Fahrenheit 911

You know, I'd like to believe everything Michael Moore has to say about our current regime in Washington, but I personally have to say that I think he is kind of full of sh**. Not only that, but doing a grave public disservice by making false judgments in a time of war. It is fine in my opinion to criticize the ruling party, especially such a wonderful target of opportunity as W presents, but to put together misleading documentaries in a gross attempt at discrediting Bush is just plain wrong....

Here's a review that all my friends, liberal and conservative alike, should most definitely read...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

 

I lost respect for the man after watching "Bowling for Columbine."

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


Also visit:

www.moorelies.com

www.mooreexposed.com

 

Since even Moore has acknowledged certain portions of the film are intentionally misleading, it's hard to take the rest of the film seriously.

I wish both the extreme left and extreme right would back-off (or at least be ignored by the mainstream media.)

But I'm not holding my breath.

 

As someone trained in that particular art, let me say that we are most certainly not "at war." Not only by legal terms (no declaration of such from the U.S. Congress), but also not in terms of domestic activity. This nation isn't doing anything differently because troops are getting killed in Iraq. The military is dealing with it, but the civilian populace isn't affected at all. Oh, except in the wallet, with all of those tax dollars being spent.

Calling critics of the President or his aggression in Asia "pessimistic" or unpatriotic (as is being done all the time lately) is a cheap dodge. This administration has a lot to be held accountable for, and suggesting that its critics be quite (or be quieted!) because we're at "war" is absurd.

 

I have not seen this film but does he attempt to answer why Saudi's were able to fly when all other GA were grounded?
http://www.saintpetersburgtimes.com/2004/06/09/Tampabay/TIA_now_verifies_flig.shtml

 

Though the 911 committee and SEVERAL key democrats have said this is absolutely false. Go figure.

 

War

Well said Rich !

I saw "Fahrenheit 911" today and he scans what looks like a flight manifest with names and nationalities. I haven't read any sources confirming or denying it. He talks about it as part of the Bush-Saudi relationship going back to Bush I.

 

Michael Moore Trash

Never listen to a person who does not practice hygene on a daily basis.

 

Well, Rich, I certainly don't have your "war" training but I'd like to point out that there hasn't been a "declared war" in the sense you're citing, in quite some time. Vietnam wasn't a "declared war" and I've heard Korea described as "the Korean Conflict." I confess that my knowledge of history is so poor that I don't honestly know if the Korean "War" was actually a "declared war" or not. The fact is, that when you've got a whole lot of US servicemen (and women) in harms way, it doesn't seem to matter too much if Congress has actually taken a vote on the matter. Soldiers are actively engaged in combat on an ongoing, sustained, planned, sactioned basis. To me, a poor, untrained civilian, this is a war.
On the other hand, I agree with you wholehearedly in your disagreement with Carl. It is never unpatriotic to disagree with the political establishment, on any issue, at any time. It is the height of patriotism to speak out and voice your thoughts. It is one of the founding principles of our nation.
Jack

 

An opinion from the other side of the Pacific

I personally thought Bowling for Columbine was an excellent movie, and am looking forward to seeing Fahrenheit 911. I really had no desire to see BFC, but my wife got it on DVD and made me watch it. It epitomised the mindlessness of an American sub-culture which the world wide moral majority hold in disdain. Michael Moore appears to be the US's current conscience, and does for the movie industry what Jello Biafra did for your music industry.

Cheers,

George

 

Well,

There are some things that I disagree with in Bush's presidency. However, the vote year bashing has begun...

I'm simply frustrated that Bush is getting bashed for "betraying America" and "lying" because:

1. WMD have been found, and were indeed shipped to Syria, according to the UN, before and during the Iraq military operation.

2. While Bin Laden did not go to elementary school with Saddam, they certainly belonged to the same school of thought; if we dont' believe Colin Powell's presentation to the UN before the war and our best American intelligence, why not believe Putin and the Russians, who that Saddam was indeed planning attacks in the US?

I have studied lying for a long time. I have lied before (of course), and I'm a part time pastor, so I'm in a profession where we talk about it and address what happens when people lie all the time.

Often when we believe a lie, and then it is proven to be wrong, we have believed it for so long and so deeply, we just go on believing it.

Chris

 

Moore certainly stacks his facts so that the end result is more persuasive. There's nothing wrong with that. It's not a documentary no matter what the feel of the movie may be. He's after a certain perspective and he pretty good at creating it. Everyone can decide for themselves whether they believe the truth stacks up in just that way.

I'm not sure it really matters. There is plenty of fact in the movie. The spin should get people thinking. We're sure getting plenty of spin from the Bush administration.

