Khalid bin Mahfouz.  Moore correctly shows that Bath and Bush were both disciplined by the Air National Guard at the same time.  

Professor Katherine Van Wormer, co-author of the authoritative text ADDICTION TREATMENT, suggests that "George W. Bush manifests all the classic patterns of what alcoholics in recovery call 'the dry drunk.' His behavior fits a pattern of years of heavy drinking and possible cocaine use."

These are just a few facts that Michael Moore left out of his fair and balanced documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. Those who hate this moderate, well-documented film may be most bothered by the actual footage of President Bush.  Key scenes include:  Bush's infamous, endless study of MY PET GOAT in an elementary school class while the World Trade Center burned;  Bush's legendary banquet speech referring to "the haves and have- mores" as "my base"; Bush's bumbling, malapropic final warning to "don't be fooled again." What most bugs F911 critics is clearly not the material Michael Moore presents.  It's the fair and balanced footage of George W. Bush revealing who he truly is.  

Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of GEORGE W. BUSH VERSUS THE SUPERPOWER OF PEACE (http://www.freepress.org/).  Bob's newest book, THE BROTHERS VOINOVICH AND THE OHIOGATE SCANDAL, is available at http://freepress.org. 'HARVEY WASSERMAN'S HISTORY OF THE US' is available at http://www.harveywasserman.com/.  

###

And now we have spiffy new electronic voting machines produced by a company with ties to Bush. Gee, I wonder who's going to win the next election...

Changing votes in the Dibold voting machines (http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm)

Yaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!  Please let this thread die a natural death.

trek_geezer wrote:

"Yaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnnnn!!!!!!! Please let this thread die a natural death."

I agree.  I opened a huge can of worms with this one.  Please let the suffering end!!!!  I could close this thread, but I won't.  It would violate freedom of speech.  Oh, well . . .

Does anybody know how to get removed from receiving this endless thread?

There are loud mouthed arrogant jerks on both sides burgo.. free will go figure. ;)


  The only thing that felt kinda staged/prompted was the two grandmommas talking about the defense deal. Other than that it really moved me in a way im unsure how to describe. Sort of a slow creeping dread of realization. I was really intruiged at how he showed reflections of the same emotions on both sides of the conflict.

A powerful series of infomative and comedic firebombs aimed squarely at his target audience. They hit me hard and dragged me through a minefield of different emotions.. to tell the truth ive really never seen a movie/documentary of any sort that moved me in so many directions at once.  Do i lean towards any side of the fence, of course as we all probably do. But try to forget Democrat and Republican for an our or so and watch as a human.

I enjoyed and was deeply disturbed by this film.It left me feeling that potential terror can come from governments closer to home than we think...  Is questioning athourity unamerican? considering the track record of dishonest political figures in our recent past id say its the most american right we have.    

Could the goverment take more and more of our rights under our noses in the name of patriotism? Id say thats a really smart question to ponder awhile...

kate.. u thought this one was endless, u shoulda seen the Buried M Night one.. lol  

I think m night paid these dudes off to remove it.. or maybe they saw dead people and freaked. ;D

First of all, I am from England. I do not really support George Bush or Tony Blair. Mainly cos they both just kiss each other's ass's.

I saw this movie yesterday.
I thought it was a brilliant movie. It tolds many truths, even if they were one sided, i felt it was nice to see someone putting it out there.
The thing about passing bills which are not even read really got to me. George Bush was a constant annoyence. I mean, why was he sat in that class room. He could of told the children he had to go to an important buisness call so he wouldnt seem the bad guy. But no, he had to have his lil Press Pictures released.
The war in IRAQ was not needed. Mainly because iraq had dont nothing. The imagry of children running around with kites before the bombs, was also portraying the welth of the country. It's not like they are attacking a country which doesnt have poverty as high as Iraq does. It was also displaying the innocent of the country. IRAQ had nothing to do with it. Children display innocent in all sorts of ways. That is the reason it was put in I think.
The was on IRAQ was not needed, they needed to have a war on the Al Queda (or however you spell it, sorry I know my spelling is bad).  Not on Iraq. Isn't it convienient that IRAQ has a lot of OIL and that Bush used to work in Oil companys!!

