Fahrenheit 911

Orson: 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!

Tom: the issue isn't whether bin Laden's relatives were vetted or not, but rather the fact that they were allowed to travel by air when the rest of the country was grounded!

Orson: 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?

Tom: Blair doesn't have much choice, does he? Britain is wedded to the US whether they like it or not, and judging from what I've heard, many in Britain do not like it in the least. Just as Thatcher remarked of Reagan "Poor man, there's not much between the ears.", what Blair thinks of Bush is anyone's guess, but I have a feeling it's much worse than Thatcher's comment.

Aren't there any conservative documentary makers who can counter Moore? Where's the creative urge, the need to tell the truth? C'mon times a wasting.

 

They're more comfortable with the talk radio format.

 

Tom:

Non-sense - on all points.

The bin Laden family plane was not allowed to leave the US until air travel resumed for the rest of us.

There is, however, the matter of a private flight that moved some in their party from Florida to (I believe) Washington, D.C. prior to this. To this I'll simply note diplomatic priviledge in time of crisis in a foreign country is routinely extended to US nationals "capable of travel on their own." Should our government fail to extend the same when the situation is reversed? The 9/11 Comission noted that the FBI vetted all persons deemed of interest prior to their departure from the US.

Regarding Blair - so he's just a lackey, Tom? And somehow, someway, Chirac was not - and Schroeder, despite the presence of US bases and troops wasn't either?

This claim makes no sense! You ignore the FACT that Blair tried to get Clinton to do more against terrorism; Blair actually believed his words, unlike Clinton. Those are the facts, unlike your breezy, dismissive, (blind?) rationalization.

As for critical responses to Moore, a full-length, well-researched book has just been released: "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man." The first review appears here
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/6/23/165945.shtml

In film, the release of "Michael and Me" by LA libertarian talk show host Larry Elder, and "Michael Moore Hates America" are pending - looking like better bets every box office day that "9/11" makes money.

--Orson

PS Is the Thatcher quotation legitimate? - or merely apocriphal or attributed? (If it is the former, google.com does not find it - although that's hardly definitive since the billions and billions of web pages online post-date her time.)

 

Many people in Britain feel that the Blair administration went against the wishes of the British people when agreeing to the attacks. They are also immenseley suspicious of US motives, perceiving the seeds of a new Imperialism in it's actions and attitudes.

I have read Michael Moore's books and he does seem to quote sources for many of his comments, however I have not checked these out myself. (E.g. the statistics quoted in 'Dude, wheres my country' with 94% of Americans wanting increased gun controls and 80% wanting automatic health insurance). The same chapter includes some VERY disturbing quotes from what I hope is the extreme right.

Unfortunatelywe are in a situation where each side is into name calling rather than debate and this is quite sad.

However I would make the point that, even if Moores films were exaggerated, wrong or biased, this seems to be a common habit in US film making ( D-Day was not an exclusively American venture, there were more French, Polish and Canadian pilots than American in the battle of Britain and why on earth do 80% of US films with an English actor always cast them as the villain?)

 

Ian-

Your latter points are well-taken. I recall that sub-movie a while back, sustituting US for what were British achievements!

But can similar "artistic license" apply to "documentaries" purportedly representing facts?

But on guns and health care, you can "fact check" with just a little knowledge: in the last decade, concealed carry laws have spread from Florida to around half the states (including very socialist Minnesota). So the 94% figure for people wanting more gun control is false or dated.

As for health insurance, these data points may well turn on poll question wording. But you recall Hillary health-care? Afterwards, in 1994, Republicans swept to power in the House of Representatives for the first-time in many decades and have held it ever since. I think this stips Mikey of all but very strained credibility.

 

With the fact that the 2000 presidential election could not have been reversed on reasonable scenarios, why does the far- or Hard Corps Left - like Michael Moore - continue to insist that the election was "stolen?" That Bush is illegitimate?

Last night a Boulder favorite news personality was interviewed, Amy Goodman. She mentioned that IF the entire state of Florida was recounted, Gore won.

Let's ignore margin of error problems that do enter into such a narrow election; a few hundred votes out of millions is a photo finish.
There were four recount scenarios the Gore people pursued involving individual counties; Gore would have lost under all of them. But there was no provision in the state law for a state-wide recount. Yet THIS is the "democratic" outcome that www.democracynow.org epigone advocates. In other words, he democrat favors imposing judge-made law?!?!?