I agree with Rich that there's no reason to quell this sort of movie in a time of "war." The idea is ridiculous. By the same definition, no one should have spoken out about Viet Nam. The intense protest from the American people helped bring that fiasco to an end.

On the contrary, everyone should be thinking long and hard about the current war, no matter which side of the conflict you come down on. Those who feel strongly should be allowed to speak up about it. That's one of the things we're fighting for, right?

Carl, you're starting to sound positively conservative. Are there any pods in your basement?

 

I live in Moore-worshipping country.

Several of my friends are among those Nation reading Green Party voting people who populate Boulder, Colorado. They are rich, over-educated, Bush-hating people who vote far-left Democratic (when they can’t vote Green) and have sold-out several Michael Moore Live shows – each time by many thousands.

One of my friends is a smart programmer who’s partial to the British website www.spinsanity.org - which has devoted a dozen articles to debunking the errors of Moore, especially last year. (They seem to have given up on the 2004 Moore products – but the year is only half over.) Therefore I have these Moore-critical comments to share.

Originally posted by Ian Anderson:
I have not seen this film but does he attempt to answer why Saudi's were able to fly when all other GA were grounded?
http://www.saintpetersburgtimes.com...fies_flig.shtml

Posted by Han: Though the 911 committee and SEVERAL key democrats have said this is absolutely false. Go figure.

Me: How about media bias? – that’s how I figure. How about lack of media interest in the facts? (The almost uniformly favorable reviews by the critics mirrors the negativism with which “The Passion of the Christ” was met. Coincidence! Not on your life! Will Moore win best “documentary” again at the Motion Picture Academy? Of course! - and who’s willing to bet against me?)

The skinny on the 911 Commission is that 24 (out of 26) Bin Laden relatives and Arab friends were vetted before being allowed to leave the US. And, contrary to Moore, outspoken critic and counter-terrorism expert Richard took full responsibility for the decision to let these people leave the US after 9/11 (several weeks ago). In other words, Moore lies in blaming Bush!

Moore paints Bush, alternately (and yes: incredibly) as an evil doing conspirator and a mindless duped dunce.

So answer me this, all you Moore-worshipping posters and readers: if this thesis is true, how can leftist New Laborite British PM Tony Blair follow Bush into war? If YOU (like Moore) can see through Bush's dimwitted lies - how come Tony Blair embraces and promotes them?

They have no sensible answer for this question - and therefore I will answer it for you.

Blair believed Islamic terrorism was the primary security threat to the West long before Bush became president. He persistently goaded Clinton to take a pro-active stance on the problem years before 9/11. Bush, like at least half the US, only came aboard after the wakeup call of that horrific day.

Others of us, like Rich Douglas, remain in serious denial - denial of the plot to blow up a Columbus shopping mall – or Jose Padila’s attempt to build and deploy a dirty nuke in a US city.

But I prefer to think that those 10 of billions spent on intel – or the hundreds of billions on the military – have actually saved us from a Madrid-style 3/11 terrorist assualt. (Another Madrid would be the second largest terror attack on the US.)

Even though Clinton took ineffective action against terror, his rhetoric, at times, was as fulsome and war-like as the Bush Moore indicts.

On February 17, 1998, President Clinton, speaking at the Pentagon , Clinton warned of the "reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." These "predators of the twenty-first century," he said, these enemies of America, "will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. "

The Clinton Justice Department prepared an indictment of Osama bin Laden that spring. The relevant passage, prominently placed in the fourth paragraph, reads:

“Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.”

But does Moore attack Clinton's deceipts?

--Orson

 

I live in Moore-worshipping country.

Several of my friends are among those Nation reading Green Party voting people who populate Boulder, Colorado. They are rich, over-educated, Bush-hating people who vote far-left Democratic (when they can’t vote Green) and have sold-out several Michael Moore Live shows – each time by many thousands.

One of my friends is a smart programmer who’s partial to the British website www.spinsanity.org - which has devoted a dozen articles to debunking the errors of Moore, especially last year. (They seem to have given up on the 2004 Moore products – but the year is only half over.) Therefore I have these Moore-critical comments to share.

Originally posted by Ian Anderson:
I have not seen this film but does he attempt to answer why Saudi's were able to fly when all other GA were grounded?
http://www.saintpetersburgtimes.com...fies_flig.shtml

Posted by Han: Though the 911 committee and SEVERAL key democrats have said this is absolutely false. Go figure.

Me: How about media bias? – that’s how I figure. How about lack of media interest in the facts? (The almost uniformly favorable reviews by the critics mirrors the negativism with which “The Passion of the Christ” was met. Coincidence! Not on your life! Will Moore win best “documentary” again at the Motion Picture Academy? Of course! - and who’s willing to bet against me?)