I dont think everyone realises that Bush is an idiot. he doesnt make smart changes, he does what people tell him to do. His election was rigged. And as someone who watched the news when this was all happening I felt some of these answers would come to light. I had some suspisions before so when Michal Moore says what I was feeling and thinking in alot more detail with so much proof it makes me really wonder about the US government.
It's a shame that such a big, rich country is full of lies and deciet .

Thank you~

That anyone could believe there's any "truth" in this film at all short of half-truths (which are, after all, even stronger lies than total untruths) shows just how thoroughly self-deceived the loony leftists really are. Even some of the far left have had misgivings about lending their support to this garbage! To any who claim that we detractors are just blowing hot air, I present here a document which details every lie Moore told in this film:

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

The fifty-six deceits, by the way, have since been upgraded to fifty-nine. I strongly doubt that any of the losers who've been sounding off about how this film "opened their eyes" to "the truth" will open their eyes to the truth for real and read this, but it's good for those of us who wish to carve up their arguments to be aware that this exists.

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."

And i dont believe there is any truth in what YOU say. It's fun to repeat the political phrases you hear on tv huh? Have fun with all that wool over your eyes "writer"

Nice one freep i like that sentiment. Quite prophetic.

Touched a nerve, did I, Tadpole? It's always amusing to see another loony leftist Moore-on flailing with fury and blind hatred because he can't answer a rational argument.

Think your pathetic personal attacks can keep people from reading the truth about Moore's crockumentary, Tadpole? Well, I'm going to test my hypothesis that I can make your head explode just by repeating the reference (which, so far, you show yourself to be incapable of disputing) in every reply. Here it is again:

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Don't be a Moore-on like Tadpole, people: copy and paste this reference today. If you look at so much as one or two of the numerous cases made against this film, you'll have a firmer hold on reality than all of Moore's worshippers put together!

TadpoleBuckshot,
did you read the 59 deceits?  
It seems kinda hard to dispute.  If it's incorrect, I'd like to see the deceits argued against.

didn't moore respnd to those

If he did, it's probably on his website.

I agree so far with a few of them, princibly the one about fox news calling the elction in bush's favor.  It appears that's not how it happened.  One that's less compelling is the teacher who says he did the right thing by sitting there and reading the book while the planes hit the building.  First of all, is this lady some kind of expert on politics??  If I was in that class I think I would have wanted the president to get presidential.  A school teachers opinion is meaningless in this context if you think about it.  What if some other schoolteacher disagreed.

i like that sentiment. Quite prophetic.

It was, two thousand years ago when the apostle Paul wrote it

If I was in that class I think I would have wanted the president to get presidential

Like from another site I linked, I think that's pretty much a situation that not matter what you do, someone is going to find fault with it as 'the wrong thing to do' so....

I am not sure how I would have handled that situation, but what the teacher is saying is that the way he did handle it  was good for the children.  Think of how freaked out a bunch of kids would get if the PRESIDENT heard of what was going on and jumped and ran out screaming 'The world is coming to and end, the war has started'  It is not like he hung around there for two or three hours after it happened and signed autographs.  He finished the little 10 min. story he was reading and left.   Besides what could he do to stop what was going on, the CIA would not allow him to go with 50 miles of new york at that time I am sure, that is there job....to protect the president.  

But , flip that case around....if he would have jumped up and ran out (not even screaming)  just left, you would all be saying now that he scared the children and should have stayed and handled it better.  You bush HATERS are only trying to find something to blame him for.  

Now all that being said what do you guys think about this whole Sandy Burger stealing Top Secret Docs?   Lets run down the list.....He stole documents in an election year to gain political power. ...hmmm...now where have I heard this before...oh yea I remember....WATERGATE...the exact same thing was done.  But I suppose you BUSH haters are going to overlook that as well.

Spending a few more minutes with the children not only avoided adding to the panic, it was also probably the most constructive thing he could be doing while more information was pulled together. No point in springing into action if nobody really understands what happened or has any recommendations.

My point exactly.

What exactly did you want Bush to do in those 7 minutes?  It's a very poor  criticism of the man, and in my opinion it makes it look like you're digging.