But without any applicable law, how do supervising courts invent a post-facto law? Liberals and the far-left have grown far too accustomed to imposing their values of law through sympathetically left-wing courts. The result has been diminishing respect for the essentially powerless branch of government. This is very dangerous.

Furthermore, when the rule of law is rejected and post-facto "solutions" are imposed, the result has a special name - and it's no term of endearment. It's one any true champion of democracy must reject.

It's "banana republic."

--Orson
PS I used to send hate-mail to the US Supreme Court in the 80s whenever I read a particularly obnoxious decision. (The draft and drug war laws were my favorite objects of ire.)
Since then, I've taken up sending insulting hate-mail to lower courts - the state-level. It has led to some interesting correspondence - perhaps because while Colorado Supremes are initially appointed, they are also subject to re-election. It's interesting that they care about my hate-mail.

 

I do like one of Moores comments in particular:
He reckons that if the Democrats want to take the White House they should field Oprah as their candidate!

 

I tend to agree with our boys overseas.

http://www.hk94.com/hk/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=1565

 

It's just a movie

for entertainment. Same as Airforce 1, JFK, Rug Rats Movie or Ben Hur.

 

Agree with it or not, truthful or not, F-9/11 is going to have a measurable effect on the 2004 election.

We're showing it at the local "art" theater, since the big chains were, um, discouraged from showing it (by the Mouse?)

The theater has been packed every night for two weeks. People are driving from considerable distances and bringing their friends. At the end of each showing, people applaud and cheer and whistle and stamp their feet. For a MOVIE! A DOCUMENTARY!!

I am old enough to have voted for Nixon in 1972. I have never, and I mean NEVER, seen such widespread, emotional, gut level, UNITED hatred of a president.

The Right hated Clinton, of course, but not like this.

 

I don't see this movie having any real effect on the election.

To have an effect, it would have to be able to convince undecided voters to back Kerry, or convince Bush voters to switch.

To accomplish that, it would have to reach out to them. It would have to acknowledge the concerns that might make a voter favor Bush, and then make a case that Kerry better addresses those legitimate concerns.

It can't win votes by caricaturizing the people that it seeks to convince.

Moore is preaching to the choir. One could argue that his preaching serves to activate the Democratic base and makes it more likely to vote, but the scene that Nosborne describes suggests that those who respond to the film are already passionate.

I see this film as the left's answer to 'The Passion of the Christ'.

Both of these are sociological event-films. Their purpose isn't to convince outsiders, but rather to give insiders an occasion to celebrate and to bond.

 

No, you are right; Moore is preaching to the converted. However, one of the biggest problems the democrats have is motivating their base to vote AT ALL. I see this movie as a powerful piece of propaganda for that exact purpose.

We'll see.

 

I went and saw the movie when it first came out. The movie was an interesting piece. About as impartial and fair as anything that is on the Fox News Network (or as I call it, the Faux News Network).

Whether or not you like Moore or Bush, one thing is for sure, Bush Jr. has polarized the entire nation. Not even Nixon had this extreme (sure, the Hippies hated Nixon, but no one cared about them at the time). Take a look around you, you will see people who love the President, or hate him with a purple passion. In the Bay Area, Moveon.org is big. Tomorrow there are over 100 Moveon parties. We are not talking about the uneducated, we are talking about PhD’s, Doctors, Lawyers, Cops, Teachers, etc. getting together not to support Kerry, but to oust Bush.

This comes to my point. Personally, I think Kerry doesn't stands for anything. His appearance on 60 minutes proved this. However, I do know what Bush Jr. stands for and I do not like it. With Cheney at his side, I believed he deceived the American people for personal gain. The fact that he is an ideologue makes it even worse. (I never trust a man who says they do it in the name of god or has god on their side - I believe that is very presumptuous)

It is a sad state of affairs that once again we have the lesser of two evils to vote for. Kerry and Bush. Two men of privilege, two men of arrogance. I can't wait for 2008. (Hilary and Condi: humm - that would be a good match up) Shush - but nevertheless I will vote.


Addendum:

Much like Bowling for Columbine, this film was not a documentary. Bowling for Columbine was a satire, and a very interesting satire on the paranoia of American life. I don't know how to classify F-9/11. Not a documentary, definitely not a satire. Perhaps Infotainment?