The skinny on the 911 Commission is that 24 (out of 26) Bin Laden relatives and Arab friends were vetted before being allowed to leave the US. And, contrary to Moore, outspoken critic and counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke took full responsibility for the decision to let these people leave the US after 9/11 (several weeks ago). In other words, Moore lies in blaming Bush!

Moore paints Bush, alternately (and yes: incredibly) as an evil doing conspirator and a mindless duped dunce.

So answer me this, all you Moore-worshipping posters and readers: if this thesis is true, how can leftist New Laborite British PM Tony Blair follow Bush into war? If YOU (like Moore) can see through Bush's dimwitted lies - how come Tony Blair embraces and promotes them?

They have no sensible answer for this question - and therefore I will answer it for you.

Blair believed Islamic terrorism was the primary security threat to the West long before Bush became president. He persistently goaded Clinton to take a pro-active stance on the problem years before 9/11. Bush, like at least half the US, only came aboard after the wakeup call of that horrific day.

Others of us, like Rich Douglas, remain in serious denial - denial of the plot to blow up a Columbus shopping mall – or Jose Padila’s attempt to build and deploy a dirty nuke in a US city.

But I prefer to think that those 10 of billions spent on intel – or the hundreds of billions on the military – have actually saved us from a Madrid-style 3/11 terrorist assualt. (Another Madrid would be the second largest terror attack on the US.)

Even though Clinton took ineffective action against terror, his rhetoric, at times, was as fulsome and war-like as the Bush-isms Moore indicts.

For example, on February 17, 1998, speaking at the Pentagon, Clinton warned of the "reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." These "predators of the twenty-first century," he said, these enemies of America, "will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

The Clinton Justice Department prepared an indictment of Osama bin Laden that spring. The relevant passage, prominently placed in the fourth paragraph, reads:

“Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.”

But does Moore attack Clinton's deception?

--Orson

 

Saudi Flight

Actually the 911 Committee does verify the flight:

"After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin."

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12;

 

I'm a strange sort of liberal, admittedly. And maybe a little strange in general.

While I do not think that this "war" requires us all to get in line and support the Bush administration without any right to comment, I do think that Michael Moore has sadly lost a lot of his objectivity by trying to spin things so grossly that the true value of his messages get lost.

Bush needs to go, no doubt about that. There are many mistakes and managerial issues related to his presidency that are unforgiveable, and he does not deserve a second change at the helm. On the other hand, it is equally clear that the West is locked in another eruption of a conflict with Islam that is many centuries old. We do not want to be the losers in that conflict, and I also do not think that this is something that will be settled peacefully or by negotiation (unfortunately) given the extreme positions of our enemies.

- Carl

 

Wow, Carl!

Wow, Carl!

Undoubtably you and I think "Bush should go!" for different reasons. But I'm sure some of our reasons overlap.

I 'm surprised to find you so starkly realistic about the ensuing conflict Bush has so manfully (if also wrongly, or incompetently) taken up. I know there are too many, too unrealistic about it, instead. I weary of their sort; they are everywhere.

I see the conflict between those of enlightenment values (the West), fundamentalist Islam, and the Beyond Doubting Thomas's of the "post-Modern" West - the (epistemological and moral) relativists. The essential book to read on these three subjects is a very concise 100+ pages: the late Ernest Gellner's "Postmodernism, Reason, and Religion" - himself a scholar of Islam gripped by the modernisation problem.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/041508024X/qid=1088407726/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1904203-4744934?v=glance&s=books
The reader-review posted there is exemplary.

I had the chance to recommend it to a self-confessed postmodern modern European historian last month - after she made me reread Edward Said.

--Orson

 

Re: Wow, Carl!

Orson,
Thanks for bringing this book to my attention. It will be on my summer reading list, especially since I'm sure I'll be able to apply it to one of the classes I'm taking this semester towards finishing (finally) my MA.

- Carl

 

Re: Michael Moore Trash

Good point! This goes right along with most of the criticism that I've seen/heard about this movie that seems to focus on the fact that Moore is fat. How wonderfully insightful.

"Yes, the Bush adminstration has decimated the Bill of Rights, but MICHAEL MOORE IS FAT!!!!!!" Hahahaha....

 

Just to clear the air...

I personally think Michael Moore has a lot of good points, and I could care less whether he is fat, thin, or a perfect 10. However, I also think he has stepped into some dangerous territory in terms of the spin he places on his arguments, which actually undermines his credibility.

And yes, the same (and even more so) goes for Rush, Ann Coulter, and the demagogues of the "new right" or whatever the hell they call themselves....

I guess I'm old fashioned in that I prefer honest open dialogue without the need to demonize one's victims.