Well if he had done something and people criticized him I would defend him.  But he didn't so I won't.    I would counter your argument also by saying that if he had gotten to a battle station of some kind you would defend that too because he's Bush and he's your hero because he's so smart and great.   He's Jessica friggin Simpson is what he is

There's a huge difference between hero worship and objecting to people trying to ruin a man with cheap shots and innuendo. I don't really care that much about the president, not being American myself, but people like Michael Moore p**s me off because I see his kind often in my business, and I've seen them try to damage people I do care about.

I've also worked around public officials long enough to have heard them receive a lot of criticism from people who think they can do better at a job they've never done. I used to do it myself until I walked a mile in some of these people's shoes, or at least walked beside them for a while. If this is true for a mayor or a city councillor, it's true for a president.

I don't think Bush is a genius, but he's certainly no idiot either. Fair criticism, based on all the facts, and rooted in knowledge and experience, is certainly a good thing. Ridiculing him and jumping all over everything he does is no better than automatically cheering everything he does, even if some people think it makes them sound smarter.



Post Edited (07-22-04 12:34)

Let me get one thing straight...I  do NOT like bush.  I do NOT like any politicians.  But I HATE when people criticize someone simply because that is what the media is doing and they do not try and have their own thoughts on the situation.  

By the way, has anyone heard if the stories about them finding 3 warheads yesterday was confirmed?  If so, that pretty much kills all the arguments before that he did not have any WMS......But I suppose you people will start talking about how bush planted them so he could get strength for his election.

it was totally debunked

Thanks a bunch. :)

>I don't think Bush is a genius, but he's certainly no idiot either.

No, just a dictator who wants to take away people's rights. He and his administration rushed the Patriot Act through congress giving them very little time to read it and basically telling them that they would be labelled as unpatriotic if they refused to vote for it, or that they would be responsible the next time people were killed in a terrorist attack. Since then, he has tried to both make the first PA permanent rather than a temporary law, and to push through even more draconian measures with a second PA. Just look at the Iraqi prisoners; Bush reportedly got angry when the supreme court said the government couldn't hold prisoners indefinitely without allowing them to challenge their detainment.

however you think or feel about how Bush handled it, it is hardly a deceit for the guy to give his opinion on it.  and it's one many share.

John L.,  Please explain to me how the hell you figure Bush is a dictator in any sense of the word.  In case you havn't realized it yet, you can't have a dictator without a dictatorship, and last time I checked, America is a democracy.
People like you should be vegtables.

oh, and also, what exactly has the patriot act done that has so drastically taken away your rights?  I think liberal institutions such as welfare greatly take away more rights than the patriot act.

Harry wrote:

America is a democracy.
> People like you should be vegtables.

america is a republic dude.

and as a citizen, how does welfare "take away" any of my rights as does the patriot act. and yes, i have read it.

a documentary should be neutral. michael moore's films are do not equally portray equal sides of an argument. he is an admitted propagandist. and a fat one at that.

I think I have a right to the money I earn...redistribution of wealth is a horrible idea, it accomplishes nothing.  That is the problem with liberal thought, they want immidiate satisfaction, and that's just not possible.  Trickle down!  Trickle down!Trickle down!
and america is a republic, my mistake.  Hate to make excuses, but I was on drugs when I wrote that (just had some teeth pulled)

When they take away your property to give it to someone else, this violates your property rights. Congress doesen't read anything before voting on it anymore, laws are just written out in a form that's too wordy for that to be practical. The Patriot Act has enough words in it that I'm sure there's plenty in it that I wouldn't be thrilled with it, but after all of this time what I'm dying to know is - What could I do a week before it passed that I can not do anymore?

When they take away your property to give it to someone else, this violates your property rights.

The slow erosion of personal rghts has been going on far longer than just Bursh this time around, and is being done by both sides of the aisle.  Bush happens to be the one driving it this time around, but if the Dems really cared, they'd be raking him over the coals in front of the public for it.  They certainly have for the war in general and almost everything else.

I think this may be the first thread I ever started that attracted more than 100 replies.  Maybe we should discuss JESUS CHRIST, VAMPIRE HUNTER or THE CURSE OF COUNT CHOCULA instead.