 

F - 9/11

I agree Nos, the little 6 screen theatre in my town still has it playing twice a day and it's still pulling in the crowds. This is not a liberal area. The audience is vocal during the film and it gets applause after every showing. As you mentioned before, it's not that people are pro-Kerry, they are very anti-Bush.

You are right Orson, there were two flights. The Florida to Washington flight when all flights were grounded and the flight to Saudi Arabia after the air space re-opened.

 

Changed my mind...

You know, I've sort of changed my mind about this movie.

If only 10% of what Michael Moore says in the movie is true (and I believe the percentage is considerably higher), then Bush and his cronies should be impeached right now, right here, today.

 

can direct quotes be wrong

In 911 Michael Moore largely takes news clips and uses the quotes.
W. Bush said he was no longer interested in chasing Bin Laden
Michael Moore did not make that up. Statements like that do not need editorial comment.
I think the documentary stands on its own.
If someone makes a movie about "Cheney Family Values" and cites his swearing and latter statements that it made him feel good, is that just stating the Cheney position, or is that editorializing? Cheney even refused to apologize because it made him feel good to swear.
All the best!

 

I'm waiting for the DVD, but I've seen some of Michael Moore's work before and know that, like our friends at Fox News, he shows bias, editorializes, and occasionally gets the facts wrong. Unlike Fox News, however, he doesn't pretend to be objective. Michael Moore is the liberal Rush Limbaugh we've always wanted and, like Rush Limbaugh, he's good at what he does.

I thought what I saw of Bowling for Columbine was brilliant despite its flaws. As far far as Fahrenheit 9/11 goes, the shots of Wolfowitz spitting on his comb, Ashcroft looking crosseyed at the camera as his face twitches, Bush non-reacting to news of the attacks and practicing his facial expressions before the 9/11 speech, etc. etc. etc. will justify the documentary's existence regardless of what else is included or discussed.


Cheers,

 

I don't find Fox News any less objective than CNN or MSNBC. What may make it look that way to you is that it doesn't reflect your own personal biases.

But that difference is precisely why I like Fox. It kind of breaks the spell. It helps prevent us from simply saying 'It's the truth, I saw it on CNN'. If all the national media simply reflected the same moderate-liberal political line, it would be much more difficult to see that it was a line. It would just be the unquestioned intellectual background, the default "reasonable" position to take on any issue.

I don't believe all the commentary on Fox, just as I don't believe all the commentary that comes from any media source. But I like the fact that it's there.

 

I suppose I could respond by saying that Fox News could seem disproportionately objective to you because it happens to represent your personal biases. But I find it kind of dull when a perfectly good political discussion turns to the participants' possible subconscious biases; if I'm not aware of my biases, I doubt you're aware of them either (and vice versa).

And how can you possibly call MSNBC liberal? They hired Michael Savage, for crying out loud.

I like the fact that Fox News exists, but I think it has done us all a disservice by eliminating the line between news and commentary. If I see Shepard Smith, I know I'm looking at an objective discussion of the day's events. If I'm looking at Sean Hannitty or Bill O'Reilly, I'm looking at news personalities who are biased, make no secret of the fact, and are presented by the network in much the same way that Shepard Smith is presented. I think you can also learn a lot by looking at how Fox News formats its commentary versus, say, CNN. CNN has nothing like The O'Reilly Factor; its commentary shows are always at least superficially balanced, such as Crossfire, where the conservative flag is held up by William Novak and Tucker Carlson and was once held up by Pat Buchanan. The only Fox News commentary show that even pretends to be balanced is Hannitty and Colmes, but it ain't because Colmes is so clearly outmatched. When Fox News brings in appealing liberal commentators in the same way that CNN and MSNBC bring in appealing conservative commentators, and when it clearly distinguishes its news programs from its unambiguously biased talk shows, I won't have anything to complain about. Til then, the issue isn't one of a vague subconscious "liberal" or "conservative" tone--it's overt bias presented in a context where most viewers have been conditioned to expect something much closer to editorial objectivity.


Cheers,

 

Tom,
That is just blatantly untrue. I have heard these commentators over and over again refer to themselves as commentators and not news reporters.

I think the real problem is that Fox is the first news network in years (if another ever existed) that truly does show both sides of an issue in a "fair and balanced" manner, and that people are not used to that. Since they are the only network that actually allows conservatives to have an equal voice with liberals, the liberals can't handle it and cry "foul."

BLD