Maybe we should discuss JESUS CHRIST, VAMPIRE HUNTER or THE CURSE OF COUNT CHOCULA instead.

No kidding!  My last commentary on an actual B movie has gotten *no* replies :)

I wonder if people would debate more heatedly about religion or politics?


...Or Count chocula :)

Harry wrote:

> I think I have a right to the money I earn...redistribution of
> wealth is a horrible idea, it accomplishes nothing.  That is
> the problem with liberal thought, they want immidiate
> satisfaction, and that's just not possible.  Trickle down!
> Trickle down!Trickle down!

i see your opinion. and i'm not saying i totally agree or disagree. i see your point.

> and america is a republic, my mistake.  Hate to make excuses,
> but I was on drugs when I wrote that (just had some teeth
> pulled)

hope they gave ya something good to take!  ;)

I wonder if people would debate more heatedly about religion or politics?

...Or Count chocula :)


Or the politics of Count Chocula..or the religion of Frankenberry

Does that make Boo-Berry the Holy Ghost?

I say that 100% of the facts in the movie are completely true.
Here is a list of the sources Moore used for the film, there are six pages filled with quotes from articles from many independent sources.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/index.php?id=16
And there is also nothing new in this film since everything have been published before.
He has also used several lawyers that picked the movie apart to look for flaws before it was released.

Regarding Mr Moores opinions, it's a free country and he's entitled to his opinion.

That davekopel page was very large, but I found this little piece.
[The verb tense of past perfect ("had taken")..... ]
It seems they are attacking the grammar since there aren't any factual flaws in the movie.

The lawyers picked it apart to look for anywhere that LIBEL can be proven. Not the same as verifying that it's accurate, and only really necessary when you're trying to get as close to libel as you can without actually committing it. The fact that it had to be reviewed by team of lawyers does not favour it being 100% honest.

There is also a difference between the truth and the whole truth, which is why witnesses swear to tell both.

Journalism is my profession. In my work, I've seen a few people who practice Moore's unscrupulous brand of journalism, and I've seen a lot of gullible people like you, who insist that something couldn't be distributed to the public if it weren't true, or that putting together a bunch of 100% true facts will always yield truth. It's all in which facts you use, how much explanation you give, and how you put it together, along with the general tone of your work. I could write an article that was entirely factual, yet completely misleading and extremely damaging to someone, and no lawyer could find a trace of genuine libel in it. I don't, for obvious reasons.

Don't go dragging up this tired old dead horse of a thread unless you know what you're talking about.

or that putting together a bunch of 100% true facts will always yield truth

Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide! (http://www.circus.com/~no_dhmo/)
The Dangers Of Bread (http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/6174/jokes/dangers-of-bread-panic.htm)

I think Freep has proven a good point.  Does this help everyone understand what Moore is doing?  100% of what is said in both of those is fact in the fullest, but is the end result resonable???  Of course not.
Farenheit 9/11 newly titled:
"The Dangers of Bread, Water, and Bush"

My question is:

Will this thread ever die!?

as long as there are people out there who refuse to believe what is obvious, it is an injustice to mankind to let this thread die.

i have just discovered evidence that kevin bacon is working closely with the bin ladens...

kevin bacon is working closely with the bin ladens..

How many degrees of seperation?

Fearless Freep wrote:

> kevin bacon is working closely with the bin ladens..
>
> How many degrees of seperation?
>

we'll have to ask MR. fathead MOORE

What's it going to take ? A wooden stake or a silver bullet?

"Fathead Moore"?
He must have really riled his opponents to get them resorting to juvenile name-calling!

I've had lawyers and experts check...it is a 100% fact that Moore is a fathead.

You know, this thread will just keep popping to the top. If you want it to go away, just don't post to it.

Eek! I just did it!

Eek! I did it again!

"What, 'is?'"

"No, no! You won't get very far not saying 'is!'"

129 who gives.

"This is the thread that doesn't end
Yes it goes on an on my friends.
Some people started posting, not knowing what it was
and they'll continue posting forever just because
this is the thread the doesn't end
Yes it goes on and on my friends.
Some people started..."



Apologies to Sheri Lewis

Sure the facts are true... that's why they're "facts".  It's the opinions & speculations that aren't necessarily true.